Atomic Space Vixen

Where is kumquatq3 when you need him?!?!?

I'd have lesbian sex. Oh, wait... been there, done that. Never mind. Now if I woke up as a man, that would be a different story. I'd scratch myself, spit a little, then sit down and watch sports until it snows so I could go write my name in the snow.

Does anyone else find it a little discomforting that "What are you reading?" was derailed and shut down after 7 pages, but "What's your favorite gun?" is still going strong after 12?

I automatically love anyone who loves The Princess Bride. I sigh like a love-struck teenage girly man every time I read it. :"> I was totally duped by William Goldman the first time I read it. I believed everything he wrote. He should definitely write the sequel. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And it's the rare story where the movie based on the book is itself absolutely brilliant. As for a sequel... NOOOOOOOOOOOO! Sometimes pure perfection should be left alone. Some stories cry out for sequels, but not this one.

I remember a long long time ago they had a particular toy for the Happy Meal. They were toys of the Muppet Babies with Kermit on a skateboard, Fozzie on some rocking horse, Gonzo and probably Miss Piggy on something I can't recall. I remember thinking Kermit on the skateboard as the coolest thing ever. I would tremble in anticipation everytime my parents took me to Mcdonalds and got me a Happy Meal, only to have my dreams crushed as I discovered another Fozzie. I never did get that Kermit toy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I did. I may even have it around somewhere still, years later...

Almost finished The Princess Bride by William Goldman. After that, I have a few unread books waiting and I'll have to decide which one.

Remember those people camping outside the Jackson trial?

I didn't mention this either. There are only so many hours in a day.

Hahahahahahahahahaha hahahahaha! Heheheheheheheeeeeeee hoooooooooohohohoho haaaaaaaa! Haaaaaaarrrrrrr har hooooo ho ho hee hee haaaaaa <snort>!

Now that this seems to be slowing down, let's throw this out there... Clicky!

Here, just for you...

You said earlier that you haven't really read this thread. This would be a good time to go back and read some of the posts, because a lot of this hear-say nonsense about their so-called "attacks on religion" has been debunked. As for the 2nd Amendment, they state quite clearly that they interpret it differently than the NRA, and so just don't get involved. Why should they? The NRA is doing just fine and why be redundant?

I'm Canadian, but keep in mind there are many Americans who feel the same as I do... Religion has no place in government. A government that is truly looking out for all citizens as equals should be purely secular, as once religion enters into it, someone's going to get screwed. Whether it's women, gays, or people of other faiths, religion in a government is going to hurt someone. A secular government on the other hand really only has to take into consideration whether or not something will hurt or help the nation's citizens. Murder? That will hurt citizens, so it's illegal. That has nothing to do with any commandments. Contract laws? Will help the citizen, so they exist. Yes, you can find traces of religion all over America's history. It helped keep women down until the 1920's, helped keep blacks down throughout its short history, and help keep gays and lesbians down until the Supreme Court just recently stepped in. Sharia law in Islamic countries is religion-based, and is that a good thing? Any non-Muslim would probably say no. As for your remarks about a leader being religious, I'm glad you put a qualifier on the morals and that some people would think it would make them more moral. It clearly doesn't make them more moral, but yes, there are people who think it doesn. However, without a qualifier you said it "shows that the leader is faithful." What does that even mean? Faithful to what? I want a leader that is faithful to the people, not to some invisible spirit. I'm an atheist. I am faithful to my family, my friends, if I had a significant other, I'd be faithful to them, and I am faithful to my country. How does religion affect any of this? Heck, I'd be more suspicious of a religious leader because their greatest loyalty usually goes to their god/s.

Of course it violates the Constitution! What about atheists or agnostics? Talk about being screwed by religion. Jail, or go against your beliefs. Niiiice. Besides being a horrendous violation of church and state, it's just plain stupid. I'm an atheist, but give me the choice of "worship services" or jail and I'll be at temple every Saturday, or a liberal church every Sunday. I'll fake it, no problem (you don't hear much of atheist martyrs, because without gods to appease, we'll gladly fake faith to save our lives). And you can bet a lot of defendants will also fake it to get out of jail, no matter what their beliefs (not that drug possession should warrant jail time anyway, but that's for another thread).

Pfff. What does she know? But then, there is a lot of wisdom in her words...

1 - As it's been pointed out, not everyone believes in the Bible. I personally have no moral issues with non-marital sex as long as everyone involved is of age and fully consensual (e.g. anyone has anything, their partner/s better be aware so they can take proper precaution or choose not to participate). Suppressing sexuality has the unfortunate effect of twisting it more. 2 - There are a lot of things not in many constitutions. However, they do tend to lean towards equality and fairness for all citizens. At least in civilized countries. 3 - No we're not.

Well there you go, you just said it yourself. You said you dont want this forced on churchs yet you then turn around and say this? TRADITIONAL marriages are preformed IN CHURCHS!!! So you dont want or accept civil union, WHAT DO YOU WANT??????? The churchs dont want you, you dont want JoPs and such, where is the middle ground?????? (shakes head) this is why (RESPOINCIBLE ) government is required (which Canada doesnt currently have so this issue will come back regardless what Martin forces on people) to come to the solution. Anyways, Im done with topic,. This thread shows why this topic so hot everywhere. People just look past facts and create fiction to try and validate their own opinion. ASV is such a clear example of "forget logic, give me what I want" its scary to me. Terrifying really. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> First off, I'm the "other poster", and I'm not a man. That said, the 34 Liberal MPs are up in arms because they want to defeat the bill. Pat O'Brien, the most vocal and the one who left the party, has said he will take every opportunity to defeat the bill. They're upset that they're not getting more time to do this and are hoping to get enough people to speak against it to make Martin change his mind because tyranny of the majority is always the way to go. Try to do a little reading. Here, start with this... A link just for you. Religious groups are specifically protected from being forced to perform weddings. The bill states it, the courts insisted on it. Hate Martin all you want ("known criminal"? Give me a freakin' break, no laws have been shown to be broken by him yet), but in your own words, "read the freaking bill." You obviously haven't yet. And speaking of reading, hi! I'm from and in Alberta! And you know what? "Alberta Justice Minister Ron Stevens conceded this week that the province will be powerless to block same-sex marriage once the new federal law is in place." Here's another link. The definition of marriage is in the federal jurisdiction. Ottawa can use the notwithstanding clause on it, Alberta can't. They've threatened to do so to please the Tories' constituents, but it was all empty bluster. Hmmmm... Hold a referendum. Yes, because letting the majority decide the rights of a minority is always a good thing. Should slavery have been put up to a referendum? Should women's sufferage have been put up to a referendum? How about the decriminalization of homosexuality in the first place? Give me a break. Well there you go, you just said it yourself. You said you dont want this forced on churchs yet you then turn around and say this? We're talking legal marriage vs. civil unions. That has NOTHING to do with who performs the ceremonies. You're the one reading stuff into it that isn't there. Opposite-sex couple currently don't have the right to get married anywhere they want. Catholic churches are free to say no to marrying Baptists and vice versa. We're talking LEGAL marriages here! READ THE ACTUAL POSTS! Don't create strawman arguments! For example, where the hell did I say I don't want justices of the peace? No where in any post did I say or even insinuate it. I haven't seen that said or insinuated anywhere except from homophobes trying to stir up fear. As for churches, did you know there are many who will perform ceremonies? Many United Churches. Metropolitan Churches. The Anglicans may or may not, they're arguing that amonst themselves and not being forced to by anyone outside. Myself, I'm an atheist. If I ever get married, it sure won't be in a church no matter if I'm marrying a man or a woman. But really, please, stop making up stuff people aren't saying. (See what a difference quotes and sources make? It's probably a good thing for you that you're finished with this thread. (w00t) )

There are many people who consider that film a classic.

"Different but equal" is not equal. Gays and lesbians have pushed for marriage because marriages are what they want, not civil unions. Who sends out civil union invitations? Nobody. It's "come to our wedding, be part of our marriage!" And yes, it must be performed by a church representative or justice of the peace/marriage commissioner (that's what we have in Alberta). However, it's been very clear from the beginning that nobody is looking to force churches to perform them. There has been controversy over justices of the peace/marriage commissioners being forced to perform ceremonies against their will, but last I heard, that's being reconsidered. I wouldn't be surprised if there are some extremists who would like to force churches to perform the ceremonies, but then, there are some extremists who would like to execute homosexuals. It's hardly being asked for by "homosexual communities in Canada" and Paul Martin is certainly not endorsing such a thing. Transcript of Martin speech. To say that gays and lesbians are looking to force churches to perform same-sex weddings is either buying into or adding to the fearmongering being spread by those who would deny tax-paying citizens equal rights. And nice way to focus on tax breaks, which infertile and elderly couples enjoy, by the way, so bringing up that those are to encourage childbirth is pointless unless you wish to exept any couple unable to bear children. There are a whole bunch of other benefits, like inheritance and next-of-kin rights for seriously ill spouses, or heck, even being able to visit someone in the hospital.

Yes, it's true, but the sleights on our end are usually more real than perceived. If I was American, President Bush the First's comment about how he didn't think atheists could be "citizens or patriots" would have sent shivers down my spine, and he was the more moderate of him and his son. Then there are the states that forbid atheists and agnostics from holding public office. Linky! Fundamentalist Christians however have been told by the Bible to be persecuted and spurned for their beliefs, and so even though their religion is the majority in the United States, they not only look for it but revel in it to a degree. No teacher-led prayer in public schools? Persecution! Not allowing the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courts? Persecution! Concerned about conservative Christian judges who would roll back gains in gay rights and women's choice? Persecution, not legitimate disagreement over laws! It's funny though, how not allowing conservative Christians to force their lifestyle on us or our children is persecution. That's the strangest definition of the word I've ever heard.

I'm sorry, but I'm not seeing any irony here, just a load of crap. If neo-Nazis got into power somehow, you can bet the ACLU would be right there if they tried to force everyone into wearing swastika armbands and joining the party. The ACLU defends the free speech of Christians, and if someone tried to legislate against a Christian march, they'd be up in arms about that too. What's happened though is that Christians have taken attempts to post the 10 Commandments in public buildings, state-sponsored school prayer (as opposed to non-disruptive private prayer or prayer gatherings), state-sponsored religious displays, etc. as attacks on Christianity as a whole, and this is crap. And yes, I know you used the words "religion" and "religious" and not once "Christianity" or "Christian" in your post, but frankly of all the religions that tend to whine about the ACLU, it's the more conservative Christians. When other faiths whine, they tend to be doing so about other conservative issues. As conservative Christians work harder to force their religious viewpoints on everyone else, of course you're going to see the ACLU go up against them. But hey, instead of listening to me or to right-wing rhetoric, why not let them speak for themselves? ACLU main religion page One of their cases Another Here they clearly defend the rights of Christians. Here they defend the right of a church to exist I could go on, there is sooo much more, but hey... "The ACLU goes on the rampage against religion but is more than willing to defend a neo-Nazi parade? To me, that seems like the ACLU is more and more willing to attack religion to the exclussion [sic] of other factors..." and all of this must just be a smokescreen to cover their anti-religious activities, right?

What leads to the suspicion that it was fake? The paintball gun, for starters. I can see how someone confused and scared might not realize the gun isn't real, but it's still too dangerous to be firing it at people without eye protection. Anyone who watches a zombie movie knows you shoot at the head. All those body shots, and they appeared to be all body shots, and it didn't occur to him to shoot at the heads? Shooting at the heads would raise the chance of someone losing an eye. The flashes of light and a video game to hypnotize people. Oh come on. There are a lot of skeptics who don't believe in hypnotism, I'm not one of them. I've seen enough to convince me. This however was way too cheesily sci-fi. If that method worked, there would be many cases of unintended catatonic states with video game players... Well, more so than usual. The "friends" who let some guy just put their friend on a gurney, wheel him away to who-knows-where, then watch fairly dispassionately as he appears to be getting driven mad. I wouldn't let a friend of mine have this done without his or her permission, and I would certainly be demanding they stop the experiment as the friend is screaming and shooting at things. The legal risk is the biggie. This was supposed to be a random person they hypnotized then placed in this situation without their permission. If that doesn't scream "potential lawsuit" or even "potential criminal charges", I don't know what does. I know I'd be contacting a lawyer.

Let's see now, people who reject what science shows because it contradicts the Bible. Help me out now, where else do we see this again?