Rebdragon

Up front, do you plan to say that and leave or fight a tough battle? Not that there aren't arguments for your beliefs, you're just going to have trouble finding backing.

Just my perspective, but I put on the most muscle mass during times when I just ate a lot. All this whey protein roid stuff never really did anything.

Cheer up emo kids. Also, all y'all complaining about overpopulation need some learnin. Yes, net result population is going up. But in nearly all developed nations total population is either neutral or decreasing. It's developed nations that are experiencing growth because of an increase in sanitation and antibiotics not counterbalanced by a change in culture (parents have lots of kids for security later in life, but now kids aren't dying young, so there's a population explosion).

Political parties should be serving the public, not their own, convoluted agenda's. In an ideal world, yes, but in a world where power corrupts that ain't gunna happen. The lobbyists have the power, not the people. [bleep] Congress.

But the problem is the main root of the oppositions personal beliefs. The core of most opposition is that once you start changing the definition of marriage, who's to say that the changes have to stop? Polygamy would have an argument for gaining legal rights as well, and there is, you have to admit, a potential for snowball effect. This country is getting more left with each passing generation, so people against gay marriage tend to feel that if the definition is changed now it can never go back. Gays mainly want the legal benefits of a union, which are fine with me personally. But they're stomping on the beliefs of the majority by trying to change marriage, and that's not gunna get the agenda far.

Socc, babe, wtf. Rex, why not call it a civil union and give those unions the same benefits of a married couple? That way no ones beliefs are infringed upon (marrige is still kept as between a mans and a woman), nothing illegal is done, things stay somewhat secular and gays get the benefits that are the root of their cause for fighting for gay marriage. And, wait, who doesn't get married by the Church, or some religious figure...?

What right does the government have to force an international organization like the Church to offer a service if it doesn't want to? Can the gov go up to some random guy and force him to be a hotdog vendor? How can the government mandate the services of private organizations? The Church doesn't want to offer same-sex marriage in it's churches. Who is it that can tell them they have to? You an argue right and wrong all you want but legally speaking it doesn't make any sense. I just thought of this argument but I'm sure it's been made before and I'm sure someone here who gets off to politics already has a prewritten counterargument. Oh well.

So you don't want to find intelligent life because it can't get you a beer? The ramifications of other intelligent life on the planet are huge. I don't get why you "don't see the use."

I will "come out of the woodwork" and say that from what I've read from the news sources I frequent human-based climate change and the immediate necessity of renewable energy all seems like bulls**t. I will not debate though, because I know I don't have the will or stored sources to actually debate ten people at the same time over a science that's really become nothing but politics. Sorry, have a fun time agreeing with yourselves. If you have any questions I'll answer em if they're quick, but I'm really busy lately so I can't engage in actual debate.

srsly.. i have to do this? makes a man go woo woo All the people on the streets know woo woo, woo woo.

I've ranted enough for today but [bleep] off about the stupid America [cabbage]. [cabbage] gets old.

Oh Dear God, some small district in the middle of frikkin' California went a little cooky on the conservatism! What important news, vital to the minds of news audience! Don't spend your time reading about the national government, the economy, international news, or even you local government! No, spend the little time you actually care about the world outside your bubble reading about some random in the middle of frikkin' California, who are probably just listening to parents, hoping not to get sued and weighing their options! I hate shock news. It's literally a cancer on society.

That's not something to 'meh :P' about.

Try this on a non-liberal forum. I [bleep]ing dare you.

So you have a name that sounds like a pornstar name?

I was expecting a rags to riches muscle story as an example... most of that change isn't muscle dude, it's fat loss. Abs like those can be achieved without too much muscle training and a frikkin' lot of cardio and food control. Same thing with the arms (and pecs somewhat), in the first picture it looks like he has most of that muscle. The second just seems to have the fat stripped off. If you look at the guy in the first pic, he's not just flabby fat, he's got some sturdyness to him. The OP, though, goes from skinny to more muscular. There is a clear change from no fat and very little muscle to a decent amount of muscle mass. If you can show me an example of extreme muscle gain, without steroids and with reasonable time management (not three hours a day lifting and working out), in seven months, I'll be impressed and convinced. Sorry if we're roastin' you dude.

Apart from a psycho P90X I don't see how his results could be all that much better. He did a good job inthose months, especially if he had other obligations like schoolwork and a job. Not that you aren't right though, freeweight really are better for you. Not only in terms of results but also in terms of practicality- real life weightlifting isn't going to be so simple and easy as a machine. Real weight has to be controlled in three dimensions, not just one.

Or lying.

None of this is true... Guys are attracted to physical signs of fertility and sexuality because these girls have the most chance of producing children. Girls are attracted to alpha males who can protect them and their children, not looks or money generally. (As long as they aren't slobs or broke) Nothing to do with having beautiful children :unsure: You're actually wrong about him being wrong. In a feature article in Psychology Today a few months ago it was shone how women go for the alpha males based on genetics, even if that means not having the bad boy for forever (but far be it for women to confuse fantasy with reality).

And that snowball effect is what really has people worried dude.

The [bleep]?

Feet are generally rated as the least attractive part of the human body. so an attraction to feet is usually regarded as odd.

You're full of it so hard. Eyes are always important, they're a vital part of a cute face. But [bleep] are still awesome.

I don't get it. Really, I don't. That middle sentence makes no sense. Dude where the hell are you going to college. Oh, and I saw you got out of school last week, you lucky bastard. When I was at X the nuns would make you walk to school if you couldn't drive, even in a blizzard. And uphill both ways. Darn kids.

Regardless of the vastly shifting opinions of the past, even in your comic strip marriage has always been between a man and a woman, the only difference was who was allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. By allowing gays to take part in "marriage" you're not doing what each panel of that comic did, which was just altering the level of inclusion in the core heterosexual ceremony. No, what you're doing is destroying the core itself and changing the entire definition to an inclusion of any two people. That's what everyone is freaking out about, it's a technical redefiniton of a very important tradition in society.