... and in not ONE of these scenarios is Zimmerman NOT guilty of manslaughter.

It is very likely that Zimmerman would be guilty of voluntary manslaughter in some other state, but in this particular case Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law provides a very clear defense against the charge of manslaughter. I'm not trying to make any comment on whether the law is good or bad. I merely state the fact that the law was in effect at the time of the incident.

"A person ... who is attacked ... has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself... A person who uses force as permitted ... is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil actionfor the use of such force..."

That's the law. The general consensus appears to be that Martin and Zimmerman got involved in an altercation. In that altercation, Martin was pounding on Zimmerman, broke his nose, and did some damage to the back of his head. It is going to be VERY hard (legally) to prove that that Zimmerman had no reasonable cause to think he might have experienced "great bodily harm" while Martin was in the process of inflicting "bodily harm". The way I see it, this whole investigation is very much going to come down to a bunch of lawyers arguing over the word "great".

Bill Maher? As usual, he's a total fool and total tool. The only point he ever has is the one on his head, which perfectly fits his dunce cap.

Just passing on a suggestion for the future.
I just redefined my comment from a recent post and though it might be worth mentioning here.From this conversation: http://terrible.videosift.com/talk/Videosift-5-0-Request-Allow-block-of-user-Avatars

My Comment:

I think it would be kind of neat to see not only member's avatars, but the avatars they've had in the past. While some people change their avatar every time the wind blows, other people only change it once in a blue moon.

In both examples, it would be interesting to have a way to see an archive of a member's past Avatars. Take mine for example, I use a Mandalorian (Boba Fett's) helmet. I have had three or four variations of the helmet since joining. It would be neat to see that progression, and possibly a chance to revert back to any of my vintage avatars.

That being said, sometimes conversations pop up over some people's avatars, then the person changes it for some reason or another, and poof the conversation left behind doesn't make sense. Imagine the comment "Wow, that's the best avatar ever!" And then imagine, they switch the avatar, a month down the road to a CareBear. You read the comment, and think, "Hey that avatar sucks, what are they talking about, you can click on their legacy avatars and see that they did, at some point have some really cool avatars.

Only foreseeable con: Size of growing image archive.
Cheers!

Just to redefine what I was trying to say here...

I think it would be kind of neat to see not only member's avatars, but the avatars they've had in the past. While some people change their avatar every time the wind blows, other people only change it once in a blue moon.

In both examples, it would be interesting to have a way to see an archive of a member's past Avatars. Take mine for example, I use a Mandalorian (Boba Fett's) helmet. I have had three or four variations of the helmet since joining. It would be neat to see that progression, and possibly a chance to revert back to any of my vintage avatars.

That being said, sometimes conversations pop up over some people's avatars, then the person changes it for some reason or another, and poof the conversation left behind doesn't make sense. Imagine the comment "Wow, that's the best avatar ever!" And then imagine, they switch the avatar, a month down the road to a CareBear. You read the comment, and think, "Hey that avatar sucks, what are they talking about, you can click on their legacy avatars and see that they did, at some point have some really cool avatars.>> ^Sagemind:

What I would like to see is the progression of avatars that people have had in the past.
It would be extremely helpful in discussions like these as well as being fun to see past avatars.

From below shots are used to show dominance in many movies. Some of the shots here toilet, trunk, etc...are just ways to see the characters.

IIRC, discarded videos can later be promoted (or at, least they used to be) and killed videos are permanently removed - the only way to see them is an advanced search including killed videos.

So you'd want to kill dead videos that you never expect to be able to revive. A working, non-duplicate, unsifted vid is probably worth discarding on the off chance that someone might see it in some random search and like it enough to promote it out of oblivion.

>> ^jonny:

The implication being that anyone with a fully functioning brain could have done at least as good a job.
>> ^jonny:
Barack Obama has failed as President. discuss.


The way I see it (and I'm not American so I'm not sure I even have a right to an opinion ) but the only thing you needed to worry about at the time was that Sarah Palin did not step foot in the White House. If anything Obama and his administration are/were damage limitation.

That doesn't answer the question, I know... What's your take on the question you asked?

@GenjiKilpatrick I guess I should put this more bluntly, since you're just responding to me with slogans and talking points anyways. I don't want Ron Paul within a million miles of the Presidency. He is not even a slight match for me. He is a radical neo-Confederate psychopath.

The libertarian theory of governance is bunk. If all the government does is uphold absolute property rights, and enforce contract rights, then we don't all get more power, it means the wealthy people who own everything get more power, and the police just become their security guards.

The way I see it, nothing in this country will ever improve as long as this entire line of argument persists. The conversation we should be having is "what are the best government policies to move us forward" not this BS argument about whether government policies should exist at all.

Ron Paul exemplifies the worst aspects of the American right -- he whitewashes the past, and tries to bring old, failed, tyrannical, cruel policies from a century or more ago back to life, all the while trying to drape it in powdered wigs, the American flag, and cheese-covered freedom fries. But it's just snake oil. Hell, it's not just snake oil, it's fucking Soylent Green.

Have you ever looked at Ron Paul's personal copy of the Constitution? It's a cookbook! A cookbook!

You quote The Blind Watchmaker and The Origin of Species but I highly doubt that you’ve read them yourself. If you haven’t then you’re not better than someone who is contesting the bible without having read it. You quote a LOT of scientists that you say are hostile to your position but again, have you actually read the works that you’re quoting from in their entirety? I doubt it.

Well, I have read them and I think it's fairly obvious that I understand the subject matter.

Here are just two things that I read recently that I think are worth repeating:

...degree of thermodynamic disorder is measured by an entity called "entropy." There is a mathematical correlation between entropy increase and an increase in disorder. The overall entropy of an isolated system can never decrease. However, the entropy of some parts of the system can spontaneously decrease at the expense of an even greater increase of other parts of the system. When heat flows spontaneously from a hot part of a system to a colder part of the system, the entropy of the hot area spontaneously decreases! The ICR (Institute for Creation Research)...

....illustrate a fact, but they are not the fact itself. One thing is certain: metaphors are completely useless when it comes to the thermodynamics of calculating the efficiency of a heat engine, or the entropy change of free expansion of a gas, or the power required to operate a compressor. This can only be done with mathematics, not metaphors. Creationists have created a "voodoo" thermodynamics....

I never made the argument that entropy can never decrease in a system. I made the argument that even if you want to use the energy of the sun to explain why life is becoming more complex, you haven't explained the information that makes that possible. More energy does not equal more order. I also don't know why you keep bringing up articles from the institution of creation research and expect me to defend them. I am more than willing to admit that there are some terrible theories by creationists out there, just as there are terrible theories by secular scientists.

For myself, I am only a materialist because there isn’t any demonstrable, non-anecdotal, reproducible evidence for the existence of anything non-material. I hope you can understand that. There is the appearance of design and there is DNA, and we don’t know how everything got started but that’s not good enough for me to believe that it was designed, I need something more concrete because that is the criteria for which I will justify something as believable. I’d be very interested in some sort of evidence like that but it hasn’t happened yet and conjecture just doesn’t work for me so I’ll reserve judgment but maintain doubt and that’s all there is to it.

I can understand your position as a materialist, having formally been one. I did not see any evidence for God or spirit either, and it really rocked my world to discover that there was more, and that material reality is only a veil to a larger reality. It is mind blowing to discover that everything that you know is in some way, wrong.

I think there is some very good evidence pointing towards a Creator, but that isn't going to get you there necessarily. It seems to me though, after talking with you a bit, that if there is a God, you would want to know about it. Maybe you're not terribly interested in pursuing the subject at the moment but you now strike me as someone who is open to the truth. If He does exist, would you want to hear from Him? If He let you know, would you follow Him?

On the scope of evidence, I think the two of the most powerful arguments are the information in DNA and the fine-tuning of physical laws. There is no naturalistic process which can produce a code, and that is what DNA is. It is a digital code which stores information and is vastly superior to anything we have ever designed. It is a genetic language which has its own alphabet, grammar, syntax, and meaning. It has redudancy and error correction, and it is an encoding and decoding mechanism to transmit information about an organism. Biologists actually use linguistic analysis to decode its functions. You also have to realize that the message is not the medium. In that, like all information, you can copy the information in DNA to storage device like a hard drive, and then recode it later with no loss in information. This is a pretty good article on the information in DNA:

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/read-prove-god-exists/language-dna-intelligent-design/

The fine tuning evidence is also very powerfully because it is virtually impossible for the laws to have come about by chance. It's important to understand what fine tuning actually means. I'll quote Dr Craig:

"That the universe is fine-tuned for the existence of intelligent life is a pretty solidly established fact and ought not to be a subject of controversy. By “fine-tuning” one does not mean “designed” but simply that the fundamental constants and quantities of nature fall into an exquisitely narrow range of values which render our universe life-permitting. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by even a hair’s breadth, the delicate balance would be upset and life could not exist."

So it's not a question whether the Universe itself is finely tuned for life, it is a question of how it got that way. In actuality, the odds of it happening are far worse than winning the powerball lottery over 100 times in a row. Random chance simply cannot account for it because there are dozens of values that must be precisely calibrated, and the odds for some of these values happening by chance is greater than the number of particles in the Universe! For instance, the space-energy density must be fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120th power, an inconceivably huge number. That's just one value out of dozens. Many scientists understand this.

Here are some quotes from some agnostic scientists, which a couple of Christians thrown in:

Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

George Ellis (British astrophysicist): "Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word 'miraculous' without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word."

Paul Davies (British astrophysicist): "There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all....It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe....The impression of design is overwhelming".

Paul Davies: "The laws [of physics] ... seem to be the product of exceedingly ingenious design... The universe must have a purpose".

Alan Sandage (winner of the Crawford prize in astronomy): "I find it quite improbable that such order came out of chaos. There has to be some organizing principle. God to me is a mystery but is the explanation for the miracle of existence, why there is something instead of nothing."

John O'Keefe (astronomer at NASA): "We are, by astronomical standards, a pampered, cosseted, cherished group of creatures.. .. If the Universe had not been made with the most exacting precision we could never have come into existence. It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

George Greenstein (astronomer): "As we survey all the evidence, the thought insistently arises that some supernatural agency - or, rather, Agency - must be involved. Is it possible that suddenly, without intending to, we have stumbled upon scientific proof of the existence of a Supreme Being? Was it God who stepped in and so providentially crafted the cosmos for our benefit?"

Arthur Eddington (astrophysicist): "The idea of a universal mind or Logos would be, I think, a fairly plausible inference from the present state of scientific theory."

Arno Penzias (Nobel prize in physics): "Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say 'supernatural') plan."
Roger Penrose (mathematician and author): "I would say the universe has a purpose. It's not there just somehow by chance."

Tony Rothman (physicist): "When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it's very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it."

Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): "The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine."

Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): "For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Frank Tipler (Professor of Mathematical Physics): "When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true, that these claims are straightforward deductions of the laws of physics as we now understand them. I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics." Note: Tipler since has actually converted to Christianity, hence his latest book, The Physics Of Christianity.

Just because the universe and life might have the appearance of design doesn’t mean it was designed. After all, we might all be brains in vats being experimented on by hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional beings and all of this is simply like the matrix. Maybe Déjà vu is evidence that it’s true but there simply isn’t any reason to believe it just like there isn’t any reason to believe in any gods.

But if that were true then the Universe is designed, and this is simply some kind of computer program. In any case, although we could imagine many scenerios I am talking about something very specific; That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and that He rose from the dead. Moreover, that you can know Him personally, today.

All of the concepts of god and gods have been moved back every time we discover naturalistic explanations where once those gods were accredited. What makes you think that it’s any different with these things? Just because we don’t know what’s behind the veil doesn’t mean that the idea of someone pulling the levers is a better explanation than a currently unknown natural, non-agency explanation. If we don’t know, then we don’t know and putting a god in the place of “we don’t know” isn't a good way of helping us learn more about our universe

The primary question is whether the Universe has an intelligent causation. You believe that Universes, especially precisely calibrated and well-ordered ones just happen by themselves. I happen to think that this is implausible to say the least. You're acting like it's not a valid question, and because we can describe some of the mechanisms we see that we can rule out an intelligent cause, which is simply untrue. You could describe every single mechanism there is in the Universe, but until you explain how it got here, you haven't explained anything. The real question is not how they work but why they work and that question can only be answered by answering why they exist in the first place.

It is also just a fallacy to say that because some peoples beliefs about God have been proven false, that means all beliefs about God are false. Scientists used to believe that there were only seven planets and that the Earth was flat. Does that mean that all ideas scientists have are false? No, and neither does it mean that all beliefs about God are false because people have had ridiculous beliefs about God.

The God I believe in is not ridiculous, and the belief in His existence has led to ideas that formed western civilization and propelled modern science itself. The idea that we can suss out Universal laws by investigating secondary causes is a Christian one, that came from the belief that God created an orderly Universe based on laws.

It is also not a brake to doing science to believe that God created the Universe. Some of the greatest scientists who have ever lived believed in God. People like Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Max Planck, Mendel and Einstein. It certainly didn't stop them from doing great science.

Also, as I have explained, it is not a God of the gaps argument when God is a better explanation for the evidence.

We know that the universe, space-time, matter had a finite beginning but we can’t say anything at all about that beginning with any certainty. We can’t even say that whatever was that caused the universe is spaceless, or timeless. We just don’t know. This is the god of the gaps argument that started this whole thing. You’re putting a god in as the explanation for what is effectively a gap in our knowledge without anything solid to go off of. It would not be a god of the gaps argument if we eventually could know with a high degree of certainty that there is a god there fiddling with the controls but we don’t. That is the crux of this whole debate. That is why “I don’t know” is a better answer than “A god did it” because it’s absolutely verifiably true where as a god is not.

The ultimate cause of the Universe must be timeless because it must be beginningless, according to logic. I'll explain. You cannot get something from nothing, I think we both agree on that. So if the Universe has a cause, it must be an eternal cause, since you cannot have an infinite regress of causes for the Universe. The buck has to stop somewhere. This points to an eternal first cause, which means that cause is timeless. If it is timeless it is also changeless because change is a property of time. If it is changeless it is also spaceless, because anything which exists in space must be temporal, since it is always finitely changing relation to the things around it. It's timelessness and spacelessness makes it immaterial, and this also makes it transcendent. I think it is obvious that whatever created the Universe must be unimaginably powerful. So we have something which already closely describes the God of the bible, and we can deduct these things by using logic alone.

We just don’t know if the universe is entirely regressable into some sort of endless loop which folds in on itself, or something else, or even if there is a god or not. Furthermore, I hope you look into what physicist mean by “out of nothing” because it doesn’t mean what I think you think it means. It took me a while to understand what it meant and to be honest, it is a bit of a deceptive word play but it’s only that way because there isn’t another way to describe it. I don't actually believe that the universe came from "nothing". I don't know how it all started, so therefore, I have no belief. I don't need an answer to the big questions. I can say "I don't know" just fine and leave it at that.

“A proponent of the Big Bang Theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing.” Anthony Kenny

British physicist P.C.W. Davies writes, “The coming-into-being of the universe as discussed in modern science…is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing.”

Physicist Victor Stenger says “the universe exploded out of nothingness the observable universe could have evolved from an infinitesimal region. its then tempting to go one step further and speculate that the entire universe evolved from literally nothing.

In the realm of the universe, nothing really means nothing. Not only matter and energy would disappear, but also space and time. However, physicists theorize that from this state of nothingness, the universe began in a gigantic explosion about 16.5 billion years ago.

HBJ General Science 1983 Page 362

the universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere. How is that possible? Ask Alan Guth. His theory of inflation helps explain everything.

discover April 2002

I think we can both agree that it is better to know than not to know. That's been one of your primary arguments against the existence of God, that we simply cannot rest of the laurels of God being the Creator because that will lead to ignorance. I have already demonstrated that there is no actual conflict with belief in God and doing good science, so your argument is invalid, but I think it's ironic that on the other side of it, you are arguing that ignorance is a good thing and leads to better science. That you're even intellectually satisified with not knowing. I hope you can see the contradiction here.

The reason why I personally don’t find the whole god argument all that interesting, and the reason why I don’t actually care about it, is because it makes a heck of a lot of claims regarding the nature of god and it’s properties which just can’t be verified. There is nothing that we can concretely discover about god and no predictions that we can make which could eventually be verified meaningfully. How can we possibly know if creator is timeless, or spaceless, unimaginably powerful, transcendent, unembodied, etc? Is it rational to believe that; do you have an equal ratio of evidence to belief? What predictions can we actually make about this god(s). All we have are books and stories written and passed down throughout history. Everything else is just unjustified belief to me.

As I explained above, we can make several predictions about God based on the evidence. Belief in God is rational and can be justified. However, I understand that until you have a personal experience, it is probably going to be unconvincing to you, since this is way you see the world. You demand evidence, and lucky for you, God provides evidence. If you asked Him to come into your life, He would demonstrate it to you. He provided evidence to me, and I know you He will provide to you, especially if you take a leap of faith ask Him for it.

>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

@bareboards2 Just because it has survived evolution does not mean that it serves an evolutionary purpose. Things can be vestigial, even ideas. This maxim may or may not apply to the religion debate.

The way I see it is religion is perfectly rational insofar as it provides answers to questions we cant seem to answer but it is not reasonable as the premises and conclusions defy the same logic that enables us to have cohesive ideas. It is just a matter of how much reason one has or is willing to surrender for comfort. The new atheists appear to have no tolerance for surrendering reason.

I'm pretty wigged out by spiders, but I like snakes. So for me, I tried to mentally convert this video into a snake expert "handling" a cobra or something. The way I see it, sure, you can have an expertise level and skill level that would allow you to handle either sort of animal relatively safely. But even in that case, there aren't a whole lot of particularly practical reasons to put that into practice.

My hometown in Kansas has lots of bullsnakes. In my experience, large older bullsnakes are often pretty docile but the young juvenile ones are usually very defensive and will rear up, strike, and mimic rattlesnake sounds and actions. However, they are non-venomous and don't have "fangs", although they do have short teeth that can provide small, shallow puncture wounds if they get a good nip on you.

I like catching bullsnakes when I see them and handling them a bit before releasing them back into the wild. The docile ones are particularly fun, but even the juveniles that show some aggression can be fun to handle with some caution. I have never been bit myself, but I have seen people that have been. No lasting harm comes from that, and in most instances it wouldn't even draw blood -- the surprise of it is probably worse than the damage.

In spite of that, I have no interest whatsoever in handling something like a rattlesnake or other venomous snake. Looking at them, sure. But I don't see much practicality in handling them. In all likelihood, I could safely handle rattlers in the same way that I handle bullsnakes and avoid being bit. But the cost of failure would be higher (lots of pain and small possibility of death).

So at least for me personally, I don't think I'd be interested in handling black widows even if I was a spider person instead of a snake person. I'm not against the author of this video handling them, but I would stop short of the "you should try this at home" tag!

Some more info:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/12/watch-when-mitt-romney-came-to-town/

“When Mitt Romney Came to Town,” a film about Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s time as CEO of Bain Capital, is without a doubt the most serious attack on the former Massachusetts governor’s campaign.

Produced by a former top Romney strategist, the film focuses on people turned out of their jobs at four of the many companies Bain Capital essentially looted, tapping into the popular discontentment with Wall Street to label Romney a “corporate raider.”

The companies — laundry equipment maker UniMac, electronics maker DDI, toy store chain KayBee Toys and office supplier AmPad — were all purchased by Bain and liquidated, “killing jobs for big financial rewards,” the film explains.

“They could care less about us, the way I see it,” one of the film’s subjects explains. “Who am I? Mitt Romney and them guys, they don’t care about who I am.”

The pro-Gingrich PAC Winning Our Future placed a top-dollar bid on the 27-minute film after pro-Romney PACs essentially destroyed Gingrich’s chances in Iowa with a flood of negative advertising that blanketed the airwaves.

“It’s puzzling to see Speaker Gingrich and his supporters continue their attacks on free enterprise,” the Romney campaign said of the Gingrich PAC’s new film. “This is the type of criticism we’ve come to expect from President Obama and his left-wing allies at Moveon.org. Unlike President Obama and Speaker Gingrich, Mitt Romney spent his career in business and knows what it will take to turn around our nation’s bad economy.”

The film comes at just the right time for Gingrich, too: a poll published Wednesday (PDF) found the former House Speaker trailing the former governor in the crucial South Carolina primary by just two percent.

But whether it will be enough to help President Barack Obama in the general election remains to be seen.

This video was published to YouTube on Jan. 11, 2012.

We're debating why we were attacked by a handful of radical folks

Pht - I can answer that in one word. Isreal. Next?

...whether or not our military engagement, specifically since WWII, has been productive in any measurable way...

Productive to who and in what way?

You see - to a leftist - your question is unanswerable. Like Ron Paul, leftists view any military intervention by the United States as unproductive. By their very natures it is literally impossible to supply a leftist with any response that they will find satisfactory. Leftists come from a particular philosophy and perspective that disallows the word 'productive' to be used in the same sentence as 'American military engagement'. Heck to this day there are leftists who even question whether the US should have gotten involved in WW1 or WW2 or not.

Other people with other perspectives are not quite so closed-minded about whether or not a military action was 'productive' or not because they allow other definitions of 'productive' to be satisfied. But to a Proglibdyte, ANY US military action is viewed as unproductive. Someone could wax eloquent on the subject, but to a dyed-in-the-wool leftist who views the US military as the chief evil of the modern world, it is an anathema.

"they hate our freedom"

As I said before - the primary reason they are hostile is Isreal. However, from a cultural perspective the Islamic world DOES hate our freedom. The Muslim world wants Sharia Law as the method of governance for the entire world - and stuff like the US Constitution is viewed (at best) as a secular affront to Islam that is viewed with latent hostility or (at worst) a "Christian" modern Crusade to be viewed as a military enemy.

I just wish they let the gays marry already, because honestly it really doesn't effect anything beyond some people being offended. And I could really give a damn. As long as they don't take gay marriage as some sort of sign to be out all public display of affectioning every chance they get, don't care at all. And that's not even a bash against two guys/girls PDAing, I just don't like seeing massive PDA stuff going on in public locations. You really don't need to be making out, grab assing and trying to head to second or third base while everyone watches. It's not even the grab ass, it's just they are in the way or moving too slowly because they are too busy trying to stick their tongues down each others throats. Same opinion on cell phone addicts, put it away or move out of the way so you stop holding everyone up.

Plus, if they allow gay marriage, Im hoping we can finally stop hearing about it. If they want to marry a lamp, let em marry a damn lamp. Besides I see "marriage" as a religious institution backed by government, they could just as easily have partnerships or bonded pairs or ball and chain mean the same thing as marriage in the view of the law. And while it wouldn't technically be marriage in the religious sense, they'd still have all the rights for insurance coverage etc. Because if these religions supported gay marriage we wouldn't have all these "Christians" running on a platform of stopping gay marriage, so bypass religion, get your rights under another name refer to it as marriage because in the eyes of the law it would be the same.

Marriage to me means you need a piece of paper and a ring to say you care, but I do recognize that having legal bonds might be beneficial for ownership, insurance, and medical emergency choices. They should focus on their legal bonds, stop referring to it as marriage to appease these ignorant assholes and then after it's in place call it whatever the hell they want. And then promptly stop talking about it, it's important to them I realize but man.....both sides are beating that drum like it's a very important topic that has long lasting ramifications. It doesn't unless you want it to.

Besides the way I see it, more gays married. Less Maury "You ARE the father" shows. And I think that's a win for everyone.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

This is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Meaning, that government gets its power from the people. Further, this power comes down from the Most High God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Has the government strayed far from the intentions of the founders? The answer is a resounding yes. It is most certainly becoming a police state. This is the broader trend in the world, that will eventually coalesce into a totalitarian one world government.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

I agree that our government is corrupt and acts contrary to our interests. However, I am not an anarchist. If a government is infringing upon our inherent rights or direct commands given to us by God, then yes I think we have the right under God to disobey them. Protesting rich people doesn't appear to fall under that category.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.

No, I say that if you receive an order from authority you can expect to be forced into compliance if you disobey that authority. My comment is about the way this incident was portrayed, as if the protesters were just arbitrarily sprayed without any warning.

As far as the occupy movement offering a redress of grievances, I hardly see how a bunch of marxists, and socialists waving communists flags, defecating in the streets, and shooting up in their tents addresses any relevant issue this country is facing. It started out with a point, and was quickly taken over by hippies, anarchists, and every other far left wingnut with a pet cause and a bucket for handouts.

Comparing this sad menagerie to the civil rights movement? Come on..

because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

This is just a shadow of what is to come. The future rule of the antichrist is going to make Nazi Germany look like candyland.



>> ^enoch:

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peacef.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.

the only way and i mean the ONLY way a peaceful protest by way of civil disobedience will EVER get any traction is by clogging the machine ie:blocking business,traffic and everyday functioning of not only government but everyday business.
this is not my opinion but historical fact.
see:
martin luther king.
vietnam protests of UC.
civil rights protests.
the triangle shirtwaist factory and the consequent protests for labor and the fight for unionized labor.
and these are just a few examples off the top of my head.the list is massive and does not only pertain to america but in america we have the RIGHT to assemble and the RIGHT of redress.
these protestors want to be arrested.
they want the state (in the form of police) to overstep,brutalize and abuse their authority in order to get the message out by way of conflict made violent by the people sworn to protect and serve.
every time the police (be they individual or enmasse) perpetrate violence on peaceful protestors that protest swells in numbers in a matter of days.
this was evident in the 1920's and it is evident today.

the problems of understanding arise when people give their power over to the powerful.they acquiesce to the very powers seeking to disempower them.
so we get things like "free speech zones" which are far away from the very thing being protested and most certainly no where near any business or government functions.

this is not a lib/repub issue but an american issue.for decades the government has slowly chipped away at our civil liberties and given more power to itself.this is what governments do,this is what ANY powerful institution does=keep itself relevant and IN power and the ONLY thing power fears is?
the people.
again,not my opinion but historically accurate.

this is about challenging authority.
you say that when a policemen gives a "lawful" order to disperse that should be the end of it.
i say:i question your "lawful order" as it hinders my right to assemble and give my government a redress of my grievances.
that policemen is ordering me to give up my right of redress and that is a right i will not give up.the authority of that policemen has been bestowed "by the people".the very government in which hands down orders to that policemen has been elected "by the people",and they were elected to create laws and govern "for the people" and when that machine no longer "serves the people" it must be resisted in the only way that has been known to work:
shut down the machine,
because "the people" are not multinational corporations with deep pockets who can influence legislators by way of lobbyists.we cant purchase the kind of time that a corporation can to make our case to a senator or congressmen.we cannot influence public opinion by way of tv commercials or entire networks.
but we CAN sit and stop traffic,or slow the flow of business and THAT is when they take notice.
and the response is always the same:
ignore.
and if that doesnt work?
ridicule.
if that fails?
co-opt in any way possible (see:tea party)
cant co-opt?
oppress,bully and intimidate by authoritarian means.
(guess which stage we are in now?)
and if that fails?
success.