Sort of like this.

Thanks. From what I have read, the majority of weight-maintenance failures occur because the individuals didn't find a diet that was satisfying in the long term. Breaking habits is very difficult. I guess I'm fortunate in that I seem to have settled into a healthy eating pattern that I find satisfying. It's been quite a while since I had to make a conscious effort to choose the right foods (as in thinking, "Well, I'd really rather have this, but I guess I'd better have that instead." As for the long run, time will tell.

You must think I'm a very unusual person then, having lost over 40 pounds in 6 months, just by cutting out high-calorie foods and between-meal snacks. No muscle loss, no feeling starved. And I've maintained the loss for 8 more months without feeling deprived.

I know a few people who have obtained similar results, so I don't think I'm unique at all.

Of course they can. You don't have to cut your intake to starvation levels in order to lose weight. In order to maintain an obese weight, an average otherwise healthy individual must consume at least 500 calories per day above their normal weight maintenance consumption level. Cutting 500 calories per day from an obese maintenance diet does not result in a person feeling like they're starving all the time, and it doesn't result in the body going into muscle consumption mode. It's a large order of french fries, or a quarter of a 14" pizza, for God's sake. Of course, all this assumes that the person doesn't confuse "I'm not uncomfortably full" or "I miss eating a burrito larger than my forearm every day" with "I feel like I'm starving." What it results in is a steady weight loss on the order of 1 to 2 pounds per week, which is perfectly sustainable until the person's weight drops to the level where the lower consumption balances the calories burned, at which weight levels off.

Most overweight people who are otherwise mostly healthy can reduce their caloric intake significantly without feeling like they're "starving all the time." Have a salad for lunch instead of that pizza or burrito. Stop eating crap between meals. Drink some water before you start eating. Stop wolfing down your meals, and stop when you start feeling full.

Indeed. Those arrested had explosives and/or poison gas in their posession. Nice sensationalism. And predictable responses from a gang that would rather be outraged than look beneath the surface for something of substance.

The Supreme Court seems to have disagreed with you regarding offending someone. See, for example, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Court ruled that "fighting words" ('speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".').

Brilliant point, except that the JUSTICE department is part of the EXECUTIVE branch. Did you sleep through high school civics?

Or, maybe not.

These are not the virgins you are looking for.

The AC asked about people killed "in the name of Christianity", not people killed by Christians. Of the ten incidents in the list you linked to, you can scratch #10 (Timothy McVeigh), #9 (The murder of Alan Berg), #8 (Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas), #3 (Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting), and #1 (Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre). These were acts committed by people who were presumably Christian, but who did not tie their acts to their religious beliefs.

As for the others on the list -- OK, point made. On the other hand, I don't recall mass rallies in Christian cities praising the perpetrators.

When I was a kid, I thought "Silent Night" telling me to "sleep in heavenly peas".

Then there was the hymn "Gladly the Cross I'd Bear", which I thought was about Gladly, the cross-eyed bear.

Are you sure tons per capita is the appropriate metric? Stats from 2010: Trinidad and Tobago (38 tons per capita), Aruba (22.8), Luxembourg (21.4). AGW evil-doers, or bit players in the greater scheme of things? And no, I'm not proposing that the USA is a bit player.

China has a population 4.3x greater than the USA, in a land area slightly smaller (3.7 million sq mi vs 3.8 million sq. mi). Looking at tons of carbon per square mile, China is currently emitting carbon at over twice the rate of the USA.

Caved? To whom?? Are you talking about special considerations given to Democratic legislators and labor unions? Passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support != compromise.