As a Catholic, I believe we should be good stewards of God's creation.

However -- CO2 isn't pollution -- it's plant food. And we shouldn't have to pay Al Gore (how convenient!) "Carbon Credits" to exhale.

I've written about this kind of thing before though -- there are two things that the government has to control in order to truly own you -- your health, and the environment. Every choice you make affects one or both of those things. Control that, and government controls you.

Patrick Henry had the right idea. "I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"

I completely don't get it. But I appreciate the effort; welcome to the human race. (Just don't be like some people and be discouraged and consider this all for naught; I assimilate everything into my noodle, and it *may* flick on a light in my melon *some day*.)

That's what I was afraid of; you think that's excelling at being communicative. Think of it this way: How would you explain it to your children?

Since it's a guessing game you require being played, I'll play for now. It seems like if I decide to go get a chicken sammich at CJ's for lunch today, either I decided it, or God made me decide it. So by your geometric analogy that you consider the epitome of clarity do you mean:
1) We both had a hand in deciding, as in I was leaning toward it, and God nudged me to finally do it?
2) It was all me deciding, but God already knew about it, and okayed it/didn't act to stop me?
3) We both had a hand in deciding, but it was 100% me deciding and, in some drug-induced way of looking at it, also simultaneously 100% God forcing me to decide that way?
4) Other?

Also, explain how a line is a good representation of the pseudo- Free Will you believe in. And why is that line "time"?

The first is not an elaboration, and the second, based on what you've indicated in the past (I do pay atttention), is from either intellectual dishonesty or intellectual dishevelment. I'll assume the latter. Maybe we should just stick to toilet humor. Here's my lame attempts for today:

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

http://it.slashdot.org/comment...

That's nonsensical on the surface, so you would have to explain how it makes sense to you.

But you've only answered part of the question at hand. Even if you do believe that God has forced us back to Him a few times in the past, and that's why America could, theoretically, turn around, why do you assume He would do it again? I mean, He might (assuming for the sake of argument that He would), or He might not. As far as I know He never promised to keep America from straying too far from Him.

Reasoned arguments when you disagree. (Telling me that you're somewhere between one term that entails a whole bunch of meaning and another term that also entails a whole bunch of meaning, serves as a marvelous counter-example.) I'm not holding my breath; trying to get you to focus is like you trying to get DR to have a buddy study of Marxism.

Then again, a little frickin' personal responsibility would be nice. If you've got something terminal, pick your method of offing yourself and acquire all the materials and set it up, before you become physically incapable of doing so.

It's just that if someone else is doing all the work, it's not a suicide, it's a murder. It's like Japanese cars that are "made in America". They're not American-made if everything is done overseas except for the last step. Likewise it's not really suicide if I buy the gun, load it, hold it up to your head, lift your hand and wrap your finger around the trigger, and move it halfway for you.

And I think I'd prefer these things come out of say the mortuarial arts instead of the medical department. If there's a pill you can take when you want to croak, maybe morticians should prescribe that, and leave doctors to just sticking with trying to keep people alive.

Taking your own life is very permanent, so it should be very deliberate. "Assisted" should be defined very conservatively.

Well usually "explain what you meant by this particular juxtaposition" doesn't mean "provide wikipedia links for extensive reading on two subjects and let me puzzle it out for myself", but whatevs, dude.

Wow, you really aren't paying attention. I guess, going forward think of my posted responses in your journal as just me collecting my thoughts.

Apologies, then. I'll just accept that you're not interested in getting into any kind of real discussion with me. (Or that we're necessarily even able to, being on, as you said, different wavelengths. In spite of probably largely agreeing on things.)

There's always new ones to be discovered, around every corner!

p.s. Personally, I think everyone has the right to off themself, they just should have to do it themself. But the physical disability case throws a monkey wrench into that. So I would be about as uneasy about ruling on this as apparently the judges were (by not wanting to call it what it is).

How about instead: cryptica?

(As in what you engage in with me, and I occasionally like to return the favor.)

Esplain, please.

LOL. Dude, that should be your .sig!

LOL! You think I'm just now getting testy?!

Because the people were required to carry their coins only in their right hands or stuck to their foreheads?