Rex Kickass

No, they don't have the funding for that. They use wood chippers instead.

It's a lot like Homestar Runner really, just a little creepier and not a flash cartoon.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Jan 14, 2005 -> 01:35 PM) Which should tell you something. Why didn't the ACLU sue to keep this stuff out of the classroom? Because the way the ACLU works is that people go to the ACLU for help in lawsuits. They don't seek out these suits. In this case, the offended parents went to the Thomas More Law Center, who did the right thing and sued to have this removed from the curriculum.

Sorry, I'm late but I was taming this Honeymoon Stallion for you.

QUOTE(mreye @ Jan 14, 2005 -> 11:06 AM) But then they turn around and do this: Judge rules Islamic education OK in California classrooms Except if you read the story, you'll find the ACLU was not at all involved in this case. So your point is what?

Wasn't Comiskey a pitchers park when it first opened in 91?

QUOTE(That funky motion @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 10:12 PM) I might leave then! That might be the straw that breaks my back. Organists are becoming a rarity these days - despite the throwback parks. Odd.

He's got a kick ass fro tho.

Personally, I think he should retire before his skills start seriously lagging. This would be a good time for him to bow out with a lot of respect, rather than going the Johnny U. route. Next thing you know, he'll be starting for the Chargers and barely able to stand up on blown out knees.

He didn't specify.

I think there's one called Sky Wave or something, its removable from the car and has a boom box cradle that you can get and place in your home or work.

I'll start you out with two. OK? In July of 2004, an federal appeals court ruled that a public display of the ten commandments in a courtroom was religious in nature and in violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment. Those damn activist judges taking religion out of their own courtrooms.... Then in February of 2004, the ACLU successfully sued to have a ten commandments monument removed from a public park in Plattsmouth, Nebraska. Here's a quote from the ACLU's Nebraskan Executive Director, Tim Butz "All we have sought from the very beginning of this matter was to have the monument transferred to private land and remove the appearance of government endorsement of its religious content.” Yes, stamping out Christianity by moving displays of it from public to private property. That's really ruining religion for the rest of us.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 11:28 PM) Oh, like a firefighter placing a nativity scene in front of the firehouse? Or some kids singing Christmas carols in class? God forbid some jewish guy or muslim drives by and sees it or its lawsuit time. Rediculous. That provision was intended to keep the government from establishing a national religion such as was done in Europe in those times and it's now being used by the ACLU to stamp out any celebration of Christmas. You'll never hear about them suing to stop Jews or Muslims from displaying their religous icons in public places though. You conviently forget that the same part of the Constitution provides for the free expression of one's religion, a fact which you convieniently choose to overlook. More hypocrasy. So, do you have a specific example? Or just more right wing "welfare mother" urban myth hyperbole?

Just seemed like every time I saw Favre throwing, he looked under too much pressure. Maybe he needs to give himself more time. There's nothing wrong with his mechanics - I've thought his decision making has been suffering for quite some time though.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 09:50 PM) I would gladly post every instance of them suing to stop the expression of the Christian faith but the post would be about 100 GB's. Nice hyperbole, how about backing that up now with some facts. It was like the "Christmas under attack" thing. So many of those stories turned out to be totally wrong. There was a story here in NJ about a school in South Jersey not being allowed to sing Silent Night because a kid was muslim and her parents threatened to protest. But the real story was this, a parent of a muslim kindergartner asked that the kindergarten class not sing Silent Night or that the child would be excused from singing it at the Christmas show. The kid didn't have to sing it. The song was performed. But that's the part that the fine cads at Fox *cough* News never wanted to tell you. Instead it was "silent night" banned at NJ schools! Macy's decided to put Happy Holidays on their ads this year instead of Merry Christmas. Suddenly the story was "Christmas" banned from Macy's! No, they just wanted to include Hannukah in their ads. Store associates were told to say whatever they wanted. Be it Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah, or Terrific Tet. So many of these stories about the ACLU and about Christianity under attack are so full of crap and devoid of any basis in fact. It's the same thing as the "welfare mother" story. One instance happens somewhere, and its automatically under attack everywhere. It's a hysterical, terrible way to look at things.

Could you show me some proof of where the ACLU is trying to ban Christianity? Cause I'm willing to believe I'm gonna find more cases of the ACLU supporting religious freedom than I am of the ACLU trying to suppress it.

Tex, Like that quote. Never thought Ayn Rand would say something like that though. Oh wait, maybe she would....

Not true, I've pulled many a nosehair without a single tear.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 09:29 PM) Korea was not a mistake. The decision to fight Vietnam was not a mistake, the way we fought it was the real mistake and it was a tragic one. Afghanistan, even most of the left agrees that was necessary. Vietnam, Korea and Iraq 2 were all fought on percieved threats to our national security. Korea was fought because of the DPRK attacking the ROK. Vietnam was fought because of North Vietnam attacking South Vietnam. Iraq 2 was fought because Iraq attacked who again? Oh yeah, that's right. Noone.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 09:21 PM) Does that go for state constitutions as well? Like I said. You are hypocrites for imposing the will of the very few on the many by way of litigation. You are all for choice alright, just so long as it doesn't run contrary to your beliefs. The people vote for the people who enact the laws and in some states they enact them themselves via ballot initiative. Suddenly the will of the people is null and void because a small minority find the laws that the majority pass objectionable? We also live in a country that has checks and balances. Unfortunately, this isn't a world of ham and plaques. That means that occasionally, minorities need to be protected from abuse and violations of their liberties. It's not something I expect everyone to understand. Maybe once the conservatives find themselves on the short end of their freedoms and liberties, they'll understand what progressives have been talking about all along.

There's a difference between finding a law objectionable and finding a law unconstitutional. We live in a republic, not a democracy. A republic is a government which rules by majority, but in a way that protects the minority. Denying someone the right to marry is fundamentally against what this country stands for. Denying someone the right to express themselves, in a manner that you may find objectionable, is unamerican. If conservatives can't understand that, maybe they should move to a country where freedoms are subjective.

Yeah, they were the rage for about six weeks. They're also illegal in most states. Cause they're a f***ing nuisance.

QUOTE(NUKE_CLEVELAND @ Jan 13, 2005 -> 09:07 PM) There really was no difference between the 4 wars in question. Korea, Vietnam, Afghinastan and Iraq were all started because the government percieved a threat to our national security. So why were the 1st 2 ok but not the last 2? You're absolutely right about Vietnam BTW. It was unwinnable because the left ensured that we fought that war with both hands tied behind our backs. Was it not "progressive" Lyndon Johnson who sat in the White House basement at 2 AM night after night picking targets that individual pilots could strike? Was it not Lyndon Johnson who expressly prohibited the Air Force from attacking the NVA's air defenses before they were operational then had them attacked when they were nearly impenetrable which directly resulted in the capture or death of hundreds of pilots? Was it not Lyndon Johnson who said we could not go into Cambodia and deny the NVA its safe haven there and was it not the left who called Nixon a butcher for bombing Hanoi and going into Cambodia? Ok, Vietnam was a mistake. And lots of progressives knew that. And it was also apparent to many - well before the days of LBJ picking out targets - that it was not a threat to our national security. So you could make the argument that LBJ was guilty of the same thing that our current president is guilty of, having a s***ty foreign policy. You didn't even mention Carter's decision to withhold aid from Ethiopia because of its decision to align with the USSR in 1979, causing roughly one million deaths from starvation. I'll let that slip though, not many people know about the Sunday School's teacher deviation from morality. I never debated about whether or not Afghanistan was the right thing to do. It was from the beginning. They clearly helped to make 9/11 happen by hosting Bin Laden, and refusing to surrender him. Nobody here ever debated Afghanistan, so don't line me up and say that I'm against that theater. Gulf War II differs from the other three conflicts significantly because there was no provocation into attack. Iraq did not invade another state in 2002 or 2003. Iraq was not linked to a single instance of terrorism against the United States or its allies - (and if you bring up monetary gifts to suicide bombers' families, than we oughta been bombing Saudi Arabia too) and didn't meet the same criteria as the other three theaters. Further, there was already a containment regime around Iraq that was suiting our policy just fine for the previous dozen years and insured that Hussein couldn't do anything major without us knowing... and without causing any significant American casualties. So, no, these four theaters are not the same. Two were ideological based. One was a response to a direct attack on American soil, and the other was based on a pipe dream from one small segment of the American politic.