SuperJerk

I think you need to look up the word "religious" in the dictionary. Besides, I remember various groups being very critical of Clinton's environmental policies, which is why they supported Ralph Nader in 2000.

I have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Ahem. I did not invent these quotes.

If this wasn't a problem back in 1999 --- which it wasn't, considering that these stories didn't EXIST back then --- it's illogical that the IDENTICAL levels of mercury would be causing problems now. Just because we don't know about a problem doesn't mean that the problem does not exist.

Mike, if you think my use of the word "outlaw" (which I never claimed was a direct quote) instead of the words "prohibit" and "force" (even though in context they mean the same thing) is the same thing as you making up and attributing environmentalists positions to me, you are sadly mistaken. I never invented a single quote from you. And calling me names isn't going to help prove your point any better, either.

I refuse to get excited about this signing after what happened to Ultimo Dragon. They'll just misuse him and keep him off of TV for months.

Arguing that something is okay because Clinton did it is NOT a rational argument.

I'll admit that you didn't actually use the exact word "outlaw", but you used phrases which mean the exact same thing. The difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I'm using different words which mean the same thing to re-explain your points, whereas your trying to reinvent my points in your rebuttal in a way that misrepresents what I actually said. Sounds to me like you're saying I advocate the outlawing of religion. Using terms like "prohibit free exercise thereof" and "force" in this context means the same thing as outlawing religion. Like I said, the difference between what I'm doing and what you're doing is that I'm using different words which mean the same thing to re-explain your points, whereas your trying to reinvent my points in your rebuttal in a way that misrepresents what I actually said. Case in point: You've intentionally attributed a viewpoint to me WHICH I DO NOT HOLD. That is NOT a rational argument and is intellectually dishonest to say the least.

The WWE needs to bring back Mighty Molly.

Again, the damage WE cause pales to the damage the Earth causes itself on a regular basis. The worst we can do is make ourselves sick. Isn't that itself worth fighting against?

Mike, you last post is a classic example of someone twisting words around to make them say something I did not say. For example you said: When I never said that anyone did, and that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. This is just ONE example of you doing this. With all the red herrings (defending religion by attacking environmentalism....seriously, dude, if you want to attack environmentalism, do it in THAT thread), and straw men (suggestions I want to outlaw religion) being thrown at me, I think I should make it perfectly clear what I am arguing for. This has been my position, and if you reread my posts you will see that everything I've written has been consistent with this belief: I believe, and I believe that the Constitution supports this, that the U.S. government should not be erecting signs that say "Thou shall have no other Gods before me" unless it is made clear to everyone that it is doing so for historic reason rather than for religious ones. Is that really so wrong? I honestly don't understand why this is even really that controversial. I just want the government to follow its own rules and not be used as a tool to promote a single or multiple religions. That's all. I'm not trying to outlaw religion, as MikeSC has claimed repeatedly.

Ah, a "tool of propaganda". For something you claim to believe does not ACTUALLY exist? I beleive that the Bible exist, I just don't believe that most of it is true. An atheist believes that God does not EXIST. You can't propagandize an entity that does not exist. Again, it'd be comparable to me complaining about Santa Claus on public property. I can't really complain about something that does not exist. Religion is what is being propagandized. Atheists do not believe that God exists, but are very aware that religion (the beleif and worship of deities) DOES exist. The major differences between God and Santa Claus: 1) No one is telling me if I don't conform to Santa's morality, I'm going to hell. 2) No one is killing others over their view of Santa Claus. 3) No one makes me say "under Santa" as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. 4) No one tries to get Santa taught in school as part of an "Intelligent Design" argument. 5) No one asks me to give 10% of my money to Santa. I said I was curious, I did not say that I cared. The First Amendment does not say it is okay for the government to endorse or sponsor religions if they don't need it. Whether they need it or not, religions do benefit from government displays of religion.

You saying over and over that I don't know what I'm talking about in no way constitutes a rational argument. It is a merely an assertion on your part which I have already disproven. Ah, a "tool of propaganda". For something you claim to believe does not ACTUALLY exist? I beleive that the Bible exist, I just don't believe that most of it is true. Many atheists argue that the world would be a better place without religion, but I don't agree. That would take away your right to free exercise (which I support unless you try to use the government to do it). The tangible benefit of having government sponsored religious displays is that it implies confirmation the validity of their views. Whay I'm curious about is why Christians would even want the Ten Commandments displayed, since you're not supposed to be still living under Old Testament law.

Give me a break. Baptism and Southern Baptism are NOT different religions. I know what the hell I'm talking about here. They are just different denominations of the same religion. You MIGHT be able to argue that Catholicsm and Protestantism are separate religions (even if they are both branches of the Christian religion), but to argue that all the different Protestant denominations constitute different religions is simply ridicules. They share a history, customs, and beliefs. They are the same. No, they are NOT the same. They all have different tenets and different beliefs. You really, truly do not know what you're talking about here. People assume I don't know what I'm talking about because I'm not a believer, despite the fact I spent two-thirds of my life as a devout Pentecostal (which is a denomination within the Protestant branch of the Christian religion, by the way). I don't know what you're basing this idea that Christianity deserves to be known as more than one religion on, but the entire point is irrelevant. The First Amendment does specify how many religions the government cannot endorse. It denies the government the ability to endorse any and all of them.

First of all, the Bible isn't merely a work of literature to atheists, but a tool of propaganda. Everyone KNOWS Shakespeare is fiction, but religious people insist that everything in the Bible is fact and should be treated that way. Second, the First Amendment specifically forbids the U.S. government from sponsoring religion, so it is illegal regardless of whether anyone complains or not. Third, you haven't heard of a single complaint from someone who isn't athiest? Then you didn't read the original article at the beginning of this thread. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/01/scotus.t...ents/index.html

Give me a break. Baptism and Southern Baptism are NOT different religions. I know what the hell I'm talking about here. They are just different denominations of the same religion. You MIGHT be able to argue that Catholicsm and Protestantism are separate religions (even if they are both branches of the Christian religion), but to argue that all the different Protestant denominations constitute different religions is simply ridicules. They share a history, customs, and beliefs. They are the same. Using your logic, psychology and psychiatry would be the EXACT SAME FIELD since they deal with the human mind. Close, Mike, but no cigar. Actually, its like me arguing that conflict theory and functionalism are both areas of sociology. What you are saying would be closer to me arguing that Christianity and Judaism are the same religion because they deal with the same God, which I am not.

The advantage of presale is getting really good seats close to the ring. Those tend to go quickly.

I see. From Lindsey's point of view, Angel is a hypocrite. Gotcha.

The shift in the focus of the original trilogy from Luke to Vader occurred because it wasn't decided until "The Empire Strikes Back" was being written that Anakin and Vader were actually the same person (credit: Star Wars: the Anotated Screenplays...a great read if you can find a copy). There's always a chance that had the Emperor lived, he could have somehow used the Dark Side to stop Lando. If Luke defeated and killed Vader, then the Emperor would have no apprentice, and the Sith would die out with him. Yoda specifically mentions defeating Darth Vader is the last step to Luke becoming a Jedi Knight, similar to how Obi-Wan became a Jedi Knight by defeating Darth Maul. Besides, Yoda knew all along Luke had no hope of defeating the Emperor since Yoda already got his ass handed to him by the Emperor.

In all honesty, I think we can all agree we'd rather watch Jedi that Ep. 1 or 2.

The article makes a good point. There are real dangers out there which we can control without jumping into the stereotypical "OMG WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE~!!!!!" mindset that solves nothing. Health risks from man-made pollutants are very real, but warnings of "10 years from now the average temperature will be 108 degrees and you'll need a gas mask just to walk outside" is counter-productive due to how far-fetched it is.

Ratings. People would rather see news stories about attractive people.

Just how many montheistic religions do you think there are? Catholicism Methodism Baptism Southern Baptism Unitarianism Mormonism Presbyterianism Roman Orthodoxy Greek Orthodoxy Reformist Judaism Orthodox Judaism Wahhabist Islam Nation of Islam Islam Christian Science You just counted different branches and denominations as completely separate religions. Honestly, can Baptism and Southern Baptism really be considered different religions? Or Nation of Islam (an American organization) a religion separate from Islam? You listed a crapload of Protestant denominations, but wouldn't all of them (along with Catholicism, and Roman and Greek Orthodoxy) really be parts of the religion of Christianity? By my count, you were only able to come up with 3 monotheistic religions. You have forms of Christianity on your list 10 times, Judaism 2 times, and Islam 3 times. Whether or not abortion is murder is a discussion for another time. Having said that, whatever aid our government gives Planned Parenthood has nothing to do with Bush's willingness to give religious groups federal money without having to meet the same regulations that secular groups must. Double standard?

In this case, Mike speaks for the nation as a whole.

Official: http://movies.channel.aol.com/feature/starwars/trailer.adp Take out the Jar Jar shit and I agree with you. However, take all the "romance" (that is, what Lucas THOUGHT was romantic dialogue) shit out and the pendulum swings back to ep 2. Jar Jar was about 5% of Ep. 1, whereas the craptastic romance was 50% of Ep. 2. The flaws with Ep. 1 were the slow pacing leading up to the pod race and bad performances from Jake Loyd and Jar Jar. On the good side, it had the pod race, Liam Neeson's performance, Darth Maul, and the kick-ass droid battle at the beginning. Ep. 2 was a total trainwreck from start to finish (bad acting all around except for Christopher Lee...poorly executed battle scenes...extremely slow pacing for the entire first hour...horribly written romance...every set, even the ones which were suppsoed to be outdoors, being obviously CGI), with the only watchable part being the short battle between Yoda and Dooku (which was extremely cheesy, admit it).

Like I said, it appears to have changed. But the original intention was that Luke was the chosen one, not Anakin. The Empire dies with Vader, not with the Emperor being destroyed. And it was Luke that defeated Vader. Just listen to the score, the Empire's theme fades with Vader's death, not Palpatine's. The climatic moment of the entire series is the final moments of the Luke/Vader duel (once the opera music starts) and Luke's decision not to go with the dark side. Everything afterwards is the aftermath. So the only proof for your entire argument is which musical selections were playing in the background?