Verified Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,010 Sterling

About triangletiger

  • Rank
  • Birthday 02/14/1972

Contact Methods

  • AIM

Profile Information

  • Location
    Charlotte, NC
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,740 profile views
  1. Agreed. I find Marcello to be pretty objective. If you think he’s anti-Auburn, listen to this podcast. He seems pretty high on them to me.
  2. That sort of answers the second question, but not the first. You're not really addressing the point. What makes the mother's interests paramount? Are saying the mother's life is more valuable? If so, on what basis is this value determined? What causes a human life to have value?
  3. That’s kind of vague. How are the mother’s interests no longer paramount after the baby is born? What causes this shift in interests?
  4. If abortion is okay, what about infanticide? Why stop with the pre-born? Princeton bioethicist Peter Singer thinks it's acceptable. At what point is the taking of innocent human life unacceptable?
  5. In general, yes. But I guess it depends on the religion , the particular symbol, and the context in which it was displayed.
  6. My post was intended to point out the broad issue that the Supreme Court is struggling with rather than this specific instance. By and large, the court seems to be leaning toward saying there is nothing unconstitutional in this specific instance, but where do we go from here? I am a Christian and have no problem seeing crosses or even symbols from other religions on public property. However, there are symbols that I would have a problem with - not so much because they establish a religion it because it gives the appearance that the government endorses a certain view. Nazi swastikas and Confederate battle flags come to mind. Regardless of what one thinks of the original meaning of the battle flag, it’s clear how it’s perceived now as a symbol of racism. In the same way, regardless of what it may have symbolized in the past, the Latin Cross is clearly perceived as a symbol of Christianity.
  7. Does BP stand for ‘blood pressure’ or ‘Bruce Pearl’?😉
  8. I think the question comes in when it’s public property being maintained with taxpayer funding. Should a taxpayer who is not a Christian be required to pay taxes to maintain a monument that represents a worldview which he or she doesn’t agree with?
  9. Those are pretty subjective criteria. No wonder rulings on religious liberty and separation of church and state are all over the place.
  10. Great win for this team when they had a few things going against them. Hopefully, it gives them some confidence.
  11. Concerned about the 3 front court guys with 3 fouls with 17 minutes left.
  12. Thanks for the clarification. The bolded part is not clear in a plain reading of the way the rule is written.
  13. That math does not add up to 11 players. Does this mean you can legally play offense with only 9 players?