jackattack

What was George Washington's motive when he decided not to become a king?

You may be a fundamentalist atheist if... You can make a unicorn the centerpiece of an argument involving religion.

^^ So because the church doesn't encourage homosexuality it is okay to disrespect and make a mockery of an entire religion? The Church isn't anti-homo anymore than it is anti-premarital sex. Most gays realize that and disapprove of this behavior. WHy do you think it's okay? 1st question irrelevant. 2nd question, mexicans shouldn't be having parades waving around mexican flags or flags with che guevara's face in place of the Union.

Sure you don't. ;)

They were gay.

Did you get that from watching the simpsons episode where marge goes to college?

How can you defend that behavior? Most gay people wouldn't call that acceptable. Especially religious gay people. They went into a church dressed in outrageous costumes simply to make a mockery of the church. This isn't the "God hates [bleep]s" church, it was a regular Catholic church.

How can you say they cared about nothing but personal gain? At the constitutional convention several of the delegates went bankrupt from being away from home. Do any of our politicians today show that kind of dedication? Just because it's 230 years old doesn't make it any less valuable. They made a document that could stand the test of time.

Yes but the question is to what degree?

The church wasn't disrespectful to them. The priest even gave them communion. They just went there to antagonize people.

^^ Well carbon dioxide obviously does trap heat. Thats not what climates models do.

have you seen the cencorship in us :? you cant say anything on national tv, even on raido you cant swear -_- and there are trying to make a law that can completely remove swearing on caple tv :o Thats not the Bush administration. It's the liberals who want to squash free speech. Nancy Pelosi, [bleep] Durbin, and John Kerry have all proposed bringing back the fairness doctrine. EDIT: I guess it's Richard Durbin then.

^^The UK already had a much lower murder rate when the ban was started so. In the U.S. murders homicide rates are lower in states with the least gun control. Except Louisiana maybe. South Dakota and Utah have pretty lax gun laws. Why is it that Chicago and D.C. even with total bans have such higher murder rates? Ya but of course that is irrelevant. I love this liberal logic. 'Weed, alcohol, and thizz, should be legal. Just because a few people are irresponsible with them doesn't mean that everyone shouldn't be able to enjoy them.' Drunk driving kills more kids than guns each year should we ban alcohol? At least guns serve a purpose.Not saying that we should make alcohol illegal

Personally, I'd respect other people just because that's the way I am. Those are my personal sensibilities that I've grown up with and developed over time. My personal approach would be to be respectful in the church (although, admittedly, I'd never go to one because it's of no interest to me) but as for the extravagant costumes of the gay pride parades, I couldn't care less what they wear. You may have a different opinion to mine. But do you think personal sensibilities are enough? Do you feel that it should be passed in law to "be respectful to other people"? If so, who determines what's respectful and what's not? If you should be legislated to wear more than a thong in a gay pride parade or to wear "normal" attire in church, should you legislate for everyone to say please and thank you as well? A respect law would be the absolute worst thing every. Why in the hell would I want that? All I said is that a lot of gay people are just trolls in real life. You might be respectful in a church but they sure aren't. Why should gay people get taxpayer money to dance around in pink and leather clothes when the city is going bankrupt?

Climate models can't really *prove* anything. Can I prove the winner of the Super Bowl by simulating an entire season on madden?

How are they con on free speech?

^^ I'm not saying they should try to be normal just respect other people. Did you hear about the gays who invaded a catholic church dressed in all kinds of weird costumes? I can't believe that the priest actually gave them the Eucharist. Thats the kind of thing I'm talking about. Theres not really anything wrong with a gay pride parade but is it necessary to be only wearing a thong waving a giant rainbow flag?

^^ I've gotten all but Greenland and Madagascar. I don't know how to get them all. I tried putting every way of spreading it with no symptoms but they still shut down the ports before it gets there. And your right about the evolution points. In like the first minute I get more than like 10 minutes even when I'm infecting millions of people.

My point is there is a difference between just being gay and rubbing it in peoples faces to antagonize them.

So according to your theory, and correct me if I'm wrong here, you state that since "criminals are going to get guns anyways" we should just let guns be legal and give up. Are you giving up completely on trying to control crime? I'll give you a few numbers that I have found through my research. It's not giving up one controlling crime. They should crack down on illegal guns more. Criminals don't really use legal guns. Granted that these stats are from 1990, I think they still hold relevance to the conversation. Let's do the Math, Jack. 64,615 self defense cases using firearms annually. Take 20% of 64,615 because Police Officers are not considered to be private citizens whilst on duty. That leaves us 12,913 cases where Police Officers used self defense via a gun. Now we're down to 51,702 cases annually. Since you like to bring up "crackhead thugs breaking into your house" all the time, we'll reduce it by another 29% because as the article says, 71% of the time, crimes are committed by a stranger. 29% of 51,702 people using firearms in self defense is 15,511. TOTAL SELF DEFENSE CASES ANNUALLY USING A FIREARM: 36,191. Now it seems to me that your "fact" that 2 million times a year, guns are used in self defense is total bull $hit. You back it up with no factual evidence. Even though these stats that I have are from 1990, I find it VERY hard to believe that gun defense has increased by 1.93 MILLION cases per year annually. Since most gun defense facts are very misconstrued, I might remind you that self-defense using a gun ONLY includes when the gun is fired, not when it is simply held as a focal point for power in a situation (which by the way in most studies that are pro-gun control, it is considered as self defense to just hold the gun; very incorrect and misleading).It is self defense to hold a gun. You don't need to shoot someone to discourage them from committing a crime. The 2 million figure is from a criminologist at Florida state not some random guy named dave. And that guy is definitely a crackpot because his number is not even close to anyone else's. Other studies range from 800,000 to 2.5 million times. The DOJ did one and got 1.5 million but they used a smaller sample size. Well, now it's time to take apart your Washington D.C. points. Notice how it clearly states that any firearms registered before 1976 are still considered to be legal? Well that sure sheds a different light on your argument doesn't it? Could this Act be to possibly...oh...I don't know...maybe prevent more hand-gun related incidents from happening and not an outright attack on existing gun owners? So it looks to me that this Act has done a very good job considering the fact that The murder rate in D.C. is still higher than it was before the ban. And the drop in crime occurred across the country and was not just in D.C. After all that honest research I did, I think I need a glass of Kool-Aid.

^^ To protect yourself. If you have a legal gun and the federal government breaks down your door and takes it not only is your door broken but your helpless against criminals. If it won't decrease murders why take away people ability to defend themselves? 2 million times a year guns are used in self defense. Banning guns doesn't work. Criminals don't go 'oh well guns are illegal now I guess I won't kill that guy now'. They have illegal guns anyway. The guns aren't the problem the people are. In places where they crack down on illegal guns crime goes down. In places with strict gun control laws it either goes up or stays the same. And that website only has states not individual cities so I can't get Chicago.. And I wouldn't say D.C. doesn't have the same crime rates. It's more than 3 times the size of D.C. There is a reason D.C. is known as the murder capital of the country.

^^ That was my point. That guns aren't the reason murders are higher. It's the area. Legal gun owners in South Dakota aren't the problem. Criminals in Chicago are. Look at D.C. pre gun ban and post gun ban. Since the gun ban in D.C. was enacted in 1976 there has been only one year where crime was less than 1976 and many years where it was even double. http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/dccrime.htm

We have had an assault rifle ban for a long time and AK-47 deaths are on the rise. Even before the ban assault weapons were used in very few crimes and ones legally bought were almost nonexistent. Guns aren't the problem. The place is. If you compare Chicago with South Dakota. Chicago has 60 times as many murders as the entire state of South Dakota. They have a complete gun ban in Chicago. That's sure working out.

So your saying you don't go out and try and attract a girl as a partner? Essentially, your saying gays aren't allowed to have partners? I don't need my own parade to get a girl. Nope it would be to celebrate the birth of your respective nation, only immature and petty people would deliberately do something like that to piss people off. My best friend is a homosexual, I've been to a gay pride parade with him before, they are just their to have fun, meet people like them and celebrate their sexuality. Also the whole "assless leather chaps" is just a stereotype, have you ever even been to a gay pride parade / festival before or are you just pulling random [cabbage] facts out of your arse? I live in SF. Not all of them are like that but a hell of a lot of them are.

No it's not. When a crackhead breaks into your house and your in bed with your thumb up your [wagon] your in more danger than if you have a gun nearby, even with a trigger lock on it. What is a crackhead gonna do? Say 'wait here while I rob you' or kill you?