Dakoth

1. As I said one that is not privately owned you can not do it can you? 2. I am sure Native Americans would dissagree with what you just typed. 3. A nativity scene falls under this arguement, does a nativity scene preach anything? 5 How bout the people of the town want it there or how about the majority of the people want it there. Hmm so the gentleman that was arrested for shooting the burgler that broke into his house 2 nights in a row knowing his family was home wasn't arrested for owning a fire arm in a city that had banned it? Those are horrible examples, if a person is strict catholic they would never give out any birth control because it is against catholic doctrine, just like no doctor is abliged to perform an abortion. There is really no need to adress the only reason I put it there is to underscore the fact that our lawmakers are governed by morals and that weather the reason they have them is religious or not does not make that wrong. It seems to many of us in America want things "our" way. We should follow Canada's example and things would end up making both sides happy. If you remember previous posts that is exactly what I suggested as good middle ground.

Name one that is not privately owned and I will agree, the problem is the extreme left doesn't want religious displays on any "public ground". Lets look at some of the laws of the land shall we? From the Bill of rights. I am sure most of you would agree that some of these fall under the moral guide along with murder, theft, assault, racism, and many many others. People don't have a problem with our lawmakers making decisions they think are morally right untill they think they made it because they are religious. Mayor Dailey doesn't asscribe to this policy, by the words of the Constitution we have the legal right to own fire arms, yet he staunchly defends Chicago's ban on fire arms because he believes differently. Secondly I will say it again you can not seperate a person from their beliefs because it is part of what makes them themselves. I will ask this again why did the government feel it would have been ok to tax the religions to begin with? Seperation of church and state after all. Why is it there is nothing to really protect a religion from being taxed into non existance if our government feels they need to do it? [quote}I don't think you understand what it means to be in service of the people. A cop can't legally decide not to read you your rights if it happens to violate his beliefs. Hell, I can't even legally refuse service to someone in my store based off my "beliefs" and I'm just a citizen. And again, it's not his land either. It has a assigned purpose, as a court house for the people of the USA. Thats it. Ah but he can pick and choose who he enforces the law on and to what extent, you have heard of racial profilling right his only compass being his morals what he believes to be right and wrong. Really what ever happened to freedom of religion, and freedom of speach, and expression? So under your logic if a church was remodeled into a court house this would violate the seperation of church and state? Thats funny because those buildings only hold importance because we give it to them, thus as soon as the priest, or cleric leaves it becomes nothing more than an abandoned building just like anything else. Now if you are talking about building court houses on to existing churches well thats just absurd you know that will never happen. Oh my you mean some one else understands this besides me holy poop. :D

SLI is solely Nvidia, only Nvidia cards can take advantage of it unless they shared this technology with ATI which is highly unlikely. Still don't understand what the fuss is about I have had my 9800 since they came out and have never experienced any of the problems a lot of people claim to have with ATI cards.

I have no idea what the Unimog weighs, but it's very compact and small. It's not much bigger than an ordinary SUV, only slightly wider (big wheels and all). http://www.unimogtrucks.com/ <{POST_SNAPBACK}> http://www.unimogtrucks.com/products/specifications.asp 26,000 lbs. to 33,000 lbs. Ford F350/Chevy 3500 what I was talking about when I said 1 ton. 12,000 lbs going from memory as I can not find it on site. That Unimog is a lot of truck even if it is compact.

You are talking current product cycle Taks and yes Nvidia did take the speed advantage back. Between that and the SLI tech I ahve been pondering going back with Nvidia. The above quote was yiour original statement am I correct? The following was your ebuttle. Quite frankly I did get you because you are giving him out of date information as if it were gosphel. There is very little difference between the main 2 GPU chip makers any more because ATI saw what made people buy Nvidia over them and adressed it. Also I don't see where he said he was going to buy a rage or rage pro or any older ATI cards. You are right a distinction needs to be made between buisness and personal but anyone who is buying for a business where I work usually gets just onboard video because it does the job and really doesn't cost any more. You are quite right in this statement which is why I felt the need to point out the flaws in your statements when dealing with the new ATI cards. Oh and by the way you are not the only one who works on computers professionally.

Uh when I said work truck I didn't necessarily mean begger than a 1 ton truck. That thing would be great if I took on a lot of jobs but damn it looks like it has air brakes. You have a website I could go to?

Really? Hmm Half-life 2 and about 5 other games in the PCGamer kinda says thats gonna change. Also I have yet to have any problems with my 9800 pro but I didn't buy a 3rd party card either. http://www.computerworldinc.com/Widescreen...s%209-17-04.doc http://www.computerworldinc.com/Centrino%209-16-04.doc I don't know seems right in line with the Centrino's and the P4s. Which ATI has also caught onto, you have heard of catalyst drivers right? Ever since the launch of the 9000 series all new ATI cards use the same catalyst driver just like Nvidia uses its detinator or what ever they call it now. I lost a lot of respect for Nvidia when they launched an 8x version of the TI4600 and charged way more than a Ti 4600 was worth. Also a cards name does matter as some manufaturers just build better cards just like some just build better motherboards, Asus comes to mind.

Really? Last product cycle was a definate truning point for GPU's ATI proved Nvidia was not the end all be all of video cards.

You can buy older gas or diesel G-Wagens (like many of the ones pictured there) with the same off-road capabilities for $6k-$15k. Like I said, it's only recently that the G-Class got a ton of luxury features stacked on top of its utilitarian chassis. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That might be some thing for me to look into it would be a great work vehicle.

Well, yes and no. The Hummer H2 is a pretty sad off-road vehicle. The H1s are great. But I'd never say the G-Wagens are "just like" the H2. In fact, a lot of people say that they outperform Hummer H1s off-road. The interior of the G500 has wood and leather, but it's designed for off-road use. The Gs haven't always been this expensive -- only recently and in the U.S. You kinda mistook what I meant J.E. I meant that at an inflated price like that it is in the same category price wise only. I really am not impressed with the H2s. Those are some impressive pics by the way, although I have seen vehicles that cost much less do the same.

My 2 cents. If you must go Intel the P4 is the way to go. Nvidia isn't the only name brand GPU Ati makes a good mobile GPU also it is really personal preferance. I would go with at least 512. If I had my choice a custom built one if I had to go with a line manufaturer the Dell gaming one would be the way I would go.

Most of those would fall into the Cadillac escalade 56,905, Lincoln navigator 50,585 range. Wish I knew what conversion rate to the Euro was. Most of the difference comes in the import taxes that the European car manufacturers are made to pay.

Base for a Touareg is 37,140, Ford Explorer XLS 27,490, Chevy TrailBlazer 5 passenger model 28,580 2wd, Dodge Durango XST 31,345, Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 26,775. While some may not think a difference of 10,000 to 6,000 isn't a lot I think most average Americans would say it is. If you have a base price for a BMW X3 please post it I had trouble finding one.

You got it that is one of the reasons ford is thinking about running a powerstroke in the Nascar truck series. As for the turbos well a turbo on anything can go what would you rather buy a new car or a new turbo? I Love VW because they still are putting out their lovely 4 cylinder deisel from what I hear it gets great fuel milage, the funny thing is it is taking US manufacturers a long time to the only one I have seen is ford they plan on bringing the Bronco back with a four cylinder nitrus injected deisel. The price alone makes that a luxury SUV no matter what the specs are just Like the Hummer. Grandpa while I agree with some of what you said at least about the trucks. http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/explorers...features/specs/ http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/ http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/excursion/features/specs/ http://www.chevrolet.com/tahoe/features/ http://www.chevrolet.com/trailblazer/features/ http://www.chevrolet.com/avalanche/features/ http://www.chevrolet.com/suburban/features/ http://www-5.dodge.com/vehsuite/VehicleCom...vehicle=DURANGO http://www-5.jeep.com/vehsuite/VehicleComp...=GRAND_CHEROKEE http://www-5.jeep.com/vehsuite/VehicleComp...vehicle=LIBERTY You will notice though that not one of the options for any of those SUVs is any kind of manual thans save the jeep Liberty. I just think thats od considering most are built on a truck chassis and can be set up the same way a Ford, Chevy, or Dodge pickup can. I can not speak for the European SUVs because I don't really look at them considering it is quite unlikely I could afford one. The last thing I will say is that yes those manufacturers would probably build one with a manual if asked to, but at what cost to me and why should it be extra in the first place they are trucks after all. Edit: Oh and yes I live in an area where dealers cater to not only contractors but farmers as well, and have yet to have anyone tell me there is a manual transmission option on an SUV.

Figured you would say that but that would be damn hard if you had a drink in your lap. :D Heh only because their 4 wheel drive capacity let them over take the mini van as the vehicle of choice for soccer moms. I would think that would all depend on type. As I said some thing with an actual frame like an Explorer, Tahoe, and lets not forget the big diesel boys like the suburban, abd the Excursion are ideally suited to tow trailers of all types. Those I would consider a truck though. As for the luxury ones like the Benz, BMW, and the VW (I personally would love to have a Touareg) I consider those more of a truck car cross and would be surprised if they ever seen any true off road duty. As far as the Hummer if you can not get it with a Diesel it would be a waste because the big chevy motors get terrible gas milage. I have seen the 454 in a 1 ton flat bed get less than 10 mpg. Was actually wondering if you ever owned the 2wd counterpart to any of those cars to see what the difference was. I know an Explorer with actual 2wd gets 3 to 5 miles to the gallon better than one that has AWD and then lets you choose between the 2 types of 4 wheel drive. Also I see a lot of HP guys how would you feel if I told you you could get a 400 to 500 horse turbo charged motor that would run at least 500,000 miles?

Automatic is more practical. Of course, a manual gets better from 0-60 mph but when you have a good car it is not so important. At the moment I think of the Jaguar S-type R. He has both, manual and automatic! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Opinion. Automatic just makes it easier to drive ask J.E. if he even reallly thinks about shifting while driving, I know I really don't, but I have known how to drive a stick since I was 13. I am not talking about making manual the standard again just curious as to why it is not offered in many vehicles any more. Especially things like explorers and tahoes when it is much better suited for towing, after all S.U.V.= Sport Utility Vehicle you would think at some point in time it would have a trailer behind it. As for the hybrid trany even Hyundai makes a car with it I am really not that impressed with it, but it is another toy for the car manufaturers to charge big money for to keep vehicles up around 20,000 and above. Also for you guys with those all wheel drive cars what kind of fuel economy do you get? I am just curiuos as awd and 4wd means less gas milage.

I know it was an exageration but if both hands are full with a soda in your lap how are you stearing your automatic transmission?

Ah if only all cars offered a manual transmision. There are many reasons a manual is better than an automatic, fuel economy, preformance, towing, and a manual is much less expensive, it also tends to be idiot proof. What I fail to see is why larger vehicles like SUVs, vans, and large cars like a caprice or crown vic are starting to not offer manuals, I mean if some one is going to tow something it would be with those types of vehicles.(and yes where I come from I have seen people with boats bigger than the vehicle they are towing them with. By the way JE nice car.

Gee thats quite interesting so it was a letter from one pen pal to another? See there you go argueing you don't have to do those things and that is not the issue I put forth. They were allowed in that is what I have said, I also never said they were enforced or justified by the government. I simply bring up the fact they are there. By our provisional government, it was after all a document that said we intend to rule ourselves was it not? You can not rule yourself with out some form of government official or other wise, it was also drafted and signed by many of the same people that had a hand in the constitution wasn't it? Why would they not be able to? The reason you only ever hear about christians is because they are normally the only ones under attack from the atheists. As far as your curiosuty, why do you care isn't it enought that those displays are protected by the constitution(excluding the government). If they believe him as a prophet then they believe his word was from God. Didn't Jesus ask us to bring people to the faith so they might be saved? I thought that was why he traveled and preached so much after all.

Please tell me you didn't actually type that. While it contains no Laws it was an official document of our government, you know kinda like the Congress is an officialwing of our government. You are 100% right the constitution seperates the power base of the 2. The compromise comes in the form of the ability to swear an oath over a bible in court, the president being able to be sworn in over a bible, creator being added to the Declaration of Independance (once again an official document of the US government, even if it establishes no laws). You see even those early diests relised that hard line tactics would not win the day so compromise in small forms ended up wining them the battle didn't it. That is why we still to this day see small imprints of religion in our government even if some of the other examples I gave happened later. As I have said in the past by all means let them add what they want. If they are the majority how can I as a minority expect to enforce my beliefs on the government, while we try to protect the minority it is still majority rules. All I want you to understand is it is a moot point since the chance would be that I would be Islamic then and not christian and would feel the same way any way. Now if I were an Islamic extrenest would we be having this conversation? I know you are not attacking me but you really don't seem to understand what I have said either. In the simplest way I can I will try to word it for you. Not every religious refrence was seen as a nation killer which is why they compromised on certain issues, if they chose hardline tactics the revolution might have turned out very different. We also would not by any reason see the President sworn in over a bible, we would only affirm our intent to tell the truth not swear an oath, and creator would have been left out of the Declaration. The reason I bring up what you said about the Declaration is because it is a document drafted by our government to tell the king of England we don't recogise his rule and are a self governing body. If they were hard line on absolutely no religion then it would not be in there. I don't care that priests can not rule the government, frankly I think we are better off with out that. If you dissagree look at the farce the catholic church has become in the Chicago land area. What I think goes a little to far is the irrational hatred some atheisits have for religion. Is having a nativity scene on some ones desk that is in government; lets say a secretary such; a world ending thing? Edit: I mean nothing by this but I feel this is something that needs to be read by you. Maybe if we have any Islamic friends on the board they could better explain it. I don't now for sure but isn't it also an Isalmic belief to bring more sheep into the fold? Islam Major world religion founded by Muhammad in Arabia in the early 7th century AD. The Arabic word islam means

No, that wasn't my question. My question was, if Christianity was not the dominant religion in America, would you still want religion to play a role in government? If Islam was the dominant religion in America, would you, as a Christian, want the president enacting government policies based on his understanding of Islam? I really, really doubt it, but what you and millions of people on the same side are saying is that it's all good because it's Christianity that's doing the dominating. I know there are a lot of people who see no harm in little hints of religion here and there - they see Christianity as a good religion, the best religion, and that we'd probably think so too if only we knew the light of Jesus' love - or something. For the most part I do agree - I attend Catholic mass more often than anyone who could be called an agnostic has a right to, just because I enjoy the pageantry, the pomp and circumstance and the sense of the holy, however artificial - but there are certainly parts of it that are very, very hateful, and I believe, as the founders did, that its place is separate from the civil government. And I said I have no problem with military chaplains because the military is such a special case it almost doesn't bear examination. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't see christianity as the best its leaders tend to be hypocrites. Even though the Jews were Gods chosen people and have a covenent with him their entrance into heaven is blocked because they don't believe in Jesus. Interesting. See all your arguements point to one thing and that is that the secular government relised the need for a compromise without each other they would have had a difficult time of things. I bring your quote up about the declaration of independants (An official document of the US government if I remember correctly) they compromised and added creator so the country could fight as a whole. You need us because we are the majority if there is a fight the army is bigger with us than with out us, you keep religions grounded calling foul when there is one present with out you we become zealots bent on killing all who don't believe. See the middle east for example. As for your question on Islam well if they were the dominant religion chances are I would be Islamic no? Edit: When I say us I mean religious people in general not just christians.

No we don't have to agree with all the argueing all I want you to relise is that for every one person like you there is a person that thinks the opposite. To answer your question if an Islamic cleric wants to be that same counselor, or a wicca, or a druid so be it, if I don't go to see them their views can not reach me. All the things I pointed out were only pointed out to show there really is no compromise on either side, both sides want it their way and thats the only thing that will make them happy. As you stated you have no problem with religion in the military so you really don't have a problem with all religion in government only the nut jobs that force it down your throat. That I can agree with you on, ever try and talk to a Jahova's witness?

He can not save what does not want to be saved, as I said going to him would be their choice, if you don't believe then don't go simple as that. Then you really don't believe in total seperation, just seperation where you deem it necessary, like I said before others feel differently.

Legal yes binding no, the only reason to get a marriage liscence is to enjoy the benifits government gives you. If you don't care about those then the church is indeed a good alternative. Thats quite funny because last I noticed I never said taught or manditory I said if there was a crisis councelor that was a priest that the children could . Schools offered all sorts of classes as electives that I never took. Now wich is it in the other threads you were for total seperation of church and state, if that is true it means the military too.

You studied religion you tell me when was the first union done by the church? The first done by the government? You see the government only stuck their nose in it because they saw a way to make money.