[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"][QUOTE="effthat"][QUOTE="DryvBy4Ever"]

Separation of Church and State, man. Quit pushing your State on the Church and they'll quit pushing their Church on your state. Marriage was started as a religious ceremony. Just drop it. Come up with your own term for whatever you people do.

Can't have it one sided...

effthat

Agreed. How this ever became in a political issue is beyond me.

Read the post above. Most people don't understand the origination of Marriage and it's true purpose.

It's original purpose is a moot point to it's application in today's society. We'll never agree on this and it's unlikely that we'll agree elsewhere. I agree with civil unions because they're essentialy granted by the state and keep the church out of this. It's disgusting that this is an issue. Religious nuts need to back out of peoples lives and the government needs to start protecting individual rights. This shouldn't be the huge issue that it's grown into.

But it's not really religious anymore either. Plenty of atheists get married. I know you're not making this argument in this post, but lots of others are saying "but it's a religious institution so the government shouldn't interfere." No it's not.

I don't really care enough one way or the other enough to make an issue out of it. If I was forced to choose, I'd legalize it, just because I can't think of a real reason not to. But you won't see me actively campaigning for it. It's already legal here, anyway.

Separation of Church and State, man. Quit pushing your State on the Church and they'll quit pushing their Church on your state. Marriage was started as a religious ceremony. Just drop it. Come up with your own term for whatever you people do.

Can't have it one sided...

DryvBy4Ever

Nobody is in favour of forcing churches to recognize these marriages. That argument fails.

Anything with non-human type things. Tentacles and such. Gore I can handle no problem. Psychologically disturbing things I love. But movies like Alien freak me out. Apart from that, I'm really fine. Watching 28 Weeks Later right now, about 30 minutes every few days, loving it so far but it's not scary.

/playing Dead Space, scared **** every time I turn a corner. Those things are GROSS

[QUOTE="Torftw"][QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="angryfodder"]

[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"]Obama wants to move troops from Iraq to Afganastan. He's not going to do it right way but over a period of time.fat_rob

TBH I have read a few books from soldiers over in IRAQ...and it doesn't seem like anything is the correct strategy.

Well yes, except that the Iraqis are still dependent. I believe it hasn't really brought them any closer to independence. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. But violence being down doesn't mean mission accomplished. It's also cost a TON of money.

Good to hear. Question is, will they be overwhelmed when you leave?

Who would have thought black people would jump in line by the hundreds to vote based on color!! I never would have dreamed. But wait, can we start calling black people racist yet since that's the freakin' definition of racism. I saw several women on TV alone saying they were gonna vote for him because he was black. Never voted before but they wanted the black man in there. Idiots.

DryvBy4Ever

Yes, those who voted based on race are racist. The thing is though, it's unlikely that it was a signifigant factor. This guy said it best:

This point is nugatory. Race and other unimportant traits were factors on both sides. There were people who voted for McCain only because he was white. There were people who voted for McCain because they thought Barack is a Muslim. There are black and white people who voted for Barack because he is black. There are people who voted for McCain/Palin because Palin is a women. Who cares? The point is trifle. This type of decision is to be expected in American political discourse because the average voter is immensely stupid.

They explained on the show how it worked, and I didn't really think people actually believed it was a real hologram. All they did was have a circle of cameras around the person they wanted to "beam," which were connected to the cameras in the studio. That way, when the studio cameras zoomed in and out/panned or whatever, the cameras around the person would react accordingly. They used the same technology with the "virtual capitol," where the senate results were dislpayed above a table. When they first unveiled it, the woman sitting at the table said, "we can't actually see it on the table in front of us, although the viewers at home are seeing it right in front of me."olion

Yeah, I didn't see that. There's another where the guy implies he CAN see it. I dislike that. What I wanna know is why bother using so many cameras? Even with their bandwidth, they couldn't really handle it and it was jerky as hell. Why not just have two cameras, one in the studio and one in the tent and have one move according to the position of the other? Gotta be much cheaper than what they did. They only used something like two angles anyway.

[QUOTE="Torftw"]

[QUOTE="ThePlothole"]It was pretty obvious even before they showed it that it wasn't "real". I mean CNN can't use technology (projecting an image into plain air) that doesn't yet exist.ThePlothole

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cisco_Telepresence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcfNC_x0VvE

The first link is clearly talking about a plain old 2D style videoconferencing system. The second appears to be stage trickery (projecting a "hologram" is relatively easy in a dark room with enough moisture in the air).

True enough probably. I didn't bother to check really, just googled quickly. But this is close enough to reality to make it at least somewhat credible. Unlike them saying something like "our correspondent is teleporting here from Chicago" or something. Iono, I was just looking for 100% confirmation that it's BS.