Uncertain

I would also pray for the 4 million plus people who have their very identify in danger due to the ineptitude of the Federal Government.

I can only think you are determined to turn everything that is posted into a debate. Justin is right, this is getting completely off topic. I did say 'you seem edgy' and it's true, that's how you come across. Taking this thread completely off course doesn't serve whatever purpose you're after. As for my representatives and how they voted ...... doesn't interest me until election time. My only desire is to have a fruitful discussion, but this becomes more difficult when the basic rules of grammar are not followed, and then the suggestions of people lacking the ability to comprehend what is written is made. I do not wish a debate, but neither do I wish to be insulted, I would prefer a civil discussion on the topic of the freedom of speech.

Both the Patriot Act and the NDAA are much bigger threats to our freedoms than an employer exercising their rights by firing someone for conduct (which includes speech) that they feel is not consistent with their values.

No and no. And yet you told me I am to myopic on the topic because I find what my own government is doing more problematic than Islamist at this time. How did the people you voted for vote on the Patriot Act and it's extension or on the phone tapping? What a surprise; you misread what I wrote AGAIN! i said it's not good to focus on the Patriot Act and the President myopically, I did NOT say YOU. Go back, read for comprehension. Honestly, that's like four times in a row you have either misunderstood me or are deliberately being obtuse. As for my Senators and Representative...don't know how they voted. The first two words of the post in question are " you seem" followed by short paragraph of three or four sentences. When you start a statement with "you seem", I just assumed you were talking about me. I am not sure what else I could have done. My suggestion is that if you are just making random general statements, don't put them in paragraphs that start with the words " you seem". I would also suggest you find out how your elected officials vote on things, seems sort of important.

No and no. And yet you told me I am to myopic on the topic because I find what my own government is doing more problematic than Islamist at this time. How did the people you voted for vote on the Patriot Act and it's extension or on the phone tapping?

I went back and looked it up since I have posted a LOT of things since then. I did not say anything about supporting the Patriot Act. Please address what is actually said. See here.... "You seem to be very edgy and convinced the government is the enemy. While I don't trust any government, I'd say that we have enemies abroad that bear watching. I don't think it's good to concentrate on the Patriot Act and the President so myopically. Might miss what's going on in the world." Ok, lets get it all in black and white. Do you support or approve of the Patriot Act? Do you support or approve of the warrantless phone taping?

I wasn't sure if you were American, since many of our posters are not, therefore the question. Again, I said NOTHING about you being too trusting. NOTHING. I never mentioned the Patriot Act......you seem to be totally oblivious to what I actually wrote. That's your prerogative. That's true but only because the islamists have less opportunity. Post 145 you mentioned the Patriot Act...do you not remember?

To whom is this addressed, uncertain? You Okay. No, I didn't just accuse you of being too trusting. Nor did I say I was willing to give up freedoms for safety. I think that must have been another poster. That was not you in post #128? Yes, that was me. And this is what I posted: "I don't know if you're an American, or not, but I am. It's our nature to distrust the government and the judicial system. By 'uphold' I mean agree with most of the time. I personally do not. And of course we need a system of courts; that's not the issue." I see nothing about you being too trusting or that I'm willing to give up freedoms for safety. I really don't know how you got THAT out of the above . You asked me if I was an American, then went on to tell me how Americans are not trusting by nature. I took that to mean you felt I was too rusting, the question makes no sense otherwise. As for giving up freedoms for safety, if you are good with or accept the PATRIOT ACT, then you are good with giving up freedoms for safety, as that is the whole purpose of the act. As for what we should be focused on, the enemy within is always a greater threat than the one from the outside. A worry much more about abuses of power from our government than I do about being killed by Islamic terrorists. Also, if you pay attention you will find that crazy, evil, racist Americans kill way more Americans than do the Islamist.

Think about this, as it stands now, and more so under this proposed law, the pastor is performing both a civil and a religious act in a marriage ceremony. The civil side of it is what opens a pastor to bring sued, so remove that part and it becomes purely religious, and for that the protections are much greater.

I truly do not understand how it does that. As the law stands now people have a religious and a non-religious choice. This law takes one of those choices away and forces people to go to a person with a religious certification. If I were a gay couple, once this law passed I would go to the closest Southern Baptist church and demand the pastor sign my license, and when he refused I would see him in court, using this law on my side. Why not go the other way and remove the ability of religious people to sign the license, thus removing any chance my scenario above takes place?

The government adding an additional requirement is not an ideal solution nor free market friendly. As it stands now a couple can choose between religious (priest, pastor, etc) or a non-religious option (JP or what have you). Taking one of those choices away makes no sense and is not free market by any definition. So what is gained by this additional government regulation. What purpose does it serve?

The government adding an additional requirement is not an ideal solution nor free market friendly. As it stands now a couple can choose between religious (priest, pastor, etc) or a non-religious option (JP or what have you). Taking one of those choices away makes no sense and is not free market by any definition.

But why should they have to?

If we could divorce governmental benefits from the word marriage I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

You are not a believer? What about my statement led you to that conclusion?

Do you believe that marriage is a covenant with God? Do you think that a priest/pastor/minister who believes that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman with God should be forced to perform other types of marriages? I believe there is marriage between two Christians that is a sacrament before God, and I believe there is a legal relationship recognized by the government that is also called marriage. And while they share the same name, they are not really not the same thing. My covenant before God with my wife has nothing to do with tax laws, visitation rules, or one of the other one hundred and thirty plus benefits given to married couples. On the other side those one hundred and thirty plus benefits have nothing to do with God. I see this law causing priest and such to have to do just that, I think it will backfire on them as it is really just a bad idea. Picture this...a gay couple in a small town want to get married. Under the law as it is now no church ever need to be involved, they would just get their license, go to a JP and be done. With this new law they get their license and they have to find a church to marry them. What do you suppose will happen when they get refused by every church in town? Will they see the errors of their ways or will the sue? If anything they should go the other way and remove religious leaders from the list of who can sign them. My wife and I were married for months before we had our wedding. There is no reason why signing the license needs to be part of the religious ceremony.

So, people that are not religious are going to be required to go to a religious person to get married. That is just dumb. If you want to get Government out of marriage then remove all benefits such as joint filing of taxes and such. If people want that they can sign legal partnership papers.

To whom is this addressed, uncertain? You Okay. No, I didn't just accuse you of being too trusting. Nor did I say I was willing to give up freedoms for safety. I think that must have been another poster. That was not you in post #128?

so now you are saying that the government is going to kill us all with the NDAA.... get a grip guy. I am saying it is another step in the process. They can't take all our rights and freedoms at once, so it is done slowly like the frog in the pot of water. As we grow accustomed to doing with out this freedom or that right, another one will then be added on. And most people are like you, as long as it is not bothering them personally, well who really cares if some guy that works in finance has his phones tapped and computer bugged.

Ah I see, so you don't believe in 7 day creation. Let see how long it takes until some passionate people pounce you for that. You assume much and understand little, uncertain. I DO believe in a seven day Creation. I also believe our species was the last created by God, just as Genesis tells us. As for being pounced on well....I've been pounced on before. Still kickin', my friend. So you believe that 99% of the species that that ever lived also died on the same day God made them? What on earth would make you ask that??? You said that 99% of species that ever lived died before man was created, then you said you believe in a 7 day creation. I was thinking all the animals were created the same day as man, but I guess that was just the land animals. Since other animals were created on day 5 , I guess that would give less than two days vice one day for that 99% to die.

To whom is this addressed, uncertain? You

Didn't you just accuse me of being too trusting? I wish you would make up your mind. Fear is the most effective form of control there is, which is why it is so widely used. You have been sold a bill of goods that in order to be safe from the mongrel horde we have to surrender our rights and freedoms. How much freedom and how many rights is your " safety" worth? When will enough be enough?

Lol this website you posted is any better? Whatever. I know what was taught. I know what was said. I know the names of the scientists who made those claims as mentioned in the articles there. If I had any real interest in showing you any more, I could do searches for the initial papers etc that made those claims. But its really not important. Did you look at the articles on your link? Pretty much all of them talked about the danger being from aerosols, which oddly enough were cut way back on, because of the threat they caused. Too bad they were smarter than we are today.

Ah I see, so you don't believe in 7 day creation. Let see how long it takes until some passionate people pounce you for that. You assume much and understand little, uncertain. I DO believe in a seven day Creation. I also believe our species was the last created by God, just as Genesis tells us. As for being pounced on well....I've been pounced on before. Still kickin', my friend. So you believe that 99% of the species that that ever lived also died on the same day God made them?

Newspapers write stories to sell newspapers, lousy place to get your science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm