rf_ucsd

There you ... huh? :( j/k :P OK - sounds like you're in good shape. "Everyday drinking in the same bar. Drowning our sorrows away."

hahah you think?! haha I was proud of myself hahah My giddy little sis. I still think you two should talk to each other so you can start the boyfriend-girlfriend thing for real. The bf/gf thing is a meaningful step.

Thom's been doing a lot of "hit and run" lately. I hope that poll thread he made isn't discouraging him. I'll go to war for him, if need be.

It got nominated for best picture in a year where there were a lot of very good movies. That's quite an acoomplishment. OK .. work break ovah. Maybe.

I like Bill Murray a lot, and I think that he has been generally underappreciated as people hold tight to antiquaited preconceptions. But at the same time, I think to let that sentiment overshadow really great performances like Penn's or Ben Kingsley's is a great disservice to them. Murray did a really good job, but in all it wasn't the type of demanding role that Penn's was. This is not to say Murray didn't do a great job, but the job at his feel required less than what Penn's did.

Ren's back?

Hey, kiddo. How was school?

"They were following me, They were follwing everyone."

^ goober :P

I would bet my money on ROTK, Peter Jackson, Sean Penn, Charlize Theron, Tim Robbins and Rene Zellwegger. I would perfer Watts instead of Theron and Harden instead of Zellwegger.

I don't quite understand how one could see both mystic river and lost in translation and say Bill Murray's performance was the superior performance. Cuold somebody describe their view?

They tend to be divided. This solution does appease some of the critics; however, others are just against the idea of homosexuality and thus don't want to give same-sex couples any rights. In that sense, many people don't think Bush has gone far enough for his amendment still leaves a legally recognized union betweeen people of the same sex that is not called marriage.

:) The world rocks.

I'm not sure Arnold ever "studied politics," but at the same time he that doesn't mean he's bad. I'm keeping an open mind, and thankfully the governor of California has little legislative power.

I just put a beer in the freezer quickly so I can have something before I sleep. Worked too many hours today. My fingertips are wearing off.

I'm not so sure those people who would benefit by a divorce would agree with you. I can only image what inhibiting divorces does for rate of births out of wedlock, domestic violence and homocide, not to mention an overall inhibition on the quality of life for those people who would like the liberty being denied.

Nikki: Words evolve. Clearly the idea of marriage can be applied to more than just a man and a woman. Whether that's ethical or moral is another debate.

Clearly that is not the only definition of marriage, thus the debate. The argument that allowing a man to marry a man would lead to man/boy or man/animal is a little insulting. There are many accepted laws in the society which distinguish a person who is of age from a person who is now, let alone laws which govern treatment of animals. I don't use the word insulting flippantly there: How do you expect to carry on a real dialogue as long as you bring up weird scenarios like that? Logically, to me, it makes sense to allow consenting adults to engage in behaviours which they feel better their life provided they do not pose a potential risk to mine. This is a basic idea behind liberty. If there is anything this country was supposed to start for, it is this. The first Europeans to colonize this region of the continent came over to avoid religious persecution. But this policy infringes upon liberties: there's no way around that. The debate seems to be whether that infringement is worth it.

no, I'm not gay, Eric. All the same, just because I am liberal in my thinking and I support gay rights doesn't make me out to be a gay, not that there's anything wrong with being one...but i'm not! as to your reasoning about majority supporting 'defense of marriage' or are against gay marriage....the point is, laws can't be made based upon what some arbitrary majority thinks. In 1800s, I'm sure a majority of people in America totally supported slavery....so does that make it okay? Laws should be made that are equitable to all humans....based on the principle that a secular government should not care what you do in your private home, which includes: whom you sleep with, whom you pray to, etc. Time has a strange way of tell us what is right and what is wrong. Some people thing that the "principle that a secular government should not care" is "what some arbitrary majority [or minority] thinks." Both sides of the argument seem to think that there is an underlying truth: that God's law is truth or civil liberty should be treated as truth. Truth is nothing more than acceptance of an event. If something is universally accepted it becomes truth or fact. Is God true? Who knows. Nobody knows. Nobody can know. So why do we try to act as if there is a right or a wrong beyond what we, as a society, agree to be governed by? Possible because we feel better when we live in a world where we can have certain "rights," but as it concerns government that just may not be possible.

It's an Australian fisherman trying to get a sharp to unleash the bite it has on his leg.

Ah ... you were tricksy. Now I get it.

Oh ... and here I thought I came up with it :cry:

I really need a new av. This shark thing isn't working.

Ewwwwwww ... I just got shivers ... you know the reaction where your knees lock up because you're kinda freaked out? That's what just happened to me. Amanda: Let's not bring this up again. Ever.