I retired before the first expansion pack. I had a gnome mage.

After Granholm, anything would be an improvement.

Her tax increases that the moderate/centrists republicans supported are killing this State. Since Jenny has been elected, Michigan has gone from the middle of the pack to consistently having the worst economy in the nation.

I have the capability to work from home, but my supervisors are slow to approve such changes to the traditional workplace.

I am not surprised that Obama lied about pulling the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. However, it seems some people do not yet know that Obama has changed his position to be in agreement with Bush/McCain, and so I was trying to inform people of Obama's new position on the issue.

It depends upon how we met, how serious we are and assorted other factors.

If I am meeting a friend of one of my friends for the first time I would prefer to keep it casual with a group.

If I am going out on a first date with someone I know socially, I would rather it be just the two of us so we can concentrate on each other.

Bad news. Obama has endorsed the Bush plan and will be keeping troops in both Iraq and Afghanistan. It appears that the people elected another neocon to the whitehouse.

I am not familiar with this particular vote by the Iraqi government.

However, I have read a few stories where the Kurds are trying to increase their popularity with Christians in Iraq. Apparently there are a few districts, with many Christians, where the Kurdish candidate needs a few more votes to win.

I suspect this is something similar to US presidential candidates going to Florida to address Cuban issues, even though the Cubans only represent a tiny number of people nationally.

These sound like an improved version of tasers.

If such weapons can reduce violent death, then this is probably a good program.

I agree. In such a situation, my friend is behaving in a self destructive manner, and it is my duty to help the stop being stupid.

I can imagine a convoluted situation where a couple would marry without declaring their marriage (think the Braveheart movie).

What I struggle to understand is why actual people try to claim that they were married in the eyes of God while engaging in sexual activity before formal marriage.

A marriage contract does not cost much, and almost everyone can come up with the money. If you are really getting married, then why not make it official?

For those who want a marriage without a government contract, why not have a simple inexpensive wedding presided over by the minister of your choice with assorted friends and family? While we tend to spend a fortune on such ceremonies, it is not required that people buy fancy new clothes, decorate the church, or even have a reception.

The only reasons I see being commonplace is either you are not old enough to get married and your parents will not agree to it, or you don't want to declare a marriage in front of others because you are not really married.

If you are in such an incredible situation that you believe that a secret marriage is valid, both spouses need to declare their marriage to God and each other before consumation.

Redykeulous,

Thank you for the excellent explanation.

That actually does make sense, although I still do not think that hate crime legislation is a good idea. While the goal of trying to punish criminals for the fear they put into others in their community is laudable, I see to many problems with these laws.

Equal treatment under the law is a vital part of our legal system. I am very hesitant to start messing with this aspect of the legal system for several reasons, including how difficult it was to extend equal protection to Americans of African descent.

While I understand the legal differences between certain premeditated crimes, compared to the same crime committed in the heat of the moment, I am not yet convinced that hate should be given the same consideration. Even if we ignore any concerns about determining that a specific type of hate was the motivation for the crime, I do not think that we should start criminalizing thought in that manner.

That quote was a sarcastic statement in reference to a discussion of a republican who was caught soliciting gay sex in a bathroom. This republican was stripped of his chairmanship, yet people keep pointing out him as an example of corrupt republican politicians. While I agree that this politician should not have broke the law, and that it is good that the republicans stripped his chairmanship, I think it is rather silly that he has been getting so much national publicity about this issue over the past couple years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daBH2IlWcmM

A nice little song to go with the first post.

Great story.

That is what I do not understand. Why should a lesbian rape victim be treated differently than a heterosexual rape victim?



Or to look at this from another perspective, what if the story ends up being slightly different.

Let us pretend for a moment that two guys led this rape, and actually did the physical crime.

Guy 1 raped her because he hates lesbians.

Guy 2 raped her because he lusts for the victim.

Should these two guys get the same sentence, or should they receive different punishments for the crime?

This is a tragedy, and my prayers go out to the victim.

This type story is also why my ultra right wing conservative friends and I tend to vote for harsher criminal penalties in rape and murder cases.

This thread has made me wonder one thing.

Why is a lesbian rape victim more deserving of our support and protection than a heterosexual female rape victim?

To me it seems that the rapist should be facing the same punishment for raping a woman out of lust or greed as they would be punished for raping a woman out of hate.






PS I suspect that most, if not all the people in this thread will agree that any rape of a woman is a terrible thing. I am merely wondering what are the logical reasons for supporting hate crime legislation.

San Diego tends to vote Republican, so you may know more than you suspect.

I know many people think it would be good if the USA left the world stage, and stayed within its borders. Before you pray for an end to US power consider this:

If the US pulls out of Europe, then European nations will have to spend much more on defense against hostile nations.

If the US pulls out of South Korea, they will likely be at war with North Korea.

If the US pulls out of Japan, they would have to change their constitution to allow for much higher military spending.

If the US cancels aid to Africa, many will starve, and many will go without HIV treatments.

Without US there are no major UN peace keeping activities.

Without US funding the UN would lose half its revenue.

Without US funding the IMF and World Bank would not have the money to help nations in need.

If the US Navy comes home, there will be so much piracy that the Sudan will seem like a safe place to go on a pleasure cruise.

Without the US, Taiwan would be a part of Mainland China.

Without the US, the world would be a much darker and more dangerous place.

And that is why I know the US is usually one of the good guys.

Has there ever been a time in history where the entire world demurred to the USA?

People aren't wolves and evil scum are going to conspire to defeat the good guys. That goes both from within and outside of the USA.