Barihawk

I can blow a hole in your whole argument by stating the fact that Christ was not born on December 25. His date of birth is unknown, we only have the approximate year. According to subtle language in the Bible, it was likely in spring. Christmas is celebrated on the 25th of December to take a whack at some pagan holiday that's been forgotten because the plan worked. I call bs on Horus and the Greek legends. I find it laughable for one that the date is listed as December 25th even though it will be nearly a thousand years before the Christian calendar is instituted. The concept of a 24 hour day had not even been instituted and suddenly you have entire days and months pulled out of your nether regions. Zeitgeist is the equivalent of a Michael Moore movie on Youtube.

The fish market stagnated without PKing, now it's going to boom. Just wait for production to catch up with demand.

Dude, sounds like the old Wilderness to me :o. What did you expect? For them to babysit you?

That's really a logical paradox... If you don't believe they exist (as they most likely don't), why would anyone claiming to have seen them wield any credibility? Also, 100% no offense meant, but sometimes americans seem like their ego is bigger than the moon.. Why out of all 200+ countries of the world, aliens are always supposed to visit USA? Probably not a coincidence that USA likely has the biggest number of tinfoil-hat nutjobs who propagate those theories, compared to any other country. Hence it has the most UFO "sightings" and people who claim they were abducted in the middle of the night. "Aliens" are just as much of a hoax as the mandatory annual "bigfoot" which always turns out to be a fake, like this year Hey now, England has it's fair share of UFO sightings. There's also the possibility that some places like Russia or China clamp down on theirs for some silly reason (because many nations treat UFO sightings as possible spy planes). Come to think of it, I've heard of reports from France, Germany, Spain, India, Japan, Australia (LOTS). So don't think we have the monopoly on these sightings, they happen in many places whether they are a byproduct of alcohol, neurons misfiring, military operation, or little green men.

Target isn't a toy store. It's a department store. It's just the same when you ask mommy if you can buy something with your own money when she goes shopping.

I hate to sound like a jerk, but this is kind of useless unless the UN puts a plan into action to FEED those people they are going to save. As it is, Africans are starving. With this cure being put into effect, the population is going to boom and just make a bad situation worse. Nations like the US, UK and a few others have proposed military operations to deliver food (basically milkrun style operations reminiscent of the post WW2 Berlin Airlift) as delivering it through channels only sees it's interception by warlords or the Black Market. But for some silly reason they keep getting vetoed by the Security Council. I mean, this is great news! But it's going to be really BAD unless we can do something about feeding those people.

I'm not as concerned about the slant (I have, and always will be able to defend my faith to the point of respect from other members about my civility and knowlegeability) as much as I am those personal attacks. It seems that ones made against religion are simply written off as "free speech" instead of being trampled on by the moderators as they would be if they were a personal attack made against someone in another area. Topics that seem to be for the sole purpose of bashing religion (such as the "Study finds religious people more stupid than..." blah blah) are left open with the offending comments intact and moderators in fact POSTING their views in them (not personal attacks, but still! If there was a topic that "Studies show that gays likely to listen to Elton John) the poster would be looking at a ban!). I have no problems with people posting in topics such as "Is there a God" or something like that. It's the threads and posts specifically making generalized statements to the effect of trashing on a religion they don't like that bothers me.

I just checked Wikipedia. There's not one single mention of Obama and terrorism, let alone the hordes of evidence you suggest are present. It does however talk about his stance against nuclear terrorism. For your own political reasons, we will gloss over this point of discussion. Dude, let's not kid ourselves here. An article on Barack Obama on Wikipedia is not ever going to be accurate at all. Even locked down with certain people updating it. I have no idea if he has any affiliations or not, but you should know not to such a potentially contested source :P.

She doesn't need wrinkle cream :P. Put anyone that close bathed in light and you are bound to see the individual cracks in the skin. Usually they do brush it up with supermodels. But Palin is not one, she is a politician.

You are comparing mountains and molehills, there. There's a lot fewer people coming into a topic on shoes and saying "Vans suck" and to be honest there's less injury there in that it's a freaking pair of shoes. We are talking about someone's core beliefs. However, if someone came into a discussion on shoes and said "Only gays wear vans" would we not take action against that? That's not any less offensive than "Only morons go to church/synagogue/mosque."

TEXAS TECH!!! WHOO! Ugly win, but meh.

The Republican Party is known for elitism? Is this the same party that is commonly trashed as being full of rednecks? As for the photo she looks fine. She could have been beaten up and still look hotter than hell.

It ends up happening in several threads. Like the "Professor finds that religious people are less intelligent..." topic in which multiple bashes were made, and no action was taken. Keep in mind this is not bashing on the religion, it was comments such as "only morons believe in religion" or similar items of that nature. It's also hard to call such conversations a "debate" because it's rare that an open mind is kept. There is no debate, it's just ignoring the other party and stating your opinion or the opinion of someone else without even considering or entertaining the other party.

*Psst* Make it a rule, please! :D *Psst*

*Snicker*

Ouch, that was rather bigoted. I am very warm to the Islam faith, considering we worship the same God. I was simply stating that it happens to all religions, or most any group of people. It's called stereotyping. It's wrong, but it happens. So get off your high horse. And to be honest I had a very close friend who was killed in an IRA bombing. Muslims are not the only people in the world "getting shot at" because of their faith.

Most religions (including Christianity) are greatly misunderstood. Think how we feel. It's common in most aspects to judge a book by it's worst pages.

America has terrorist cells like essentially every nation in the world. Get over it. This thread is full of generalizations about generalizations over generalizations. Before you go and slander my fair state by generalization, put the story in context. It's a poor border town in a neighborhood of very poor people that have serious issues with kids breaking into their homes looking for drug money. The twinkie was not even involved in the incident, it was a detail revealed afterwards. The kid was not shot over a twinkie, he was shot over a perceived threat. The jury does not read the same article you do. All they get are facts and testimonies with very little in the way of "spin." Do I defend the actions of the man? No. Do I agree with the court ruling? Not really. Does it bother me? Not really, to be honest. You are placing more emphasis on some punk kid who broke into someone's home than you are when some random innocent gets blown to hell by a suicide bomber that had no problem with that specific person. So take your own advice. Violence happens all over this world that is so ridiculous that it makes a kid getting shot over a twinkie look concrete.

I will say of that graph that he is right about soldiers. The maximum any group can donate is 2000-ish dollars. However, employees/soldiers may pool their donations in the name of their company/group as long as it's accounted and they have receipts. So when military organizations are listed on the chart, it means that many individuals donated anywhere from 1c to 2000ish dollars.

So if an animal predator moves into another animal's territory and makes it it's own it is ok (dang, I used it a lot). But humans can not? We are a part of the ecohabitat. We are no more guilty than an animal defending it's new territory. As for culling, it is often done to maintain the superiority of humans in the predatorial chain. When an animal kills a human it realizes that it is above the human on that chain and may be aggressive to other humans. Culling removes that animal so it does not present a threat to others. It is a practice widely done in the US with bears, and works very well.

I noticed that my Picture B is broken linked. Here is a replacement: [hide=][/hide] On the left if you did not know.

Why are you looking forward to the event? Because events are usually fun if you try to have it.

Actually just the middle class. If you or any one of your dependants make under the poverty line you are exempt from taxes. So when people say "taxing the lower classes" they are just spreading fertilizer. The middle class is like a big [wagon] bell curve. It makes up 75% of the equation. So most people will be paying taxes, but not the lower end of the spectrum.

And in the process creating a whole new can of worms in the way of poverty traps. Most of those girls will not be using protection, will be having babies which now need to be taken care of which qualifies them for welfare which leads right back into the welfare trap and sucks more money out of the government's pocket. Yeah. Great plan.

People under 18 not having a clue about politics is the worldwide norm. Don't be embarrassed.