Crocefisso

If gun ownership wasn't protected by the constitution, you'd better believe that guns would have been outlawed by now. Forcing politicians to adhere to a constitution prevents them from changing laws all willy-nilly, especially in a political climate as chaotic as this one. The Constitution is a "living document," which means that it is meant to be modified through the ways it set up. The founding fathers were smart enough to know that the times change, so a constitution must change as well. The Constitution is meant to change. If the Constitution was set in stone, and one of the provisions was that slaves were to account as 3/5ths of a person, it would make sense that people would ignore that part, and it would make sense that they might ignore other parts as well. Since we're able to change the Constitution, it makes all the more sense that we must adhere to it. So what's stopping politicians from repealing the Second Amendment, then restricting gun ownership like they do over here in the UK? Surely they have the democratic authority to do that. Exactly the point I was trying to make.

It varies widely by sect of Buddhism. Most people consider it to be a religion in the sense that it is a way of life, to be practiced consciously. A religion need not involve worship of a higher being (though many sects of Buddhism do elevate the Buddha to worshipable level.). Flyingjj is right. Haa Haa, in response to your question about Atheism/Buddhism: true, Buddhists are largely atheist, but being an atheist is just one very small aspect of Buddhism. There are many others that are necessary before you can call yourself a Buddhist; do you believe in the cycle of rebirth? Do you aspire to release yourself from said cycle by attaining nirvana? Do you have other beliefs around this that vary from sect to sect? If not, then you're not a Buddhist, but an atheist. Just because you find atheism to be the correct moral path for yourself doesn't make you a Buddhist.

Agreed. People that think that the justice system can be made perfect, without some form of neo-evolution radically changing human nature, are quixotic at best.

And which party is SD? And in what country?

Agreed. I believe it was Pericles who said something along the lines of "Just because you do not take an interest in politics does not mean politics won't take an interest in you".

Even cacti?

Sounds interesting. Can I ask why you want this done? I'm experimenting with dating site profiles. (I have a girlfriend but I'm always trying to figure out new stuff about attraction etc.) The eye patch is to catch the attention of women who are scrolling through possibly hundreds of thumbnail pictures of blokes. I'm betting that many won't be able to resist checking out the profile when they see the eye patch. :lol: Funniest thing I've read in a long time. I'm no woman, but surely the eyepatch will just make them think 'belongs in an asylum', rather than 'looks like a good match'? I'm just assuming stuff here, though. Please post it somewhere on here when it's done for the comedy value.

The only thing uniting Tea Party members is that they believe they're "Taxed Enough Already." For most other policy or social issues, there is no consensus. The GOP lends itself better to the Tea Party than the Democrats because the Democrats want more wealth redistribution, which starts with more taxes. There are some things about the establishment GOP that the Tea Party despises, including crony capitalism and a willingness to put into office liberal RINOs. Besides all of that, the Tea Party really is just the name of conservatives and libertarians that want smaller government and an adherence to the US Constitution, which is why Ron Paul really is a member of the Tea Party. Isn't one of the 15 Tea Party founding principles that "Gun ownership is sacred"? I think I read that somewhere and assumed that the Tea Party were a bunch of loons. Then I saw Ron Paul, and I thought maybe they weren't. Then Michele Bachmann came on the scene, and I realised that a majority of them must be. She is an utter turd, no two ways about it. You know, because "gun ownership" has nothing to do with the Constitution, which includes our 2nd Amendment... <_< Very good, sees. Surprisingly, I think I'd figured that out. I see no fault with gun ownership being legal, but it is by no means "sacred". If anybody believes that, then as far as I'm concerned they're being a bit too reverential to be sane. I'm pretty sure that Amendments have been seen to be mistakes and abolished - e.g. the 18th - and I think the sort of close-minded consitutional preservation obsession the Tea Party advocates is not the way to go. That said, the only thing about the Tea Party that affects us in Europe is the foreign policy aspect, which is virtually non existent and therefore very pleasing - no more expensive wars that we have to pay for out of our asses.

The only thing uniting Tea Party members is that they believe they're "Taxed Enough Already." For most other policy or social issues, there is no consensus. The GOP lends itself better to the Tea Party than the Democrats because the Democrats want more wealth redistribution, which starts with more taxes. There are some things about the establishment GOP that the Tea Party despises, including crony capitalism and a willingness to put into office liberal RINOs. Besides all of that, the Tea Party really is just the name of conservatives and libertarians that want smaller government and an adherence to the US Constitution, which is why Ron Paul really is a member of the Tea Party. Isn't one of the 15 Tea Party founding principles that "Gun ownership is sacred"? I think I read that somewhere and assumed that the Tea Party were a bunch of loons. Then I saw Ron Paul, and I thought maybe they weren't. Then Michele Bachmann came on the scene, and I realised that a majority of them must be. She is an utter turd, no two ways about it.

The distinction is incredibly hazy. They may not be worshipping the statues per se, but they still worship with them and they can easily be seen as idolatry, including by most Christians outside of Catholicism. Anyway, I think sees is right and we've gone a little too off topic, and we should probably leave the discussion.

I'm well aware that they were a powerhouse and still are to some extent. The fact that you actually expect the church to change their teaching on social issues only serves to show you know nothing about the church at all. It seems unfathomable to so many atheists and non-religious to think that maybe the church genuinely thinks something is immoral and isn't just creating "laws" to "control people". If the church actually believes what it preaches (which i firmly believe it does) then it cannot change its teachings to appeal to the general populace, and it won't. The day the catholic church changes their stance on social issues is the day I finally hop off the fence and become an atheist. The Catholic Church has spent its entire history breaking its own teachings; as such, I don't really think them changing their official stance should be an issue to anyone that realises this. E.g.: "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not acquit anyone who misuses his name." -Yet the Spanish Inquisition was a perfect example of this. It's essentially the European equivalent of the Salem witch trials, except on a far, far larger scale over 200+ years. Similarly, the Crusades also broke this commandment. "You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth." -Catholic places of worship are typically filled with statues and other such examples of idolatry which, though beautiful, do technically break this commandment. "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour." -Spanish Inquisition used to force people to do this. "You shall not steal." -Catholic Church spent centuries doing this to the people of Europe, in the form of tithes and so on. "You shall not murder." -Many, many examples of this by the Catholic Church; Spanish Inquisition, Crusades, and most importantly, Pope Alexander VI. Please look this man up, he was absolute scum - a murdering, warmongering, nepotistic and power hungry man with no moral fibre whatsoever. Many Popes throughout the Middle Ages and Early Modern periods displayed similar traits. PS: Interesting to assume that, because I am not a fan of the Catholic Church as an institution, you assume I am non-religious. I am in fact the one Buddhist in the census.

The church didn't need to be populist for the most part of its history, because it had people by a societal and moral stranglehold. The church used to be an incredibly pervasive and, for parts of its history, dangerous organisation, be it the Catholic church or whatever else. The Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the Salem witch trials give examples of the power of the church across continents over time. If you control people's minds, lives and beliefs, what need is there for populism? Today, with this influence eroding, populism is becoming increasingly necessary as a way of preserving the church. That's why the church will need to change. Similarly, in those fifty years, more and more senior church figures - though probably not in the USA, where they're ultra right-wing - are reconsidering the church stance on such issues as homosexuality and abortion. The Anglican church is just one notable example. I don't even know where to begin with this post..... I'm talking about the catholic church. I can practically guarantee there will be NO reversal of catholic moral teaching in my lifetime in regards to these issues. There are 23 known Crusades, called for by the pope, with the main aim being to gain control of the Holy Land for Christianity. Point being? The point being that the Catholic Church was a powerhouse in Europe for well over a millennia. The Church created the populace in their image; they had no need to be populist. These days, with the church's influence massively reduced, populism is going to be necessary to ensure it remains a relevant organisation. I do not think the church is evil (though it has a very corrupt history - just look at Popes Alexander VI and Julius II and you'll see a shining example), and it does many good things, but if its teachings are out of touch with the status quo, it's a problem for it and its following because it used to create the status quo. Sooner or later, Catholic teaching will change. In our lifetime, maybe not, but it only takes one or two reformist Popes to make these changes. The church is already in steep decline in Europe, and other countries will follow sooner or later unless the church adopts a more populist approach.

If I lived in the US, I would vote Ron Paul for sure. From a European perpsective, a US President that's not going to drag everyone into a pointless and costly war is a very good thing in my books. Paul's realisation that homeland security could be improved by not sending troops to various Islamic countries to nation build there. Paul's foreign policy is a blessing to Europe and large parts of the world that are suffering because of Bush's - and Obama's - excessive militarism.

:thumbup: I only disagree when it comes to the European elections; I would rather not vote in the European elections, because the European Parliament and all of the other EU bodies just swallow money and resources and waste vast quantities of it. I cannot support any party in the European Parliament. The only MEP I approve of is Dan Hannan. And even then, I really think that the party need to put him down for a Tory safe seat in the South East so he can finally come to Westminster and contribute to debates that actually lead somewhere.

boris500 you clearly haven't understood the premise. Please read the rules, delete your vote and do it properly. If they're not clear, tell me and I'll make them so. Oh, he changd it while I was typing. Sorry boris. :P

I know many of you will sigh at me starting yet another poll. I suppose I just have an interest in getting a general idea of what this community is like. I think the fact that many here are Caucasian Heterosexual Atheists was confirmed by the Census 2.0 thread, but many of us - probably a vast majority - had pretty much guessed that the demographics would be as such. Political preference, on the other hand, is something that is very, very variable on the internet, and I personally have no idea where this is going to go or what the results are going to be. I've opted to cater primarily for the USA & UK because they are the largest usergroups on the site, but people from other nations have a third question that is far more generic and suits them. This poll must be public, because I am only going to allow people to answer one question. If you live in the USA, choose only one answer from here, and if you're not, choose the last option that indicates this. The same applies to the UK.. Similarly, if you're a Republican from the USA - classed as a centre-right party in the US - you must not also fill in the third question, which is reserved for people outside the USA & UK, other than choosing the last option. The only rule of this thread, then, is that you answer just one question properly - no more, no less. Obviously honesty is also recommended. Because this is not a personal question per se, I see no reason this poll cannot be public; indeed, it has to be if it is to work properly. I advise people not to lie in their voting for whatever reason, because at the end of the day I doubt many people care about what each individual votes for. Please vote and feel free to comment. Like the Census, ask if you're unsure and I may add some FAQs. PS: All political discussion is encouraged; I will not consider any politically themed debate to be off topic People who've voted incorrectly The following are people whose votes have been wrongly cast - ie, they've ticked more or less than they should have -; if you see your name here, please recast your vote. -bola88 -magekillr -Rafftank -Ruerin -Shiny If anyone else wants to help me police the votes, please do. Just post about anyone else who's made a wrong vote and I'll add them to the list. If you're on this list and you've rectified your vote, please post to notify me.

This is all true. There are many people that assume the Times will present objective news because of its name. As I see it, from an EP perspective, they should sort of just figure it out for themselves by reading the Times and using their intuition and, having seen than all but a handful of Times articles ever are subjective, apply some common sense. Similarly, I don't think that covering an update requires me to relay lots of information to the reader, who more often than not has read it himself on the RS website. Some people criticise articles for being too "factual". Finally, I think that all Times articles should provoke a degree of debate, and I myself try and get involved too (Hamtaro's done it for me on this thread, saved me a lot of typing). And yes, there are those who get vicious - see the Times articles for 7 May this year, and then look at the forums, and you'll see what I mean -, and in these instances they essentially ruin any potential for debate, because the author doesn't want to get involved and things just descend into flaming. To conclude, I agree with your post but think that, in some cases, people could overcome what you say by applying common sense and by responding more calmly from time to time. As for us authors, we should simply try and produce the best article we can and immerse ourselves in the responses as best we can, also without resorting to insults/flaming. Alas, at times this seems like more of an idyll than a reality.

Similar thing happened to me. I feel in a river in rural Norway - below freezing, even in the summer - with a Super Mario World GBA cart (the re-release) in my pocket. Once I got out the river a little downstream, I was surprised to see it was in my pocket, and even more surprised when it worked. Six years on, it still plays fine. :mrgreen:

The church didn't need to be populist for the most part of its history, because it had people by a societal and moral stranglehold. The church used to be an incredibly pervasive and, for parts of its history, dangerous organisation, be it the Catholic church or whatever else. The Spanish Inquistion, the Crusades, and the Salem witch trials give examples of the power of the church across continents over time. If you control people's minds, lives and beliefs, what need is there for populism? Today, with this influence eroding, populism is becoming increasingly necessary as a way of preserving the church. That's why the church will need to change. Similarly, in those fifty years, more and more senior church figures - though probably not in the USA, where they're ultra right-wing - are reconsidering the church stance on such issues as homosexuality and abortion. The Anglican church is just one notable example.

Fox News... as a European, I find it very hard when I watch Fox News to believe that anyone actually takes it seriously. It's like one long joke and continuous stream of very obvious lies, in order to demonise such awful concepts as progress whilst adovcating war and militarism with its silly terrorism hysteria. It makes me sad to think of people actually believing it.

I'd say that posting Bilblical, or any religious, crap on facebook is stupid rather than brave. It's just more of the whole "I need to show everyone all about my life and how unique I am" attitude of those annoying facebook users. The guy who compared the internet to a whole load of people talking and nobody listening wasn't wrong.

I think that the mass media obsession with murders, kidnappings and rapes is a bit morbid and as such I don't approve. True, all these events are tragic, but the media cynically select a handful and make big money by consistently putting a missing girl on their frontpage. They drum up sympathy for certain people but neglect a vast majority of victims because they cannot see any profit in the story. And it's not like these stories do the public any good either. Anyone with one iota of common sense knows of the dangers of abduction, abuse etc. These sensationalist stories only serve to turn many people - mainly middle class people - from cautious into paranoid. It wouldn't be so bad if the tabloids did it in isolation, because everyone knows to expect that sort of [cabbage] from The Sun, The Mirror etc. But the fact that it's spilled over into quality press and TV news is very worrying. Sensationalist reporting and drumming up of 'empathy' for these victims, underscored by incredibly cynical capitalism, seems to have become a fact of life.

Before they introduced these new capes, vanity items and the members' loyalty programme, it would have been a big thumps up from me for their work this year, in spite of the referendum. As it stands, I'm going to have to give them a thumbs down in the light of these terrible 'updates'.

Unlike some people, getting the chance to "meet" a Jmod doesn't turn me on.

I always feel as if I should listen to the music on RS. But I never last more than 10 minutes without getting itunes up instead.