Okay, these comments are making my heart hurt. First off, yes--marriage is between a man and woman, true. I don't deny that. Civil unions work fine for everyone else. I also don't think gays are causing marriage to be ruined--I blame that on the people responsible for making the marriage ruined themselves. You reap what you sow.

HOWEVER:

Christians are not about hatred. The sign says that and it is true, as far as I can tell. Jesus, what did he do? He let Judas follow him, he let Saul--a murderer of Christians!--become Paul and preach. He is always trying to save people, even if he knows it's perhaps hopeless, and he does save people, change them. However, by your own words--'gays' are lost! Murderers? No, they're good. Abusers? Thieves? You forget our own religion has a 'forgiveness' clause. Whoever so believes in him is saved. We all sin.
Why do you only target certain types of sinners? Sure, some make more mistakes than others, but we're human beings in an imperfect, fallen world. Even the first humans sinned--Eve by going against God, tricked, and Adam for going against God out of, perhaps, love for Eve. From now 'til the end of the world people will sin. It's a lie to say otherwise. So we should welcome anyone into our fold, no matter what they have done, at least religiously. We can give in to our humanity and dislike them no matter what, but religiously we cannot hold people apart. Anyone who wishes to be saved or be a Christian deserves it, no matter what. No one deserves Hell.

I upsets me that so many people here don't understand. I mean, I'm not supposed to judge you, but, quite frankly, in my own personal opinion all this hate is misguided and wrong. I can't say I agree with much many Liberals do, or what some gay people do, either, but that goes for everyone. I wouldn't not let them worship Jesus with me, though. They're not evil. They're not devils. They're human as the rest of us.

(Two cents--compiled. I hope you take some of this to heart. I know maybe I'm too--lenient, but I feel like it's my job.)

THIS.^ You pretty much summed up everything I think about that show now. All I can see is ham-fisted humor and enough tokenism to make a modern day Star Trek about now. Honestly.

To double-up my distaste, I'm also an author. People who write general know that you should have a dynamic, big idea, a theme, a plot, an inventive setting, and great characters. There should be a clear beginning and end to every chapter (episode) and every book (season), so that when you know you're finished and the characters need to spend the rest of their lives off stage, you can end it well. In the way Glee is going, they're going to be cancelled.

I had high hopes for the show, just because it seemed different than other American shows. But no. I suppose that's why I only tend to watch British television (Life on Mars and Wire in the Blood all the way).

If you have kids, though, try to dig up some old Flight 29 Down episodes. D.J. MacHale is an author I admire and he wrote the scripts for it. Perfectly clean. No adult stuff, no immature language, just an innocent teen drama about some kids getting stuck on an island and having to survive (it's a show with survival in it, not just high school shiz). Also, I suggest kids reading. It's usually much better than television.

Am I the only one who finds racism confusing? Skin color is determined by melanin. Everyone has some amount of it in their skin, unless they're albino. So, basically, from white-to-black we all have the same thing in our skin. So debating whether or not having more or less is "better" has always been stupid. In hot climates, darker skin is more common because it protects you; in colder climates, vice versa. It's not exactly something to complain about.

Now, I understand when people have problems against culture. I, for one, hate gang culture--in any form. It's primitive and dangerous--for those in the gangs, their families, and everyone around them. Not liking some cultures has nothing to do with race. For example: 'White middle-class boys' and those 'pitiful, poor black boys' look equally funny with their pants 'round their thighs because, dude, don't they know what that means? It's like begging The Sisters to come at you.

Also, there's one thing these people do that really bugs me. They segregate so much. I mean, they say they want equality, but you can't just be a person. You have to be 'black' or 'Hispanic' or 'Jewish' or 'white'. Honestly, I really don't know what they'd do with me--being French-Canadian, Cherokee, German, Irish, and my great-great Aunt was mocked for being 'black' back in the day. Ethnicity is flexible, guys. Speaking of which, aren't these the people who supposedly think sexuality is flexible--yet also something you're 'born with' and unchangeable? Wait, I won't even get on that, that topic annoys me too much and I start talking like Greg Gutfield ('cept I don't do unicorns and griffins--genetics and weird Bible translations).

To sum myself up: Racism is stupid, it exists, but it's stupid, all forms of racism need to be dealt with (not sure if mentioned), culture-ism is what the real problem is in most cases, and ethnicity slots are cruel and unusual punishments that exist on SATs and ACTs and really just need to flip off (if everyone's the same, we don't need labels, idiots).

That is all.

Gah. I only know that Congresswoman. Everyone else you mentioned--whoosh--right over my head.

I find that sad. I mean, influential doesn't mean 'sends X amount of money to charity' or 'did...something' . It should have to do with influence--influence on the world, sure, but also influence on the future--future of art, future of technology, future of the world in general. If you're going to list actors (and TIME will), find not the people who are in the most movies, but are acting well enough to leave a lasting influence. For example, if I wanted to become an actor, I'd look to Robson Green, because he does some of the best method acting I've seen. If I wanted to be a musician, I'd look towards current popular bands, or bands that continue to be popular from the 80's, even--The National, R.E.M., etc. I wouldn't look towards the pop icons that come and go. I'd look for people who'd last, or had done something 'so different' they influenced the future of their vocations. This is more or less the same thing I do when I'm studying fiction--I look for good grammar, a steady flow perfect for telling a story, a good story, and good reviews. I read everything from J.K. Rowling and Scott Westerfield to Mark Twain, Jonathan Swift, and Isaac Asimov--and the books' authors have most definitely influenced me more than some actor I've never heard of. If I, an author, can find the time to do that, also being half mad (as all writers are), they should have the time with all their resources to at least do a good job of /something they only do once a year/. They have a whole year to figure this out.

Plus, doing something 'back in the day' shouldn't count, unless (perhaps) it has had a very recent and sudden influence on the world today. So you couldn't exactly go back to R.E.M. or the stars of Wire in the Blood, but find recent people who will influence the future of their vocation. Don't force it, don't go by popularity (only do that partially). Do a ruddy talent search, at least. Perhaps these people have done more than we think (doubtful), but...if we haven't heard of them, how can they have such an influence?

Oh well. I'd hate to buy the mag, but I may have to...just to see how hard they failed, honestly. I sincerely hope they at least listed someone I look up to and whose work they enjoy...or who I hate so much they /have/ to be influential. For example, those actors in Skins? Yes. I've almost never seen them act, but I know well enough not to act like them--so they've influenced me in the way of, 'Well...I'll be keeping a close eye on any potential children of mine. A very close eye. And teach them the horrors of drug use early on. Uh huh.'

Yeah. I don't know. This just... I suppose this is why I have never read TIME magazine before. Always avoid those magazines at the grocery check-out. I mean, if they're with those fake-ghoul mags and tabloids and idiots who put 'Reverse Diabetes' on cooking mags without realizing that is /another medical condition/ TIME can't be too brilliant. ...But I'm biased.

I want to argue with you, but I can't--mainly for the fact you're such an idiot I can't even do much else but shake my head in half-sympathy.

Let it be known the only racists I've had to contend with are the people who flip because I'm German. Yeah. And they would be what you deem 'African-American'--which is stupid because why do they bloody need a hyphen? I mean, some of my best friends are Kenyan for chrissake's. But these bloody gangbangers all strung out on meth think it's okay to attack a thirteen-year-old girl because her mother's white.

And none of them are Tea Party people. They're just on meth.

Though, I suppose you could say that proves your point--because since they aren't Tea Party members, that makes the Tea Party racist (conclusion-jumping time!). Or you could accept the fact that racism goes both ways and no one should attack a girl for the reason her skin color is 'wrong'.

Whites aren't the only racist ones. Anyone can be racist. Calling the Tea Party racist is absurd. Which sort of racism is it, then? White-on-black? Then why haven't we had any big stories of white people ganging up on blacks who tried to join? There have been none--none I've heard of.

I suppose my point is: pics or it didn't happen. Send me a link. Something. Just don't make vague points. I can back up my argument with the fact--oh, yeah--I've been ostracized in a community before because my skin color was 'wrong'. ('White people downtown? Poor white people? What are you ruddy talking about?') I knew that girl--I was a year younger than her when it happened.

Racism is horrible in any form, but you're showing bias against people just for their beliefs? Now that's wrong, too. You're being ignorant.

I don't want to feed the troll more than I have to, so I'll stop now. But seriously? I thought you Liberals were all about 'understanding' people. I don't feel understood. I'm not even part of the Tea Party and that offends me because you don't have facts--you have ignorance. It's--I don't even know. I try not to be ignorant. I look at things from different angles. I'm a gray area person. But seeing someone just say 'you're this so you're racist'? That's how my old neighbors used to think! 'You're white so you're obviously racist--we'll beat you up now.'
Can you see the irony? I can.

O.O

One thing: they better not get home-schooling wrong. If they get home-schooling wrong, I will send them a creepily-polite letter that shows just how much I detest them.

I mean, I already just got chewed out by a forty-something man for being home-schooled and told that I was never going to college after I said that. And we'd been talking for five seconds.

Ugh. I was hoping Glee would come around because, well, it can't be too bad (I say this because my parents like to watch it--weirdly enough--and they're normal enough). I mean, they had an R.E.M. song on there (even if they did ruin it--saw that bit). But this? It's not her, it's just the fact they aren't using a conservative actress. It's like a slap to the face. It's like someone said: "Conservatives can't be trusted around gay people; they hunt them for sport!"

Who knows? This is just making my brain hurt as I wonder how bad they are going to mess my lifestyle up. I was trying to go with the trend and watch recent-like (first two episodes or something), also because I heard there was some decent acting, but seriously. This is why I watch British crime dramas. At least I know they just deal with the dead and criminals, rather than politics. And--Robson Greene. He doesn't look like much, but his acting skills could blow just about all chumps in Hollywood out of the water.

By the way, can we assign a phobia to people who fear home-schooled people? Then I can yell it if they get mean. I heard this is highly effective. Either that or I need some sort of scent that repels bigoted forty-something teachers.

Weird. I...pretty much completely agree with someone here. o.o Amazing.

And if they mess up home-schooling, I will rave at them to my best ability. I mean, honestly--see? I can type. I have Internet. I know how to find things. And I was home-schooled. By Liberals perspective, I must be a hoax--because, you know, I'm literate.

...I'm even from Alabama.

But, yeah. The show only caught my attention because I was told an R.E.M. song was going to be on it. They did not "kill" it. Bah. And I don't think they realized "losing my religion" is a Southern term for "being at the end of your rope". They thought it was literal. It's like when this Northern Dad called his daughter something I don't even think I can repeat. In the North it's a form of "sweet" endearment, obviously, but if he was from the South I'd have called the cops on him. *shakes head sadly* Might have still called the cops on him if he didn't look so bloody stunned when he was informed of what that means. Total deer-in-the-headlights expression.

Women still don't get equal pay. Look up the demographics of most cities and it's pretty obvious. I know that's just statistics and there are many factors (including women leaving their jobs to get married, and/or have children), but it's a pretty clear sign that people still expect "the norm". Daddy works, does whatever he wants, Mommy cooks and cleans, daughter has to be a princess, boy has to be a wannabe soldier.

Most women have the bonus of having children. I'm not going to be upset with them wanting to enjoy it. However, if it effects how much money I will make? Yeah, I'm going to be annoyed. I grew up poor and don't want it to continue just because of my gender. It hasn't so far and I'm pleased with that, but don't just say it's a lie. I'm sure it's happening somewhere and a mind that already thinks it's hogwash isn't going to believe when it comes to light; which messes up just about everything, actually.

"There has been a price to pay as older and more traditional viewers have left History in droves, replaced by younger and more female viewers."

First off, I'd like to comment on that. Facts are facts, but the fact you find more children and more women watching History Channel a bad thing sort of odd. I don't know. That just didn't sit well with me.
I mean, if History was actually playing more shows that had to do with history, I would be extremely pleased. I mean, kids getting interested in history? Awesome.

But I see what you mean. The current shows are just guesswork and drama. The Military Channel is much better. Sadly, even when I had cable, I didn't get that channel, which saddened me greatly after all the high praise my grandfather gave to certain shows.

However, my television is still getting cable from somewhere (I'm not sure they ever turned it off), so I got to watch a pretty interesting show. It was on the fighting techniques of current and centuries old Cambodians. Very neat. I'm not sure which channel it was on, but I think it was National Geographic? Not sure. Anyway, you might want to check that out.

And, even if Monster Quest is totally fake--it's very neat to see where the legends come from and why they think people came up with such things. That's the best part. They almost never find anything (they found a hairless mutant coyote with big teeth once), but it's interesting to hear the history behind the legends.

Finally, I'll sum this up with informing everyone I'm that elusive person who, at three, was playing a T-rated war game where you controlled armies to reenact old battles. The game itself had pages you could read on the history behind the wars. I mean, it was just a game--but I've loved history because of it. (I can thank my dad for being lazy and wanting to play computer games while 'watching me'.) I'm still young and female, but I like learning about times past.

After all, Uniformitarians have it backwards after all--the present doesn't determine the past; the past determines the present. And I embrace that.
So, yeah. I'm not one to want to watch a bunch of old smelly guys doing whatever; I want to learn about the past. And I get that more with reading--hence cancelling the cable.

I can thank the author of this article, though; because I just remembered I wanted to get those old papers from my grandfather. I think they were copies of documents from the Civil War. (He's a collector.) Yes. Still need to ask him for those.

Anyway, that's my two cents (or, more so, fifty bucks, because I'm chatty online).

I'm a nondenominational Christian and you've baffled me. For the first two; I have friends who are both. For the third; I hate wife beaters, child abusers, and murderers. Why is that considered wrong? I'm a feminist. And I hate seeing things done to people just because they are different or weaker, especially since I'm so fond of genetics. You can't help being born.

And all you can do about any of it is pray for them to come to Christ and accept him as their savior. Because then they are saved. That's it. Repentance is good, yeah. But if you accept Jesus as your savior, you're freed.

Do you know any Christians like what you mentioned--personally? Have you heard them speak? Or are you just making assumptions?

I have gone to my church wearing neon green eyeliner and no one batted an eyelash. My church has Christian music playing in it. We drink coffee during the sermon half the time. We're not the norm, but yeah. We're not some idiotic hillbillies who just wish to use the Bible's words, incorrectly, to harm our fellow humans.

Good sir, I think you're being xenophobic.

I wouldn't denounce anyone to Hell. That's God's job. He makes the big decisions. If I were to, I'd need to repent. I mean, I'd be attempting to take over God's job.
I doubt that would sit well with Him.

Oh, and, by the way, I also read Harry Potter and liked the series when I was younger. Yeah.

I'd ask what your problem was, but that would be rude. Just like the guy's comment above; calling people names and such. You get my point as it is, I'll assume.
I get my point across with logic.

Oh, and...

Sins--adultery, murder, child abuse, thievery, greediness, lying, and slander. That's most of them, reworded to make more sense (there have been some shoddy translations of the Bible in recent times). I regret to see how any of this is good. Would you kill someone? Would you sleep with a married person, completely without regret? Didn't you feel a twinge when you lied as a kid? Doesn't everyone think greed is bad? Lying and slander are illegal in some cases--such as in court, on the witness stand, and when talking bad about other people, ruining their career and such. See? It all makes sense.
And all of it can be forgiven by saying sorry to Jesus. That is all. No specifics even. Just 'sorry, forgive me for my sins'.
Why do you people think my religion is so complicated/wrong? Didn't anyone learn in Political Correctness 101 not to mock other people's religion?