LDSGator

I took it and it came up as 'Christian science'.  I bet LDS would have been 2nd with just a few different answers.

The right of people to bear arms might or might not aid in maintaining the security of a free state. However, it seems that that right does seem to be adding to the insecurity of many of the citizens of that state. Is the increased security of the freedom of the state being achieved at the cost of increased insecurity of its citizens?

Update: I’m donating to a first responder charity if Utah wins, he’s donating to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids foundation if the Gators win. 

Update: I’m donating to a first responder charity if Utah wins, he’s donating to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids foundation if the Gators win. 

Update: I’m donating to a first responder charity if Utah wins, he’s donating to the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids foundation if the Gators win. 

*bear arms.
And it’s not to “prevent tyranny”, it is because it’s “necessary to the security of a free state“.  There are more threats to the security of a free state, then just tyranny.

No worries. If we agreed on everything none of us would be here. Also, in the big picture like I mentioned I’m with second amendment advocates on virtually everything else.

I have better hair too. 

And in return, I concede that you are *slightly* younger than me—younger at heart, at least, if not in calendar age.  

Just because I’m a Titanic nerd second only to @LDSGator, I’m going to point out that the coal fire was extinguished nearly a full day before the Titanic hit the iceberg and was not a factor either in its speed or sinking.  Spontaneous combustion of bunkered coal was, while not exactly common, frequent enough that specific procedures had been developed to control and eradicate smoldering bunker fires; and they worked in the Titanic’s case.
The community of Titanic researchers is a really weird place (think of a bunch of male baby boomers acting like teenaged girls, and you’ll *begin* to understand the dynamic), and there’s one in particular who just wants to watch the (Titanic) world burn and so has been going to mass-market media pushing this coal-fire theory for about a decade now.

Not sure about that. The coal fire had little to do with it sinking, and it wasn’t racing to New York. 
 
https://www.quora.com/Why-was-it-such-a-big-deal-that-Titanic-make-it-to-NYC-fast-in-record-time-when-the-ship-was-already-famous-and-making-headlines-as-the-largest-and-most-luxurious-ship-of-that-time-Why-not-worry-about-arriving?top_ans=238082441

I grew up in the 90’s so I missed out on the space race. PThanks for the explanation. 

imagine if they had gone the other route of the sea dragon. A reusable rocket that could have lifted the entire International Space Station in one launch for about the same cost as a shuttle launch.
 

The saddest part of the challenger disaster is that most of the astronauts survived the initial blast. It was the impact with the water that killed them. In the post investigation they found that there were switches and controls that were activated after the blast. Meaning that the astronauts were still trying to operate the vehicle on its way to the ground. Very sad day for the space program and they will never be forgotten.

Yes, they were supposed to be reusable and thus save the US government a ton of money. The opposite occurred; each shuttle launch cost about half a billion dollars in today's money, far more expensive than simply launching an Atlas rocket to take something into space.
To be honest, the shuttles were marvels of technology and engineering. But they were pushing the boundaries of engineering know-how. For example, the main shuttle rocket engine was one of the most efficient and powerful (for its size) rocket engines ever made to that time, but it cost a fortune to develop and construct it.
The shuttle itself was very difficult to bring back down from orbit safely. A huge amount of effort and money was expended to figure out how to make the ceramic tiles stick to the shuttle or how to protect them from falling debris (mostly ice that formed on the cryogenic external fuel tank) during takeoff. The fact that they never really figured that one out was made clear when the Columbia was ripped apart on reentry because some tiles were damaged and missing due to takeoff debris strikes.
The entire system was so vastly complicated that no single person could possibly understand it all, and it was exceedingly difficult for various teams to communicate effectively about every item that arose. This is important because when you're talking about manned rocket launches, even a minor-seeming issue or small complication can lead to vehicle failure and the death of the astronauts.
There were also the inevitable political machinations. For example, the infamous o-rings that failed in Challenger (Discovery did not fail, and was retired at the end of the space shuttle program) were used because the enormous solid-fuel booster rockets strapped onto each side of the shuttle's external tank could not be manufactured and then shipped across the country in one piece. So they were made in two pieces (by Morton Thiokol in Brigham City, Utah), taken to Florida by rail, and stacked together, with an o-ring to seal the joint and provide limited articulation.
Back in the early 1970s, it was clear that Apollo was not going to be an ongoing program. NASA was trying to figure out how to move forward with rocket usage. Many possible plans were proposed:
A heavy-lift rocket to put large loads (like a space telescope) into low earth orbit A smaller, less expensive launch vehicle to put satellites into higher orbits and launch planetary probes throughout the solar system A program to put men into space on a long-term orbital platform A program to use a few Apollo-style rockets to establish a moonbase and keep astronauts there on a rotating basis  The good old trip to Mars And so forth.
The various proponents for each of these fought for his or her own idea. The moonbase people didn't think an orbital research platform would be either useful enough or sustainable. The heavy launch people worried that a lightweight satellite-launching rocket could not put important platforms into orbit. Blah, blah, blah. In reality, any of the individual proposals would have been useful and cost-efficient. Even the people who championed this or that idea admitted that anything was much better than nothing.
What was needed was a leader, someone to take the reins and make the tough decisions. But leaders of that caliber just were not to be found at NASA in the early to mid-'70s. Instead, politics as usual played out, and the thing was decided by committee. Unsurprisingly, the committee went with the stupidest possible option. Instead of choosing just one of the ideas, they would build a platform that would allow all the ideas to happen! Everyone wins! What could possibly go wrong?
Anyway, I'm older than most of this list's participants. I'm sure that few share my views on the matter, and those who do likely skew toward my age. For children of the 1970s and 1980s, the space shuttle represents the very pinnacle of technological sophistication. I don't see it that way; as with many '50s and '60s babies, I remember the Apollo moon landings and look at them as one of the transcendently amazing things the human race has ever accomplished. The STS represented a step backward in ambition. Rather than establish the foundation of a spacefaring infrastructure, it was an impediment to that foundation. Just an unfortunate and ultimately poor choice all the way around.
And you have to admit, Apollo was waaaaaay cooler than the space shuttle. Just in looks alone, Apollo was a magnificent machine the size of a skyscraper that went to the moon, while the space shuttle was an ugly moth squatting on an ungainly triple-rocket-looking thing.

I had had surgery on my ankles several weeks previously, so I was stumping around my parents' house in casts up to my knees. I remember the news programs repeatedly showing the "explosion". I thought it was rather gruesome to keep repeating the video clip. I think that was the beginning of my intense dislike of the space shuttle. I had previously been aware of many of its shortcomings—I am a child of the 1960s, and thus a space-age kid, so I have been interested in astronauts and rockets and space travel almost from birth—but watching the shuttle disintegrate and kill those on board brought to reality the idea that people had been getting paid to cut corners and approve a deadly system that was nothing more than a giant compromise, a jack-of-all-trades that most certainly was the master of none.

Technically, Challenger did not explode, it was the external fuel tank that exploded.

As JAG mentioned, the fuel tank disintegrated rather than exploded. The fuel did burn and created an orange fireball of sorts, but it was not an explosion in the sense of a detonation, which by definition is supersonic.

Multiply that by 500 when you are online. And by another 500 because the topic is abortion. 

I didn't realize Soft Cell was still touring.

Loser attends the musical concert of the winner’s choice.

@mirkwood and I are going to make a bet over the football game coming up, but we can’t think of anything to wager.
 
He already said no face tattoos (dude is such a buzzkill) and I said no bottles of whiskey (sorry bro). What should we wager? Any ideas? 

A country founded by prison inmates is now a beacon of freedom! 

Australia, of course, stands ready to provide a new home for any breakaway States who wish to attach themselves to a newer, more united federation  

That's one of the most repulsive things I’ve ever heard. Yes, it’s 100% evil.  Horrific and…all I can say is may God forgive them. 
 
To be fair though, we can’t lump these psychopaths in with all pro choicers. That’s like saying all pro-lifers endorse shooting up abortion clinics.