G27

Tennessee needs to keep Dooley for a long time, he's an excellent coach and just needs more time to pull things together. I say give him a 10+ year contract with a $20M buyout.

It's particularly funny as obesity isn't much of an issue in NYC, ime. Compared to the south, there are not fat people in NYC.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/01/12510938-chicago-gun-buyback-unknowingly-raises-money-for-nra-kids-gun-camp?lite

Yah, I understand them. Just continuing to LOL at the concept that because someone doesn't agree with the masses they're somehow to fault for how an election goes. As I continue to say - if the repubs would've nominated someone decent, this would be a non-issue. Asking people to vote for 'not-Obama' is about as weak as it gets.

LOL

I've never seen a president so ripe for being booted, but the repubs chose such a 'meh' candidate I'm pretty sure Obama will win again.

Of course, my point isn't whether our path is unsustainable (obviously it is not), just that most of us talking about it have no idea where the point of no return is. Governments are very different from individuals or even corporations. We need to make changes, but again, many neo-fiscal conservatives (you know, the ones who never mentioned how much they hated Bush's spending, but now consider it an issue of national security) have virtually no understanding of where the line in the sand is. I'll willfully admit that my few, very simple economics classes in college did not begin to prepare me to be able to understand the complexity of a system like ours. I thought for sure I had it figured out for a while only to realize how little I actually understand...

To read some folks, tomorrow the US will look like Somolia. The reality is most of us understand economics at an extremely macro level at best, and I'm not certain even the most educated of economists can see en economy as large and complex as the United States' other than very generally... That said, it's not nearly as bad as the repubs would have you believe, nor nearly as good as the dems would have you believe.

Gavin DeGraw's album 'Gavin DeGraw'. Guy's a brilliant songwriter.

Video worked fine on Safari 6.0, OSX 10.7.4.

Awesome - will all the sessions be available for viewing?

You are, quite simply, insane.

Sierra Nevada Pale Ale. Man I love this stuff.

Sorry, must've missed that. Good to know.

So you're against calling it marriage - that's fine, I understand that. Are you against their having a 'civil union' that offers equal benefits under the law?

Yah, marriage is so sacred that forty percent of marriages in the US end in divorce (as of 2011).

If I go to the courthouse and am 'married', is that a religious ceremony? The state is simply recognizing the union and thus allowing the benefits that go with that union. Call it whatever you want, but there's no religious component there - and we can argue all day about it but I believe most gay couples would be happy with a government-recognized civil union that allows the same benefits as traditional marriage. Nope, I'm a protestant Christian. I'm unaware of any particular view in my church, but frankly, I couldn't care less - this isn't a religious debate, imo, but a civil debate. My view is that while I believe homosexual behavior to be sinful, I'm supposed to love people as a Christian without judging them. That doesn't mean over time I can't speak into aspects of their lives, but that's a relational thing, not a black-and-white judgement call. I also believe that unless we want to go down a theocratic path (which is all well and good while people who believe the same things I do are the majority - not so good otherwise...) we have to remove religious-based arguments from our laws. I'm not calling marriage a 'right' - I'm saying that it's unfair to allow benefits to one segment of society while denying them to another based on religion. Not sure why this is so hard to comprehend. I don't want religion-based laws. I do take it seriously. I firmly believe history will view people who oppose giving the same legal benefits to gay unions as they do to those who opposed the civil rights movement of 50 years ago. Any time someone isn't allowed equal benefit under the law based on 'tradition' or 'religion' it's wrong.

OK, so you guys ARE in favor of the federal government recognizing the civil union, granting the same rights and benefits as a traditional marriage?

So, I think I've got it - but just so we're clear here - the majority of those who are against a federal recognition of a homosexual union feel that way because of the bible, is that right?

I should know better? LOL Everything regarding a breakdown of the human race is an approximation. Everything. Sometimes you guys crack me up, as if an estimation based on a good segment of the population doesn't actually extrapolate to the whole... Seriously, I'm laughing aloud here.

Uhh, people do studies for stuff like this. Try doing a little research instead of knee-jerking.

~10% of the population is left-handed - who would have thought that was a genetic disorder?

BIG +1. You said it better than I could have in 100 posts, thanks.

So, assuming a 'civil union' was to be legalized (granting all legal benefits of a traditional marriage), allowing all churches to disallow 'gay marriage' if they wish, would you be against this? I'll never argue that scripture doesn't allow for human imperfections, my questions boil down to this - where do YOU draw the line? Are you wanting a theocracy or a truly liberty-loving government? It sounds like most of those here opposing 'gay marriage' do so because their holy book tells them not to. I caution this line of thinking as that attitude can very well bite you in the butt when the majority believes something different than you do. Governmental religious tolerance (both ways) is the key to real freedom.

Well, as others have mentioned, many in the old testament had many wives as well as concubines, so I assume this should be law as well? Assuming you believe in following God's biblical will as government policy, I would ask you about Deuteronomy 22:22 - should this also be one of our laws?