kumquatq3

If you guys beat San Diego at home, you just might. As yor next 3 games are N.O., Carolina, and Arizona. Carolina is the only one that should give you trouble.

Which, for all of you watching at home, was not originally part of the pledge. It was added several years later. The only saving grace of it is that "God" isn't a specific (tho it was meant to be) endorsement of any religion. Which is, I suppose, better than nothing.

I'd like to hear more before I jump to conclusions on this one

O man, got alot of reading to do in this thread, but quick points: But you say that like you should have the right too They give you private land, and lots of it, tax free....but thats not good enough? Let me put it this way: Would you be happy if all religions got equel exposure? I'm guess not. excellent point, which is something I did not think of In those cases, maybe there should be public monuments allowed. I'm sure you can see how that would be different than: "I want a monument, because..." It is placed there is celebration of a religious holiday that not everyone believes in. You could argue the purpose of it, but needless to say, it's not the same thing as say a X-mas tree. imo. Your walking a dangerous path when you allow the wants of the many to overrule the rights of the few. I think the issue was the type of firearm, not that he had one, iirc I see where my example failed The key difference is a pharmascist can't be fired for religious beliefs, or even practicing them to a degree. He is doing a job in the private sector. A civil servant, on the other hand, must serve all the people. Hence why they must stick close to their job description and the laws of the land. No, it doesn't nessasarily make them wrong. Thats why we don't have to argue that murder is wrong, etc. Because morality exist out side of religion. But when it comes to something like abortion, and you are against it because your religion tells you to be against it, then you need to not transfer that over to work if your a civil servant. Not that it is "wrong" to believe that, but others should not have to face penalties because of your religious beliefs. Do you see the difference? But this isn't really the arguement, the arguement is about putting a monument to your religion out on public land ( a court house).

things don't look that great for them, but they are by no means out of it

Well, in that specific case, the guy was screaming to bring god back into the courtrooms nightly on the news, iirc. But in general, it doesn't matter. A judge shouldn't be expressing anything but the law, to the extent possible, while he is working I'm sorry that happened to you, but to prevent things like that happening here (or even starting to aproach that) you must protect civil liberties So because you can't remove the judge, tho the judge in this case was removed, you should let him do whatever he wants? True enough in most cases, but I'd rather be safe than sorry, tho this is getting away from the main topic a little. 1. Church land is tax free so that it can be used a a place for these kinda of things. Religious land holding in America are substantial. It's not like they are hurting for space. 2. There are no real religous sites here like there are in the middle east. The need to have a monument to something or declare a religious monument are not the same. 3. They don't want religious displays on public ground because were does it end? And when does a "display" become preeching. How do you make sure that the displays of one religion are fair for the others, in comparison. You enter dangerous territory. 4. Lets not start with the extreme left or radical right stuff 5. It all depends. If there is a good reason that it needs to be on public property, I'm listening. Say if there is some kind of religious fair that wants to use the park for a couple of days, go for it. Or a church group wants to use the school gym after school, knock yourselves out. As you said, by the wording. How said law is used in practice, the precedent for such things in American law, are two different things. and he bans concealed firerms, or carrying them in public, you can still own them. Nope, people do it all the time. I'm sure lots of pharmacists that are highly religious give out birth control or doctors. I reallllly am late for leaving for work, but I promise I will respond to the rest of your post when i get back (7 hours) and the bills part I skipped, but that will take awhile. I'm not running

AFC Leaders: New England 11-1 Pittsburgh 11-1 (one win from clinching) Indianapolis 9-3 ( 1 from clinching) San Diego 9-3 WC contenders: best NY Jets 9-3 (Could catch NE) Baltimore 7-5 Denver 7-5 (Could catch SD) The Rest: Buffalo 6-6 Jacksonville 6-6 Cincinnati 6-6 Houston 5-7 NFC Leaders: Philadelphia 11-1 (clinched) Green Bay 7-5 (tied record wise with Vikings, Gb owns tie breaker) Atlanta 9-3 (One win from clinching) St. Louis 6-6 (tied record wise with Seattle, ST.L owns tie breaker) Best: Minnesota 7-5 Seattle 6-6 The Rest: NY Giants 5-7 Dallas 5-7 Detroit 5-7 Chicago 5-7 Carolina 5-7 Tampa Bay 5-7 My predictions: AFC: All current leaders win their divisions The Jets make it and the Bills win their last four to squeeeeeeek in with a surprise win over Pitts. NFC: All current leaders maintain their division lead. Minnesota and Seattle collapse. I see each team lossing 2 or 3, the team that loses next week (they play each other) will be the one with 3 loses. Minnesota should win at home next week, but 9-7 is no lock, as they could lose some time breakers. Now this is the hard part, as I can see so many teams take this WC spots.... Let me do it like this, here is what I think "the numbers" tell me: No shot: Detroit (Run game and Pass game come out once every 3 weekes, schedule medium strength) Some shot: NY Giants (hurt, pulled Kurt, Manning prolly can't do it this year, tough schedule) Better shot: Carolina (never underestimate heart) & Cowboys (Their run game is hot, passing game is enough to beat you, the coach has them believing again, but they got a game against Philly (count it as a lose)) Almost there: Chicago (If passing game holds, may hav the best chance to sweep. Most players back from injury) & Tampa Bay ( Much like the Bears in that the defense is clicking and they may have just found a quarter back to lead them) Best shot: Vikings (Won't be good down the strech, but the 2 game cushion should help) What makes it so hard is that soooo many of these teams face each other in the final weeks or have several games that would help decide tie breakers. I say the Vikings win just enough to make it (but they beat seatle next week) and......I have to.......da Bears win their next four. The 2 WC teams will be 9-7

He didn't believe in a christian god or a god of islam, so to them, he might be. Depending on how you want to play with the wording. He didn't believe in a revealed religion or anything like that.

Off subject a bit, you know Einstein isn't religious like you are, right? He was a deist, of sorts. He felt that something helped to created it all, but not a God thats active in everyday life or the existence of an after life. He had in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal "prime mover." It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. I'll find a link to his letters that say as much if anyone likes, but just an FYI on a subject most people (including me till this was brought to my attention) misunderstand.

Another thing that has bothered me is that we havn't seen the "monster" since Locke ran into it.....hmmmmm...... Also, remember what Locke said in the first episode, there are two sides one dark and one light. Since then we have seen those two pieces appear in Lockes eyes in a dream, which only seems to indicate that his original comment is true. BTW, anyone notice that the kids dog hasn't been around? I think the fat guy ate him, hence why he hasn't lost weight.

To the devs: I'm going to try realllllly hard to be nice about this as I would like to continue this discussion First, "people" can believe whatever they want. When you are a servant of the people, things change, while you are on the job. Second, while the law is subject to interpretation and is not absolute, there is such a thing as precedent. The room for legit interpertation isn't often large for deciding guilty or not guilty. Third, nothing is absolute, but the Constitution is about as close as "laws" come to that. Now, as I said in my orginal post, there is a little wiggle room, BUT guilty or not guilty should be decided by applying the current interpertation of law to the best of ones ability. A little wiggle room is left because not all cases are equal, but the law should not be bent to fit the individual belief system of the judges. I sure as hell do, as long as he is a servant of the people and is being paid to do a job, I expect him to do that job as he was instructed to do it. When he walks out of the courtroom he can believe whatever he wants and display whatever he wants on his property. When it comes to a CIVIL SERVANT, a judge on the bench, I expect him to apply the law fairly, broadly, and with as little regard to his personal beliefs as possible. Not to meantion the courthouse does not belong to the judge and he doesn't begin to have the legal right to decide what gets displayed there. Thats a trick question. The seperation of church and state means the absense of religion, not attacking or discrediting religion, as atheism might. Hence why churches don't pay taxes. Under a Atheist morality, that might not exist. Let me turn it around, are you advocating having judges use the bible as their tool for interperating modern law? You can ignore that little thing about seperation of church and state for this answer. But I doubt any of that makes you happy, so I will reluctantly play along with the question and answer the best I can, keeping in mind I'm in one sided territory: I said a judge should apply the laws how the laws are intended to be applied and fairly. If you think the morality of atheism is being fair and just, I'm happy you think so highly of atheism, it's good to except others, but in no way did I advocate that. BUT, religion does not have sole possesion of morality. In the absence of religion, morality remains. Right and wrong does exist without religion. For those cases that religion might dictate something different than than the law dictates, the law is pretty clear for the most part and doesn't leave much wiggle room, if any at all. 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. 1. I'd looooooooooove to see you stick to that position if a judge puts out a sign that said "god is dead" or if they displayed quotes from the Quran. Or how about "one nation, under Buddah". There would be buses filled with protestors and moving down the highway within an hour. 2. You incorrectly misinterperated what I said again. I said: It's not like if someone wanted to see the ten commandments they would have much trouble finding a copy, so then ask yourself, why put them out on display? That sentance asks the reason for displaying the 10 commandments, if not for educational purposes or the like. How you got that it hurts me to look at them, I don't know. It does bother me when peoples constitutional rights are trampled on tho, yes. Let me explain my logic to you then, he said: You might as well burn down the local church its just as likely to "influence" people as this monument. His clear point was a church, like the monument, does not (in his opinion) "influence" people very much. My point was, if true, you could hold court in a muslim house of prayer then, via his logic. Because, if they hold no real influence, if thier presence doesn't matter, then it wouldn't be a problem. Via the above logic, it is a prety neutral site. Unless, of course, you believe there would be a "influence" that comes from a Muslim house of prayer that would not be contained in a church. Is the ACLU advocating the erosion of church and state? Is the ACLU in support of sections of the Patriot act that are in violation of civil liberties? Is the ACLU supporting the idea that anyone called a terrorist by the goverments loose definition of the word can be held indefinatly and without a trial or even legal counsel? Dunno, sure seems like the ACLU is the peoples best friend right now. Remember, the ACLU isn't around to insure that the majority get what they want or get an extention of their liberties because they want it, they are around to help insure that no group or individual gets their liberties trampled on.

There are plenty of places to display the towns religious heritage A courthouse should not be one of them I have a problem when a judge starts to rule by his own morality rather than the Laws of the United States of America. I know there is some wiggle room there, but when a judge feels the need to put the 10 commandments out on display despite peoples objections......that tells me there is a bias. It's not like if someone wanted to see the ten commandments they would have much trouble finding a copy, so then ask yourself, why put them out on display? O, using your train of thought, you would be ok with having your judge and trial reside in a Muslim House of prayer, as thats not going to influence anything right? but what can you expect when are constitutional rights are being crushed left and right. The damn ACLU can't even keep up.

Link to story

Ok, if I had a gun to my head, I'd guess that this is all alien related now. The island isn't a island, it terms that it is a solid land mass "They" seem to be something other than human The diesese the frech lady talked about may be a sort of War of the Worlds in reverse, IE the virus coudl wipe out humans

last new lost for awhile, buck up peeps

were did you get this info, as I have been searching and sec. 205 is not what you claim it to be http://www.house.gov/judiciary/hr2975terro...0act%20205'

Well, I agree with the guy that spoilers can't be avoided, so I'm offically outtie till Feb Adios people, it was fun. BTW, thanks to all the devs who post and generally chatted us up.

It may be, but this guy claim IMDB had said info up, when it doesn't. It's still just speculation <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry my SPECULATION comes form the Kotor2 manual and i looked up the name on IMDB which is why i know John Cygan is both Mandalore & Candorus. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Also Master Vrook (Ed Asner) is in the game as well <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1. This should be moved to the spoiler forum 2. Did it list mandalore as cygan or did it just credit cygan in general.

It may be, but this guy claim IMDB had said info up, when it doesn't. It's still just speculation

Technically speaking, writting code/development for a console is much simpler then a PC. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> they are using an engine designed for the PC.

Well, 10 out of 12 NPCs anyways. We are missing the wookie and onre more. Disciple is clearly a PNPC tho

I didn't read anything to bad, tho it list more PNPCs and confirms a world we all suspected

get your own link, bye now EDIT: LINK

A new engine altogether, imo. Something designed for an RPG.