unbillievable

I just watched it (and the theater was still packed. I had to sit up front). It's better than the last two Jurassic Park movies. It helped that Starlord was in it. It's exactly what you would expect, so I wasn't disappointed. Although, Bryce Dallas Howard's indestructable stilletoes was a surprise.

Because religion isn't limited to the United States. (and did not begin it's ban on gay marriage in 1776) Many protestant churches already allow gay marriages. If your going to go with religious objections as your rebuttal, then you cannot use the catholic church based in Rome as your vehicle. (Since they are the ones primarily driving the ban). If you're going to limit your arguments to US based law and US culture starting in 1776-present, then the debate is already over; US born religions have no (or very little) objection to same-sex marriages. You're basically saying that you're allowed to use a foreign-born idea, dating before the USA, but your opponents are restricted to a certain time frame.

I understand your point, only that it won't stand up to criticism since you choose to include flawed constraints. I also found it amusing that my nephew thought Transformers was an original idea of Michael Bay. He was surprised to learn they were toys in the 80s.

My contentions isn't that humans are incapable of altering the environment, it's the idea that carbon credits is the solution to global warming (especially since the left has admitted it will just add the increased tax revenue to the general fund)

What we need is to invent smart guns.

No I don't have it backwards. I was surprised too, but when I did the research-thinking that religion came first, did I discover that marriage is not a religious concept. The earliest unions were performed by the elders (not the spiritual leader). It was the families (sanctioned by city/state leaders) that joined couples together. Only later (with the rise of organized religions) did it become sanctified.

http://www.ibtimes.com/immigration-reform-signature-collection-underway-california-initiative-give-1985664 so.... um.. If Arizona isn't allowed to enforce federal immigration law, can California pass laws to legalize them?

It has to do with the arguments (as stated by TakeYouToTasker) that the government needs to leave marriage to the church. It's the primary rebuttal being thrown out there. You can't say that the government should stay out of church business when marriage itself is a civil concept; the more logical argument being that the church should stay out of government business.

Anyone who uses a historical argument with religious objections need to stop. You are misinformed. Marriage was entirely a civil (non-religious) concept before it was co-opted by religion and sanctified. The entire idea is originally about property law. (and trading daughters between families.) Binding two people for life isn't exactly a natural concept. It was forced on the population by a governing body. You can't say that the government has no business regulating (or performing) marriages, because it was their idea to begin with... Imagine if the church started printing it's own money, then asked the government to butt out of it's business. edit: for the record, I support the government getting out of the marriage business, I just haven't figured out a better argument against the current ruling that doesn't include "religious" objections.

Taking guns from Americans is like taking vodka from Russians. Trying to relate statistics with dissimilar cultures is dishonest.. There are just some things you can't accurately compare against other countries. Enacting the exact same gun laws as (for example) Europe will not yield the same results. The best indicators can be found within the USA, in places like Washington DC, Chicago, Los Angeles, Detroit...

So how many millions were wasted by states creating their own exchanges?

The only way to prevent the left from committing voter fraud is to make it legal.

He would have had trouble finding enough ammo. (or a clerk to open the case)

I've thought about it... ...and while I support a person's right to wave a confederate flag, there's a difference when it's endorsed by the government. If the people (even if they are uniformed) want to remove it from public buildings, then they should do it. Both parties are okay with getting rid of it so what's the debate? ...but if they pass a law preventing individuals from waving the flag, now we have a problem.

Isn't Marijuana what they use in North Korea to cure SARS, AIDS, scurvy, capitalism, hunger...

I have more problems with the accent than the muffle.

Anyone not tuned into the Obama drone network is obviously racist.

Guess which one watched Chris' Rocks' guide to not getting whooped by the cops?

I prefer the signs that read "Going Out for Business" sale.

Obviously committed in the ghetto an urban area. "Dolunt said police do not know the reason for the shooting and thus far people at the party were not being cooperative with police seeking information. He said there was no excuse for shooting when kids were present. There were little kids and strollers, he said. "It's a party," he said." I guess it's okay to shoot towards a crowd as long as no kids are present.

Now she's claiming to be bisexual. Bruce Jenner is her hero. I would have guessed Michael Jackson... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/17/rachel-dolezal-bisexual_n_7606492.html She can be the first transracial transgender.

I know a lot of people from Mexico. Every single one of them loves everything about it. None of them want to go back.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun/18/ucsd-student-waves-mexican-flag-gradu/ Imagine if an American citizen had done this in another country...

My high school banned "honors" labels and just awarded graduation speeches based on a competition. Any student in the class could submit a speech. The faculty picked whichever one they liked the best. The administration didn't want the less accomplished students in the graduating class to feel left out.

Isn't San Antonio the fattest city in the country?