Jobber of the Week

Okay, re-read what I wrote. I said that one Christian view of homosexuals is that they're a pack of worthless sinners who can rot with Satan. I apologize if I made it sound like all Christians think like that. I didn't mean to imply that at all. We've had conversations on this issue enough times that I thought we've all grasped that.

FF7's final boss fights were slightly harder as a whole than FF6's, but still not really that difficult. FF9's was a much better challenge.

Not universally, no. But it is there among many fundamentalists. Looking at the press release from this organization that defended this girl's ability to speak at this event, they seem to be fundamentalists of this order.

The Christian "you're going to burn in hell, you heathen" view of homosexuality would be, yes.

The problem is that so much of the anti-abortion stances is about sanctity of life and a distaste of legalized murder. "Right" and "wrong" has nothing to do with it more often than not.

Don't even try to patronize. That last quote was spookishly similar to Santorum's remark to the AP earlier this year, and even GW distanced himself from that through a spokesman. Also, he's anti-abortion except for when the mother's life is at risk, but supports the death penalty. That's just as confusing as the liberals that do the opposite.

I'm not that familiar with tagging files, but I use iTunes as my primary music player and it has a neat method for tagging multiple files if you need to. Select multiple files, right click and show properties, and you can set the same tag info across all of them. And yes, information about songs in your library shows up in a spreadsheet-style grid. Just be careful when installing it. If you don't read the screens and see what those checkboxes are for, it can stuff your music in various little folders you probably don't want.

Ok, well, we can pencil him in after the kid who thinks US foreign policy justified 9/11.

So if someone wants to air their neo-Nazi views at "Diversity Week," it's not a problem?

Yeah, well can you think of a company that can serve turkey in a cafeteria line like Haliburton can? No? Didn't think so.

LOL FREEDOM OF RELIGION NOT FREEDOM FROM RELIGION. Generally, laws state that public places can have as many religious symbols they like as long as they include just as many non-religious, secular holiday symbols.

Students don't have a right to unregulated free speech on school campuses. That's why some schools charge kids quarters if they swear (something I've seen in action before), that's why any school will not you promote drug use, etc.

Hey, cool. More reasons I don't like the guy: Q: Does posting the Ten Commandments in schools invalidate the religious expression of children who are not in the Judeo-Christian heritage? A: The Ten Commandments are etched into the walls of the Supreme Court. I find it rather hard to believe it could be inappropriate to put them on the walls of our schools. The problem we have [is] a phony doctrine pretending that the federal government, through the courts, has the right to dictate uniformity of religion or irreligion. It’s not true. Through the 14th Amendment some of these lawyers try to pretend that the judges can do what the amendment explicitly forbids the Congress from doing, dictating religious practices at the state and local level. Source: GOP Debate in Johnston, Iowa Jan 16, 2000 --- KEYES [to McCain]: I have signed the following pledge: In the interest of national security and the morale of our armed forces, if elected president of the US I pledge to reinstitute the ban on homosexuals serving in our nation’s military. Would you join me, sir, in signing that pledge? McCAIN: No, I will not. [i agree when] military leaders that you and I respect say that this policy is a good one. I will support the present policy. Source: Republican Debate in West Columbia, SC Jan 7, 2000 --- Q: What does the term separation of church and state mean to you? A: I don’t think that’s an important question, actually. I think the more important question would be: Is there any reference to separation of church and state in the Constitution? And the answer to that question is: No there is not. The First Amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. [instead of] uniformity in terms of religious belief. Our courts are now trying to impose uniform irreligion and atheism and that is intolerable. And we, therefore, have to oppose it. Q: Are you for or against the separation of church and state? A: You are trying to force me to speak in terms that are not relevant to American life. The Declaration of Independence states. [that] the source of our rights is the creator God. You can tell me, if you like, that that’s a religious conviction. I know that it is the American creed.. I won’t give up the Declaration. Source: Republican Debate in Durham, NH Jan 6, 2000 (FWIW, the Declaration refers "the creator," without naming a specific God.) --- It’s about time we all faced up to the truth. If we accept the radical homosexual agenda, be it in the military or in marriage or in other areas of our lives, we are utterly destroying the concept of family. We must oppose it in the military. We must oppose it in marriage. We must oppose it if the fundamental institution of our civilization is to survive. Those unwilling to face that fact and playing games with this issue are doing so irresponsibly at the price of America’s moral foundations. Source: Republican Debate in Durham, NH Jan 6, 2000 --- People tell us that for purposes of discrimination, sexual orientation--or, more accurately, sexual behavior--must be treated like race. Is that at all legitimate? When I got up this morning I was a black guy. When I go to bed tonight, I will still be a black guy. If we are going to say that sexual orientation is to be treated like race, then we’re saying that sexual orientation--read, behavior--is like race, a condition beyond the individual’s control. If we accept this kind of reasoning, why should we expect to draw the line at sexual passion? If we’re going to have special legal protections for homosexuals, shouldn’t everybody else’s uncontrollable sexual orientations be protected? Shouldn’t adulterers, pedophiles, rapists, and other sorts of sexual aberrants be eligible for the same benefits? If we were to accept this convoluted logic we would be left with the concept of a human person which accepts strict external regimentation: we are basically people out of control. Source: Our Character, Our Future, p. 18-9 May 2, 1996

I'm not saying Sharpton and Jackson aren't trash! I'm saying that since Keyes supported Roy Moore's monument in the courthouse in joining the vigil, he's easily joined the ranks of people I don't want in office, either.

Hello, Michael "Savage" Weiner. It's good to see you've finally joined TSM at last, although it's saddening you had to hack someone's account to get in.

Whaaaaaaaa? And I'm not exactly sure what's up with the righties blaming liberals here. If you want to have religious beliefs practiced in school, you go to private schools. That's what people do.

This one ends better, though.

AND Mister No-Spin. Dear god. I guess I have to call Sean Hannity's radio program tomorrow to get his view on this. If he disagrees with it, too, then we're all doomed.

Hey, even O'Reilly agrees with me on Canada and Germany, though not France & Russia. EDIT: Oh fuck, he just said on the new episode airing right now that France can't "pay their debts" like the DOD told them to when barred from reconstruction, called the DOD memo stupid, and he's even complaining about how Newsweek can find Osama but the CIA can't. He's still a populist whore, but I'm just blown away to see the Bush administration CRITICIZED on Fox News.

OMG VAST JEWISH CONSPIRACY

Weekly World News. VERY LOL2003.

1. Yes. I don't like drugs but if legalised they can be regulated instead of existing in the dangerous black market. 2. Yes. 3. Yes on the first, no on the latter. I support a state's choice to decide whether they need to ban more dangerous firearms or not. 4. Yes. 5. Yes. 6. Not sure what this is, sorry. 7. Yes.

anyone else oddly comfortable with this? Not really. Pretend if I am running for a public office. Me. During the final stretch of my campaign, Bill O'Reilly finds out that I called him a media whore on TSM and starts badmouthing me every day in the last 60 days of the race. He's part of a legitimate news organization. I can't afford to buy time to defend myself, and if anyone chips in they're suddently a "special interest group" and are banned from buying ad time. I can't just go on O'Reilly's show whenever I care to and defend myself from his attacks. I have no plan of recourse.

ABC had reporters traveling along with the candidates producing stories on what they were doing. Kucinich, Sharpton, and Carol "LOL" Brown weren't doing much, so they told those guys to come on back to HQ and get a new assignment. The longshots who have had their media coverage pulled for sitting on their ass or doing SNL instead of campaigning are now complaining about how they've lost a voice.

Sure, if all you want from a candidate is that he's on your side of the party line fence. Some of us have higher standards than that, however. When I saw that Keyes was out there as part of the 24 hour praying vigil for the commandments monument a few months back, I knew I could safely add him to my list of guys I'd never want to see President.