meangreendork

That has a lot to do with ethnicity-based homophobia and religious affiliation. Or in short, it's easier to be a homosexual white man than it is to be a homosexual hispanic man. You get less flak from your peers, family, and community that way.

I loved the noise level at the Snake Pit. It was awesome. Two major downsides to the Snake Pit: 1.) The entrance/exits to the 2 seating areas really don't allow for people to be standing right behind the railing since there's so much traffic. 2.) I love when people stand, but in the Snake Pit, the sight lines are really bad so that if you're in a bad spot, like in the middle of a crowd of people standing, you lose sight of half the court. I'd almost say make it sitting only since it's so bloody hard to see anything when everyone stands. There's just not enough height between rows.

This is insane. Let's see what happens!

Took a look at UNTLifer's link. I would say the abusiveness would qualify as a reason to make a divorce that would allow for a remarriage back in the Christian church. Abusiveness is just as bad as infidelity, I would think.

Yeah, disease or not, that really doesn't change the situation here. Discrimination is still discrimination and religion has to step aside for it in a diverse society like ours.

Those two companies desperately need the help, but I agree, they have to put their part in as well. That means improving their vehicles so they can be competitive again and also not letting it all be paid off by taxpayers.

I didn't know they had anything tied up in the crisis. Well, at least you have a new reason to not up and buy a 46" plasma TV.

You won't. It's really a matter of preventing discrimination AND because it's solely a private matter and shouldn't be on the forms someone fills out to get a job. Hell, the military runs on a don't-ask-don't-tell system, and it's just fine. But should it come to light in the workplace, someone's sexuality doesn't change their ability to do their job. That's basically saying you won't sit there and discriminate someone for their sexuality. Doesn't mean you have to go to their parties. Besides, this isn't a craze. Homosexuality has been around probably as long as humanity has been around. Religions are free to choose to preach what they see fit. The problem is when that teaching keeps people from "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Teaching that homosexuals are worthwhile people just like everyone else is fine - keep violence and hate down, promote co-existence. This doesn't mean you have to like someone that's homosexual, but they deserve to be treated like everyone else. Last I checked, most religions also teach tolerance one's fellow man, regardless of their lifestyle. There is a duty to show them the right way to live, but there's almost always a matter of choice involved. Besides, I don't see how the gay couple next door to me keeps my girlfriend's family from going to church. Not so much in that it's not a huge morality problem. It's odd as hell, yes, since most people are programmed for pair bonding. Personally, it's really unfair to the women involved in it, but if that's the choice they want to make, that's fine by me.

Agreed, but that's not where I was going here. The real fix is really at an individual level, like most problems in this country. Other factors like media exposure, parenting, etc., have their own effects, but nothing works the same as someone's own character. People from the same poor family often have different outcomes, or kids in suburbia exposed to roughly the same media can have different reception to it, but it's an individual decision. Too bad that too many think it's a great idea to become dependent on a system only designed to be a temporary safety net.

It's a religious thing. Here's the short run of it. So one could also argue: And so this is also true: But then, this all also implies that: This does not explain why non-sacred > sacred. But you could argue that: But again, this all hinges on: And in terms of importance:

She did, and they should have found another way to express their opinions to her. It's wrong, plain and simple.

I think Proposition 8 is a horrible idea. If for no other reason than that there are far more important issues to tackle than this. But wow, talk about uncalled for.

Semantics. Point is, generalized statement in a hugely blanketed manner. Mind you, there are those who are just plain leeches, but you are making a huge generalization here.

What? Did you just tell us that the mortgage crisis is a problem caused by over-regulation? Seriously? That's astounding, it really is. Wow, last I checked it was a combination of too much de-regulation on mortgage writing, greed at the higher levels, and predatory lending practices and people who didn't know how to live within their means (this includes all socio-economic demographics. That's a hugely generalized statement. And it's also patently offensive. Now you're going tell me that a child growing up in the slums of shantytown Mexico is there of his own doing, right? Another generalization. Poverty on a massive scale tends to be something caused, at the root, by something not really within the control of those dealing with it. What they can do is attempt to fix their problem (which they are responsible for entirely), but if the problem is at a level outside their control, say at the governmental level, what can really be done? It's like solving the corruption problem in Mexico - both the individual and those in power have to work together to clean that mess up.

That is greatness.

Jesus tap-dancing christ, seriously? Over a game? It's like that one guy with a CCW who whipped it out at a kids' football game. People need to get some damn sense before they go reach for a damn gun.

Hahaha, so true. I think morals were bad long before that.

Wrong, and on two levels: 1.) There wasn't really a plan to begin with. I remember sitting at my girlfriend's place that spring finding out the invasion would begin as I was thinking, "They barely have all the logistics in place to attack. Do they even know what to do after they inevitably roll over Iraq?" Bush didn't give the military enough time to prepare 100% to attack Iraq. Rumsfeld's, "You go to war with the army you have not the one you want" line was moot because Iraq's standing army was a shell and because the US forces probably only needed a few more months to be at 100%. Plus, the invasion moved so quickly that there wasn't time to cook up a postwar plan on the spot. From the Washington Post: "There was no Phase IV plan" for occupying Iraq after the combat phase, writes Maj. Isaiah Wilson III, who served as an official historian of the campaign and later as a war planner in Iraq. While a variety of government offices had considered the possible situations that would follow a U.S. victory, Wilson writes, no one produced an actual document laying out a strategy to consolidate the victory after major combat operations ended. "While there may have been 'plans' at the national level, and even within various agencies within the war zone, none of these 'plans' operationalized the problem beyond regime collapse" -- that is, laid out how U.S. forces would be moved and structured, Wilson writes in an essay that has been delivered at several academic conferences but not published. "There was no adequate operational plan for stability operations and support operations." Hell, even the initial battleplan for the invasion was hastily assembled and implemented. 2.) The "lack of a plan" is what has the situation screwed up in the first place. That's why the situation is what it is now. Had there been a better postwar plan, the more humanitarian aid-based efforts would be better coordinated with the offensive efforts so that one doesn't undermine the other. Furthermore, when the US forces rolled in, they basically stripped out the entire Iraqi government, and they didn't even leave a shell, no standing military, no police, nothing. You can't really blame the leaders for not being immediately ready to take power if there's no administration to do it by. That stripping out of the government left HUGE power vacuums that the radical forces were more than eager to fill and use to divide up the people. So rather than just have to worry about gathering their own personal authority, they also have to worry about some nutball sticking an IED under a sack of grain to stir up some violence and start subjugating the locals. If that doesn't slow the process down, I don't know what will. So SHOCK/SURPRISE, they're not ready.

Dead center, slightly down by a notch. No shock there.

We should be past this now. Long, long, long, long past this.

If you're not religious. Though, its real impact on the economy, military, national security, global trade, and the environment is like, nil.

Agreed.

Good God yes, I did. I'm glad the system got better, but it's still a flawed system.

I don't like Bush either, but the response for Katrina wasn't really something he had control over. It's really the state of Louisiana at fault and the city of New Orleans and the neighboring cities to blame.

That's just the reason why a tournament system needs to be in place. I mean, the rule in competition isn't so much "who is the better team statistically" but "who is the better team when they face each other". The current BCS system is a lot of statistics and opinions. And those are flawed. What's never, ever flawed is the score at the end of the 4th. Unless this is the NBA.