Dibs

You really have no idea how ridiculous you sound do you?

Gee, this thread was great. We all should do it again sometime.

Don't call me stupid

It has been know to happen on the odd occasion.

That's the second time you've missed my(what I consider obvious) sarcasm......Lindell was a very good FA pickup for us. That was a list of some good FAs we have brought in.....implying that to B word and moan and try and put across that we only ever get duds in FA acquisitions is a joke.

Ryan Lindell Sam Adams London Fletcher TKO Larry Centers Sam Gash Bryce Paup Chris Spielman Steve Christie James Lofton Steve Tasker How are Walker, Mitchell & Stroud going? It truly is amazing.

There is a reasonable theory that goes with the opposite......to a point. Any coach is a reflection of their teams performance, If the team is a winner, the coach will be considered a winner.

What is up with Dockery? How has he gone from very solid/good to useless in a relatively short amount of time? Could this be an OL cohesion thing......and if so, is there any reason to expect that he cannot regain his prior form? I am quite baffled by his regression.

430

Rick Jones

Sarcasm Sage. If you went by my numbers, they would translate to......"we'll never be any good or worth watching till we get 5600 & 48TDs in a season." I wouldn't care if we averaged 150 yards a game & 1 TD if it meant we were consistently winning games.

Are you talking about his sexuality?.....cause I think that goes back more than 3 years.

A gay man walks into a bar in San Fransisco.......nuff said.

WOW! That'd be good for an entire season. I'm a bit more realistic.....I'd be happy with 2400 yard games. Kidding aside(or am I just kidding about that?).......I can't wait for the day where we have a dynamic passing game. 350 yards a game......3 TDs......we'll never be any good or worth watching till we reach those levels.

Actually, that was the only paragraph in the article which claimed a basis in study rather than speculative hypothesis. I tend to think that if the only learned & published source that the Traditional Values Coalition could come up with to show support for their conjecture was one book published in 1934......it might well be totally unfounded in truth.

Actually, the study didn't cover public acceptation of homosexuality according to what you wrote..... It seems to be focused on the institute of marriage(between a man & woman)......my guess would be in relation to property & assets ownership & inheritance.

Actually I think the laws originate from religion......and religion structured their views(for the most part) on common sense. There is a big difference between the laws following the will of the masses(usually in the past structured by religious views) and the laws being intrinsically linked with 'holy' views.....whether that be from holy texts or the clergy.

I understand......but you have diverted what was a good & interesting comment. None of those things were mentioned or implied until you brought them up. Below is what was said.....which you seemed to garner some extra meaning from. SATM was simply stating that in the US you are lucky that there is a separation of C&S.

Seems to me that because of that dislike you have changed the what was meant by the separation of church & state. The church does not have any direct say in how the nation is run.....and the state does not have any direct say in how the churches are run(both within reason). There is a definite separation of church & state compared to nations that do not have a separation of the two. Your point about re-writing history, though valid, only detracts from the point that was being made.

No need to be sorry......not being from the US lots of internal US issues are new to me. Does it make a difference if there is(or isn't) a "wall of separation"?

So are you stating that there isn't a separation of church & state in America?

That was great. Thanks for taking the time.

I see and understand the point here.......however it seems to me that making the decision to vote against it based upon this is out of context to the importance of the pros & cons of the situation. Schools teach many things which "should be taught by the parents". Unless one feels that the act of teaching about gay marriage can turn children gay(or there is some inherent danger in this specific issue), it is simply just another on a long list of things already being taught at schools which should perhaps be left for the home. To 'make a stand' against this concept is all well and good, however if there are many members of the community that will suffer because of that stand.....the decision seems out of context. Simply.....if there is no legitimate danger to the children.....the concept is happening anyway.....people/society can suffer because of it.....and the individual agrees that it is the 'right' thing for gay marriage to be allowed.....standing on a principle as the only reason for opposing makes no real sense. The only argument I can see(apart from religious or bigoted reasons) is that there would be some legitimate danger to the children.....which I can't see. **There are actually some opposing arguments for teaching certain 'social issues' at school. I have no doubts that most posting in this thread would be teaching their children in a responsible non-bigoted fashion......but many, many, many people are bad parents.....or parents with poisonous attitudes to certain races/religions/groups/etc. There is good argument that not only the society as a whole benefits from children being taught 'social issues' but the children themselves would, who otherwise would not get a reasonable perspective on the issues.**

That doesn't mean that the outcome is good(not saying it is or it isn't here)......just that a majority of the population views things in a similar manner. There has been many issues in history(again, not saying that this is one of them) that if given over to the general population to determine rather than those elected to govern, the 'wrong' decision would have been made.