Big Ol' Smitty

You know that's exactly what Clinton said, don't you? Why do you think that?

Quasar, when you say Obama can't flip a red state, you are equating the term "red state" with "southern state." There are lots of red states that aren't in the South. Colorado, for example. Ohio. A Democrat could win the presidency without winning a single southern state. Obama gets the states that Kerry got plus Ohio=President Obama Now whether he or Clinton could do that is certainly a matter of discussion. Interestingly, Obama came in 3rd in a recent poll of Iowa REPUBLICANS.

Czech and Quasar, look at this table. Obama doesn't lead in a single early primary state. Edwards leads in Iowa, but that's only because he basically never left there after his 2004 campaign. *edit* (Clinton seems to now be leading in Iowa, too.) It is early (at this point in 2003, former Democrat Joe Lieberman led in most polls), but Clinton's lead seems to be large and growing at the moment. And this is coming from someone who would much rather see Obama or Edwards get the nomination.

That's typically what I've been fired for in the past.

Bullshit, he won't pay for anything. This guy had the biggest following of college-age idiots before he even expressed a thought. He's got every election locked up from here to next November; bank on it. So you're predicting that Obama will ride the support of college students all the way to the White House? On another note, what was wrong about his Pakistan comments (not necessarily a question for Czech)?

I'm rich, biatch. All teachers in the state got a significant raise this year. I'll be a Republican in no time.

Mine was sarcasm, too. It's hard to emote sarcasm on the interweb.

Don't be crazy. It never has in the past, right?

In honors of his raid, here's Ted's greatest hits: http://youtube.com/watch?v=URYNnF5mz84 http://youtube.com/watch?v=-Sg1DinsJ5M Wikipedia:

Nooo! [/Daily Show]

The troops hate the troops!

He probably would have retired from public life after the Jeffersonian Revolution of 1800 and, especially, after the Federalists were disgraced during the War of 1812 with the Hartford Convention.

I'm getting married in less than six days. Any sage advice from the forum on the keys to wedded bliss?

It's been pretty great. Just got back from a trip to Washington & New York. We also have a house now, which is pretty cool.

I'm married.

Man, this thread has veered off topic.

Okay...I get you now. You just worded it as a demand for negative proof in the original post. I didn't take you out of context. You said, "you can't prove it's not true." You meant, "just because I can't prove it doesn't mean it's not true."

So...you're asking for negative proof.

Eric asked if you could prove the Bible's truth, and your response was that you can't disprove its truth.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster must exist, because there is no proof that he does not exist.

Cena's Writer shall henceforth be known as the Purveryor of All Things Logically Fallacious. Negative proof.

Religions affect those who are non-believers or followers of other religions, obviously.

Well, sin is bad, right? And an affront to God? So, from your perspective, what would be the optimum outcome for a homosexual? Conversion? This is very disputed among Biblical scholars, King. So your claim to to have the final say on it can't stand. More importantly, it's disputed among Christians in general, as some obviously believe that a great deal of Old Testament law is still applicable.

Uh no. And most great philosophers ascribe to the idea of God. You're making an appeal to authority. You're not good at this, you should let Seyss or Conspiracy Victim carry the load here.

The above argument between Invader & Ripper is illuminating. How about instead of arguing whether a holy man from the first century addressed homosexuality directly or indirectly, condoned it, or ignored it, we could just, as a society, agree that it's not cool to be intolerant toward gay people.