Chase

News: Ted Cruz sweeps the remaining Wyoming delegates following the state's convention on Saturday, effectively making Wyoming a Cruz state. Ted is now only 185 delegates behind Trump and his momentum appears to remain in tact running into a likely substantial setback in New York next Tuesday. --- My respect for Bernie Sanders has definitely gone up as the race has gone on. My remaining issues with Sanders are as follows. For being a self-claimed Jew, Sanders is the most Pro-Palestine politician left in the race. In the Brooklyn debate, the topic of Israel came up and it was Clinton who was more agreeable with me. Sanders may have been playing devil's advocate on this issue - which is respectable in a race where he really needs to hit Hillary as much as possible in order to expedite his comeback - but for a Jew to not side with Israel in an argument, even for the sake of hand-to-hand combat in a debate, it's a bit disappointing. The other damning mark on this issue is that of the five remaining candidates, Sanders was the only candidate who did not speak at AIPAC's national conference a couple of weeks ago. (American Israel Public Affairs Committee.) When running against Hillary Clinton, there is one major angle of attack that you should always, always, ALWAYS take. You should be hitting Clinton on TRUSTWORTHINESS. Sanders however has refused to take that angle in hopes of not fracturing the Democratic Party in a manner similar to the way likely Republican challengers would attack Clinton. This calls into question how badly Sanders wants to win this primary race. I would imagine winning seven of the last eight contests and escalating tensions with Hillary would indicate a desire to win - but if you're not going to aim for the weakest link in Hillary's chain, as not only Republicans but many Pro-Sanders Democrats already have, it calls into question Sanders' authenticity. Sanders is a one-note politician. His approach seems to be to steal from the rich and give to the poor, Robin Hood style. That's his strongest policy approach - and one that he segues to almost every other policy angle he can. Education? Make Wall Street pay for it. Healthcare? Make Wall Street pay for it. Infrastructure? Job Creation? Defeating ISIS?....slight exaggeration aside, you get the point. Sanders' tax plan is supposed to be aimed at taxing the same "rich" from the above point - however, his plan hurts everyone from my lowly tax bracket of sub-5,000 dollars of income a year, all the way to that of Bill Gate's tax bracket. In order for Sanders' other policies to take effect (Universal HC, Free Tuition, etc.) - he would need to pass this tax plan FIRST or America wouldn't have the funds to make those things happen. The reality of Sanders' plan is this - everyone is going to be paying more taxes - and that's how he should be advertising it. Not lying to a bunch of misguided college students.

As someone who is a significant proponent of argument there are a couple of things that often -do- matter when it comes to the importance of winning - however, these are not to say that winning the argument is important in -most- cases. It really depends on the type of argument that is being made. Validation. In the example of a right-or-wrong argument, the party that is arguing on the side of righteousness (with regards to correctness) is doing their absolute best to win the argument to avoid doubt being cast on the correct. Defense. Often used by the defending counsel in court cases, the point of winning the argument in that scenario is to defend a point of view from potentially consequential scrutiny. Degree of logic. Winning an argument here consists of defending the possibility of something in logical terms. It doesn't determine truths, but it eliminates conceptions of impossibility. Truth-seeking. Again used in court cases most prominently, although considerably employed by both the defense and the prosecution. This seeks to determine the facts, and a winning argument here hopefully establishes truths and lies. That being said, there are things that are often ignored by those who are most enthused by winning. Winning an argument in any setting doesn't necessarily -mean- that the debater was on-target or right, and this causes some misleading as a result. Winning an argument being the point of engagement disregards the ability to outright communicate in several scenarios, such as what we see in democratic governments across the world. Winning an argument without making concessions or apologizing for poor form makes one hard to work with, and often doesn't result in progress being made. Argument is an inevitable part of communication because it's deeply tied to disagreement, which is also largely inevitable. Used in the right ways, it can cause people to unify to solve problems and it can broaden horizons for further research. Abused, and it results in splintered relations with your colleagues and the opposite of progress being made. The most important aspect of argument is never winning, it's solving a problem and bringing new knowledge to light.

That's the impasse though, isn't it? A (still fairly convenient) stipulation is made for you to directly sanction infringement on the right to life of those fetuses with a vote to a pro-choice candidate, but when I stipulate that I'm seeking to ensure one group isn't losing their right to liberty in another group's pursuit of liberty while looking for the most optimal position for both parties - I'm to be labelled and the only thing that's to matter is the ends and I'm to be an exhibition on valuing ideology over my fellow man because of another man's actions and pursuits. I don't think the approach should ever be "Man, how dare you vote for Bernie Sanders, you must really want to keep killing babies" or "Man, how dare you vote for Ted Cruz, you must care about your ideology more than you do about your friends who happen to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender." People have their reasons that are totally justifiable across the board - regardless of the result - and I highly doubt any of the candidates are in the running to make anyone's life miserable intentionally. --- I care because unlike the candidates on my side of the aisle that talk about "making America great again" or the failures and impending doom brought upon us by the last administration - I'm someone that still has hope for this country and can see where the policies I don't tend to agree with make a positive difference when employed at the right time. Talking to those that feel like they are targeted and are showing concerns matters to me because if I were in Ted Cruz's shoes I wouldn't want to leave anyone behind, be it those who hold a little too tightly to the past or those that cling to rights they've only just recently rightfully earned. I don't know how many people tell you this Evi, but people like you matter. You are important. I don't want to be the kind of person that fails to see the value in others regardless of if they are staunchly disagreeable or in my back pocket. I believe in compromise and I believe in doing as much good for as many people as possible. I believe you also mean well and that you fight not just for your own survival but for the survival and well-being of others. By offering pages of rebuttal over trying to insult you - I'm trying to tell you that I -do- care about your position and the way that you feel, and that as an individual I would do things differently from the man I'd most likely vote for in the Republican Party at this point. In Texas, there's an insanely stupid credence taken in "friendship". You don't see that throughout the state to any fair observer's liking, and you sure as HELL don't see it in Washington. Maybe you think talking to me is a total drag - and I can understand that due to having the self esteem of a battered mailbox - but I really, really, really enjoy talking to you about 99 percent of the things we've discussed - with the 1 percent being the vote-shaming and call-outs. Friend... I don't need to broadcast my political identity to make people dislike me. I'm unfortunately really good at that just by existing. --- The first post has been updated.

Oklahoma making it to the Final 4 and being as solid as they were during the year was predicated on two things: Returning players - which are somewhat rare when a Freshman can take one year and hop off to the NBA (like someone who is good as the next reason can) Buddy Hield - a player who is phenomenal 70 percent of the time and somewhat down 30 percent of the time. Hield had 9 points on the 'Nova game - which usually equates to a tough contest for the Sooners. That being said, Nova has always been a solid enough regular season team to warrant a deep tournament run, and they're finally making good on it. It may not be easy for the Tar Heels at all, and you should never expect that in a National Championship game. However - putting into effect things like talent on the roster - UNC should indeed be the favorites.

Godot - if this is an out of bounds thread, I'm sorry. I read the database thread and found that the official thread for Life is Strange is indeed existent - but also relatively outdated and didn't feel comfortable about possibly starting a hi-jacking in a dead thread for a different purpose. If this needs to be warned.....I guess you can say I deserved it or something. As for the rest of you - Hi. I'm Hunter - and I just experienced this game after everyone else did because #Late. The intent of this thread is to specifically, however (because I needed something to justify making another thread for Life is Strange for one, and because I'm genuinely interested.), to tell me who your top five favorite characters are in the game - and why. This happens to matter to me because this semester I am delving into a lot of fictional writing for the first time in a long time as part of educational pursuits - and I wanted to see some different prose other than my own to compare against. Essentially - this is extremely basic character analysis, and Life is Strange has ...well......lots of Characters. Tell me yours in response, but in the meantime, here's mine. --- #5 - Frank Bowers Frank, the local 'dealer', is a book often judged by his cover. The man is already a "shady" character according to the police in the area and yet somehow doesn't have probable cause because..."reasons". He's also disliked by Chloe, Max, and the Blackwell populace due to his strange proximity to the missing Rachel Amber before she vanished - leading 'Pricefield' to believe he was somehow involved initially. Frank however drops subtle hints to Max at the Two Whales of his genuine relationship to Rachel. Frank and Rachel may be the only instance where an older guy hitting on a younger woman seemed somewhat acceptable. The two characters seemed to stabilize each other. Frank is a character who finds redemption if the cards fall right - and as a guy who believes in second chances, it was touching to see Frank get his, along with realizing what his occupation wrought upon Arcadia Bay. Drugs guys. They do stuff to you. #4 - Nathan Prescott If you have ever played the horror-cliche recent release 'Until Dawn' - Nathan drew a lot of parallels to Josh, the game's antagonist. His artistic style and erratic behavior seemed to give off another striking resemblance though - Edgar Allen Poe. The poet and Nathan share a distinct knack for the macabre. Nathan's photography subjects are often of the dead birds Chaos Theory brings upon the area - and he seems to appreciate his mentor's 'tortured' works' style. Josh's connection seems to come from schizophrenia or depression, as seen by the pills Nathan relies on personally in conjunction to Frank's wares. His condition alone - to observant people' would be enough to forgive and nearly exonerate him of wrongdoing. In a way, Nathan seemed to relate to the subjects of Mr. Jefferson's muse. The pressure to succeed and the deteriorating state of mind had him just as trapped. #3 David Madsen Mr. Madsen is a very clear sufferer of Post-Tramatic-Stress disorder right out of the gate. He errs on the side of caution to the point where science teachers hold petitions to take down his surveillance rig and his own stepchild is out to cause him grief. Her best friend even ends up blowing up his relationship with his family in a spurt of rage after she wasn't even invited in the house the morning after Chloe's mischief. In other words - the security guy can't seem to catch a break in the week 'Life is Strange' takes place in. Madsen was the first character that drew contrasting feelings for me. The things he did - even to the point of slapping Chloe in the event Max doesn't take the fall for a stray marijuana cigarette - seemed like things a father normally did to me. David reminded me a bit of my father - a hothead who wasn't cool or collected even when he was safely at home. He's also one that gets redeemed ... I'm starting to see a theme here. #2 Max Caulfield Max is the protagonist of the game - but she's one that forces you to take yourself out of her shoes to understand her positions on things throughout the story - presenting a unique sense of doubt no matter -what- choice you make at any given moment. It causes a very irritating conflict of 'What would Max have done?" vs. "What would I have done?" That being said, she's presented with the coolest ability ever. That ability would be to answer the generations-old question. "If you could turn back time, what would you do?". The entire game is centered around Max doing what anyone who would were they to catch the blessing she did - or not. Her powers do come with a price (no pun intended) and as she continues to manipulate time to create ideal to necessary situations in order to reach her goals, she begins to question if what she was doing was morally sound and appropriate, along with feeling the toll of her actions herself in the form of pain and dizziness. This character doesn't let you insert who you are in the story - at least, not without making you tear yourself up over it....and in this game, destruction -is- beauty. #1 Kate Marsh How original - Hunter picks the "Christian" character as his favorite. Well - the theme that most caught my eye in this game sort of mirrors the Christian message of being redeemed. Most of the characters further down the list experience a form of "redemption" in some way (Frank assisting Pricefield in their investigation, Nathan sending a genuine apology to Max before he is slain, David willing to better himself for the sake of his family, Max -possibly- willing to go back in time to the point before she had even used her re-wind ability in order to save Arcadia Bay.) - but Kate's is the embodiment of the Christian narrative. She's perceived as innocent - another crucial theme of the story - until it's revealed that Kate's starring in a viral party video and that innocence turns into the most literal guilt seen in the game. It's later revealed that Kate's innocence was robbed, but it doesn't undo the fact that Kate herself was inebriated and willing to go to the party. In other words - she's a sinner just like the rest of Blackwell - and one that almost succumbed to it in her suicide. Max sort of serves as Kate's "Christ figure" in the story - and Kate resembles the forgiven one who is redeemed by Max's actions.

If you were to ask me - the reason it may be silly to discuss the voter-candidate reflection is because it's so unfounded. NickCrash or Ody or someone earlier in the thread identified the needle in the haystack by saying that no one candidate truly reflects the voter's view on all issues. I've taken those 6 exceptions above because there's more behind a vote than deciding "Hey, this candidate and I agree so i'm going to vote for him without caring about those I know would take justifiable exception." I would vote 3rd party in the case of a Trump vs. Clinton match-up for multiple reasons. Both candidates are heavily flawed. Trump is harmful to a potential majority of Americans stylistically and with regards to platfrom Clinton and I agree on Criminal Justice and NASA......and literally NOTHING else. I would vote Ted Cruz in a Cruz-Clinton match-up for multiple reasons. Cruz is a genuine candidate with a vastly reassuring record over Clinton. Cruz is much more agreeable. Clinton potentially threatens people groups -I- personally identify with. I have faith in the checks and balances system of this country to protect citizens from Cruz when it comes to acquired liberties and rights. I believe Cruz's preference for shooting first-asking questions later is a more effective strategy for fighting ISIS (abroad) than waiting for every capital city in the European Union to be attacked - not to mention the middle-eastern and African nations that are regularly in the cross-fire. I believe Cruz respects the rights of the citizens and knows how much power the federal government -should- have, as he is the leading Constitution scholar in field of candidates. I don't think you would vote for someone you didn't tend to agree with. I don't think you would vote for someone that endangered people you identify with. I don't think you would care first and foremost from your own perspective - about the collateral yourself. This goes back to Jericho asking you about the victims of legalized abortion. How would you feel if I looked at the LGBT community and decided "You know what, Hunter - I think I can justify voting for a candidate that endangers these people by dehumanizing them?" Your argument to Jericho was that fetuses are not human. 55,772,015 abortions have taken place since the Roe v. Wade decision. If you were to humanize fetuses, that would be tens of millions of dead humans. Therefore, being pro-choice would mean you're bearing the lives of that many people that were not to be as collateral - and counting. On the other side of the coin - I would be bearing the homicides caused against the LGBT individuals - and I'm not going to stoop as low as dehumanize them. I would argue that we're talking about right to liberty in Cruz's case vs. right to life in the abortion scenario for the most part (making exception for LGBTers killed by the hands of others.) Any vote can be covered in blood - which is why nailing the voter to that cross IS silly. --- News: Bernie Sanders is flying (#BirdieSanders) on in a very competitive manner - picking up Alaska and Washington state yesterday. It's nice to see he and Cruz clawing back into the race. Boring primaries are boring, yo. Hawaii will also be announced soon - a state that has low African American and Hispanic populations and uses a caucus format - two things that favor Sanders sweeping Western Saturday. --- I read a very interesting article on the types of "evangelicals" when it comes to political identification. the "Old Evangelicals" are the only group of deep conservative Christians that prefer "religious right" candidates - and the best fit of those would be Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Rick Santorum. Old is pretty self explanatory. the "Institutional Evangelicals" - or the charity and megachurch heads - prefer electable Christian candidates (such as Marco Rubio.) the "Entrepreneurial Evangelicals" - or business-tycoons, televangelists, and private university heads - tend to prefer strength economically with regards to conservative candidates over religious influence (Trump.) the "Arm's Length" Evangelicals don't make a lot of political headlines because they care about individual research and faith over political activism. While varying - they like Marco Rubio's view of his faith in politics more than others. the "Millennial Evangelicals" are the young guns. They are politically aloof - less likely to be conservative on many issues save for abortion. Support tends to be anywhere from Dr. Carson to Bernie Sanders - sans Clinton. the "Liberal Evangelicals" consist of left-leaning Evangelicals - a noteworthy group being African American church groups. 16-17 percent of Evangelicals fit into this group - and support Hillary Clinton (and Sanders) the most. the "Cultural Evangelicals" tend to be those guys that call themselves that without being a strong churchgoer - and these groups tend to support Donald Trump during this election cycle. I personally identify as an Arm's Length evangelical - focusing my political energy on things like interpretation of the Constitution and personal research.

Currently, only three candidates of the five (Cruz, Sanders, Kasich) - have the ability to talk about current action as they are currently holding positions of government authority. If you're not talking about current action and you are talking about "wants" then the only thing you can do is appeal, hold discourse, and you can't actually act - then you effectively have a philosophical debate and the intent gets more attention then arcane action, unless we're going to "re-litigate the past" as Hillary Clinton effectively put it in Flint. At the time the "actions" are suggestions and the only action is free-speech in the hopes of persuading voters. In order to level to playing field in the race - the authority of candidates-in-power is reduced to stump speeches, ground games, fundraising, and debates, giving the candidates insignificant opportunity to use action as a beacon for their potential presidency during the campaign cycle. --- It's okay if you don't agree that centrism is the most positively effective ideology, and appealing to as many Americans as possible regardless of political identity. It's also okay to be skeptical of any candidate - but by saying "Kasich's well above Trump or Cruz" you -are- essentially agreeing with me when taking into account how the two primaries work. Kasich winning the GOP nomination doesn't bar Bernie or Hillary from winning the Democratic nomination - but it does block out Cruz and Trump. I would disagree that Bernie is palatable to as many Americans as possible ideologically, which would make him a worse representative in comparison to Kasich - but I've already said Hillary would be a very good Democratic representative based on that check list as a whole. --- Passion absolutely matters during elections. A lively candidate encourages higher turn-outs and higher voters behind them. In an election - it's not just our own individual votes that count. I never claimed it was good or bad, but that it was important. If Bernie Sanders wasn't as passionate about his campaign as he is, do you think he reaches his fundraising goals as easily? Do you think he has enough support to remain in the race? --- My philosophy is not pick the shiniest of two dung beetles. My philosophy is a research-centered approach that is adaptable with the nuances of the campaign and aims to identify the best candidate to vote for based on agreement across the board, appealing to as many Americans as possible - including my friends in any group, and looking for the most efficient potential problem solver. It's okay to disagree with me that the appropriate candidate is Ted Cruz - but if we were to let all 17 GOP and 6 Democrats back into the party, I too would say Ted Cruz isn't the best fit - but he becomes increasingly so when there's two horribly flawed candidates, two ideologues, and a centrist that simply doesn't have enough gas in the tank to feasibly back. It's a little blown out of proportion to assume the absolute worst and crucify those who vote against your personal interests or disagree with you. If you want to garner support for your cause - crying wolf isn't the best way to go about it.

I guess we'll have to disagree on that matter. If actions dictate what defines a person, then the only thing that matters about people is that they are all flawed, depraved, and inconsistent. There isn't a single living soul on this planet that has a clean rap sheet. You can't value recent "improvement" because it's usually always cancelled out by the next mistake. You can't conceivably tally up every "good" and "bad" thing someone does throughout the course of their life. What defines you - and truthfully, what defines all the candidates when pertaining to identity - is intent. I don't recall Ted Cruz pulling a Donald Trump and saying "I -WANT- to take the rights away from the LGBT community that they have earned." or "I -WANT- to persecute Muslim Americans." - Both of those "positions" are actually adverse effects of Ted's plan to carry out his intents on "defending religious liberty" and "destroying ISIS". If we did the justice of putting the candidates hearts and intents into the political arena, we would have a completely different race on the Republican side. We would have 17 candidates with a hopeful vision for America. Same goes for the 5 or 6 Democratic candidates that were there at the beginning. What becomes the next thing to talk about due to all the positions being similar in intent? THE ISSUES - which I think we can BOTH agree matter more than records when it comes to fixing the problems of the present and bettering America in the future. If we are putting so much credence on the actions of a person - then it's no wonder we get petty fights over past happenstances on both sides. --- The second issue with your assertion that my supporting Cruz over the other four remaining candidates reflects my position on LGBT equality is that it dismisses every other issue in the race and provides special pleading to the group. If I were voting solely on the behalf of the LGBT community would my first, second, hundredth, etc. choice really be Ted Cruz of all people? No - and I'm not going to vote on behalf of myself or even my friends when the ramifications of who ascends to the Oval Office are so much greater than us. Ideally, we'd have a conservative president that acknowledged the 49.9% < of Americans that probably opposed said conservative president as equally American and equally important when it comes to representation. --- Thirdly, there is the side-by-side comparison that has to be made when selecting which candidate "best" represents the ideal president. Ideologically, the best choice for President of the United States in the field would be Governor John Kasich - who is proudly a moderate center-rightie who has flip-flopped on supporting the LGBT community only because he's looking for the best way to attract voters in a primary that is polarizing and not favorable to the center. With regards to strength, All five remaining candidates have had flashes of strength. With regards to outward care for the most Americans - it would again favor Governor Kasich. With regards to experience, take your pick between Hillary Clinton and John Kasich for executive positions. With regards to compromise in general - look at Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and John Kasich, who all have been relatively good negotiators. With regards to passion, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders are the bastions of their parties. Of those six points - Governor Kasich is identifiable as exemplary in FIVE of them - and despite being the best polling Republican in head-to-heads against Clinton and Sanders, he's the remaining candidate the least amount of Republican voters are excited about. His presumptive opponent would Hillary Clinton - who bats a respectable .500 due to being exemplary in three of the six points - and she herself doesn't exactly make the blues excited to go to the polls. I would HAPPILY vote for John Kasich - if only he had a chance to win - due to being the best fit by meeting the most criteria above his opponents for a position that is held accountable by every American and beholden to none. --- Fourthly, you completely ignore the nuances of the campaign by saying a Cruz vote is indicative of my real views on LGBT equality. The nominee having a conceivable path to the White House unfortunately matters when deciding who to get behind. Cruz is someone that still has a chance of beating Donald Trump before a convention fight (albeit a slim one) and would allow for a democratic process to decide the nominee as it should. Kasich has no math on his side and might even need to make a deal with Cruz in order to actively "bar" Trump from the nomination by having Cruz cease fire in Kasich friendly areas on the map - just to hope to succeed in horse trading to a degree that a large majority of Republican Primary votes were essentially worthless. --- Fifthly, there's the effect of voting to harm the least amount of people, because with the four candidates with a prayer of the White House - you have to agree with positions and take all of the above into account to cast a meaningful vote - the other Americans around you do matter. Let's say I'm a Cruz voter in November and he wins the nomination - My vote doesn't look too helpful to LGBT members yes, but outside of that, it may only hurt Muslims. Let's say the two groups are all at risk. My other option is holding my nose and backing Donald Trump - hurting LGBTers (if he's not lying about religious liberties and selecting conservative judges.), Muslims FOR SURE, Mexican immigrants FOR SURE, Chinese Immigrants FOR SURE, and Women - with potentials for African Americans, Japanese Immigrants, and even disenfranchised conservatives. ....That's not very ideal. We've also already established Kasich's faults and I'm not going to compromise principles and specific ideological mainstays to vote for someone on the other side. A vote for a third partier would only spoil a Ted Cruz who I feel is not nearly as harmful as the man in the front of the pack right now. --- With so much at stake behind a vote - the final piece rebuke I have is that I am not currently running for President. If I were - I would vote for myself and hope for the blessing of getting elected and having the chance to SHOW you my intent if even after all that you still need actions to re-enforce my true identity. There's much too many other variables in play to make the claim to who I am based on my vote. Just like having the ability to judge my heart, you also don't have the ability to tell me who I am when you hardly know me.

If your point was on respecting doctrine while avoiding persecution - then I certainly agree. I was only pointing out that tendencies on the outside - along with internal uncertainty in several cases - make it harder for some than for others. I also think avoiding persecution of groups doesn't have to amount to supporting them. I think Cruz stopped short of advocating raiding Muslim homes because of the 4th Amendment - which would directly block search and seizure without a warrant. Granted, I don't think if the presumable crime was a mass terror attack that it would be all that hard to obtain a warrant, but Cruz pushed for something from the angle of viable law enforcement under the Constitution. it's a matter of tough love versus tenderness - where the expectation for the Muslim communities that are surveyed is that they cooperate with police and continue to be law-abiding citizens. He approached the matter in a suggestive tense from a candidate's perspective as well - which means it was more off-the-cuff in response to the Brussels attacks then it was a part of his platform. He certainly wasn't demanding President Obama to ditch Cuba early and issue the order himself. When Cruz clarified that he was thinking of something similar to the NYC patrols - I kinda didn't understand where he was going for in terms of effectiveness. Either you bust in with a warrant, or I agree, you won't be digging up much of anything. LGBT rights is a fair argument as they are unfortunately in conflict with religious liberties as of this time - but I think you're swapping some of Cruz's policies with Trump's when it comes to the equality of Muslim Americans (giving him a break for his response on patrolling neighborhoods in the case of it being a response to the attacks and being off the cuff as opposed to it being a policy point.) The Republicans have been very opposed to Syrian refugees and have been tough on Middle Eastern Muslims in proximity to ISIL, but with regards to Muslim America, only Trump is calling for brash review of Islam as a whole - Cruz actually is softer on American Muslims' rights than me when it comes to acquiring weapons and the like. I think you're being a little unfair to Bernie. Just because his policies are going to have to survive a conservative Congress doesn't mean he's lying about them or a flip-flopper. I think Bernie is one of the three most genuine folks in the race, along with Cruz (through record) and Governor Kasich (through record and having no shame in centrism.) Unfortunately, most of America seems to like their front-runners like they like their pancakes. --- Now comes the part where I would encourage you to level with me instead of positing false merits such as "minimal decency" that only favored candidates get to disregard. Instead of attacking children and LGBTers and spouses - liberals tend to attack hard-working Americans who have been frugal enough to consider themselves "wealthy" along with who have been vigilant enough to become a business owner of any size. Some of the most disgusting "insults" from the left are that all stock brokers are "crooks" - and suggests that they "should be jailed" when buying and selling stocks is a service those brokers offer. Liberals have adopted a tolerance policy that belittles the views of religious people in a manner that mirrors anti-theism and as such they attack the logic of one's faith as a part of their opposition. Liberals also tend to attack men (See the calls for rebuke when Bernie shushed Hillary in the Flint, Michigan debate as opposed to the time Ted Cruz told Donald to "Breathe" in Detroit.) when they are trying not to assert dominance but to compete on a level playing field with women. Under your suggested definition of "minimal decency" - it would seem that some groups get more pity than others when it comes to insults and attacks. That's not minimal decency - that's just outright favoritism. If we're going to establish decency as a standard, then we had better be doing so in a manner that is fair and balanced. I think the best way to determine decency is to see the regular attack lines of each candidate: Donald Trump: Lyin', Little, Low-Energy, No-Action, All/Most Muslims hate us Hillary Clinton: Republicans are Terrorists Bernie Sanders: Wall Street = Criminals Ted Cruz: 'Washington Cartel', 'Lyin' Mitch McConnell' - the insults you claim apply to the LGBT community go here too. John Kasich: "Toxic Environment" Looks like everyone fails the minimal decency test. Why not just establish two things - that All Americans have equal value, and that resorting to insults is weaker than talking issues and logical reasoning? --- The other thing here is that I still think you are very, very wrong in attributing my vote for a candidate as a support for rescinding the rights of certain people. I encourage you to talk to those that know me best if you don't believe me - but I don't think I have to vote liberal and vote pro-LGBT just to avoid being anti-LGBT. Senator Cruz's heart and intents are not a reflection of mine. I can't judge his heart - and in the same token you can't judge mine correctly. Owning the risks doesn't mean I am justifying the means.

I -didn't- overgeneralize. The middle of spectrum tends to be younger New Reformers who see Christ as a political inspiration/individualist and thus emphasize grace more than they do sin/sin more than they do grace. New Reformers are essentially the "moderates" of the group, with right leaning -and- left leaning individuals. (To clarify - this point is driven by going from Fundamentalists to New Reformed on the right, and from New Reformed to Good News Apostle on the left.) There legitimately "isn't" a Christian that is unique to oneself. 99 percent of the time one has a legitimate concept of their faith - there is a group they fit into, while the one percent is essentially so due to outside factors such as population density. To further clarify, these are mostly tendencies within the spectrum, not declarations. This is the co-lateral I was talking about earlier. Senator Cruz has emphasized that he would overturn EVERY executive action order made under President Obama by his own executive order. This is an area where I -will- say Cruz's approach is insensitive and absolutely wrong, and as a voter earlier in the process I didn't take as kindly to it, which lead to my vote for Rubio. If your goal is to sway my vote from Cruz to the Democrat in November should he beat out Trump - It won't work for you because there are many executive orders Obama has made - some regarding immigration - that actually hinder conservative issues more than they do helping them without being justifiably better for the country. Yes, it's too brash for my liking - No, it's not going to make me vote for Trump instead - and it's for sure not going to give me a vote for Hillary. If Cruz is the presumptive nominee, most of his message I -can- get behind. This is an area where I didn't before and I won't now. This is the crux of the issue. Liberals will first denounce Cruz's plan as overblown and reprehensible, and then pivot and point to ineffectiveness. Meanwhile, in Brussels, raids on Muslim neighborhoods (a step up from Cruz's policy suggestion of patrolling the streets.) has produced more evidence tying ISIL to the attacks at the airport, and produced six arrests that prevented another attack. Cruz also pointed to a rather controversial effort in NYC under Mayor Bloomberg that was largely ineffective - with the argument from some being that it wasn't comprehensive enough - as opposed that it was ineffective and undercut Muslim communities. Again, Global Warming is real - but it's no selling and buying point for me. I'd rather Cruz come out and say it as I did rather than deny, deny, deny - but to his voter base here in Texas, that 21 hour filibuster he's famous for is EXACTLY why the state put him in that Senate seat. Texas wanted a conservative who was going to fight on behalf of it's deep-red constituents and in that respect it elected one who has. I agree with you on the uncompromising issue - and I personally didn't vote Cruz's way on it - but his record as a Senator has proven that he is more truthful after the fact than some politicians in the same respect you feel he lies more than other politicians. For a voter like me that wants a conservative in office to throw bombs every now and then - his record proves that he can and that he has. For a voter like you that probably would support very few conservatives if at all - Cruz would look like a deceiver to you. It's easier to call the bull on a candidate you don't have a remote chance of supporting than to call it on those you do.

Let me start by saying that there are two types of Christians, ironically mirroring that of the two majority types of political identities in this country. Liberal Christians and Conservative Christians. The Conservative Christian ranges from the radical Fundamentalist that spouts about the end times and likely is willing to stand up and advocate young earth creationism while his wife spends the majority of her time doing housework under the incorrect notion that that's all she's worth and his children save up money to run away in the future - to the New Reformer (which I am one of) who understands the costs of sin and wishes to pursue the reality and gravity of the gospel, while working to go against the grain and hold discourse with as many different Christians - and others from Muslims to Nones - as possible. The weaknesses of the conservative Christian are often found in an overemphasis of sin and lack thereof in grace - as you've pointed out. When you focus so much on sin - it shows even in your political disposition and you tend to vote for laws to be enforced. You tend to favor tough love over tender approach and you tend to reflect the visages of the Pharisees Jesus condemned during his travels - the same Pharisees that ultimately had Jesus crucified. The Liberal Christian - from fringe New Reformers who focus on grace to Episcopalians and Non-denominational churchgoers focuses on the "Gospel" in the sense of it's root meaning - "Good News". When it comes to grace, the liberal Christians are actually quite adept at being welcoming. Recently, with regards to the LGBT community, the Episcopal became "that church" that elected to allow same-sex marriages to be conducted. It drew criticism from textual scholars and everyone to the right of Episcopal on the spectrum in that the idea wasn't "Biblical" - but it's a staggering difference from the conservative Christian in that it's accepting. Conservatives can learn a thing or two from Liberal Christians about hope and grace. However - the liberal Christian's faith and doctrine becomes suspect to heavy scholarly scrutiny in that it does two things off base - make pie-in-the-sky earthly promises [Pray to the Lord, and He will heal your dying loved one, help you win the Powerball, get you that Lamborghini you've always wanted.] and contrasting with the weakness of the right, the left tends to overemphasize on grace - to the point where Sin isn't mentioned at all. This is where you get the people who are nominal Christians more often than not. They aren't taught the doctrine or the importance of Jesus' death - and they go with nothing with a badge and hope that is not founded in Scripture. --- I'm not going to say Cruz doesn't dodge questions, but I've seen everyone from Donald Trump to Bernie Sanders have a moderator ask them a question twice due to a similar fault in a debate. Deflection is the knack of the politician and if you can't answer it it's better to deflect and score political points than it is to drop the ball and take a net loss - that's part of the game. I'm not going to say that Cruz has always appeared to have been compassionate, but he's running an anti-establishment campaign that lives and dies on being oppositional and it's par for the course for him to be unapologetic. Any Christian that tells you they are perfect is a liar and that should never be used as a selling point to be one. Many people assume Cruz is the mold of the Mike Huckabees and Rick Santorums of the world, where the Religious Right is the backbone of their campaign - but Cruz isn't running on Religious conservatism so much as he is running on pure unadulterated conservatism - from Deep red conservatives to Libertarians. Every politician from Trump to Sanders has missed the dartboard when it comes to truth - and it's easier for us to point at the bullshit coming out of a candidate we don't support than it is to do so for those we support. Honesty is spotty when the top priority is campaigning. This is why debates are more important than stump speeches. Despite Trump's parroting of the "Lyin' Ted" schtick - Cruz,a former lawyer - has actually been very well versed with the truth. Abraham Lincoln, by the same coin, isn't batting a 1.000 in honesty, despite the popular moniker. The biggest problem with ISIL is that it does two things to America - it makes the conservatives look weak for falling for the fear triggers and calling for such policies as Cruz did on Tuesday, and it makes President Obama and fellow liberals look weak for redirecting the attacks to preserving the identity of Muslim America. Terror, regardless of if a Conservative or a Liberal has been Commander-in-Chief, has done a fair deal of besting us. It's caused a lot of finger pointing. Democrats at conservatives for supporting a war that potentially de-stabilized the Middle East, and Republicans at Muslims in general for the evidences found through the attacks. It pits the importance of protecting America and it's allies against Social Justice - which makes it harder for anyone on either side to get things done. It makes complete jerks like Trump and ideologues like Cruz look "right" to their constituencies whenever terror attacks commence. As with religious liberty and ....again social justice - it makes compromise and meeting both goals harder. As a conservative I could take the opportunity - as the candidates have unfortunately - to point out that establishing political correctness and presenting olive branches impedes on doing anything to solve the problems ISIL poses - or I could be willing to find some way to meet liberals halfway. The problem with national defense and social justice? Those are two topics nobody is going to compromise on respectively. Social Justice always is a progressive agenda that has no grounds for making a U-turn in hopes of solving other issues, while national defense is an outright obligation of whoever is holding the Oval Office as Commander-In-Chief. Compromise is an essential tool when it comes to being an American politician at any level, because of the widely encouraged spectrum of political identity. Without it, nothing gets done, and every politician gets dragged into undeserved scrutiny. There is no argument to be had here - Compromise is the most effective way of fighting off ideological conflict, and when either side fails to do so - Lookin' at you, Cruz - it makes life much more difficult. Believe it or not, there was a time Neolibs and Neocons got along. --- To answer your question about radicalization - I believe both you and Senator Cruz have points. Yes, the radicalization of any religion is permissible until it denies another party their right to life. Cruz could argue that terrorist attacks is enough probable cause to say lives are endangered to justify such hardline position on patrolling neighborhoods. You can also say that if lives aren't lost there is no probable cause, but the issue with this approach is that it's very reactionary. Conservatives tend to want to fight terror before it occurs, while Liberals want to preserve the unflinching face of freedom until they have enough evidence to act. Neither approach should be vilified, but when you take into other issues like social justice and constitutionality - it becomes a little harder to avoid scrutiny from either side. This is in no way a justification of Cruz's tactics, but hopefully it sheds a little bit of light on his approach. For example, if Christians were the ones behind terror attacks in the scale ISIL seems to have, I would be willing to comply to a patrol in my neighborhood as a Christian. Muslims and Christians both have "sword verses" in their Scriptures that - to me - should the need to prevent terror rise high enough - would present probable cause. So long as I don't become a radical Crusader and start leaving breadcrumbs in my subdivision on my way to the supermarket down the street - I won't get arrested.

The way I view Pokemon is often the way I would view a fine wine, or your best friend. In 1998, I loved Pokemon because it provided instant gratification to childish desires. The game and I had a basic mutual relationship where my dedication resulted in progressing through the game, and in return the game would throw something new at me, such as a new Pokemon I hadn't ever seen before, an achievement such as beating Brock for the first time, or besting Team Rocket and feeling like a superhero. What the game fed me, I appreciated, and in return, the game was beaten because I would keep coming back to it. in 2001, I loved Pokemon because it built on the foundation that my experience in 1998 provided while providing vibrant color and new experiences, while also introducing me to the art of challenge. Just when you finally take down Lance and you think you've finished playing, Kanto opens it's gates yet again and you've still got a whole region to trek. It's the hangover from the wine, and the argument with your best friend. In 2004, all of the same applied, but it became about milestones. Instead of merely running in the race I wanted to take the gold medal. It's the development of alcohol tolerance, or fostering a competitive nature with your friend. In 2007, it all lapsed. Resisting the wine, having to appreciate your friendship from a distance. in 2010, it was all of the former glory that it used to be. Revisiting the bottle and your old pal - and feeling the nostalgia after being away from both for so long. and now - it's about the story telling and reminiscing and going deeper, placing bets on competitive matches. It's the wine you keep on display, it's the #Squad, it's always been there for you. For me, Pokemon got better with age. It's not that the games have been made to fit my difficulty level or that everything is released as I would hope it would be - but Pokemon never had to be agreeable with me to bring me joy. It was just there for me. Always.

Watch for Gonzaga. That team isn't as impressive as the rest of the field, but they are well built. Syracuse isn't bad either. Whoever comes out of that 10-11 Sweet 16 match-up would be the Cinderella.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about Ted Cruz to me is that the dominoes fall his way to make amends for those dated (and recent) transgressions against particularly liberal constituents or voters that don't identify with him particularly well, but due to the position he is in with regards to the race and his already one-track mind of defending conservatism in America he doesn't capitalize on those opportunities. Politicians make gaffes, and some politicians alienate and verbally wound various individuals and groups. One of my favorite politicians - Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee - is one of those people who "crusaded" against transgendered individuals on the grounds that allowing transgendered individuals to use the restrooms of the gender they identify with would threaten cis individuals in a sexual manner - painting them (perhaps accidentally, perhaps on purpose) as sexual predators. It's comments like that will immediately turn off voters - but it's also comments like those that rally the bases. As a Christian, I naturally won't personally affirm that being homosexual or transitioning are well and good in the grand scheme of things, but as an American who has watched time elapse - and yes, this is a traditionalist acknowledging changing times - I won't condemn, disown, or make it a part of my stump speech to disavow their choices. My rationale for opposing those issues in the political arena will be limited to the means of which those rights are obtained. If the Constitution's corners are not being cut - the will of the people through their legislators is being carried out. This shows in my distaste for the Obergefell decision and my alternative suggestion of carrying out the ratification process to reach the same end. Because Supreme Court Justices are not elected officials but instead are nominated by one person - the Democratic Process, and therefore legislation, is not reserved to those officials in America. If the result of a Court decision mirrors federal legislation, the American People are subverted on the matter and the results could cause the Constitution to lose strength with regards to the citizenry as a whole. Aside from that - I don't oppose the decision. If the American People want same-sex marriage legalized, then who am I to oppose that so much to overturn the decision? It is well with my soul. I agree with you Eviora, without surrendering conservatism. To attack a trans person - ESPECIALLY a child - is a sign of cowardice, and it's high-time those of us on the right "come to Jesus" on the issue. It's not going to make me condemn Senator Cruz for sticking up for a voter bloc that feels abandoned by their government, but it is enough to denounce what he said, and I have hopes that one day Ted will also come to change his views on the issue. Jesus once ate with the tax collectors, the lepers, the prostitutes, the poor. He once did the unthinkable and talked with women in broad daylight - something that was not with the times and especially looked down upon in Biblical Israel. He was someone that reached out to those who the religious authorities would instead cast stones at and vilify. I'll admit that I am not the best example of the suffering servant as Christ was. I'm someone who struggles with mercy and who is incredibly stubborn. I can utilize microaggresions with the worst of them. I was never royalty but I was blessed to avoid true strife and to have been born in this nation that despite Trump's repeated stump speech's push-back is still "Great." I am too much of an analyst and as such tend to be cold. I find it hard to forgive. When I support someone like Ted Cruz, it's because his vision is agreeable on issues that Americans that support him to those that despise him face. - not the people he slights, gaffes he issues, or wrongs he commits. I have already in this thread owned my potential co-lateral damage. I believe a man like Ted Cruz stands for the right things on some issues - and can be reconciled with on the others. This is a race that includes someone far worse on his side of the aisle and the potential opponent of that far worse someone is not even all of the Democrats' first choice. This doesn't make Cruz the best option for everyone - but in the same way Bernie feels "genuine" to you left-leaning folks, Ted speaks to those of us on the right looking for a "real" individual.

Kansas-Villanova (ROCKCHALKLETSGO) Oklahoma-Oregon (Boomer Sooner! - I'll forgive OU knocking out another Final Four team.) However picked Miami - good game, sir. It was a very solid pick this year. I need the Hoos to handle the Cyclones in what should be one of the better games tomorrow - as well as North Carolina to stop the Hoosiers (although as a fan, I wouldn't mind an Indiana win.) The other two games fell by the wayside in earlier incorrect picks.

I would be too. It's fair to say that Trump initiated this spat after an non-affiliated Super-PAC named 'Make America Awesome' ran attack ads all over the state of Utah (which is a very huge stronghold for the Latter-Day Saints (Mormon) crowd) in order to bolster Senator Cruz's efforts to reach the 50% mark and damage Trump further in the public eye. The attack ad focused on a photo op of Trump's wife - Melania - who posed half nude - and appealed to the very religious area by vilifying Melania's scandalous appearance, followed by suggested that Utahans vote for Cruz. However - the error on Trump's part at the beginning of this family feud is that Trump wrongly assumed Senator Cruz issued the attack ad. Make America Awesome isn't in Cruz's corner so much as it simply is very far away from Trump's Trump responded with a tweet that threatened Cruz of 'spilling the beans' about Cruz's spouse - Heidi. Cruz - no less than 30 minutes later - distanced himself from the attack ad and called Trump 'more of a coward than [Cruz] thought' for threatening to attack his own wife. The next day, Trump struck again with this side-by-side comparison meme. This picture objectifies Heidi Cruz as an unattractive woman - and is directly from Trump - prompting Cruz's ire today.

Annd.....THERE goes Cruz's support for Trump should he win. The Republican Party is officially starting to catch flame.

So, I'm unashamed of my voting process. Bide time in hopes of a competitive contested convention where Trump's plurality of delegates doesn't dwarf Kasich and Cruz' combined. Vote 3rd Party - likely for the Libertarian Party's representative (Currently, I think it's Gary Johnson) - in the case of a Trump nomination / Vote Cruz, Kasich, or even the "knight-in-shining-armor" "establishment replacement." over Clinton in the general election. I am aware that is essentially a vote for Hillary Clinton in theory - but it allows me to clear my conscious both ways. Looking at who's the better person with a solid moral compass, the vote between Trump and Clinton would favor Hillary, but not by as much as her supporters would claim. Hillary is keen enough to lie about 4 deaths that took place in Benghazi on the trail as if they never happened - which probably would be ignorant of the families that very much still living and missing their loved ones. She has no problem about campaigning in favor (or coming across as such) of big business corruption to a voter-base that is constantly being made aware of it by her opponent. (quote: That's how much they [Wall Street] offered.) She's currently under FBI investigation over (potentially, in all fairness) leaked national security information - that she was holding on a private server for some strange reason. If this was 2008 Hillary Clinton, it would be a little easier to respect her humanity over Trump - unfortunately, her appeal to humanity since being Secretary of State is rather damaged, and to say it's at least "better than Trump" is a sad state of affairs for all Americans. Looking at who is more agreeable with myself, the vote would favor Donald Trump - assuming he's being honest and depending on how good his "negotiating" really is. I would safely say that I would trust Donald Trump more to pick better Supreme Court justices than I would Clinton - but my trust in that is significantly thin considering Donald seems like the guy who is very impatient when it comes to deal-making. This means that even with a conservative Senate in his first year, he could still potentially put up a closet liberal justice. If Trump were really a conservative, just as if Hillary were really a lesser-flawed person, it would make voting for Trump more forgivable. Other than that, he's no poster child for conservatism and is someone who threatens the livelihood of other innocents - which is why I'm not too concerned about making assassination jokes involving him. Because of his lofty expectations of military officials and inhuman approach to everything from fighting terror to literally just running a campaign, Trump is too flawed to justify a vote for him either - even strictly based on ideological compatibility alone. Finally, the Libertarian Party - and Johnson - have tangible ideas when it comes to fixing the debt crisis at the very least - while offering protectionism that rivals Sanders in terms of practicality and defending the Constitution better than Clinton would. He doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election or even finishing second, but the 2012 showing for Gov. Johnson was the strongest showing for a Libertarian in the general election - and that is poised to increase as Republicans like myself become more and more disenfranchised with the Republican Party. I think voting split-ticket and assessing each candidate for who they are is important. Clinton has some upsides over Trump, and Trump has some over Clinton - but due to cancelling out and lack of incentive or good consciousness in both votes, I can safely I.D. with a third of the crumbling G.O.P. that has enough evidence to #never either of them. The question then becomes why vote at all - to which I say - because if anything, the more votes a 3rd party candidate receives, the more ideology in the major party that minor party harms has a chance of change. If a Trump nomination is killed largely in part of rogue Republicans it will cause the party to re-think it's image and in four years perhaps a guy like Marco Rubio or a strong conservative like Ted Cruz can run with a clearer vision that half of the country would have for America. --- Upcoming Races: Arizona: A border state where Immigration is expected to dominate as the most important issue for the GOP race. This is a Winner-Take-All that has seen a Trump tidal wave in early voting and a Cruz surge late. Many ground operatives are predicting that Cruz pulls the rug out from under the Donald in the state with good reason. Arizona is a closed Primary, meaning Republicans only at the precincts.Good reason however, may not be enough when Trump has the head start to his advantage as he has in several other contests. For now, let's just say that I predict Trump winning here - and Hillary holding serve with Bernie easily. Utah: A proportional caucus state for the Republicans that is traditionally a conservative area - and the territory Gov. John Kasich is focusing on as the third wheel candidate. This state is a very unique state when it comes to the Trump Train trend - in that the Donald is polling DEAD LAST here, led by second-place Kasich, who is absolutely well behind Ted Cruz. Over 50 percent polling for Ted would be significant, as it denies a floundering Trump delegates. This win would help him remain "viable" - but he's really hoping for the upset in Arizona so that he can sweep Tuesdays primaries. Doing so would help Cruz on the way to trying to clinch the nod by reaching 1,237 delegates - which he needs 80 percent remaining to do.

Day in review: Notre Dame found a way to survive, but if those two games SFA played in told you anything - the Lumberjacks are for real. I almost struck GOLD off of that game. Xavier is the first Final Four team on my bracket to be eliminated - and that's bad because anyone who has UNC going pretty far in the east has a pretty good lane now. Boomer Sooner, Gig 'Em Aggies, and Go Terps. Sweet 16 games I correctly predicted - Virginia/Iowa State, Texas A&M/Oklahoma, Kansas/Maryland. I obviously need A&M (despite being a Sooner fan), Virginia, and Kansas to move on in order to gain some big points and pass Ody.

I didn't hear about that..... Anyways, things to look out for tomorrow Stephen F. Austin -could- beat Notre Dame, a team that I feel is perhaps matched up better against the Jacks but is worse than West Virginia is. That's my Round of 32 (Day 2) upset bid. Another logical upset bid would be Mid Tenn State toppling Syracuse. Dayton - the team that lost to 'Cuse in the first round, is a solid tourney team lately and this isn't the same Orange squad we're used to seeing. The interesting thing about a MTS victory in this one - it would set up a date with a mere 11 seed in Gonzaga, meaning a double-digit seed will advance to the Elite Eight. VCU-OU, NIU-A&M, and St. Joes-Oregon will be very good match-ups. The Ducks are a team of inconsistency and when they lose - they lose bad. Oklahoma lives and dies by the three point shot, and the Aggies need to know that NIU plays good ball. Perhaps my biggest game personally for points/champion insurance in this Round of 32 match-up between Hawaii and Maryland, who is also an inconsistent team. Maryland winning will net me points, while the 'Bows pulling the upset would give Kansas a cleaner path to the 'Ship and help me later on.

@ Torpedocat Oh, that's pretty cool. You don't meet too many of those where I'm from. There are some things about communism that I actually like better than socialism, but a sizable amount of countries have not fared very well under the concept - keeping me from giving it a lot of personal appreciation. I do think that any of those left wing positions try their hardest to promote equality and fairness, and I think in theory communism aught to work nicely. @ Eviora Aren't we all trying to be more than vermin? I mean, we are the top of the food chain and the most intelligent species on the planet to our knowledge.... I also don't want to make this about you and I. It's a general misconception held by an opposing group of people about the opposing group. One inconsistency that I've pointed out is people-of-color conservatives. I'm not saying that -you- are inconsistently inclusive of that conservative, but that liberals are when they are out there being racial pariahs. One thing I've seen is - since telling CNN she was a conservative - a lot of hate being sent toward Jenner by her LGBT colleagues and many liberals. Political identity seems to be incredibly divisive on both sides - but when the liberals are the ones holding the "tolerance" banner it looks especially jarring from them and it makes responding conservatives jaded to the message at hand - that we need to treat everyone equally. Liberalism has also taken up a rather non-theist tone - despite holding many in it's group as believing in something other than lack of a God, and that tone has resulted in a perceived "war on religion" that may -or- may not be somewhat misconceived by theists in return. I don't personally look to our conversations as dreary. I look at them as spirited discussions between two people who are usually in a state of disagreement, that occasionally comes to small jabbing. For the most part, I think you are a very intellectual person and I enjoy talking to you. I also think you are not vermin yourself - and I'd like to be friends with you more than anything else. I can understand if you don't wish the same in return. @ Alexus Teddy ain't my favorite president - but that is one of my favorite quotes of all time. Thanks for your input.

I -should- have picked Yale - usually the Ivy League brings a school that is better than I give them credit for in the tournament. If it were HARVARD I would have had them beating Baylor. I -did- pick SFA, and I -did- pick Providence, and I did pick Butler, and I did pick VCU. I also picked Dayton - who let me down and usually is a stout tournament team. I picked Northern Iowa over Texas - and Texas is leading - and I also picked UConn - who did win, and Temple who didn't..... Sparky....speaking of Temple...HOW....

AXE 'EM JACKS.

Torpedocat - That's the nicest thing anyone has said to me today. For future reference, because in text format it's not as easy to derive sarcasm, when you say "commie" - do you really mean that you are a communist, or are you really referring to socialism? For example - Socialism advocates a strong government body that pays it's working class evenly whereas Communism advocates the working class holding all of the facilities and resources needed at the start. I ask because that's another misconception my conservative friends have - that socialists are communists. In other words, I'd just like to clarify. --- See, is that the default answer all liberals give when it comes to consistency? "I don't wanna talk about it?" I wouldn't blame myself if I -HAD- made up my mind if that's the general course of action. Way to fall in line. Incorrectly labeling disagreement or refusal as intolerance =/= not tolerating intolerance. I agree with you on this one - though I'm not afraid to admit I could imply straw-man arguments by accident. Logical discourse is the goal. Again, I agree. I disagree with outright damning traitors, but I do agree with you on treason being intolerable. Karl Rove (Atheist), Robert Ingorsall (Atheist), Charles T. Beaird (Atheist), Edwina Rogers (Atheist), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Atheist) - the Log Cabin Republicans are an LGBT advocacy group that supports the Republican Party (LGBT), Caitlyn Jenner is a conservative activist that has offered to guide candidates to a better bridge with the LGBT community (LGBT) - Goes both ways - conservatives don't disown people because of their race, gender, of beliefs either. I would agree with you on this one too - although the first point is sort of why it would seem we're in disagreement. If I didn't tolerate homosexuality, I would be a much worse person than you already think I am. I certainly agree with you here. Again, our only genuine issue is directly dealing with defensible refusal vs. "intolerance". We both knew that one already.