Oh, and my daughter's class has six students. Losing one of those students is a HUGE deal. How big of a deal is it to a public school if I pull my child out of an class room that I pay for no matter what, that is already overcrowded, doesn't have enough textbooks to go around and has a shortage of desks?

Well, considering that the last school board election was decided by more than one vote, my voting would have made no difference. Sure, I could run myself, but I'd be running against some academia type who has the backing of the teacher's union, which make up the bulk of the school board voters anyway, because he/she won't make the teachers accountable. (I support vouchers and would never get elected) And even if I could start a campaign to elect school board members who would make schools and teachers accountable, how many years would my child have to go to a sub-standard school while my campaign gains traction, gets the right people elected, and positive changes can be proposed, approved and implemented?

Or, I can send my daughter to the school that I choose today, knowing that she'll have an incredible advantage over all those poor minority kids with parents that can't afford to send their kids to private school.

Right! And half of those individuals have below average intelligence. I'll trust myself more than I trust those individuals, thank you.

Yes, but when they do, you can take your money elsewhere. For example, if I were to find out that my daughter's private school was wasting money, I'd pull her out and send her to a different school. However, if I find out that my daughter's public school is wasting money, THERE IS NOTHING I CAN DO because I have to send her there or I go to jail, CPS takes my daughter away and sends her to the school anyway.

Love the sig, by the way.

Yes, the post is obviously a troll. If you weren't sure, look at the grandma part.

Manning released over 10,000 documents. Are you sure he read them all and confirmed that every single of the 10,000 documents contained evidence of a war crime and made sure that the release would not help the enemy?

Don't get me wrong, if he read and verified every document he sent out, fine. That's not the case here.

But in China, 72.1% of the country's computers relied on the soon-to-retire operating system last month, or nearly three out of every four systems."

This is Slashdot. I think we can do the math on that one.

From what I've heard, Sprint realized it was costing more to monitor and bill for data than the extra money they were receiving from the fines. It was actually cheaper to NOT monitor data.

And for the record, I'm on Sprint and I have absolutely no issues whatsoever. 4G is as fast or faster than what I get at home and I get 4G coverage from home to work. I use a ton of data and could ever afford AT&T or any other phone company that monitors my data.

If you rode a motorcycle, you would eat plenty.

The currant tomatoes are wild and quite tasty. Matt's Wild Cherry is one of my favorites.

Have you ever said, "I may not agree with what you have to say, but I'll fight to death for your right to say it."?

If you have said it, you lied.

If you have not said this or anything similar to it, then my comment didn't apply to you. You are honest about not supporting people who have opinions different than your own and do your best to silence all who disagree with you so that America may one day be of one mind. All who oppose you, including their families, must be punished into submission and silenced until they think the same way you do. You are one who is proud to be against differing ideas and cultures and feel that everyone in the world should... no.... MUST think correct thoughts.

Um, that's the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution. The Bill of Rights restricts the government. The rest of The Constitution actually gives the federal government lots of power. For example, see Article 1, Section 8 for the powers given to Congress. There's a bit too much to quote, so I'll just quote the last one:

This is also known as the "necessary and proper clause.
...all other Powers vested by this Constitution...

Why would the Constitution say this if it did not give any powers to the government?

May I suggest taking your own advice?

Um, the First Amendment actually "enshrines the religious bigotry of these Christians into law" and forbids government from getting involved in religious concepts. If the federal government is not allowed to recognize the Ten Commandments, how can mandate licenses and set rules for marriage?

It offends me.

How does drilling in ANWAR affect you in any way? How does a woman having or being denied an abortion in Texas affect you in any way? How does taxing rich people affect you in any way? I can do this all day, but I think you get the point. So don't give me that "how does it affect you" bullshit until you can answer these:

How does it affect you if the government calls your relation a civil union vs a marriage? Can you not have a wedding? Can you not wear a ring and tell everyone you are married? How does it make what you have any different?

The only difference I can see is that a civil union does not make me offended. But that's your whole point isn't it? You want to offend me and all Christians because you hate all Christians. Never mind that Muslims hang gays on the streets, they deserve to be heard and have their religious freedom, we must offend all Christians. And that's exactly why it will be held in a church. Democrats have already blocked a law protecting Chaplains in the US military from refusing to perform same sex marriages. How long do you think it will be before that same-sex couple sues the Catholic Church demanding "equal rights" to have a chapel wedding?

This isn't about equal rights. This is about getting even for perceived wrongs done to you. Tell me again how I am the bigot?

My mother owns a beauty salon that I worked in from before I was old enough to see over the counter. I know it's cliche to assume that gay me do hair, but it's a cliche for a reason. You have no idea how many gay friends I have. I have kinda grown up around them. I know what they are like, how they feel and what they are all about. And I feel they deserve equal rights under the law. But they do NOT have equal rights under religion. You don't have to like it. You don't have to be in a religion. But since freedom of religion is guaranteed under the Constitution, government has to respect it. By the way, can you tell me marriage is guaranteed in the Constitution? I can't find it anywhere.

I don't believe you have any religious friends. If you did, you wouldn't think they are all bigots.

And marriage is not just a Christian concept. It certainly predates Christianity. It appears to predate the earliest mentions of the Jews as far as the Bible goes. I would even say that the Bible agrees that civilization itself predates marriage as there is no mention in the Bible of Adam and Eve ever getting married. That doesn't mean shit as on July4, 1776, marriage was strictly a religious rite and carried no weight whatsoever in American law. It was, however being regulated by Jewish law in God knows what BC. So it was a religious rite for thousands of years before it was ever recognized by the United States Government. Sorry, but those are the facts.

Bingo!!! Marriage is a religious rite. Government has no business regulating or even recognizing a religious rite. However, there is a purpose to the government recognition of marriage, specifically taxes, shared property ownership, power of attorney, inheritance rights and so on, and I completely support gay couples gaining the same rights as straight couples. Those necessary results of government recognition of marriage could just as easily and equally be obtained if government recognized "civil unions" "legalized finger banging" or "neibersplat evernijula" or "hebeeshleebee itzu cowpoo". Does a rose by any other name not smell as sweet?

Like you said, I just don't like government redefining what has been a religious concept a thousand years before western culture, much less America or American law.