NoMoreDead

Meh. You can get packs of Marbs for under 3 bucks in NC. In Ohio, they're around $4.50 to $5.00. There is no reason that they should be made illegal. It's a choice that every person in the world should have.

To those of you who oppose gay marriage/rights, I offer a question: Why isn't everyone entitled to equal rights? I thought that all men we're created equal under God. (This question has been asked a hundred times over, but I still haven't seen a reasonable answer) (HINT: If you have an answer, you are more than likely wrong.)

A couple of updates. First, a nice clue: Then came a nice level :D:

Blatant contradiction? Anyway, I don't think that African Americans in California can EVER complain about being opressed again for the blatant disrespect the showed towards the gays. You think of all races the blacks would have voted for equal rights. "All men are created equal" should be changed to "All men are created equal except Indians, women, gays, and pretty much everyone else in the minority, or anyone else who practices a lifestyle which religion doesn't approve of." I suppose that doesn't roll off the tounge as well though, huh? Why is it that we're scared of something that's different? PS: Saru, Your friends diserve better.

Football is probably the biggest sport (Soccer for Americans) in the world, but I'd say that Basketball is challenging it. However, I think that Basketball requires a lot more height to be extraordinary at it, and thus Soccer is more appealing to children worldwide.

It's quotes like these that make me realize that the phrase "All men are created equal" is meaningless. The seperation of church and state was abandoned long ago, and it's a damn shame.

I secretly hope the worst for my best friend's (she's a girl, I'm a guy) relationship so that she can see that I was right about her boyfriend.. ...for the fourth time :| I'm also jealous of the fact that he will now spend 9.43 X 10EE27 more time with her than I will.

-People who use the word "itch" as a verb. IE: I gotta itch my arm. -People who refuse to accept that their wrong, and go to outrageous lengths to try to make it seem like they're right. -People who purposfully defend the person on the other side of an argument you're involved in just to get your reaction. -The question "Are you mad?" -Racists (I suppose this isn't really something that "bugs" me, so much is it is something that I'd like to have eliminated from existance). -People who cut you off in the middle of your story to tell one of their own. -People who think that just because they're the minority (in terms of race, religion, ect) they can get away with certain things, or morally justify them. -That kid who thinks he's right all the time. -The girl in your school who refuses to be single. -Your friend who never takes your advice. -"Macho" people. -People who live their life in the past, or future.

Not entirely, but I am saying that spending billions of dollars in foreign countries isn't helping anything. Pretty much all of that would have happened if anyone else was elected?! The Patriot act? Probably not. Iraq? More than likely not. Economic crisis? Not as bad. EDIT: I said "He EVEN got elected to a second term".

:D! Thanks a bunch to Ant and Etp. you both. Gears of war 2 came out, so I've been playing that a lot. Plan on coming back to RS tomorrow and slaying some more.

Baseball. It requires a heck of a lot of athletic ability. You need to accelerate, jump, dive, use proper footwork, throw quickly and precisley, and think incredibly quickly. ...And that's only on the defensive side of the game...

*Sigh* I dislike this argument, only because people use it as an argument against God when, in fact, this is not what was intended. It's original intent was to show that the gods did not care about man's plights, therefore man should not concern himself with the gods. But, meh, whatever. This says to me: I have no answer for this, so I will circumvent it, much like I've been doing for the last 5 pages. First of all, stop misusing the word logic. I swear... People need to learn what the word means before throwing it around. Anywho, as to the bolded part, not terribly. At least, not to the extent which would pacify a non-believer. So I don't try, as I really could care less what you believe. My only interest is, as I've said a millions times before, is a defense of Christianity. Not a proof of Christian doctrine. Again, you neglect to adress the issue at hand. Yes, you are standing on the side of the fence which makes an extraordinary claim. It is you who must prove what you're preaching.

Bush's first term: -War on Terror -Patriot Act -Foundings for an economic disaster (see "War or Terror") -National Debt consistently sinks -Invasion of Iraq ..and many other "little things". I'd say he did a pretty good job of messing up his first term. He even got elected to a second term.

Because the Bible contradicts itself so many times that to save themselves (their religion) they bend their rules whenever they feel like it just to make things fit. :lol: :lol: And too NoMoreDead: It is quite obvious what are parables and what aren't. You don't have to be a Christian to figure it out. NoMoreDead, I answered this already, Carbon Dating isn't 100% reliable, it is sometimes, but not always. Also, there is evidence to support it being under one million years. Lastly, I answered the Epicurus question. If carbon dating is even right .00000000000001% of the time, the basis of creation and the argument that the world was created 6000 years ago in 7 days crumbles entirely. You have the answer to the Epicurus statement? Here's the question. Let's see your answer. "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" Actually, your belief made an assertion for you. As the person standing on the side of the fence with an illogical being ruling the world, YOU must provide evidence to back the the claim. God is an idea, and therefore must be proven with evidence. YOU made the assertion when you typed your first words professing your belief in a god. You're up, junior.

Here's a question I'd really like answered: Why do some Christians think it's ok to pick and choose what actually happened and what is just a morally rich story out of the Bible? Why are some stories to be taken as fact, and some just for their moral value? How about another question?: Why is it that regaurdless of how much evidence is presented we still cling to the fairytale that the Earth is ~6000 years old, or under a million years old? Why is it that in spite of strong evidence to the contrary, we still tend to believe the myth? Is it just because it's comforting? And a third question?: Can anyone answer the Epicurus question?

No one seems to remember that Sarah Palin played the "sexist" card about a billion times. I mean honestly, the McCain/Palin Campaign was whining about the fact that she was being asked difficult questions. If you're going to call out Obama for the race card, you damn well better recognize that Palin played the sexist card just as much, if not more.

How was he going to end the corruption on Wall Street again? Was he going to do what he advocated for years upon years, which was lower the regulation? I'm so sick and tired of hearing this. If John McCain knows EXACTLY what to do then he is being the most unpatriotic and detrimental person he can be by NOT telling the US government how to get the job done. He doesn't know what to do. Nobody really knows. The United States wouldn't see a drop of that oil for 10 years. Nice try. WRONG. WRONG. FAILURE. Obama is not a Socialist. Obama is not a Socialist. Obama is not a Socialist. And your little 200k+ give a huge chunk of money to the lower class thing is also completley wrong. Look up Obama's tax plan, because your parents will be obiding by it. [hide=Also...][/hide] Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Go read Obama's plan (I don't really know why I keep telling you to do this, because your ignorant self won't) and come back. And his enegry policies... And his economic policies... And his foreign policies... Yet he still would have got slaughtered because people don't vote for Vice President, they vote for President AND VP (but mostly the President). Palin is so stupid that it cannot even be described by words. As a closing note, I'd like to remind you that this is supposed to be an educated community discussing real issues, not children discussing their parents ideas.

He won't have as much hatred or racism that Bush had? When was anyone racist against Bush? At the first sign of trouble republicans will jump all over Obama. Just you watch. And at Tennisnick12: Ask the kids in Iraq if they think they should have a say. Ask the troops from other countries if they think they should have a say. Everyone diserves a say. If you can't vote, it doesn't matter, really, but their views should NOT be disregaurded.

You'd think people would begin to understand the concept of socialism after 16 pages. At least once on every page, someone says "Obama is a socialist", to which a more intelligent person replies "You are a moron and have no idea what socialism is, and Obama is NOT a socialist." The socialist candidate for the presidency said he was embarassed that people referred to Obama as "socialist" because it gave his party the wrong image. He stated that Obama "was just about as far away from socialism as can be". Get it through your freakin' heads.

Still slaying. Obama is president! YAY!

Ok, I'll say "spreading the wealth" instead of socialism, since socialism consists of more than just that. So Obama is spreading the wealth. Which is bad as well. And I did read the article. Although Obama is making sure the upper class isn't "given a break", he is also raising taxes on them. So it isn't like they aren't being hurt by this. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Why is spreading the wealth bad?

I think Ouchy died :P

You are about to get BLASTED.

Someone ought to slap you. READ: http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/o ... 30.article I was hoping you would prove me wrong, but obamma is still providing welfare for the lower income familes. And 45% tax on "estates" over 3.5 million? That is absurd. You do realize that you made a point, which I then refuted, and then proceeded to make two new points, and then say I never refuted the first? Are you dense? Obama is helping lower and middle class famalies, and making sure that the richest of the rich aren't given breaks. Someone really ought to stop this madness.

WRONG. WRONG. Read his plan. Withdrawl in under 2 years.