blabbate

At that height, weight, and bf, maintenance averages around 1200 if you're not exercising. With light exercise it's around 1400, and with moderate around 1600. Of course, each person is different. If you're that afraid of gaining fat, you might try staying around 1300-1400 calories, alternating weights with cardio, and eating high-protein, low-fat. Do you currently lift?

Agreed. There were discussions in those threads that had nothing to do with Joe. If he doesn't want to be a part of them, he shouldn't post. Locking them (or requesting they be locked) is draconian.

In that case, I support the war.

"Illiminate," how very Beastie Boys of you. Anyway, are you going to explain what the "Yes on 8" voters have to do with forcing churches to perform gay marriages?

Right now? No logical reason. Two hundred years ago? You can blame John Jay's paranoia. He wrote a letter to Washington advising the inclusion of the clause in order to limit foreign influence in the new government. And "natural-born citizen?" Not actually defined in the Constitution anyway.

Huh? Is that the terrain in which it takes place? Or are we fighting for control of Iraq's lovely bluebeard shrubs?

So you had no agenda in posting it and have no opinion about it whatsoever? So why did you post it? I do. It's spectacularly distracting.

Keep your rational opinions to yourself, you nutty Finn.

Apparently you have been listening to what Yes on 8 voters think and know. More detail?

Let me amend and say the gay rights movement is not about religious marriage, just civil. I'm sure there are a few people here and there who want to try to force the churches, but 99+% realize that it's pointless. Separation of church and state also protects the churches, after all. I'm also amazed it's not allowed, but bear in mind that only Spain, Canada, and Norway grant exactly the same rights to same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. It's complicated. Married couples receive over 1,000 civil benefits, many deriving from the fact that a civil marriage makes them legally kin. Survivor benefits, visitation rights, joint taxation, sick leave, veterans benefits, adoption, immigration sponsorship, etc. It's also an internationally recognized institution. If you're legally (and heterosexually) married in the U.S., almost all other countries will recognize it. Civil unions, the current substitute for marriage in several states and the solution favored by both presidential candidates, provide some, but not all, of these benefits. It differs by state, and none of them can provide benefits currently reserved only for heterosexual couples under federal law. Gay marriage is legal in Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut and provides all the benefits of straight-sex marriage that, again, aren't currently reserved for heterosexual couples under federal law. And finally, there's the separate-but-equal argument, that when you change the vocabulary used to discuss something, it implicitly changes the meaning.

That is exactly wrong. At least in the U.S., which is the locus of all the stuff Joe has brought up, civil marriage and religious marriage are separate. Gays want the right to civil marriage. They have no interest in forcing churches to allow homosexual religious unions. When people apply the word "sacred" to civil marriage, they are either incorrectly attributing a religious aspect to a civil institution, are using the word in a secular way, or are just terribly confused.

That is exactly wrong. At least in the U.S., which is the locus of all the stuff Joe has brought up, civil marriage and religious marriage are separate. Gays want the right to civil marriage. They have no interest in forcing churches to allow homosexual religious unions. When people apply the word "sacred" to civil marriage, they are either incorrectly attributing a religious aspect to a civil institution, are using the word in a secular way, or are just terribly confused.

Ok, now I know you're nuts.

Excuse me? You're excused. Show me were I said he had legal standing or didn't have legal standing. Well, you must have had some reason for making the initial post. If you don't agree with Berg, I'll assume you hit the submit button by accident. If you do agree with him, you should be able to intelligently defend him. Either way, step up, take a position, and defend it. Not just, no.

Yup, that's it. You figured us out. We hate white people, Hey? So crazy Joe, how about you get back to the topic you started the thread with and tell me how Berg has legal standing to challenge someone else's citizenship?

Agreed. This isn't bb.com, thank goodness. Just sequester the political threads in a separate forum.

Eat carbs. They're good for you. Your body needs them and, as long as you're burning more than you're ingesting, will use them for energy instead of storing them as fat. Go for complex, low-glycemic index carbs instead of sugars, though. Whole grains, beans, and veggies. If you need sweets, go for fruit. Eat high-fiber, high-protein, and drink a lot of water. You'll feel fuller. And stay away from fat.

Elvis Presley, In the Ghetto

See the problems with statements like this is that in reality none of us really know the answer to this question. this question can only be proven by experts.And it has been examined by experts in the past. The Illinois bar is supposed to be particularly thorough. Of course, this isn't to say that they couldn't have made a mistake, especially because citizenship isn't as big an issue for them, but suit for re-examination of citizenship records that have been previously verified isn't something that anyone off the street has standing to bring. Similar cases were tossed out for lack of standing when they were brought against Bush/Cheney and McCain. If there were any question as to Obama's citizenship, the Republican party could bring it up themselves or request that the State department take a look. Do people really think the opposition party leadership wouldn't jump at the chance to disqualify Obama? Apparently we hang out in very different circles. I know plenty of McCain supporters and Obama supporters and, yes, both admit that nothing seems to stick to Barack the same way it does to McCain. The McCain-ites like to blame media bias and the Obama supporters pretend their guy is just cleaner, but I haven't heard anyone assert or imply as the "first thing out of their mouth" that race is a factor. And I live in DC, so it's not like my environment is wanting for cynicism. Or maybe we've jumped past that point.

There is no litmus test I could take that deswayed you from your bigoted view of me. I'm not going to change your mind and I'm not going to try.Joe, quit being defensive. I've never called you a bigot of any kind. In fact, I've noted in the past that I don't think you're a homophobe. People would take you more seriously if you would answer questions instead of freaking out.

Not the ones I'm looking at right now. They have carnauba wax and E129. These are the Cadbury ones I see everywhere.

And Judge Surrick is right. He was responding to a motion to dismiss filed by the Obama camp claiming lack of standing. Berg brought a lawsuit that doesn't allege injury-in-fact and provides no basis for redress. If the judge hadn't dismissed, he would be accused of that "activism" everyone hates so much. As to who does have standing, the State Dept or the Democratic or Republican parties, certainly.

Really, for the people with short term memory? Now I'm terribly confused.

I am a guy, about 175 lbs, so it's probably more than listed on the container. I'll look around there and see. Thanks!

I agree. But my pets are from other people, who wanted to give their pets away, so I myself don't have any real rescue pets (my dog was in a shelter before she was taken into her previous home, though). But this cat, who's living here, is from a local shelter. Taking them in from someone who wanted to give them away is just as good as getting them from a shelter. You may have stopped them from going to the shelter in the first place, which is healthier (physically and emotionally) for them anyway.