Or maybe you are seeing snobishness where it isn't and missing it where it is.

Religious people will quite comfortably claim that all morality is based on religion, thereby claiming that atheists are amoral, or don't you see the snottyness in that?

Atheism has an argument, and you reply that we are being snotty because we have some people with brains who agree with us, and we like to hear what people with brains have to say.

You are claiming we are being snotty when we have thought about the subject of religion and have come up with an opinion which holds it to be illogical - whereas what would you expect? Oh, religion is logical therefore we aren't going to follow it? Please.

Of course we see religion as being illogical, wrong and frequently stupid, its why we don't follow religion. If it made sense to us we would still be religious, we don't follow the idea of there being no god because we are just contrary, or because we like what that does to us in polite society, we follow the idea of there being no god because the god hypothesis strikes us as being both unproven and probably wrong.

IE: The null hypothesis, that of their being no god, strikes us as being more logical. Nothing more, nothing less. That isn't being snotty, that's holding an opinion.

America is one of the most religious states in the world, and the only really religious first world country. The rest of the first world is fairly secular really.

Grand Theft Auto. Hillary Clinton alienated a large proportion of America's gaming population by making a whole production over it, and it really hurts her credibility over censorship issues.

Specifically, this issue:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/nyregion/14hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

I oppose censorship as a general principle, but when you have a game where the basic object of it is to be a one man crime spree, which is titled "Grand Theft Auto" and what you object to in it is that you can download a sex minigame?

Because it might need a higher rating so that parents can tell whether it is suitable for children?

1. Which party will lose the most votes to Ron?

Neither. Your vote belongs to you, not a particular political party.

2. Which party lost the most votes to Nader?

Again, neither. Plus, there is nothing to say those voters would have voted otherwise anyway.

3. Which party lost the 2000 election due to the votes Nader got?

Neither. The 2000 elections were lost because of the votes the Republicans got, plus a lot of election rigging.

4. Who was elected president in 2000?

Bush was selected president, I have grave doubts that he actually counts as being elected president.

5. What has happened in our nation and the world since 2000?

It has recieved an object lesson in why not to listen to the rightwing.

6. Is Rudy an even more scary version of GWB?

Not really. Bush is a moron who is sincere in his very bad ideas, Rudy wears a dress.

7. Why would I do anything to help Rudy get elected?

Why would you do anything to get a pro-war hawk, whose healthcare plan is to give lots of money to America's insurance companies in the hopes that they play nice, and whose stance on censorship is distinctly in favour?

8. What are the differences in all areas of government and accomplishments between the Clinton and GWB administrations?

Bill Clinton wasn't stupid and hence had policies which made sense. Bill also hired people who were willing to say no to him.

9. Are Rudy and Hillary really very similar other than collecting AIPAC money?

No, they are both distinctly bad candidates on their own merits.

10. Between Rudy and Hillary who cares more about social issues and citizens who are facing real, human problems?

Neither does. Hillary is talking about them because it appeals to the polls, Rudy is going the other way because it appeals to his base.

11. Is it time to see what a difference a woman could make as president?

That Hillary is female isn't in and of itself a strong argument to vote for her.

12. Is Hillary acting tough so that she can get elected or is she a neocon in disguise?

Personally I wouldn't want to bet my country on getting that answer right.

They want the holy ground.

Israel includes several highly important Islamic holy sites within its borders, and if they nuked the place they would not only nuke those sites as well, they would find Israel one heck of a lot less habittable. By nuking Israel, the best they could hope for would be a pyric victory,

The government as a whole is a turkey, the President's party is a lame duck and the Democrats are chicken.

it probably is.

This sounds like they are basically running a scam whereby they can send a lot of people into your house, take everything you own, including the stuff that is nailed down, and disappear.

Check it out, call your lawyer and call the cops.