muff528

That's it! That's what I've been trying to say!

Actually it isn't a pissing contest between two groups, it's a contest between the hate-mongering of one group and the wit of the other group. Declaring that atheism is cancer isn't on par with declaring a group of religious head cases is ZZ Top. But you're probably one of those Christians that thinks Richard Dawkins and Osama Bin Laden are both religious extremists. You sound like a typical GOP voting American Christian with some paranoia issues so I assume you are and make the references for you. If you aren't and you don't fancy to be mistaken for one, it might be a good idea to change your rhetoric a bit. Sop no references to agendas, or calling atheism a religion. There's loads of things atheists typically like to discuss, and most of it isn't politics. There's science, ethics, recipes for preparing unbabtized Christian babies. A lot of stuff, but not a whole lot of forcing lack of believe down every one's throat by means of politics. You have completely missed my point(s). You seem to think I'm criticizing atheists and the convention. Not at all. I'm only suggesting that the Muslim protesters have a right to protest what they might perceive as a threat to their way of life and that the response to the Muslim protesters was at a 3rd grade level at best. Period. You are doing a lot of "assuming" as well as being a bit defensive. But I realized that I, too, have made assumptions about what might be discussed at an Atheist Convention (religion and politics) so I looked at the Convention website ...and guess what! They're discussing religion and politics! I'm sure they talk about futbol and needlepoint during breaks but their official program schedule of speakers and activities definitely has an ideological "lean" with respect to the roles of atheism and religion in society. Not criticism ...just a reality. Contrary to your "assumptions" I might even agree with a lot of it. You are right in that folks getting together discussing religion and politics are not a "political entity". A convention organized to advocate an ideology and to effect public policy does represent a political entity whether it is held in the US or in Bumfukt, Egypt or in Oz. Now my other point goes to your comment that you edited out of your post #17: "So an atheist convention in Australia doesn't have to be about politics and can be just as easy mainly about religious stuff." What "religious stuff" is there to discuss (in an official capacity at a Global Atheist Convention) if not the religious "stuff" of non-atheists. They don't have their own "religious stuff" to talk about ...do they?

"very little" : Huckleberry Hound, Quickdraw McGraw, Yogi Bear. A little later: Rocky and Bullwinkle, Mr. Peabody, Bugs Bunny, Roadrunner, Foghorn Leghorn.

I'm sorry, since when is atheism a political entity? Funny how many American Christians see political agendas everywhere, one would think you guys are a bit paranoid. They were minding their own business. period. No need for those hate beard to show up with signs that read that "Atheism is a cancer". Sure they have the right to do just that, but it doesn't mean they aren't obnoxious meddling twats for doing so. Two people discussing what to do about the feral cat problem in the neighborhood is a political entity. Christians getting together in a church to worship is not a political entity. Christians gathering to discuss what to do about the local strip club is a political entity. I did not say atheism is a political entity. I said an Atheist Convention is ...unless it really was not a "convention" where policy is discussed, but rather just a social gathering of like-minded folks ...maybe just a BBQ. But they called it a "convention." Also I didn't comment on whether or not I thought the protesters were "obnoxious meddling twats". Neither did I previously make any reference to American Christians. The video looked like a pissing match between "organized" atheists and Muslims. My simple question was what, if not social or political policy, would be discussed or debated at an Atheist Convention.

Looks to me the atheists were minding their own business until the hate beards decided to crash their party with "burn in hell"chants that were already lame in 600 CE. And the atheists responded in exactly the right way by chanting back and ridiculing the salafist idiots in the process. What possible business could an "Atheist Convention" have other than minding the business of non-Atheists? What sort of "atheist business" could be conducted at a convention where, presumably, business pertaining only to atheist religious beliefs is being discussed. That might be a pretty short convention. IOW, what is there to discuss other than their political or societal relationship with government and non-atheists and then to formulate a course of action to advance their agenda as a group? Nothing wrong with that ...but it's not "minding their own business" if their political activity potentially affects the other groups. They are inviting protests from these groups ...just like any other political entity invites protests from opposing entities. I think they are even expecting protests from non-Republicans at the Republican Convention in Tampa. Imagine that! No difference.

I dunno. Looks to me like both groups are pissing away a perfectly good fishing day. Their protest chants are a little lame, too.

I agree fully. 2nd degree murder seems like a stretch. I think they have a much better chance of getting a conviction for I.M. If only prosecutors would take politics out of the criminal courtroom. Interesting paragraph here about "lesser included offense": Use in jury proceedings In criminal jury trials, the court is permitted (but not required) to instruct jurors that they can find the defendant guilty of the most serious crime charged, or of a lesser included offense of that crime (in English law, this is termed an alternative verdict). In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that jurors given the options of convicting a less culpable killer or letting him go free might opt to convict of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes. In the case where the jury has the option of convicting a defendant accused of a violation of law where there is a lesser included offense, if the jury acquits the defendant of the more serious offense but is otherwise unable to reach a verdict (i.e., is hung) on the lesser included offense, the defendant may be retried if the prosecutor chooses to do so, but only for the lesser included offense. If the jury finds the defendant not guilty of the lesser included offense, there would be no need to make a determination on the more serious offense as acquittal of a lesser included offense automatically constitutes acquittal of the more serious offense.

Which ones?

Well, Daddy still loves Mummy.

I wouldn't make it past voir dire with this one. In this hateful climate there's no way I'm exposing myself or my family to potential risk of violence from some revved-up vigilante who would be unhappy with a potential "not guilty" outcome.

Wow! They have "over 85" prisons!? I'll bet the turnover rate there is pretty brisk.

No such luck. Police said they would have faced felony charges had the traps activated. 'We hope that they learn a lesson from this. 'Our point isn’t to get someone arrested.....' Probably haven't heard the last from these two maroons.

Zimmerman may or may not be guilty of murder. He may or may not be guilty of racial profiling, civil rights violations, or some other charge that may be included in his indictment. It is entirely possible that the events of that night happened just the way he said they did. On the other hand, it is also possible that Z spotted a black guy in the neighborhood, chased him down and shot him like a dog. Doesn't matter either way. His guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant. Zimmerman has been selected by the media, community organizers, and the US Congress to make a payment against "institutional racism" whether racism in this incident was factor or not. There are too many powerful people who are too heavily and publicly invested in their portrayal of Zimmerman and his motives for there to be any other outcome. His "official" condemnation will hopefully appease the race-baiters for a few months before another payment becomes due. Just an observation - I think Z's attorney is making a mistake pursuing the "SYG defense" rather than plain old self defense.

Wow! I wonder if someone tried to dig a hole all the way to ...uh ...the USA!

We usually try to stay away from foamy squirrels around here. I heard the shots are pretty painful.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned pork bellies. "Sell, Mortimer, Sell!"

Did he run most of the way across the road, then stop, look at you, then turn and try to make it back to where he came from?

Point Freak Terminal Veracity Terminal Viscosity Drip Zone The Apes of Wrath Planet of the Grapes Beast of Eden

Dear God How many times did you get the 5 left followed by the 5 right Nothing wrong with that, for example, if the plane is flying in the right direction (say directly into the wind on jump run) but is slightly off the wind line. You just want him to move to the left a shade. (probably more useful for doing accuracy under rounds back in the day than it is needed today.)

Does it count if you change the name of one movie into another movie? Dam!

Laughterhouse Five Sleazy Rider 2001 - A Space Oddity Failsafe

Not sure if it's derogatory but I have heard non-jumper pilots refer to skydivers as "meat bombs". I prefer "asshole".

"You might think he loves you for your money, But I know what he really loves you for ..."

Was that another "blonde" joke?