Hmmm, definitely sounds like Obama. He knows what's good for us because we're just all stupid folk so we don't know nothing. He doesn't listen to what we want and will make us swallow whatever he thinks we should have. That makes for a great president, or at least one with a 40%-50% approval rating. You'd think he take the hint. Polls don't lie but I'm sure this will get modded troll anyway.

Socialism has the same privileges: you can't really be too successful, unless you are part of the socialist government. Otherwise all the money you earn goes towards supporting the poor or the government thus flattening the class structure or filling the pockets of the ruling class, respectively. Success is punished if you are not part of the ruling class.

Never read it or heard of it so give me your money. You lost your wager.

I didn't say that the Founding Fathers intended us to specifically have a Christian nation. There is no denying we have religious roots though with "endowed by our Creator" and "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence.

If the liberals who hate religion would ever get their way to lay down the law then all religion would be banned in this country unless it was talked about and practiced within the confines of a church or home. The atheists and others who believe in the separation of church and state are the ones who don't want to take up the cross. Go preach to someone else such as an atheist on this site. I don't need it. I'm not someone who wants to make sure all religion is hidden from view (or eradicated completely) like others on this site would prefer.

In this case the issue really is just teaching people about what other people believed in so yes it is about historical fact. That is different than the usual debate of teaching religion itself in schools. Why is it so bad to teach people that people in the past had a religious background? Why is all discussion about religion so bad? I just don't get it. If they suffered religious persecution in the past as you said then that should provide even more reason to teach students about the plight that those Founding Fathers had to endure so that it does not happen again. Up until this vote passed, it was questionable as to whether students would be allowed to learn about that religious persecution and the Founding Fathers' continued faith as they were founding the U.S.

So conservatives are anti-intellectual? Let me guess, you are liberal and are a genius? Anyone not on your side is stupid? That isn't elitist in the least. Conservatives really are under attack based on comments from people like you.

First, that doesn't mean it wasn't founded on any religion whatsoever.

Second, how do you explain "Creator" and "Nature's God" used in the Declaration of Independence?

We don't need the government's help to promote His message. It is nothing of the sort and would mean preaching would be in the classroom. Given the fact that liberals want to diminish or totally hide the fact that the Founding Fathers had faith and a religious background, the other side of the debate simply wants to make sure that those facets of the Founding Fathers' lives remain known. There is no reason to hide that fact unless the agenda is to try to make our country look like it was not founded on religious beliefs. So there is no message trying to be forced upon or preached to the children. It is simply a matter of not wanting to hide our history.

As far as taking "In God We Trust" off the currency, it is for the same reason as what I stated above. There is nothing wrong with making known our history just because it has a religious foundation, except for those who hate religion. Why religion is the aspect of people's lives that shouldn't be known in history class is beyond me but that's really the topic up for debate (well, not anymore, at least in Texas). So taking that phrase off our currency means that a little more of our history is erased. It isn't for enforcing a religion; it is intended to remember our history. In both situations, those who disagree can simply do that. Just like they can disagree, if they are a student, with anything else that is taught in their respective school. It is not the law but a reflection of where we came from. Those who question that or outright deny it are also against this vote most likely. Again, what is wrong with stating what history has to say? Is there something you don't want the public to know? Is religion *that* bad? No, it isn't.

The problem with that logic is that who defines the quality of life and whether it is bad or good? This is the same issue with abortion and assisted suicide. The excuse is frequently something along the lines that person A wanting to get rid of person B does it based on stating their *opinion* about person B's quality of life. It isn't person A's responsibility to state what is or is not an acceptable quality of life for anyone. Only person B can really decide that. If they are incapacitated (e.g. Terri Schiavo) then it becomes a problem because that person cannot speak for themselves (much like a baby about to be aborted). We shouldn't be essentially killing people because it is convenient. If a person is going to die due to the cancer and they don't want to live anymore because of what the treatment does to them then we aren't killing them. They will die of natural causes. But aren't we supposed to save people you ask? Obviously humans are always supposed to save someone's life if that person is in danger but there are some things we can't save people from, especially all the time.

I do some DOJ work where the contracts are components of a larger program or contract vehicle. So once the contract vehicle is established it is usually done for a reason (i.e. a lot of projects coming down the pipe to take advantage of the new contract vehicle). Multiple companies can bid on projects that utilize that contract vehicle. This means that as long as my employer continues bidding (and winning) the contracts being released for bid then I have a job. I'll just move from contract to contract. I've done this for 7 years *in the same building* and my customer has always been the DOJ. I've never had worries of being out of a job when a project I'm on is nearing completion. Note that this isn't always the case and I understand where you are coming from (i.e. many projects are one offs such as installing something or doing a small upgrade over a few months) but realize that not all contracts are like that. For reference, I used to work with (but not for) Lockheed Martin as a sub but now I work for Keane Federal Systems as a prime contractor.

The primes will fill some positions through sub-contracting (luckily, because that's how I got my foot in the door). However source selection by the government to choose a winning contractor is also key. It is sometimes based on the lowest bid but not always, especially if the customer and the source selection team are personally aware of those people who are bidding and will be on the project if they win. If the source selection is flawed then yes, bad things can happen. Where I work proposals are required to include resume's of the key people on a project so the gov't can see who will be leading the efforts. That helps the source selection team. Security clearances are sometimes required in the government which means that no foreigners will be allowed to work remotely and those who can work onsite must be capable of passing a background check.

Not far from the truth, but I'd say it is " only one of a massive set of amazing creations and evidence of God" that allows us to "experience his unfurling glory during our lives in this rich universe watched over by a loving God." I'm not afraid to give credit where credit is due. If you feel better thinking you are Koko's cousin and this is all one big accident then go ahead.

With my system, when I hold the power button down it *will* shut off in 5 seconds. On the other hand, sometimes I can tell Windows to shutdown my system and it simply looks back at me with those menacing eyes like I told it to go jump off a cliff (which I do eventually after it doesn't shutoff like I tell it to). In my mind, hardware acts appropriately more often than the software.

Bigger drives will cause the smaller drives to be discounted so that the bigger ones can squeeze into the market. Intel does this all the time with their CPUs. If you don't buy them when they are initially released you can get a particular CPU for cheap after waiting a year and letting other CPUs replace it as the top tier CPU available on the market. Traditional hard drives are more expensive when they are released because they have higher capacity which means the lower capacity drives have to drop in price so they can all share the market. We've seen this before so not sure why you are catching on by now. Obviously SSDs have a higher base price in the first place but that just means it will take longer before most people are comfortable with even buying the model that has been available for a year or so. Blu-ray players used to cost $1,000 (and some still do if you want certain features) and that base price was just too much for most people. Wait a little while.

The bug was found in a utility anyway, not the kernel, so even if XP hadn't carried the torch of the previous NT kernel and had been revamped instead, the bug would still be in XP and other recent version of Windows.

I assume the 3-second delay is while the car is in Drive? I know in Park my car will immediately turn off just by pressing the Ignition button. I also don't see how the other person said that the passenger somehow accidentally found and pressed the Ignition button while looking for navigation buttons. They aren't that close to each other and the Ignition button is angled (and lower than the radio controls) toward the driver, albeit slightly, not to mention it is labeled *Ignition* at least based on my car configuration. I have a 2010 Venza with the push-button ignition and a passenger would have to reach over really far to get to that button.