Joe_Cavalry All Day Every Day

I may be making a mistake here, but I'm confused. If you aren't concerned that the muslims in America are radical extremists, why are you worried that they're going to "take over"? What is the harm in peaceful, constitution-accepting muslims becoming a bigger group in the US?

I have friends who I consider pretty great who are atheists, so I'm with you here. And I'd be kind of ticked if they all had to move. I only know like ONE guy who is an atheist who I'd be okay with moving to Australia or somewhere, but that's because he's a jerk, not because he's an atheist. x]

...Well, I doubt that you actually support this, Joe, because it's obviously a horrible idea, so I'll argue the other points in the description. First of all, there have been plenty of wars waged by religious people. I seem to recall a hundred year long war taking place among pretty religious people. And what about the crusades? PEOPLE, not ATHEISTS, are capable of atrocities. Atheism is not the problem. Tell me how many atheists have made wars, and I'm pretty sure I can show you at least an equal number of religious people who have done the same thing. Also, how are "atheists" using up resources making war weaponry? The US makes weapons, and it is a country probably made up of more Christians than anyone else(I haven't looked at any statistics lately, but it's clear that we are not anything close to a nation solely of atheists).

Of course, this is Joe I'm talking to, so it's definitely a possibility that you're being sarcastic/mocking someone elses arguments about religious people/trying to piss people off. x]

Is there some similar debate that I haven't seen regarding religious people? 'Cause this kind of sounds like a response to attacks on religious people, but I could be wrong.

Haha. So true.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Wow!!!! Congrats on the engagement, and O_O You cleaned up, jeez. hahaha. I got some fun stuff, but...not even close. x]

This makes me think of "Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead."

Joe, I think you will appreciate this monologue from that play:

Rosencrantz: Do you ever think of yourself as actually dead, lying in a box with the lid on it? Nor do I really. Silly to be depressed by it. I mean, one thinks of it like being alive in a box. One keeps forgetting to take into account that one is dead. Which should make all the difference. Shouldn't it? I mean, you’d never know you were in a box would you? It would be just like you were asleep in a box. Not that I’d like to sleep in a box, mind you. Not without any air. You'd wake up dead for a start and then where would you be? In a box. That's the bit I don't like, frankly. That’s why I don’t think of it. Because you'd be helpless wouldn't you? Stuffed in a box like that. I mean, you'd be in there forever. Even taking into account the fact that you're dead. It isn't a pleasant thought. Especially if you're dead, really. Ask yourself: if I asked you straight off I'm going to stuff you in this box now – would you rather to be alive or dead?

Naturally you’d prefer to be alive. Life in a box is better than no life at all. I expect. You'd have a chance at least. You could lie there thinking, well, at least I’m not dead. In a minute, somebody’s going to bang on the lid and tell me to come out. (knocks) "Hey you! What's your name? Come out of there!"

I'm leaning towards the fox side on this one, although I'm reluctant simply because I never watch Fox news, so for all I know there is good reason for the gov't to classify them as a "hate group"...However, I think it's wrong for a government to limit criticism of itself. Manipulating what news goes out is not good--all sides should be represented equally so that the people will not be lied to. I would prefer, of course, to have one or two completely unbiased news sources, but if we cannot have that, we should at least have both biases represented.

I'm sorry, Joe. Hahaha. xD you're right. No boobies. Just dragons and Ying Yangs. :)

Thank you for posting before I actually looked at them. I think I'll pass now...

In theory, there is this mutation that can occur within a woman that causes immaculate conception. It hasn't been proven, but it's a possibility. Therefore, abstainance may not be 100% effective.

:D It makes me happy to throw that out there... for some reason. I need a life. x.x