http://gamingtrend.com
September 18, 2014, 08:10:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Calendar Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
1  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 15, 2014, 02:12:07 PM
Also, porting your number to Google Voice means trusting Google never to discontinue the service. Google's track record at that is bad, to say the least.
2  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 10, 2014, 05:34:54 PM
They're not "a joke," but like all manufacturers, they are misleading. Computer markers define a gigabyte as 1,000,000,000 bytes. A computer defines a gigabyte as 1,073,741,824 bytes, thus the difference. On the Mac, Apple has switched the OS to using the marketing definition. I wonder why they haven't done that on iOS.
3  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Let's talk Iphone on: September 10, 2014, 05:14:35 AM
I'm in for the iPhone 6, maybe the 128 GB model. Wish the screen was still 4", but I can live with 4.7".
4  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Apple Watch on: September 10, 2014, 05:12:51 AM
I will buy one, as soon as they are available.
5  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I'm a former Jehovah's Witness, AMA! on: August 22, 2014, 04:27:34 PM

Quote from: hepcat on August 07, 2014, 02:06:12 PM

What exactly DID Jesus teach, though?  All we have are the written words of so many people...most with agendas...that it's become impossible to know what Christianity really stands for.

We have the Gospels. Which were selected by the Church because they conformed with the Creed and had been accepted as valid by the various Sees as far back as there are records. The three synoptic Gospels are variations on a theme (both Matthew and Luke seem to be revisions and expansions of Mark), while John is something else. While you can't assemble a day by day specific chronology of Jesus's ministry from the four Gospels, they do have a consistent message and spirituality to them. Most importantly, they also conform to the Creed, which is the actual foundational beliefs of the Christian religion. If you're a Christian from an Apostolic tradition, then you trust the four Gospels because the ante-Nicean church accepted them, and the post-Nicean Church confirmed them as canon because they reflect the beliefs of the Creed, and you believe that God guides the Church.

If you're from a non-Apostolic, sola-scriptura Biblical tradition, then I have no idea how you make sense of what is or isn't part of the New Testament canon. In fact, some of the early Protestant Reformers tried to change the canon to get rid of books that didn't agree with them. One of the reasons I am no longer Methodist.
6  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: I'm a former Jehovah's Witness, AMA! on: August 07, 2014, 03:01:32 AM

Quote from: ATB on August 03, 2014, 07:34:43 PM

Glad to hear it.  Would be interested in hearing what caused the change.

Also, now that you're free to explore actual Christianity, get an NIV Bible and start reading in John and Matthew.

I would recommend an NRSV with the Apocrypha. If you're getting a Bible, might as well get a complete one. smile

Eel, I'm sorry that your religion tried to lock you away from the world like that. That's certainly not the sort of religion that Jesus founded. There are plenty of Christian denominations that focus on Jesus' actual teachings, and don't expect you to see such crazy things as literal creationism. To put a plug in for my own religion, the Episcopal Church would definitely welcome you, and there's almost certainly one near you.
7  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Phones must now be unlocked? on: August 04, 2014, 04:08:05 PM

Quote from: Lee on August 01, 2014, 05:53:15 PM

So why aren't we all switching to these cheaper companies? There aren't any drawbacks?

Limited networks. Data speed throttling, in some cases. The main drawback, the lack of modern or interesting phones, is now, effectively, addressed.
8  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: Ebola outbreak on: August 01, 2014, 10:39:56 PM

Quote from: Caine on July 31, 2014, 04:19:17 PM

Quote from: farley2k on July 31, 2014, 03:51:02 PM

We have the science to build an Ebola vaccine. So why hasn't it happened?

Quote
The problem, instead, is the economics of drug development. Pharmaceutical companies have little incentive to pour research and development dollars into curing a disease that surfaces sporadically in low-income, African countries. They aren't likely to see a large pay-off at the end and could stand to lose money.
This is tough.  Do we somehow force these companies to make a product that will lose them money?  Ethically, short-term answer is yes, but what of the impacts beyond profit?  

We pay them to do it, so they don't lose money.
9  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chic fil a and their overly religious behavior. on: July 25, 2014, 02:53:50 AM

Quote from: raydude on July 24, 2014, 12:17:38 AM

Quote from: Fireball on July 23, 2014, 05:08:51 AM

I also fail to see how this has anything to do with religion.

But I do get the part about not liking it when people are creepily overly polite or enthusiastic. I walked into a McDonalds once and everyone behind the counter turned at once and yelled out "Welcome!" and "Hello!", etc. It really upset me because I felt like I was suddenly being thrust into the center of attention. I turned and walked out.

Never had that experience at a Chick Fil A, though. Admittedly, I don't go there very often.

That reminds me, I remember when the sushi chefs at most sushi restaurants would call out "Irasshaimase!" every time a customer walked in. In fact, my wife and I giggled at the sushi restaurant scene in Monsters Inc. when the octopus chef would say that, because we knew the reference. But nowadays I don't hear that anymore when entering a sushi restaurant. And it makes me feel a bit sad.

See, that wouldn't bother me too much. 'Cause I'm not ashamed to walk into a sushi place. Eating at McDonalds is something I do only when I have few other options, and I'm not proud of it. Please don't call attention to my lapse in taste, nice people behind the counter!
10  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Chic fil a and their overly religious behavior. on: July 23, 2014, 05:08:51 AM
I also fail to see how this has anything to do with religion.

But I do get the part about not liking it when people are creepily overly polite or enthusiastic. I walked into a McDonalds once and everyone behind the counter turned at once and yelled out "Welcome!" and "Hello!", etc. It really upset me because I felt like I was suddenly being thrust into the center of attention. I turned and walked out.

Never had that experience at a Chick Fil A, though. Admittedly, I don't go there very often.
11  Non-Gaming / Off-Topic / Re: What's for Lunch Today? on: July 14, 2014, 07:29:44 PM
I went to the swing station at the Cafeteria. Today it was "American Regional." Had chicken in wine sauce, baked fish patties with tartar sauce, peas and carrots, and rice. Not bad.
12  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sarah Palin demands...DEMANDS...impeachment. Can still see Russia from porch. on: July 10, 2014, 02:08:26 PM

Quote from: ATB on July 10, 2014, 11:52:01 AM

Heard an interesting report on NPR about Obama's approval rating is in the toilet and one of the commentators said 'We are only 18 months into his second term, and he's already a lame duck and no one is expecting him to be able to do anything.'

His approval rating isn't great -- 42% approve, 54% disapprove according to Gallup. But that's not even the lowest rating he's had (he dipped into the high 30s in 2011). As much as I don't want it to happen, a Republican Senate would give him an opposition Congress to parry against. The GOP would pass a lot of nasty stuff, and Obama would benefit from the resultant vetoes.

The current situation is bad for him: the House won't consider Senate bills, and the Senate won't consider House bills. So nothing is happening. Which means that the entire government is just sort of listing about. It's hard to look like a leader without the ability to either achieve success or stand strong against an enemy able to pass bills.
13  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Sarah Palin demands...DEMANDS...impeachment. Can still see Russia from porch. on: July 10, 2014, 01:51:49 PM

Quote from: Ironrod on July 10, 2014, 02:42:33 AM

The President takes an oath to "faithfully execute" the laws that Congress passes, but Obama has taken it upon himself to fudge certain deadlines and other details without the consent of Congress. I don't know enough about constitutional law to judge just how flexible faithfully executing should be, but the objections have some merit. Calling a law "Obamacare" doesn't mean that Obama gets to define it as he goes along.

Impeachable? I doubt it, but impeachment is at least as much about political power as it is about legal merits.

The thing is that the laws Congress writes have all sorts of wiggle room in them. Congress writes laws that lack specificity, and then delegates to the Executive Branch the power to issue rules to fill in the gaps and adjust things to accommodate reality. This is a necessity -- otherwise it would take Congressional action to alter any program that needs small tweaks.

The President has pushed this to the edge a few times regarding the ACA, but ultimately it's all built on a foundation of precedent from previous presidents. He hasn't changed the law, he's adjusted deadlines, which has happened numerous times with previous laws. He hasn't single-handedly eliminated any provision of the law, or created entire new parts by executive order, both of which would be way out of bounds.

Ironically, on immigration he often gets accused of lawlessness when in fact he has enforced immigration law more vigorously than any previous president.
14  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: WAZ 7/3/14 on: July 07, 2014, 02:31:39 PM

Quote from: Scraper on July 03, 2014, 03:53:47 PM

I predict this thread goes from amusing to awesome once Fireball jumps in.

Meh. Low-class, gay-hating troll posts a low-class trolling tirade that includes anti-gay nonsense. Boring.
15  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again: Welcome to the Police State! on: June 25, 2014, 03:56:21 PM

Quote from: ATB on June 25, 2014, 03:40:24 PM

The supremes got one right!  

So now you can get stopped based on an anonymous call and they can swab your mouth for DNA, but they cannot search your phone! slywink

So they can know if you're a natural blond, but not if you say so on your Grindr profile.
16  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again: Welcome to the Police State! on: June 25, 2014, 02:30:10 PM
Sure, that's understandable. Also, on the Republican side, there have been a lot of repeated names over the last 62 years. In fact, since 1952, the Republicans haven't won a single election for President without Richard Nixon or a George Bush on the ticket. They also ran only one ticket between 1952 and 2004 without a Nixon, Bush or Dole on the ticket:

1952: Eisenhower / Nixon - won
1956: Eisenhower / Nixon - won
1960: Nixon / Lodge - lost
1964: Goldwater / Miller - lost
1968: Nixon / Agnew - won
1972: Nixon / Agnew - won
1976: Ford / Dole - lost
1980: Reagan / Bush - won
1984: Reagan / Bush - won
1988: Bush / Quayle - won
1992: Bush / Quayle - lost
1996: Dole / Kemp - lost
2000: Bush / Cheney - sorta won
2004: Bush / Cheney - won
17  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 25, 2014, 01:28:45 PM
So is the position ATB is arguing that:

1) The trademark office shouldn't have standards regarding what they do or do not allow to be trademarked?

or

2) That if the trademark office has such standards, but issues a trademark that may not be in compliance with them, that no one should have standing to contest the issuance of the trademark?
18  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again: Welcome to the Police State! on: June 23, 2014, 02:53:44 PM
Members of Congress are generally very wealthy because as wealthy people they tend to know the sorts of people who can afford to fund campaigns, and can afford the often large personal expenses that come with running a campaign.

As for dynasties, we've always had them in American politics. Before the Clintons and Bushes there were the Kennedys, the Tafts, the Harrisons, the Adamses, and many more that we never hear about because while powerful in their day they didn't rise to the sorts of prominence that gets them recorded in history. Even today, we also have (presently) second-tier dynasties of that sort, like the Browns, the Salazars and the Castros. Nancy Pelosi is the daughter of a powerful politician from Maryland.

The notion that American politics is more dynastic today than it was in the past is generally untrue.
19  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 08:15:35 PM

Quote from: Teggy on June 19, 2014, 08:04:57 PM

OK, you seriously must be trolling now. I really hope you are.

Is this at question?
20  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 07:29:42 PM
This wasn't a situation where someone filed a complaint and the TM&P office acted without further consideration. The complaint included numerous examples of the term "redskin" being used as a slur, including at the time that the trademark was granted. Don't be so lazy, and research the situation before shooting off your ignorant mouth.
21  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:58:19 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:55:33 PM

The words hepcat, fireball, gellar, and forgeforsaken are offensive to me. I do not wish to see any of these words here anymore.

Being conservative on a liberal-majority forum makes me the minority.

So which one of you will step up to the plate and stand by your convictions and change your name?



Please explain how this has anything to do with trademark law.
22  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:31:06 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:26:47 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 19, 2014, 03:24:52 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:22:57 PM

you all defending this type of thing are fine with it until the right gets a hold of the same power and uses it.

lol it's baffling to me that you're not realizing it.

The law says you can't use bigoted pejorative terms or profanity in trademarked names. How could this be abused? There's an appeals process, so it's not like you can just wave your hand and say "Apple is now a racist word, so that trademark is revoked!" The only one here positing unlimited power on behalf of the Trademark & Patent Office is you.

you're dead wrong. ANY word could be deemed offensive to ANYONE at any given time.

Slippery slope indeed.

God, you're so obtuse.

The law doesn't give the power to the trademark office to reject trademarks that are "offensive" in some vague and undefined way, but instead categories of offensive terminology such as well-known slurs and profanity.
23  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:24:52 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:22:57 PM

you all defending this type of thing are fine with it until the right gets a hold of the same power and uses it.

lol it's baffling to me that you're not realizing it.

The law says you can't use bigoted pejorative terms or profanity in trademarked names. How could this be abused? There's an appeals process, so it's not like you can just wave your hand and say "Apple is now a racist word, so that trademark is revoked!" The only one here positing unlimited power on behalf of the Trademark & Patent Office is you.
24  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:23:07 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 03:10:18 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 19, 2014, 03:06:17 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 02:57:46 PM

The BET Channel is racist, and offends me. There is no WET Channel, so why are the rules different?

Is there a bigoted slur or profanity in the name BET? If so, you could complain that it should not be granted a trademark. Otherwise, the comparison falls flat.

There is no White Entertainment Channel......or any other race-only-in-name channel that i'm aware of. Why is a minority allowed to break their own moral-rule?

Just the fact that there is no WET Channel proves that therwe should be no BET, if we're gonna play by the PC-crowd, racism rules.

So start one. No one is saying that BET gets to exist by law, but a WET doesn't. If you want there to be a "White Entertainment Television" channel, go ahead and start one. Since, like BET, there's no racial slur in the name, you could even trademark it. This is a complete nonsequitor  
25  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:06:17 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 02:57:46 PM

The BET Channel is racist, and offends me. There is no WET Channel, so why are the rules different?

Is there a bigoted slur or profanity in the name BET? If so, you could complain that it should not be granted a trademark. Otherwise, the comparison falls flat.
26  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 03:04:49 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 02:52:10 PM

The Gov't is in fact denying the team's right to protect it's patent. This is different.

Trademark, not patent. This is different.

Quote
So let's take this PC stuff to the extreme......let's say the left manages to remove all words they feel are disparaging, then the right does the same, where do we end up? How far does this go? We're talking about words. Any word could be deemed offensive to anyone as some point.

It's absurdity.

What's absurd is a slippery slope argument. Racist and other slurs, profanity, these things aren't defined arbitrarily. And this isn't proactive government action. A complaint was filed, and adjudicated under the process laid out by law.
27  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 02:33:17 PM

Quote from: Canuck on June 19, 2014, 02:21:43 PM

Honest question. Does the First Amendment extend to trademarks/patent rights?

No. This is not a free speech issue in any way, shape, or form.
28  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 01:24:40 PM

Quote from: Zekester on June 19, 2014, 11:52:24 AM

Quote from: Fireball on June 19, 2014, 04:09:36 AM

Why is anyone arguing with Zeke? He doesn't care about slurs that hurt people. He just wants rich white people to be allowed to do whatever they want.

He'd probably be fine with changing the name of the team to the Washington Faggots.

Or the Washington Chinks.

I'm obviously a minority on this forum, so do I get to cry and moan about your liberal privilege?

LOL people like you still don't see the absurdity in it all.

I'm surprised you get such strong wi-fi under that bridge.
29  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 19, 2014, 04:09:36 AM
Why is anyone arguing with Zeke? He doesn't care about slurs that hurt people. He just wants rich white people to be allowed to do whatever they want.

He'd probably be fine with changing the name of the team to the Washington Faggots.

Or the Washington Chinks.
30  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again on: June 18, 2014, 07:56:13 PM

Quote from: Moliere on June 18, 2014, 07:38:35 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM

2) Publicly finance all campaigns, by either making the public financing so generous that everyone will want to opt into it, or just outlawing private contributions to campaigns.
I don't like the idea of tax money going to pay for campaigns. Would everyone on the ballot get the same amount of money or only the Democrats and Republicans? It's a bit of a contradiction for a libertarian to accept tax money for their campaign. Would a Ross Perot not be able to finance his own campaign? Is the public financing only in the general election and not the primaries? If so, then the advantage will be given to anyone that can raise the most money to win their primary. If not, then the budget to finance every primary candidate that happens to get on the ballot will become astronomical.

There are a lot of different ways to handle public financing. Most would prevent a billionaire from swinging in and trying to buy an election because, well, that's part of the point. You can set thresholds such as gathering signatures to prevent just anyone from securing funds for the primary. You can fund all parties equally in the general election, or fund parties based upon previous performance (with set amounts for parties who had received more than, say, 0.5%, 5%, 15% and 25% of the vote).

Even if you assume that you'd have an astronomical number of candidates, and that you funded the House campaigns at an incredibly generous amount ($1,500,000 for major party nominees, $500,000 for minor party nominees, $500,000 for major party primary candidates, $100,000 for minor party primary candidates) and that all candidates met those highest thresholds, it'd amount to less than $5 billion per cycle... you're talking less than 0.07% of the Federal budget for the two year cycle.
31  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Redskins Lose Trademark on: June 18, 2014, 05:03:50 PM
If you'd read the decision, you'd realize that none of those names are in any way impacted by this ruling. And that you'd imply that "Cracker Barrel" could in any way be interpreted as being offensive in the same way that "Redskins" is clearly offensive and derogatory to many people shows that you're either unserious about this, or so swallowed up in your own privilege as a white person that you can't comprehend other points of view.
32  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again on: June 17, 2014, 08:27:28 PM

Quote from: Isgrimnur on April 22, 2014, 01:59:45 PM

There isn't one. 

Not one magic bullet, but there are things we can do to improve the situation. They'd require Constitutional amendments, though:

1) End partisan redistricting. Perhaps adopt both non-partisan redistricting and the California primary system nationwide, or perhaps have no primaries and have ranked preference voting.

2) Publicly finance all campaigns, by either making the public financing so generous that everyone will want to opt into it, or just outlawing private contributions to campaigns.

3) Space elections further apart. Four years for Representatives, eight years for Senators would make a decent amount of sense. This would also have the benefit of getting rid of "mid-term" elections.

4) Increase the size of the US House by at least double.

These four reforms would limit the influence of partisan activists in selecting eventual winners, reduce the power of large or institutional donors, address electoral fatigue and reduce the number of constituents each member has to serve.
33  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: SCOTUS Screws Us Again on: June 17, 2014, 08:22:20 PM

Quote from: ATB on April 21, 2014, 06:55:55 PM

So is  term limits the answer?

Perhaps even for SCOTUS?

6 years for the POTUS
6 years for Reps
8 years for Senate
18 years for SCOTUS?  

Term limits are a terrible idea, particularly in legislative bodies.
34  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Wii U on: June 17, 2014, 05:52:30 PM

Quote from: wonderpug on June 17, 2014, 05:22:18 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 17, 2014, 05:14:02 PM

So I downloaded New Super Mario Bros U, and it is also great. I clearly don't think like a "gamer" because I can't figure out why this system isn't doing well. Is it just the graphic processing power? 

I think that they completely lost the audience from the original Wii.  On multiple occasions I've seen shoppers in big box stores confused about Wii U versus Wii.  "Will these Wii U games work on my Wii?  Is the Wii U an add-on?"

I can see that. The name is a bit too similar. Perhaps it would have been better to brand it as something new, and slap "Compatible with your Wii software and controllers" on the box a few times.

Quote
Then for people like me, so far the system cost to available game ratio has been off.  I'm not against buying a Box that Plays Nintendo Exclusives, but I need more exclusives or a cheaper box.  I think they're finally getting the library built up enough to make me tempted, but I'd still like to see the price come down or see a great system+game bundle released.

Yeah, makes sense. I rarely jump onto new Nintendo consoles until a Zelda game is released. Mario Kart did it for me this time particularly since the bundle includes a download of the Mario Bros game, which is a good deal.
35  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Wii U on: June 17, 2014, 05:14:02 PM
So I downloaded New Super Mario Bros U, and it is also great. I clearly don't think like a "gamer" because I can't figure out why this system isn't doing well. Is it just the graphic processing power? 
36  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Wii U on: June 16, 2014, 02:00:13 PM
Sorry, try rkm1701
37  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Wii U on: June 13, 2014, 08:31:26 PM

Quote from: farley2k on June 13, 2014, 02:37:31 PM

Quote from: Fireball on June 13, 2014, 01:49:44 PM

Bought the Wii U last night. Mario Kart 8 is awesome!

What is your user name so I can friend you up?  Hopefully I can get some time to play tonight.



rkm1977
38  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Wii U on: June 13, 2014, 01:49:44 PM
Bought the Wii U last night. Mario Kart 8 is awesome!
39  Gaming / Console / PC Gaming / Re: Wii U on: June 12, 2014, 07:09:59 PM
So, the release of Mario Kart and the video of the upcoming Zelda game have me longing for a Wii U. I've had basically every Nintendo console except for the SNES, but haven't bitten on the Wii U because it sees like it might be a waste of money. Other than Mario Kart, Super Mario Bros U, and the upcoming Zelda and Star Fox games, are there enough games to make it worth the price?

Are there any baseball games at all?
40  Non-Gaming / Political / Religious Nonsense / Re: Arizona passes controversial anti-gay bill on: February 26, 2014, 03:47:49 PM

Quote from: Rip on February 25, 2014, 02:52:23 PM

Quote from: Fireball on February 25, 2014, 02:34:12 PM

Quote from: Rip on February 25, 2014, 02:24:39 PM

Quote from: Fireball on February 24, 2014, 03:40:53 PM

Nowhere near every conservative wants this evil bill to become law, but nearly everyone who wants this evil bill to become law is a conservative.

That may be the case but I am quite sure there a number of minority southern baptists among other that are pretty anti-homosexual.

I'm not sure what that has to do with anything -- the Southern Baptist religious denomination is an extremely conservative organization.

Quote
That being said I disagree with the characterization that all the Demorat voters are friends of homosexual equal rights, in fact I know that isn't even close to the truth.

I didn't say anything about party. However, the vast majority of Democrats support gay marriage in recent polls, as opposed to the vast majority of Republicans, who oppose.

I am seeing about 2/3rds split on each side. Substantial but vast? Perhaps we just have a different definition of vast. In the end that mean of people who don't support gay marriage one third of them are Democrat, which IMHO draws you statement
Quote
Nowhere near every conservative wants this evil bill to become law, but nearly everyone who wants this evil bill to become law is a conservative.
(which is what you actually said) into question. I can swallow that you thing two-thirds is vast although I disagree, but "nearly everyone" is a clear misuse of the phrase.

Those Democrats who oppose marriage equality are social conservatives.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 41
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.198 seconds with 20 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.1s, 1q)