NCclimber

Well, at least there's a body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory. There's no evidence whatsoever supporting the existence of gods. I see. Since there is a more evidence for your belief, then that makes it true?

Where? It's even more amusing to watch the other side make claims without even posting a quote made by me..... kinda diminishes your claim to that of vacant. I replied to your post because it was the last one.

116 years? In the early years of this country's history, church services were held in the House of Representatives and many states had official state religions. It seems like Christianity used to be much more a part of our society.

It's almost painful to read stuff like this in the 21st Century. Good thing it is just "almost". If it really was painful to you, I might think you're one of those inflexible zealots I was referencing.

I get the impression that a lot of liberals don't have a problem with behavior that the mainstream considers sleazy, repulsive and (generally) unacceptable. The only real issue is whether or not someone who has committed one of these forms of smarmy behavior has spoken against that behavior. For example, being a sexual predator (think Clinton) is okay as long as you don't speak out against sexual assault.

Well at leat not till their 14 year old finds out she is pregnant.... and gets spirited off somewhere to have the problem taken care of. You might be right....who knows? But I still find it amusing when a people who tout themselves as so open-minded end up being some of the more narrow and rigid folks around. It's easy to be open to what's acceptable to you. linz Excellent point. So many who talk about embracing diversity and accepting other's differences seem to be incredibly intolerant. It's easy to take a non-judgemental stance with a Taliban-like government on the other side of the globe. It's a completely different matter, accepting differences in your own community. Regarding this story, I wonder if the people who enacted this ban did so in an upfront and honest manner. Did they behave in an ethical and responsible way? Or was this a deceptive, backdoor manuever? If was all on the up and up, then wait until the next election. If it was a cheap blindside, then do all you can to have them removed.

Yes. Very.

It is amusing to watch so many of the evolutionists act like their theory is absolute, indisputable fact.

Andy, I was being completely sarcastic.

I don't think I like your tone.

What is all this about? And this? WTF? What 7-2 decision are you talking about? There were 2 UM cases I know about. In one they voted against "points based on race" AA practices, by a vote of 6-3. In another, they allowed some level of AA, by a vote of 5-4. Lastly, do really think many legal scholars consider Souter and Stevens to be conservative? Appointed by Republicans? Yes. Conservative? Let's look at their records.

Where do you get this stuff? I read the paper, watch the news, play on the net. Again, you haven't stated which way the law reads. At first it sounded as if you were saying they uphelp AA, then it sounded the other way - you posted no citation. I think you have me confused with another poster. Please do. I'm aware of the 2003 AA cases, but your claims sound quite different than their outcome. Regarding the SCOTUS make up. Prior to the changes last year, it was generally thought the leanings of the Justices was four conservatives, four liberals and O'Connor in the middle. Souter and Stevens (both appointed by Republicans) are considered to lean left.

Where do you get this stuff?

Why rely on facts when unsupported assertions will do? In this last election 55% of Catholics voted Democrat as did over 40% of Evangelical/Born Agains. While I find what has been disclosed about Foley's behavior to be disgusting, I have not read anything that has shown him to be a child molester.

Are you saying we should force reproduction levels below replacement levels in the US?

I'm guessing reproduction in the US isn't what's bother you.

Jesus, wasn't Foley and a handful of Catholic Priests? Foley is a child molester? What's your definition of child molester? Mine is pretty simple - inappropriate touching of a child. Are catholic priests representatives of the GOP?

What does this have to do with my point? Nice strawman. You have anything sources to back this up. From Wikipedia: Does this really sound like "just a game"? How old were you when you watched that game? This is completely irrelevant. I get the impression you're not a fan of team spectator sports. Most fans are well aware of what's beyond a simple W or L, especially in significant events. If this was just a game why did Carter boycott our participation in the subsequent Summer games?

Maybe that's because intersections with blinking lights typically have low traffic counts. Lucky, Sorry to hear about your accident and the lack of response. Good luck on sorting it out. I doubt alternatives light traffic circles would work at busy interchanges. One factor that make circles even more unworkable is the number of crappy drivers out there. Anyone else get pissed when they're on an on-ramp that has its own lane (no merge needed) and the fool in front comes to a complete stop, while looking to get over.

Nicely put, Wendy.

All the Republican child molesters? I didn't know there was one? A lot of unemployed out there? According to the Labor Dept. numbers released last Friday, unemployment is at a five year low and wages are up. Hmm.

Speaking of Wikipedia: Can you imagine? Oh, the horror.

It really is annoying when people consistently display an intent of MISSING THE POINT!!! Using a brief portion of a 200 year history, an extremely unpleasant portion, to try and prove the opposite of my point is lame. Classic strawman? Intellectually dishonest? Who is to say? In WWII over 9 million Americans volunteered for military service. Was this extreme nationalism? Arguable, YES! Was is considered bad? On a much more benign level, when we beat the Russians in hockey, in the 1980 Winter Olympics, was the sentiment not "WE ARE BETTER THAN YOU! OUR COLLEGE GUYS BEAT YOUR BEST." I don't recall anyone saying "But they played a fine game. Afterall, it's just sports". So you don't think the USA is any better than Somalia, Sierra Leon or Sudan? How about Bangladesh? Are we all equal, just different?

I would consider that extreme nationalism. It can be a dangerous thing, but I think most people who live in relatively healthy countries, especially people with ancestral roots, they have a deep sense on national pride and feel their country is better than others. Prior to 9/11 and more so before the end of the Cold War, nationalism was very much a part of the American zeitgeist. I could be wrong, but since 9/11, when this country became so divided, the concept of nationalism has taken on a more negative meaning.

What is a good definition of "extreme nationalism"? At what point does good old national pride or patriotism become extremism? Could tradition levels of patriotism come to appear extreme due a growing non-patriotic sentiment among the population?