faust-yusov

I will keep my top on, thank you. This isn't VJ Girls Gone Wild, after all.

I'm considering trading in my metro man for a burger-scarfing, panther-piss guzzling, truck drivin' two-stroke Charlie. I wish someone had told me sooner how much I was missing out!

If "metrosexual" means physically fit and "manly" means someone who looks like they walked off the People of Walmart calendar I know which one I would pick.
beer bellies and man boobs seem kinda feminine to me anyways

The Supreme Court disagrees with you and I'd like to formally apologize on its behalf.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_prae.htm

The Supreme Court has ruled that prayer led by a school official or clergyperson is unconstitutional. Court rulings on the constitutionality of student-initiated, student-led prayers are contradictory.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ps_prae.htm

I've little interest in defending tradition, austere social etiquette or, my goodness, the sodding royal family, but the distinction between each of these "gaffes" is surely self-evident.
Continuing a toast after the palace orchestra prematurely ejaculates our mawkish, masturbatory non-sequitur of a national anthem is an unfortunate (but ultimately well handled) misunderstanding.
Winking at HMQ, however much I appreciate the proverbial two-fingers to our pompous and indulgent republican graces, is clearly the act of a man childishly trying to see quite what he can get away with in an overbearingly stuffy atmosphere.
In short: Obama was in an awkward situation; Bush was purposely playing the impish provocateur. Not that I care, but don't expect the conservative, right-wing British press to turn down any opportunity for incredulity.

I think this thought of yours is way off. Nothing wrong with homeschooling children. My mom and dad adopted 7 of us kids from 3 different homes. My father was a area manager for Orkin and became a region manager before he passed away. We were homeschooled. We didnt miss out on anything. I played volleyball and softball with schools, I play the piano, learned some greek, german and spanish. Im now a manager with Walmart going on 11yrs there. I hold meetings, Im an outgoing type A personality and a leader. I've stood on the steps of the Capital in my hometown city of Atlanta Georgia speaking out against Domestic Violence.
Im going on almost 5yrs of marriage -first time marriage! I think I do well in life. I have no problems with parents that choose to homeschool as long as the children are learning, developing and being part of other social groups and interacting with others.

I don't know if this is as big a deal as all that. My nephew wanted to be Tinkerbell for Halloween when he was about 4 1/2. His mom bought him the costume, but he changed his mind eventually, maybe after finding out what all his friends were wearing. He also liked to paint his toenails purple, which his parents obliged. He once even wanted to be bald, like his Dad, so he got his head shaved. Later on, he decided it wasn't his thing. I don't think that children experimenting with who they are when they are young is detrimental to their well-being, and I don't believe those parents are trying to make their kids be something they are not. Children will find out for themselves what they like or dislike.
.

If you condemn the guy before there has been a trial, then he hasn't been shown to be guilty. You do know how modern justice systems operate, don't you...?

Isn't the entire point to abandon notions of "gender specific"?
It is the socially-determined girl/boy dichotomy I presume their intent is to abandon - one ought reasonably conclude that this would not involve "forcing" their child to vacillate between its material extremes.

I asked because we have had complaints about the violent message contained in the video. I was trying to determine if you had a message intended by posting this particular video as opposed to another video. For example, is this topic one you wanted to discuss? Did you find the film idea provocative? do you support or are against the message in the film? Did you think the cinematography used was different? Things like that. The subject of the move trailer is definitely a hot button for some people and I wondered if you were trying to push this button - or were just interested in the movie.

The math isn't quite right but good explanation. CR1 avoids a $1070 fee but the other fees are higher. The actual government fee savings is between 6 and 700 bucks. All this assumes, however that there's an upcoming planned trip during which a marriage could take place. If not, the time to plan such a trip and the associated expense of travel would far more than wipe out any savings in government fees, provided the couple ALREADY qualifies to file the i-129f petition.
Since it's highly unlikely the Romanian would be allowed to visit the USA, your comments about marrying in the USA are spot on for this couple.

Debate about what? That water somehow isn't wet? Why would any person with a sound mind want to engage in any such "debate"? What would be the point?

One would be a rather disingenuous individual if one were not reasonably resolved to the position one advocates, would one not?
This is the nature of having thought something through - of being, analogously, a dedicated lifelong academic, justifiably staunch in your expertise, and justifiably wary of groups with vested interests clamouring for your ear, your time and your coat-tails.
What a wonderfully trite and reductive paradigm! Perhaps you might save one of these for every dispute, lest we be forced to judge individual circumstances on their own virtue?
I believe I was quite clear in addressing the distinction between Lane Craig and McGrath.
Regardless, had Dawkins debated creationists in the past, this would not preclude him from changing his mind, nor make his decision to snub the ID propagandist Lane Craig any less acute.
Richard Dawkins refuses invitations to debate, meet with or be interviewed by creationists regularly and consistently - yet it is for William Lane Craig, a mediocre academic and thoroughly uninteresting public figure remarkable only for his aptitude for brazen self-promotion, that you reserve your incredulity.

Dawkins won't debate creationists for the same reason historians won't debate holocaust deniers.
However confident you may be of dismantling their logic, you grant unwarranted credence to their views the moment you take to your mutual podium; the moment you begin a discourse as "equals". Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig are not equals - only one would benefit from being seen conversing with the other, and that is the one incessantly, publicly and rabidly lobbying for the debate.
Alister McGrath, on the other hand, a molecular biophysicist and Christian theologian, and assuredly a far worthier opponent than Lane Craig, has debated Dawkins on numerous occasions, and talks at length with him on religion here.
Should you remain enamored with the nauseatingly self-promoting Lane Craig, however, you can watch him debating Christopher Hitchens, in their mutual capacity as non-scientists, here.

I'm not from here. And as far as I can tell, I'm not a lesbian. Sorry you feel you must lash out at the masculinity of others -- others who are happy to let you do your own thing elsewhere. Trust me, they're not threatened by you.

Oh and also, if having the husband I have means I "missed a boat" then I must have caught the airplane instead

I just want to have great sex and be able to converse with my partner intelligently.

No, we want our men to be good looking, intelligent, partners...to be a man who is confident enough in his own sexuality that he doesn't need a beer belly, a truck, or a mullet to project his manliness. Someone who appreciates his wife's beauty, kindness, intelligence, without feeling the need to flaunt her like an object. Someone who has wit, who reads and can carrying on an intelligent conversation. Someone who is just as much at home in a high powered business world as he is in the backyard at a bbq with the neighbors.
If having to give up that means that I will be "replaced" by a hot Russian girl...well, that's totally fine by me. I'd much rather have a real man and be a true partner than be taken for granted because I'm beautiful.

I have apparently never had any real doings with typical American men then. They sound incredibly boring and self-obsessed, anyway. I'd rather have a dude that was into me and gave a toss about what he looked like than some backwoods rube with no palate for beer or decent food.

Dawkins won't debate creationists for the same reason historians won't debate holocaust deniers.
However confident you may be of dismantling their logic, you grant unwarranted credence to their views the moment you take to your mutual podium; the moment you begin a discourse as "equals". Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig are not equals - only one would benefit from being seen conversing with the other, and that is the one incessantly, publicly and rabidly lobbying for the debate.
Alister McGrath, on the other hand, a molecular biophysicist and Christian theologian, and assuredly a far worthier opponent than Lane Craig, has debated Dawkins on numerous occasions, and talks at length with him on religion here.
Should you remain enamored with the nauseatingly self-promoting Lane Craig, however, you can watch him debating Christopher Hitchens, in their mutual capacity as non-scientists, here.

Dawkins won't debate creationists for the same reason historians won't debate holocaust deniers.
However confident you may be of dismantling their logic, you grant unwarranted credence to their views the moment you take to your mutual podium; the moment you begin a discourse as "equals". Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig are not equals - only one would benefit from being seen conversing with the other, and that is the one incessantly, publicly and rabidly lobbying for the debate.
Alister McGrath, on the other hand, a molecular biophysicist and Christian theologian, and assuredly a far worthier opponent than Lane Craig, has debated Dawkins on numerous occasions, and talks at length with him on religion here.
Should you remain enamored with the nauseatingly self-promoting Lane Craig, however, you can watch him debating Christopher Hitchens, in their mutual capacity as non-scientists, here.

Dawkins won't debate creationists for the same reason historians won't debate holocaust deniers.
However confident you may be of dismantling their logic, you grant unwarranted credence to their views the moment you take to your mutual podium; the moment you begin a discourse as "equals". Richard Dawkins and William Lane Craig are not equals - only one would benefit from being seen conversing with the other, and that is the one incessantly, publicly and rabidly lobbying for the debate.
Alister McGrath, on the other hand, a molecular biophysicist and Christian theologian, and assuredly a far worthier opponent than Lane Craig, has debated Dawkins on numerous occasions, and talks at length with him on religion here.
Should you remain enamored with the nauseatingly self-promoting Lane Craig, however, you can watch him debating Christopher Hitchens, in their mutual capacity as non-scientists, here.

It is logically impossible to debate faith with those who confuse faith with logic so my answer would be no, it wouldn't be very interesting.

Any study that seeks to affirm with its findings paradigmatic rifts between the sexes rather riles me.
At the risk of superficially 'throwing in' with the rhetoric of the climate-change deniers, I've a growing contempt for the social sciences. It seems to me a self-aggrandising branch of academia, desperate to publicise and accent the various specious controversies of its surveys.