jhc

"to lift you up when you drag" "you can struggle with it all your life" I'm not 100% positive on the second one

yes, it is a true tube amp (well, it has a solid state rectifier, but that doesn't disqualify it in my book)

how is that Valve Jr treating you?

I'd love to see a Dead-style two set show. That way you could drop your acid at the beginning of set 2 and peak when Spiders get's going full throttle

Just add sus4 hammer ons to most of the chords

It's Nel. I saw it on Wikipedia

oops AM BT MA1 ST MA2 YHF AGIB KT

Well first you need to decide whether you really want a hum-sized P90 or another humbucker. (Personally I think the P90 is a good way to go) If you're sure about the P90, then there a few options: the P94, a Rio Grande Bastard (supposedly really noisy), Duncan Phat Cats, the Kent Armstrong are all possibilities in the $70--$100 range. If you're on more of a budget, check these from guitarfetish.com.

AM MA1 ST MA2 YHF AGIB KT

We have a Bill of Rights precisely so that the legistature cannot take away certain freedoms... tyranny of the majority and all that. I especially wouldn't trust a Republican Congress and an evangelical like Bush to protect religous freedoms (and I'm a Republican!) It's precisely these freedoms where the "leave it to the legislature" philosophy is the most inappropriate. There is a real need for our Consitutional freedoms to be interpreted in a reasonable fashion. You already agreed with me that it would be possible for Congress to respect the very literal letter of the 1st Amendment and yet

OK, well that's a start. Since that's the precise legal formula used to define violations of the establishment clause, you shouldn't really have a lot of problems with the legal status quo. So your problem is not with the standards used, but their application to other government bodies/individuals that aren't Congress? That's fine, but that seems like a totally different debate. (and Incoprpotation doctrine aside, I hardly think a judge putting up the 10 Commendments with the explicit stated intention of promoting Christianity is a "gray area" when it comes to actions with no legitimate

I knew it was obviously something else, but never tried to figure out what it was

I know this has gotten old, but I really wish you had taken a stab at my questions. Do you really think a standard, such that a law which is excessivle entangled with religion, served no legitmate secular purpose, and is designed solely to promote reliigion is unconsitutional, is such a ridiculous strech?

Misunderstood was always worth it, but point taken

old Forget The Flowers w/ Jay on guitar = good new Forget The Flowers w/ Nels on lap steel = not so good old Caino Queen with long gitar solo = good new Casino Queen (well, once a year) = not as good old Someday Soon = good new Someday Soon = nonexistent

He was probably all coked up and it just slipped out

Where do you draw the line between this example (which follows the letter of the law, it's only your interpretation that says this is, in effect, creating a national religion) and less egregious examples? Would a standard, for example, that says if a government law/action was excessively entangled with religion, and was designed soley for the promotion of religion, and had no legitimate secular purpose... would that be enough for you to say it's unconsitutional?

Since I already started uploading this before I saw the OP already had live versions: http://www.yousendit.com/transfer.php?acti...530E1037100F9AB It seems as though you have to register with yousendit now - it's pretty easy, and I still greatly prefer it to sendspace.

That's fuckin' ridiculous

Step 1 Get a frisbee from the store or friend. Step 2 Clean the Frisbee. Step 3 Make sure your parents aren

It's funny how the strict constructionists never apply that reasoning to the second amendment, but anyhoo... The argument I'd give to whatidsay is this: say Congress doesn't officially establish Christianity as a national religion, but puts "Jesus Saves" on currency and teaches the Bible in public schools. It doesn't take a crazy imagination that they've abided by the letter of the law but not the spirit. Thus the Court's interpretation that essentially the government as an inherently coercive power, cannot favor one religion over another. Another way of looking at it from an original inte