SirAnonymous

Someone I know introduced me to it. I would say my favorite character is Scotty. He has personality and flair. My favorite idea from it comes form Star Trek 6. The characters have to give up their hatred of their old enemies the Klingons. They have problems adjusting to the peace. It shows something that most stories miss. Once the war is won (or in this case, peaceably settled), they ignore that you also have to win the peace. It's an excellent treatment of an oft-ignored reality.

I would say The Scarlet Letter and Gulliver's Travels stood out the most. Silas Marner was also a good read. The Scarlet Letter had compelling characters. Gulliver's Travels was funny. Silas Marner was a charming tale.

I wasn't overly impressed with Huckleberry Finn because it was so meandering. It had some good parts to it, though.

Hard to say. Foreign policy is really complicated, but I'll try to give some of my thoughts on the USA's involvement in worlds affairs. In general, I support international US involvement. While we've definitely made mistakes, I think America has been a force for good overall. I'm a big supporter of NATO. Yes, some its members don't contribute as much as they should. However, thanks to Putin, the alliance is still necessary. I also support the war on terror. People complain, understandably so, about it being an endless war. However, wars don't end just because one side stops shooting. I think being involved in trade treaties like NAFTA (now replaced by whatever the cut-and-paste NAFTA Trump negotiated is called) is a huge benefit to the US. On the other hand, I'm growing more skeptical of the UN. Its human rights council is an outright mockery of human rights. Those are some of my rather scattered thoughts about world affairs.

To answer the question directly, I would say neither or maybe more, though not significantly more.

Most definitely. Economic freedom has helped bring hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the last several decades. On the flip side, countries with tight government control over the economy like Venezuela, North Korea, or Cuba remain impoverished. Capitalism isn't a panacea, but it is extremely effective.

It's the second most common language in the US, and I just like it.

Spanish.

I doubt it.

I don't know who will win, but America will lose either way.

I avoid thin crust pizzas. I prefer a thicker crust.

It doesn't taste good on pizza. Putting juicy fruit on a pizza doesn't work.

That depends a lot on the person. Some are intoxicated with it and seek more. Some see it as a way to get a profit and become corrupt. Some can't handle the responsibility and break down. Others are more responsible and try to use it for good.

That's an interesting question. I've always been paranoid about putting personal information online. I've heard horror stories about people getting scammed. I don't know if there is one reason I can give about why I care so much about privacy.

Worst: James Buchanan. His failure to act when the South started to secede was inexcusable. Had he taken action, he could have ended the war sooner and potentially saved tens or hundreds of thousands of lives. We may complain about what other presidents have done, but none of their failures measure up to that one.

Best: Abraham Lincoln. Unlike Buchanan, he did take action. He had to make a lot of hard decisions. He wasn't always right. But at the end of the day, he found the right generals, shifted the focus of the war to ending slavery, and saved the Union. That's a hard record to top, and only Washington comes close.

If that were true, it would indeed be silly. However, I don't think Christianity is an imperialistic religion. It is true that many of the imperialistic nations were majority Christian and planted colonies in the name of God...or so they claimed. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus famously said, "By their fruits you will recognize them." (Matthew 7:20, NIV) The colonialists pirated, deceived natives into giving them land, fought unjust wars, and forced people to convert to Christianity, among many other things. These actions contradict many clear teachings of the Bible. When someone claims to be a Christian and claims to be doing something in the name of God, but their actions clearly break God's commands, I don't believe their claims. It would be similar to me forcing Muslims to abandon Islam and then claiming to do it in the name of Allah and Mohammed. Regardless of what I claim, I would be doing the opposite of what Mohammed taught, so my claim would be invalid. The same applies to the colonialists.

Of course, this does leave an obvious question unanswered. These nations were majority Christian. They had national or, in the Catholic's case, international Christian churches that were frequently supported by the governments. There was widespread support in these Christian countries for colonialism. How, then, can I say that Christianity isn't imperialistic? Take a look at the modern US. A large (I forget how large) percentage of Americans identify as Christian. But if you dig deeper, you find that most of those who identify as Christians don't attend church and don't believe basic Christian doctrines. This is a phenomenon known as cultural Christianity. People who are part of a culture that is heavily influenced by Christian ideas and has a lot of Christians in it tend to just go with the flow and say, "Yeah, I'm Christian. I believe there's a God," but it doesn't have any impact on their lives. Jesus talked about these people in the Sermon on the Mount. "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father Who is in heaven." (Matthew 7:21, NIV) The imperialistic countries were the same way.

To sum up this long, probably rambling answer, the imperialist nations may have done these things in God's name and may have been majority Christian. However, since many of the imperialist actions they took were directly contrary to God's Word, their actions cannot be attributed to Christianity.

One last thing that I'll put in a question to you, because I'm genuinely curious about the answer. I've probably said that I support a small government and that I'm anti-authoritarian, but I don't recall saying that I'm anti-authority, nor would I describe myself as such. How did you come to that conclusion about me?

That's going to require a long answer.

TL;DR: I think he has some good policies, but is personally immoral and has committed impeachable offenses.

Long Answer: I support some of Trump's policies, such as the tax cut, some attempts to regulate and restrict abortion, returning Title IX (or is it XI? I think IX) to its original intent of only male/female and not all gender identities. I think he has been tough on Iran, but withdrawing from Syria was a big mistake and a betrayal of the Kurds. His administration has been fairly tough on Russia, but I find his friendly rhetoric toward dictators like Putin and Kim Jong Un to be alarming. I approve of his picks for the Supreme Court and other lower courts, and I think it's good that he's getting a lot of judges appointed. There are certainly other policies that I could mention, but I think that is sufficient.

So far as the Russia scandal goes, I think the Mueller Report clearly established that there was no collusion, and I haven't seen any evidence of obstruction, although Paul Manafort is a crook and Trump Jr. is a fool. I think Trump's national emergency declaration to get border wall funding is a blatant usurpation of powers that the Constitution only grants to Congress and that it was an impeachable offense. I also think that Trump is in the wrong in the Ukraine scandal, and that is probably impeachable as well. If those scandals hadn't happened, I still wouldn't support him. There is nothing that would make me vote for a man who openly bragged about groping women. No way, no how. Yes, he's apologized. It still makes him an un-convicted criminal and sex offender who should belong in prison.

Probably a little bit, but anonymity is pretty much a pipe dream in today's world. Amazon, Google, and various governments know too much. Still, I do what I can.

To love the Lord my God with all my heart, mind, and soul, and to love my neighbor as myself.

I don't watch any.

I don't know.

This question is actually the difference between creation and evolution. Evolution says that creatures evolve, so the egg would be first, since the egg's parents would not be chickens. Creation says the chicken came first because that's how God created the world. As a Christian, I say that the chicken came first.

And the omelet came second.

Air Disasters on the Smithsonian channel and Star Trek.

That's tough. The 80s and 90s were relatively good because of the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. However, that's just relative. The more I read about history, the more I realize that the "good ol' days" are whatever days we choose to view with nostalgic rose-colored glasses. There really isn't any time period that's better than any other (Except pre-AC periods. How did they survive?)

Because that's what RM came up with. It's a knight, so it matches my username. I don't really care that it's a crusader.

What does it mean to "suss others out," and when have I done that?

Neither. The Incredibles' universe is better.

Odd question. Why do you ask?

Dr. Octopus

Mr. Incredible, Spiderman, Superman, and Batman, in that order.

Hard to say. Probably someone like Ben Sasse, Kevin Young, or the late Warren Weirsbe.

Not a lot, but I do talk to people. I believe that introverts like myself should unite...separately...in our own homes.

Identity theft, credit card fraud, data leaks, etc.

Hah! Wild zontars will not drag that information out of me. Do your worst!

Yes

Yes

The information I have revealed is very general and could not be used to identify me unless you already knew me personally. I revealed it mainly so people could have an idea of what topics to debate me on.

I haven't. I changed it from the default to a chess knight.