Why are you trying to justify this? There is no way a Christian can support the death penalty without completely disregarding Jesus’ teachings.
Jesus also said he came to fulfill the law, and the law clearly states that a murderer is to be killed.
Fry the bastard.
Well, if being the coolest guy on this tread makes me gay, then so be it… but I can assure you I’m not ;) :D.
And thanks for the defense, Major. I’m pretty sure Reel was just joking, but I appreciate it anyway :)
1: I’m about the most un-gay guy I know.
2: I’ve asked girls out several times, and sometimes the same girl more than once, so that’s not the problem.
3: That’s a possibility, but not because I smell or dress funny, particularly. If they do, I have no idea why.
4: Closest. I’m not a kid, but my mother is ridiculously restrictive. I think she’d have a heart attack if I even mentioned a girlfriend to her.
Well, outside of playing wargames whenever I can (not very often, in other words), I play the piano (not geeky, but not exactly jock-like), and (this is the worst part) play an online-RPG. Constantly. It’s pathetic. Oh, and I don’t have a girlfriend, and, oddly enough, never have. As for why, you’d have to ask them :cry: :roll:.
to me a conservative is some one who cars only for the “now” and has no thoughts for the future. if we pulled out of Iraq now it might be ok for the first bit of time, but it wold come back and bite us in the @$$ soon enough, and bite hard.
Well, I agree with the second part, but you are aware that it’s very predominately Leftists who’re saying we need to pull out now, right? :P
As for the first, I suppose some Conservatives think only of the now and never the future, but then, seeing as many Leftists do the same, I think that’s more a human trait than a political one… ;)
10 bucks? You’ll have to refresh my memory, I get into so many of these things that I can’t keep 'em all straight :D.
The Chronicles of Riddick
I-Spy
Dragonheart
The Naked Gun
Wrongfully Accused
Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (as well as the first three, while you’re at it)
Those are just off the top of my head…
No, not another World War, though I expect we’ll see a large number of revolutions and civil wars in the coming couple decades.
“no settlements”…in other words, they didnt stay to conquer the natives…
This is hardly worth replying to. What exactly is your point? Many of the early Americans established peaceful relationships with the Indians, and in fact relied upon them for survival much of the time in the early years. The Indians, by the way, were not all peaceful and lovey-dovey; wars were as common over there as they were in Europe, and anyone with a modicum of knowledge could tell you so. The Indians accomplished nothing; they were in almost every respect a stone-age culture. To insinuate that it would have been better had they remained in control (such as it was) of the continent is pure ignorance.
Not sure what Falk and CC are getting at… I’ve already said that no one reasonably doubts the Viking’s early arrival to the Americas. But they did not establish long-term settlements, made no advancements on the land, and had next-to-zero bearing on the civilization of the New World (theories that they may have inspired Columbus notwithstanding; either way, Columbus was the one who sailed over here). Columbus was flawed in many ways, like any human (except me, of course ;) ); but he was a truly great navigator, and the man who began the colonization of America.
Even if the Chinese did discover America before Columbus (which is quite possible; everyone knows the Vikings did too, and there’s some debate over whether Antarctica had been discovered long before the 1800s, too), they made no settlements, and absolutely no follow up. It was Columbus’s accidental discovery that lead to the European settlements, and the creation of the modern world. To dismiss him as unimportant and a “maniac” is tripe.
Well, ignoring the nonsense about Columbus being a “genocidal maniac” (jerk, maybe, but genocidal?), and disregarding the idea we should remove Columbus day as a national holiday (he was, after all, the first to discover the New World), I recommend either Case 2 or Case 4. Shouldn’t be hard to argue for the legalization, with reasonable restrictions, of online poker, and game theory is always a good discussion piece.
Jermo; can you deny she’s right? Seems to me it’s purely the ahem “party of peace” that’s committing all the violence… this doesn’t indict every Democrat and Leftist in the country, obviously, but it does put the whole thing in perspective a bit (ten bucks says the usual suspects here will para-quote me, leaving out that last half of that sentence).
Marine: well, that’s a not a very good picture of her, she actually is fairly attractive. But then, she’s also in her 30s, and a little old for us anyway ;).
I started playing around the time I was 13 or so, when I found an ancient copy of A&A 2nd Edition. Played off-and-on ever since, and have a decent collection by now, encompassing A&A 2nd, A&AR, A&AE, A&AP, A&AD, Risk 2210, Diplomacy (my favoritist game in the whole wide world :D), and a few others. Oh, and I’m 17 now.
Happy Thanksgiving everyone, try not to get gravy on the gameboard :D.
P.S. Hee hee, we’re supposed to get a foot of snow today, GG :D ;).
Btw, since WWII the member of the President’s party (usually VP) has not been reelected without at least a 56% approval rating for that President.
I’m pretty sure Cheney has made it clear he isn’t running anyway…
I’m with Orange on this one. You should be able to build in America, despite what the rules say, as it’s more accurate to real life (disregarding the fact that Germany could never take the US, that is… :P).
Oh, no doubt, 36% is low. But then, Bush has also had some incredibly high approval ratings, which is why I’m thinking this won’t last long. He’ll pull out again, though almost certainly never as high as he used to be.
The thing to remember is that almost all presidents have a slump in their second term. Reagan, Carter, Bush I, and Clinton all had a while of very bad ratings, and all managed to recover to some extent or other. I see no particular reason it’ll be different this time around either.
Unpopular, yes, but I don’t foresee lame-duck status. He’s too forceful for that to happen, though he may have trouble getting really unpopular reforms, etc., through.
Those were the rulings I was referring to when I said I still had reservations. If he lacks a clear stance on abortion, it leads me to think he’ll lack a clear stance on other important issues, which is something I’d rather avoid. And, if his stance is that the Constitution somehow includes an article assuring that abortions are to be free and federally protected… I’m sure you can all guess my reaction to that ;).