knapplc

Because I don't share the ZZZZZZZOMG TEH CHRISTUNS R TEH SUXXORZZ!!!! opinion. While I acknowledge the wealth of bad that has been done in the name of Christianity (and Islam, and other religions), I am not of the opinion that Christianity is the root of the problem. Man is the root of the problem. Some men just happen to use religion as a tool for bad.

Pat Robertson is not representative of "most religious leaders," and because he says something stupid does not mean that all religious leaders agree with him, or would say something similarly stupid.

FlightAware shows some of the more recent flight activity pertinent to this thread. LINK

I'm a registered Independent. I'll be voting for Obama. My vote for Obama will also be a vote against what the Republicans have become. A Far-Right parody of what they once were. As a former Republican, I am horrified by what the GOP espouses today. It's 2012, not 1612.

OK, akita, I moved it back. I thought this doctor was talking about microwaves again. I know he's discussed the subject, and I thought this was that video. My bad.

The only Ambrose book I've ever read was Band of Brothers. Still a hell of a story.

I moved this from Politics & Religion because I think this is where you intended to put this, akita. If not, let me know. It didn't seem to relate to the thread you originally posted it in.

I see a lot of "traditions of men" in that definition, though. The Christian Church spends too much time basing theology on the writings of Paul and needs to focus 99.9% of its doctrine on Jesus, and Jesus alone. Paul is no more worthy to be in the Bible than Constantine, yet so much of what the church professes comes from his mouth, or the mouths of the Apostles, rather than the teachings of Jesus. This is no longer my argument, but this used to really bug me back in the day. I came from a very bible-centric background, and we spent as much time in bible study as in worship - moreso, actually. It's always bothered me how much Paul's writings influence the church. Paul was a man. Paul was not God.

Now just imagine you're this guy, and you've got this ridiculous tattoo to live with for the rest of your life: LINK

Here's a better link than the IMDB link. Much better version of the story. Years ago I stumbled across a website, most likely NOT the one I'm linking to here, that told this story. I'd heard of Mincemeat as a kid when I devoured everything WWII-related, but forgot about it over time. That was a really good website, and this one is nearly as good. Wish I could find the old one.

There was a book, and they also made a movie out of Mincemeat, The Man Who Never Was.

You guys ever read up on Operation Mincemeat? If you're in to talking about spying during WWII, Mincemeat was a huge deception by the Allies.

It's been a long time since I was digging into the history of the fall of the Third Reich, but I don't know that Russia could have defeated the Germans alone had Overlord not succeeded. Yes, they were making gains in the East, but those gains were built on the three-part front that Germany was fighting. The Germans were a terribly potent force even with the loss at Stalingrad and even with fighting on three fronts. Had they not had to commit huge amounts of men and materiel to the Western Front, I don't think the Russians had the ability to sustain their push. Let's say Overlord doesn't happen. The Germans have Britain bottled up across the Channel and can keep a defensive force in France and Belgium. That frees much of the Panzer crews and the bulk of the Waffen SS to move to the Eastern Front earlier perhaps meaning a different outcome in Stalingrad, and an already beleaguered Soviet army has to fight across all of Eastern Europe against the core of Hitler's fighting forces, instead of just half or one third. Certainly Stalingrad and Kursk were devastating blows to the Germans, but just think what happens if Kursk turns out differently - instead of the Germans being cut off and surrounded suddenly the Soviets are, and with the cream of the German armored corps fully invested on the Eastern Front, Kursk could have turned out very differently - another Stalingrad, only in favor of the Germans. If Germans are able to mount their attacks months earlier rather than waiting for the SS units to arrive, the Soviet defenses around Kursk wouldn't have been nearly as effective. From there it's anyone's guess what happens. Remember, this is the same Soviet army that had difficulty defeating the Finns just three years earlier. They were battle-hardened in that time and Stalingrad taught them cruel lessons, but they weren't (in my opinion) entirely up to defeating a fully-equipped and top-of-the-line German blitzkrieg. That same vast Russian interior that defeated the Germans and Napoleon back in the day would have worked against the Russians if they were suddenly thrown into the defensive. That's a tremendous amount of space to defend. Room to strategically retreat, sure, but you've got to fuel and supply those troops at the same time. Bah. I talk myself into circles. I could have either side winning depending on the time of day I write about it.

Those are the fumbles I remember that AA lost. But as the Comish said I do recall quite a few muffs/mishandles in the return game(especially punts) that led to missed return opportunities. I'd chalk a lot of those up to Freshmen nerves. Those will go away as the game slows down for him. Seems most of the mishandles in the punt/kick department camemiddle to later in the season to me knapp. Would chalk it up more to him trying to make a play before he had the ball than jitters. I'm rewatching much of last year's games and in the first half of the Michigan State game Abdullah put the ball on the turf twice - once on a muffed punt return and once on a decent kick return. Thankfully neither were lost, but this may support your theory that most happened later in the year.

I haven't read the rest of this thread so please forgive me if this has been covered already. First line - neither Stalin nor Pol Pot committed their acts in the name of atheism - agreed, but then, no priest raped a child "in the name of" Christianity. They exist in a hierarchy created to sustain itself, but that doesn't mean the hierarchy inherently condoned the acts (the acts are anathema to the professed belief of the hierarchy), nor does it mean that Christianity or Christians are at fault because of this. It's more of an indictment of the bureaucratic BS of the Catholic church than of the faith it is intended to serve. Regarding your second line about mustaches - I wholeheartedly agree, but not in the way I think you intended. Because Catholic priests committed acts of barbarism against children does not indict all Catholics, nor does it indict all Catholic priests. Neither does the fact that Bishops and Cardinals were involved in the cover-up indict the whole Catholic church, or even all Bishops and/or Cardinals - or even the Pope (although, if they were aware and abetted the cover-up, that's retracted). Many bad things have been done in the name of Jesus, the Church, Christianity, etc. But that doesn't mean that all of Christianity is bad. I can kill ten people using a baby bunny rabbit as a weapon - bunnies don't suddenly become bad because I misused one for this purpose, nor do people who love bunnies deserve to be pummeled over and over with my crime.

To be defined as a Christian the only thing you need to know the answer to is whether or not you've been regenerated via the power of the Holy Spirit. If you're not born again, you're not in the club The rest of that stuff takes care of itself once the Holy Spirit starts working. I'm pretty sure the only requirement of being Christian is to believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. Not a single other thing is required, near as I can tell, and even the whole "died for your sins" part doesn't seem binding, since the "thief" crucified next to Jesus was promised to be with him in Heaven that day because he believed Jesus was the son of God - Jesus had not yet died, and promised the man everlasting life.

I +1'd this for the bold. Sorry your marriage didn't work out. My wife and I are past 20 years and we've been richer & poorer, we've been through sickness & health, and better & worse. So far we're doing OK.

For the record, I did not attend this game. So this isn't on me.

Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My politics really have nothing to do with my original statement. I think it was a call any US President has to and should make without being glorified for it. It is one of the few things Obama has done or been involved with that has impressed me but I don't feel it was "audacious". I give him credit for not nixing it but, IMO it would have been extremely gutless to call it off. Just part of the job to go ahead with it. Audacious- 1. extremely bold or daring; recklessly brave; fearless: an audacious explorer. 2. extremely original; without restriction to prior ideas; highly inventive: an audacious vision of the city's bright future. 3. recklessly bold in defiance of convention, propriety, law, or the like; insolent; brazen. 4. lively; unrestrained; uninhibited: an audacious interpretation of her role. If we want to bring politics into it, consider if Bush had done this, how many people would be calling it audacious? He would have been excoriated for it in the press. Reckless, out of control cowboy antics, endangering Pakistani relations, etc. This is just another example of why I don't care for Obama. It's like the guy who scores a touchdown and can't resist the endzone dance. I prefer a guy that acts like he's been there before and gives credit to his teammates, not one that has to call attention to himself. The Somali pirate ordeal was another one. It could not be reported on without "Obama gave the order" being the lead. I realize he isn't necessarily responsible for how the media portrays things but the storylines always seem to be in agreement. I think his press machine presents things just the way he wants them presented. It was the exact opposite for Bush. Anyone who can't see the difference and double standard in how these 2 Presidents were/are portrayed would be letting politics interfere. Clearly you're letting your distaste for Obama cloud your response. If you don't like Obama that's fine, but when a player makes a great play, you've got to tip your cap, even if he plays for the other team. Had Bush made this call I would be saying the same thing. You, clearly, would not. And your very first definition of the word Audacious describes Obama's call perfectly. Extremely bold and daring. It's still true even if you don't want it to be true.

Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call. Sorry Knapplc, no it didn't. If Osama wasn't there it would have been a raid we never heard about. I said put politics aside. You are clearly being blinded by... something. If Osama isn't there this isn't just another raid. Once that chopper crashed we suddenly have top-secret assets and about 60 commandos deep inside a sovereign nation, without permission, right next to their "West Point" academy. Even if those guys get out, there is zero doubt that is an American chopper - top-secret technology, no less - in the middle of a peaceful nation's suburb. That is not a raid we will never hear about. That is a major international incident. The fact that bin Laden was there only barely made it justifiable. Had he not been there we would be in very deep weeds, and Obama could kiss this election goodbye. To be as nice as possible, the assertion that this was just another raid is asinine.

Peyton Manning says the Blackshirts were pretty damned good that day. Fred White, UT Safety, thought so, too: LINK I have no doubt that 1997 Michigan had great players. But 1997 Nebraska was a great team. And they more than deserved that national championship. And there is zero doubt in my mind that we would have wiped the field with that Michigan squad. Would've made the Tennessee beating look mild.

Put politics aside. This statement is wholly untrue. It took tremendous balls to make that call.

I might be reading this wrong, but this seems like you're giving us permission to attack you.

The microscope has been out since the 1600's. So invisible stuff wasn't attacking people a 100 years ago. And they weren't calling it "invisible stuff"....they were blaming it on witches, demons or Satan. Illness was thought to be a punishment from God for sins. Touching holy objects, saying special prayers or visiting the tomb of a saint could help to bring cures. Illness was blamed on many things in the Middle Ages (specifically in Europe), not only demons or Satan. Vapors, humours, etc were blamed for disease.

Dude, what are you talking about? This is an urban legend. Title VII didn't create some situation where unqualified people are rampantly being put in positions because of their color, sex, race, religion, etc. In fact, I'd argue that, today - in 2012 when we should all know better - people are discriminated against due to minority status in a greater per-capita percentage than non-minorities. Affirmative Action is simply an ambiguous phrase set in larger laws that prohibit the behavior traditional definitions of AA assert. It is illegal to hire someone based on their color, sex, race, religion, disability, marital status, etc. This is a law, while "affirmative action" is not. Companies have tried to implement "affirmative action" policies which mandate the hiring of minorities but they are by no means the norm, and if written into a policy the company would lose a discrimination lawsuit brought by a non-minority. (yes, discrimination laws cover non-minorities. They cover ALL workers in America) DOL Affirmative Action compliance page Note the language used: "The Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) enforces the Executive Order 11246, as amended; Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended and the affirmative action provisions (Section 4212) of the Vietnam Era Veterans' Readjustment Assistance Act, as amended.Taken together, these laws ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran."