Ask500

Of course it's possible. Any government may act to defend itself if the conditions warrant it. My point, however, is that such conditions do not exist and there has been no indication that Bush plans to try to take over the country before his last term as President expires. Considering his quickly falling national approval rating, the military would probably just laugh at him anyway.

Yes:

1) The number of people online changes from moment to moment. The fact that there are 48 people online now does not mean they are the same 48 people who were on 30 seconds ago or that they will be the same 48 people on the site 30 seconds from now.

2) There is a "widget" that bloggers can post on their blogs to display the questions and accept answers from other sites. The "48 people" you are asking about does not include people who see and reply to a question on one of these other sites.

And this outrageous situation is based on what? Flights of fantasy are not a sound basis for reasonable debate.

Where's the neutral answer for those of us who don't claim to know the unknowable?

Interesting. I think I see what you mean - I wish I could revise the question. Originally it was meant to have a range type of answer, but I didn't feel that the available labels fit quite right so I changed it to a multiple choice question and added the "I don't vote" option. I should have added a fourth choice - maybe something along the lines of "I vote for the person whose ideals or positions I agree with the most, whether or not I like the person"? As the question stands, though, I still feel this is covered by the "deserving candidate" option. That candidate is "deserving" to you because you agree with them in some way.

They're not shoving it down our throats, no. Hollywood does tend to "flood" a topic or genre when it takes notice of it, however. Just look at the high number of fantasy/sci-fi/supernatural shows currently available. Once Hollywood takes notice there is a heavy emphasis for a while, then it moves on to another area.

Agreed, but it seems that the easiest way to defend a religious standpoint is to attack the intelligence of those who oppose it. I've seen this happen in any number of questions on this site. It's the "anyone who agrees with me is intelligent while all who oppose me are ignorant idiots" defense.

Religion is sort of like freedom. The concept of "freedom" gives you the right to do what you will as long as it does not impose on or impair the rights of others. Similarly, you have the right to practice the religion of your choice as long as that practice does not impose on or impair the religious choices and practices of others. Go ahead and be as religious as you want to be, I'm fine with that - but don't expect me to listen to it, don't expect me to take part in it, and do not attempt to convert me. The same goes for my children. If you want prayer in school then send your child to a private religious school, not a public school.

My disagreement with you does not consitute a lack of education. Thank you for proving my point. I refuse to argue with a religious extremist, as it's difficult to have a discussion with someone whose eyes and ears are closed to any view that is not their own.

I have never seen a "Holiday" tree, but Christmas trees are everywhere I look. As far as holiday gifts, do you think that the stores really want to post signs relevant to every religion in order to cover all the bases? Considering that multiple religions shop in the same stores for gifts for their respective holidays, it's much easier to call them holiday gifts and cover all the bases at once than put up signs relevant to every holiday.