I disagree with this, I think the government has plenty of say in a divorce, who will get what. Most often its the woman who gets everything, including custody, and I don't think theres anything wrong with that. Kids should be with their mother. So in this sense, you are looking at marriage in terms of the man and the woman.
Ask your dad if he thinks smoking pot is good for you and he will say no. I used to be like you, thinking pot was so great, but you keep smokin it and you'll feel like you lost some of your potential. Have you ever met a hippy who's been smoking for... 40 years, like you say your dad has? They can't remember very much. Don't take me for some guy who reads everything in the papers, I'm telling you this for your own good, whether you hear it or not.
You have the right to vote but unless you are a man, you are not a person and only people can vote. Get a clue. (back when women were not allowed to vote)
See your "free rights" arguments don't apply here because there is nothing stopping gay couples from doing whatever it is they want to do. What they are trying to do is change the foundation of society, that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is for the benefit of children having a balanced upbringing. Given that society doesn't agree with the change they are proposing, they will not succeed. People are forced to go to school, do you have any objection to that? This is not a question of equal rights. Does that argument make sense to you?
Support for gay marriage is, not surprisingly, lowest among white evangelicals (12 percent), but it is lower among African-Americans (28 percent) than among any other racial group taken as a whole. When black ministers such as Boston's Eugene Rivers complained that gay activists had "exploited" the legacy of the civil rights movement to make their claim for marriage rights, leaders on the Christian right--despite records of opposing African-American civil rights--took their cue. LINK Not sure what their polling data is, but they site a gallup poll and "polls" in general in the article.
I associate this issue strongly with the civil rights struggles of african americans
Most African Americans are against gay marriage (more than whites) and they don't appreciate this comparison being made, for the record. They are not the same thing at all. You have the right to get married, but unless its a man-woman relationship, it is not a marriage. Get a clue.
We have to recognize marriages just like we recognize corporations and other legal entities. Theres no sense tearing down the foundations of society. Marriage and family are our most important institutions.
BZZZZZZT! That was George H. W. Bush. But I would not trust what Sherman wrote down on paper. I'd like to hear it first. See my post on Democrats lacking integrity.
Mr. President, why do you think the Democrats think you're such a bad leader? I think you've done an admirable job, and I can't for the life of me understand why so many people hate you.
I did a quick search and upon the realization that corporations exist in just about every country, and the extremely competitive market between them, I'd say that it is impossible to outlaw corporations and still maintain the integrity of our economy. Corporations appear vital to the world economy, and the only way to get rid of them is with a world treaty (hah hahaha hahahahaha).
Japan has an extremely competitive economy, which may very well rival America someday, they recently passed legislation to further DECREASE the liability of corporate management in an effort to increase their competitive advantage, read this:
One particular facet of the Japanese corporate law that should be revised is the area of
corporate governance. The current corporate law of Japan generally adopts a "pre-regulating"
method of corporate governance. Under this system, the corporate law imposes detailed
restrictions on the activities and decisions of the management of a Japanese company in order to
ensure the safety and reliability of commercial transactions and to protect the interests of the
company's shareholders and creditors. Though such system limits the flexibility of the
management of a Japanese company, it make it unnecessary that the management worries about
the possible liabilities stemming from their misconduct, so long as they comply with those
detailed restrictions. This "pre-regulating" system has worked well in the past because it suited to
the Japanese society in the 20th century, which enjoyed long-lasting economic growth.
However, the mismatch of these laws to the current economic environment in Japan has now
become apparent. The rapid globalization of the world economy since the end of the cold war and
revolutionary changes brought about by advances in information technology has placed Japan
squarely in the so-called "Mega Competition" with other nations. Such a business environment
demands that management be able to make aggressive business judgments and take accompanying
risks. Moreover, the shareholders and other stakeholders are required to invest in Japanese
companies, considering the related risks by themselves on the basis of sufficient information
disclosed.
In view of the current circumstances, the Ministry of Justice of Japan ("MOJ") now regards
changes to the civil, commercial, and criminal laws relating to business activities in Japan as
urgent and essential. In this regard, MOJ decided to replace the current "pre-regulating" legal
regime with a "post-remedy" legal system and formed on April 1, 2000 the "Headquarters of
Preparation of Changes in Civil and Criminal Law relating to Economic Activities" for the
purpose of accomplishing such changes within the next 5 years.
.......
(b) Reduction of liabilities of directors, etc. against their companies
(i) Waiver of directors' or corporate auditors' liabilities
Under the former law, any waiver of a company's directors' or corporate statutory
auditors' liabilities to their companies generally requires the unanimous consent of all of the
shareholders of the company. The Third Stage Changes will afford greater immunity to
corporate directors and others by relaxing this strict requirement for liabilities stemming
from violations of laws or the articles of incorporation based on simple negligence. Under
the revised Commercial Code, on the condition that one of the procedures described in (1)
or (2) below are taken, any such liabilities in excess of the following amounts may be
waived without the unanimous consent of shareholders
Seems like the world is moving more and more in this direction, as evident from the "pricipal-agent" problems we've been having with companies like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco. There may very well be an "environmental war" sometime in the future, o
Well in the question and answers post, the Libertarian candidate had a pretty good explanation for environmental regulations. Take away the non-liable nature of corporations or eliminate them altogether and they become aware that pollution will cost them a tremendous amount of money, something their stockholders are liable for. Perhaps they could make it the lawyers job to watch over these agencies (they must be good for something, right?) The stockholders would enforce the environmental protections, all the government would do is lay down a simple set of rules. There could be some negative consequences to this, but it sounds good on paper, in my opinion.
I don't know about the green party platform, but Ralph Nader wanted to vastly expand social welfare programs, which is the one thing I fear the most in a candidate. Social welfare and environmental regulations don't go hand in hand. I don't think there is anything in the libertarian mantra that makes them less environmentally friendly.
I expect that sometimes smart people can sound stupid, everyone has bad days and many people including myself have real problems with public speaking. But my job includes *zero* public speaking. A large part of a Politician's job is public speaking so I would expect him to at least sound like he knew what he was talking about. I also expect some knowledge of law and an advanced degree in hedging or not looking stupid (or whatever public speakers call what to do when some asks you a question you haven't studied up on). What I didn't expect was for the President to sound like a high school student in an oral exam he had not studied for.
So yes, I am going on what I have read and heard. When the speech deviates from the script, George W. Bush comes off as uneducated and a bit slow, but hey I could be "misunderestimating" him. It's a well known fact that Politicians hire other men to write or help write their speeches, I don't think it a long step to question someone's critical thinking when speeches go as poorly as the things I've read & heard that are attributed to him
I admire Tony Blair for having a quick wit, and a good sense of ethics. That guy really knows how to present his words strongly!
As for Bush, he is definately not a public speaker, but I disagree that a politicians job is public speaking, in fact, I'm turned off by that. Someone playing to my eyes or ears is not going to get my vote. Al Gore and Dick Gephardt both sound like robots to me, like they could both pass a lie detector test without a flinch.
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did..." - GWB to Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas
I wouldn't trust anyone named Abbas, whether Prime Minister or used car salesman, ever since a slimeball named "Abbas Abbas" sold me a used car and it broke down within a month!
Seriously though, it's sad that people get all upset when people mention the word God. Your definition and his definition of God are different. You may be thinking that white dude in the paintings. The only thing to be taken from that comment is that he went after Saddam for violating human rights, which is rule #1. "Thou shall not kill", right?
Second, our country was founded on the basis of god. Puritanism, Anglicanism, etc. If you think it isn't still a religious country, you're an idiot. 95% of the population is "spiritual". Go ahead and call it unfair or whatever. The reason nobody feels sorry for you is because your rights aren't being violated when other people pray. The noble thing to do is to close your eyes and have the generic "moment of silence" where you ponder the cosmos. It's actually quite nice to close your eyes for a minute. Just because you can't relate to one persons concept of God doesn't mean to trash and disprespect their god. If you must protest prayer, nobody is going to flog you.
Slavery wasn't a Christian institution. It's been around long before the Bible was written. It's a fact of human nature that we enslave each other. During the American slavery period, Britain had outlawed it, and they were as much Christian as we were. Christians don't advocate persecuting homosexuals, but if you're gonna say that until we redefine marriage for the homosexuals that we're persecuting them, then you are an idiot.
All in all, I think Christianity is a good thing. Funneling more money (indirectly) through religious (NOT NECESSARILY CHRISTIAN) charities is a good thing too. You will never see the kind of social rehabilitation that goes on in a church going on through some direct government owned organization. So lighten up, eh?
That being said, I would much prefer a fusion economy to a fission one, since that would solve our energy production problems in short order.
I'd like to point out that Fusion is not the end all solution to everything. I personally think natural resources are the way to go (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.) Fusion would be more prone to failure, since the stresses placed on the fusion apparatus are much higher than in a fission reactor. The super hot nuclear gas that is used in fusion reactor would easily escape in small quantities over a small period of time, thus it is not as safe as you may think. (Sheesh, I sound like a peace'nik) There is a ton of fission fuel, in addition to uranium, thorium can be used (after being used as a radiation shield in the reactor for a while it turns fissile). Thorium is also less costly to mine than Uranium, although Uranium mining is still primitive. Fusion would be a nice technology to master, for space exploration perhaps, but not for power generation on earth. With all the work that goes into maintaining a fusion reactor, why not just dig a hole a few miles into an area with geo-thermal activity and derive our energy that way? It might even be the cheapest method. We have this technology today, and it is almost as cheap as fossil fuel. I'm looking at outfitting my house with a few renewable sources of energy (small wind turbines).
I think the blue ray will fail because the rest of the industry will gang up on Sony like it would gang up on Microsoft given a flying chance at winning. Sony is renown for bundling proprietary technologies. Besides, most people can't afford a high resolution TV, it'll be a decade before widespread adoption of the HD displays.
This seems to be the strategy they employ. I was about to buy one of those micro-DV video camcorders sony was making but then I found out that you have to use proprietary sony software in order to decode the video on your PC. And that sony memory stick is a joke. Frickin sony.
Right, for the democrats is an obligation to serve science by proving that embryonic stem cell research is the payoff for treating embryo's as non-humans, and for the republicans, it's the opposite, but each issue is tied to the other, so if one goes they all go.
I'd have to agree with this. Stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion are all part of the same argument. Seems like they both have the same scientific goals, please the likes of the scientific community while reserving a huge portion of the national budget for social and foreign war efforts. Maybe science will be more important in a relatively calm election year.
I think the Libertarian party will always be subject to FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) from the other campaigns. This is why, like he says, the only way he'll ever get elected if their is massive social upheaval.
I heard the other day though that the price of wind is almost equally competitive with petrol. Will people be upset when land is bought up for wind power generation? I think it'd be kindof cool to go hiking through a mountain pass where wind power is being generated.
Yeah those were the two I found. This is a witch hunt if I've ever seen one. Someone appearing in a commercial as a veteran, volunteers for the Bush Cheney campaign. This guy is a low ranking nobody, which is why he was disposed of so quickly. He wanted to help Bush because he doesn't like Kerry, obviously. This is not coordination. They don't hire retired air force generals to run their campaign, although it sounds pretty nasty if you word it well.
Now, if you want to take a closer look at the ILLEGAL COORDINATION going on between the Kerry campaign and the 527s, read this.
I especially liked this photo that shows DNC Chief Operating Officer Josh Wachs, Senator Pat Leahy, and Zack Exley, the acting organizing director from Moveon.org. This was taken in November 2003, and in April 2004 Zach Exley jumped on with the Kerry campaign...
In April the Kerry for President Web site proudly announced: "Zach Exley joins the [Kerry] Internet team as Director of Online Communications and Online Organizing. He was previously the director of special projects for the MoveOn.org."
Exley claims he won't communicate with MoveOn until after the election, but when he teamed up with Kerry, MoveOn's executive director, Eli Pariser, acknowledged that Exley will be able to make use of "what he's got in his head."
And a statement issued by MoveOn when Exley signed on with team Kerry insisted that "federal election rules permit some forms of communication" between Exley and the liberal 527.
How much is it gonna take for you guys to get a clue? Your news outlets don't say this stuff! Call the Fox News channel biased, they aren't even reporting this stuff! Mary Beth Cahill, swarms of lawyers and volunteers that the article doesn't even bother with. The sources are credible, the DNC website itself!!! That forged CBS document appeared in John Kerry for president commercials, and now there is a massive cover-up going on at CBS (ahem, failed cover-up). You want to go beyond illegal 527 coordination, lets talk about illegally coordinating forged "documents" between a somewhat trusted news outlet and a presidential campaign. Now we're getting into some serious charges. Do you think this is too much to believe?
The thing that really pisses me off is that SBVT has raised a pittance in comparison to moveon.org. It all comes from one guy, George Soros. If you guys are all so afraid of corporations, why don't you take a second look at George Soros? He's buying everybody out!
Stupid witch hunt. You know this does reflect the character of George Bush. The fact that his campaign will preserve its integrity by dismissing these guys after democrat finger pointing. It all plays out for the democrats and the biased broadcast news organizations who can say "Look! Look! Their ranks are breaking!" Mindless trolls.
I know why peole hate George bush so much. It's because he's a Christian with real Christian values, and there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment, a surge of religious intolerance brewing in this country. It's happened all through history, and people are blind to it. I'm not a Christian, but I'll side with them and fight against the mindless pawns of a so called "progressive" billionaire immigrant, George Soros.
Slashdot Mirror
I linked to it. It was the POST swift vets quote. The author just wrote what John Kerry was telling him in your quote.
I disagree with this, I think the government has plenty of say in a divorce, who will get what. Most often its the woman who gets everything, including custody, and I don't think theres anything wrong with that. Kids should be with their mother. So in this sense, you are looking at marriage in terms of the man and the woman.
Ask your dad if he thinks smoking pot is good for you and he will say no. I used to be like you, thinking pot was so great, but you keep smokin it and you'll feel like you lost some of your potential. Have you ever met a hippy who's been smoking for ... 40 years, like you say your dad has? They can't remember very much. Don't take me for some guy who reads everything in the papers, I'm telling you this for your own good, whether you hear it or not.
You have the right to vote but unless you are a man, you are not a person and only people can vote. Get a clue. (back when women were not allowed to vote)
See your "free rights" arguments don't apply here because there is nothing stopping gay couples from doing whatever it is they want to do. What they are trying to do is change the foundation of society, that marriage is between a man and a woman, which is for the benefit of children having a balanced upbringing. Given that society doesn't agree with the change they are proposing, they will not succeed. People are forced to go to school, do you have any objection to that? This is not a question of equal rights. Does that argument make sense to you?
Support for gay marriage is, not surprisingly, lowest among white evangelicals (12 percent), but it is lower among African-Americans (28 percent) than among any other racial group taken as a whole. When black ministers such as Boston's Eugene Rivers complained that gay activists had "exploited" the legacy of the civil rights movement to make their claim for marriage rights, leaders on the Christian right--despite records of opposing African-American civil rights--took their cue. LINK Not sure what their polling data is, but they site a gallup poll and "polls" in general in the article.
Do yourself a favor and quit, dude. It drags you down in life, and I'd rather not have the temptation of buying it down at the liquor store.
Retire and move to Jamaica, now that's a plan :)
I associate this issue strongly with the civil rights struggles of african americans
Most African Americans are against gay marriage (more than whites) and they don't appreciate this comparison being made, for the record. They are not the same thing at all. You have the right to get married, but unless its a man-woman relationship, it is not a marriage. Get a clue.
We have to recognize marriages just like we recognize corporations and other legal entities. Theres no sense tearing down the foundations of society. Marriage and family are our most important institutions.
Why shouldn't two same sex people be married?
Cause the penis goes in the vagina, not the butt. If you are putting it in the butt, make a note.
BZZZZZZT! That was George H. W. Bush. But I would not trust what Sherman wrote down on paper. I'd like to hear it first. See my post on Democrats lacking integrity.
Mr. President, why do you think the Democrats think you're such a bad leader? I think you've done an admirable job, and I can't for the life of me understand why so many people hate you.
gridlock!
What the fuck did he mean by it? That is the stupidest quote I've ever heard. Go ask someone in Cuba if they agree with that.
I did a quick search and upon the realization that corporations exist in just about every country, and the extremely competitive market between them, I'd say that it is impossible to outlaw corporations and still maintain the integrity of our economy. Corporations appear vital to the world economy, and the only way to get rid of them is with a world treaty (hah hahaha hahahahaha).
Japan has an extremely competitive economy, which may very well rival America someday, they recently passed legislation to further DECREASE the liability of corporate management in an effort to increase their competitive advantage, read this:
Seems like the world is moving more and more in this direction, as evident from the "pricipal-agent" problems we've been having with companies like Enron, Worldcom, Tyco. There may very well be an "environmental war" sometime in the future, o
Well in the question and answers post, the Libertarian candidate had a pretty good explanation for environmental regulations. Take away the non-liable nature of corporations or eliminate them altogether and they become aware that pollution will cost them a tremendous amount of money, something their stockholders are liable for. Perhaps they could make it the lawyers job to watch over these agencies (they must be good for something, right?) The stockholders would enforce the environmental protections, all the government would do is lay down a simple set of rules. There could be some negative consequences to this, but it sounds good on paper, in my opinion.
I don't know about the green party platform, but Ralph Nader wanted to vastly expand social welfare programs, which is the one thing I fear the most in a candidate. Social welfare and environmental regulations don't go hand in hand. I don't think there is anything in the libertarian mantra that makes them less environmentally friendly.
I expect that sometimes smart people can sound stupid, everyone has bad days and many people including myself have real problems with public speaking. But my job includes *zero* public speaking. A large part of a Politician's job is public speaking so I would expect him to at least sound like he knew what he was talking about. I also expect some knowledge of law and an advanced degree in hedging or not looking stupid (or whatever public speakers call what to do when some asks you a question you haven't studied up on). What I didn't expect was for the President to sound like a high school student in an oral exam he had not studied for.
So yes, I am going on what I have read and heard. When the speech deviates from the script, George W. Bush comes off as uneducated and a bit slow, but hey I could be "misunderestimating" him. It's a well known fact that Politicians hire other men to write or help write their speeches, I don't think it a long step to question someone's critical thinking when speeches go as poorly as the things I've read & heard that are attributed to him
I admire Tony Blair for having a quick wit, and a good sense of ethics. That guy really knows how to present his words strongly!
As for Bush, he is definately not a public speaker, but I disagree that a politicians job is public speaking, in fact, I'm turned off by that. Someone playing to my eyes or ears is not going to get my vote. Al Gore and Dick Gephardt both sound like robots to me, like they could both pass a lie detector test without a flinch.
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did..." - GWB to Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas
I wouldn't trust anyone named Abbas, whether Prime Minister or used car salesman, ever since a slimeball named "Abbas Abbas" sold me a used car and it broke down within a month!
Seriously though, it's sad that people get all upset when people mention the word God. Your definition and his definition of God are different. You may be thinking that white dude in the paintings. The only thing to be taken from that comment is that he went after Saddam for violating human rights, which is rule #1. "Thou shall not kill", right?
Second, our country was founded on the basis of god. Puritanism, Anglicanism, etc. If you think it isn't still a religious country, you're an idiot. 95% of the population is "spiritual". Go ahead and call it unfair or whatever. The reason nobody feels sorry for you is because your rights aren't being violated when other people pray. The noble thing to do is to close your eyes and have the generic "moment of silence" where you ponder the cosmos. It's actually quite nice to close your eyes for a minute. Just because you can't relate to one persons concept of God doesn't mean to trash and disprespect their god. If you must protest prayer, nobody is going to flog you.
Slavery wasn't a Christian institution. It's been around long before the Bible was written. It's a fact of human nature that we enslave each other. During the American slavery period, Britain had outlawed it, and they were as much Christian as we were. Christians don't advocate persecuting homosexuals, but if you're gonna say that until we redefine marriage for the homosexuals that we're persecuting them, then you are an idiot.
All in all, I think Christianity is a good thing. Funneling more money (indirectly) through religious (NOT NECESSARILY CHRISTIAN) charities is a good thing too. You will never see the kind of social rehabilitation that goes on in a church going on through some direct government owned organization. So lighten up, eh?
That being said, I would much prefer a fusion economy to a fission one, since that would solve our energy production problems in short order.
I'd like to point out that Fusion is not the end all solution to everything. I personally think natural resources are the way to go (wind, solar, geothermal, hydro, etc.) Fusion would be more prone to failure, since the stresses placed on the fusion apparatus are much higher than in a fission reactor. The super hot nuclear gas that is used in fusion reactor would easily escape in small quantities over a small period of time, thus it is not as safe as you may think. (Sheesh, I sound like a peace'nik) There is a ton of fission fuel, in addition to uranium, thorium can be used (after being used as a radiation shield in the reactor for a while it turns fissile). Thorium is also less costly to mine than Uranium, although Uranium mining is still primitive. Fusion would be a nice technology to master, for space exploration perhaps, but not for power generation on earth. With all the work that goes into maintaining a fusion reactor, why not just dig a hole a few miles into an area with geo-thermal activity and derive our energy that way? It might even be the cheapest method. We have this technology today, and it is almost as cheap as fossil fuel. I'm looking at outfitting my house with a few renewable sources of energy (small wind turbines).
...and memory stick, and Micro-MV, Clie OS...
I think the blue ray will fail because the rest of the industry will gang up on Sony like it would gang up on Microsoft given a flying chance at winning. Sony is renown for bundling proprietary technologies. Besides, most people can't afford a high resolution TV, it'll be a decade before widespread adoption of the HD displays.
This seems to be the strategy they employ. I was about to buy one of those micro-DV video camcorders sony was making but then I found out that you have to use proprietary sony software in order to decode the video on your PC. And that sony memory stick is a joke. Frickin sony.
Right, for the democrats is an obligation to serve science by proving that embryonic stem cell research is the payoff for treating embryo's as non-humans, and for the republicans, it's the opposite, but each issue is tied to the other, so if one goes they all go.
I'd have to agree with this. Stem cell research, genetic manipulation, and abortion are all part of the same argument. Seems like they both have the same scientific goals, please the likes of the scientific community while reserving a huge portion of the national budget for social and foreign war efforts. Maybe science will be more important in a relatively calm election year.
"I claim this land, err, space, the United Space of America."
I think the Libertarian party will always be subject to FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt) from the other campaigns. This is why, like he says, the only way he'll ever get elected if their is massive social upheaval.
I heard the other day though that the price of wind is almost equally competitive with petrol. Will people be upset when land is bought up for wind power generation? I think it'd be kindof cool to go hiking through a mountain pass where wind power is being generated.
Yeah those were the two I found. This is a witch hunt if I've ever seen one. Someone appearing in a commercial as a veteran, volunteers for the Bush Cheney campaign. This guy is a low ranking nobody, which is why he was disposed of so quickly. He wanted to help Bush because he doesn't like Kerry, obviously. This is not coordination. They don't hire retired air force generals to run their campaign, although it sounds pretty nasty if you word it well.
Now, if you want to take a closer look at the ILLEGAL COORDINATION going on between the Kerry campaign and the 527s, read this.
I especially liked this photo that shows DNC Chief Operating Officer Josh Wachs, Senator Pat Leahy, and Zack Exley, the acting organizing director from Moveon.org. This was taken in November 2003, and in April 2004 Zach Exley jumped on with the Kerry campaign...
How much is it gonna take for you guys to get a clue? Your news outlets don't say this stuff! Call the Fox News channel biased, they aren't even reporting this stuff! Mary Beth Cahill, swarms of lawyers and volunteers that the article doesn't even bother with. The sources are credible, the DNC website itself!!! That forged CBS document appeared in John Kerry for president commercials, and now there is a massive cover-up going on at CBS (ahem, failed cover-up). You want to go beyond illegal 527 coordination, lets talk about illegally coordinating forged "documents" between a somewhat trusted news outlet and a presidential campaign. Now we're getting into some serious charges. Do you think this is too much to believe?
The thing that really pisses me off is that SBVT has raised a pittance in comparison to moveon.org. It all comes from one guy, George Soros. If you guys are all so afraid of corporations, why don't you take a second look at George Soros? He's buying everybody out!
Stupid witch hunt. You know this does reflect the character of George Bush. The fact that his campaign will preserve its integrity by dismissing these guys after democrat finger pointing. It all plays out for the democrats and the biased broadcast news organizations who can say "Look! Look! Their ranks are breaking!" Mindless trolls.
I know why peole hate George bush so much. It's because he's a Christian with real Christian values, and there is a growing anti-Christian sentiment, a surge of religious intolerance brewing in this country. It's happened all through history, and people are blind to it. I'm not a Christian, but I'll side with them and fight against the mindless pawns of a so called "progressive" billionaire immigrant, George Soros.