Dave

Never heard of it.

She's gone. She "unregistered" long ago. She basically admitted that she was trying to use the ULC as a ploy to get out of having to pay union dues. She didn't get the amount of support she wanted, so she left.

Given time I'm sure we'll find something that you are ingorant, or stupid, about and remind you of it in a very nasty way..... just as you did here.

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.but she isn't robbing a bank.I never said she was. I guess you didn't understand the point, so never mind.then you didnt make a point. I did, but never mind.

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.but she isn't robbing a bank.I never said she was. I guess you didn't understand the point, so never mind.

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.perhaps you don't understand the tenant. Her belief that it is not right, is a religious tenant. That, as they say, is that.I understand she was trying to use the ULC as an excuse. To abuse the ULC in that way and claim an attack on her RELIGIOUS freedom is not doing the right thing. "Do that which is right" does not give you free reign to do whatever you want and when someone doesn't let you do that then cry about your "religious" freedom. To put it simply; you cannot rob a bank and then claim your religious beliefs said you can do it because you think it is right.

What the ULC tenant says, in this case, is irrelevant since her objection is to the union and not anything to do with any kind of religion or religious belief what so ever. She has ever stated that herself.

Then, like I pointed out, your "religious" objection is a sham and would be laughed out of court.... as it should be.no, a case can still be made based upon the tenants of ULC. Which is irrelevant since her sole objection is to the way the union operates and has nothing what so ever to do with her religious beliefs - AS SHE STATED HERSELF! Here is the exact quote: That's the point; she is espousing NO theology but a dislike of the union. There is nothing in the ULC tenants about disliking a certain union. She's just looking for a ploy to get out of joining the union. It would be wrong of her to abuse the ULC in an attempt to twist her dislike of a union into a religoius tenet she claims is backed by the ULC.

Then, like I pointed out, your "religious" objection is a sham and would be laughed out of court.... as it should be.

Dave, you are out of line to accuse me of faking anything. Please quit making rude posts.Thank you for considering this request. I will... as soon as you quit making outlandish statements such as the state of Washington is attacking anyone's freedom of religion.

I support her not wanting to join a union. There is just something plain wrong with being forced to join an organization against your will. It's the religious objection part I disagree with.

But she has not established anything other than her personal desire to not join a union. The "religious" part is an obvious ploy and will not succeed. I don't see that as unreasonable. What I do see as unreasonable is trying to claim a whole state is attacking religious freedom by faking a religious exemption to unions.

Neither of those are objections based on religious grounds, but on political or legal reasons.Semantics, dear Watson.I am anti semantical. It's not semantic, but reality. Your objections cannot be construed as religions - as several here have tried to explain - but personal. The ULC has no prohibition against unions. They will laugh, and throw your case out of court. Then stop creating the "negative energy."

Neither of those are objections based on religious grounds, but on political or legal reasons.

I think it's a movie, a work of fiction. Over analyzing it just takes away all the fun. Once you suspend your disbelief the next step is to imagine yourself in the fictional world. If George Lucas hasn't painted a vivid enough picture for you to be able to imagine being a Jedi or Sith Lord or Clone Commando then he has failed as a storyteller. For all their failings as films, episodes 4-6 included, George Lucas paints an amazing picture of a fascinating fantasy world. That is why these movies are such a cultural phenomenon.That's exactly what I mean. Over analyzing it would take away all that fun. Suspend that disbelief and enjoy it. Over $150 million in less than a week; hopefully that will change his mind and he'll do the last 3 chapters.

I think it's a movie, a work of fiction. Over analyzing it just takes away all the fun.

I just wonder if that $50 million for the first day is going to change his mind about doing the last 3 episodes.

I can see it now... someone walks in the room just as you are zooming in on a wookies crotch.

They could have written it much better to reinforce the irony that he killed the one thing he went to the dark side for. The scene is just after Yoda is attacked. Right at the level of Yoda's head is the crotch of the wookie on the right. You'll see the zipper since it stands out as a shiny strip going straight up from the crotch.

The strangest part of the movie was the guy in front of me in line. He was wearing a skirt. Not a kilt, a skirt. It was obviously home made out of that orangish brown canvas duck material. It came down to just below the knees and it was obvious that he was not cross dressing. Is this a new trend or something or is this guy just being himself?

There is no question she died in childbirth. She was shown still pregnant at the funeral to hide the fact that she had given birth so that Vader would not go looking for the kids. There is no speculation there either. The droid said she lost the will to live and that if they wanted to save the babied they'd have to operate right away. It wasn't the best writing I've seen.

I thought her death, in fulfillment of the dreams, was very clear. The lie was that Anikin killed her, not that she is dead. He needed to feed that hatred to complete Anikins conversion.

The story outline was written in the 1970s. The people making those claims are grasping at straws. The story line may have been written then, but the film was made during the bush admin. No grasping needed especially when it is well known that Lucas is not a fan of bush.

She died giving birth - just like the dreams said she would. We do. It was right after she named the kids. One thing to watch for - the wookie with a zipper down the front of his costume. Look for a wookie on the right soon after they give Order 66. I can see how many are claiming that this film is anti bush.

What might explain that, and some parts of the movie, is a quote from the author: