Soonerborn

I tend to agree with Sisyphus about what we should and shouldnt have laws for. Laws are meant to protect a person from injury or property damage by another party. I do not see why the US government is in the business of protecting people from themselves. Its not their job. Laws dealing with morals or "the good of society" should be handled at the city, county and/or state level. Alcohol is a good example of this. Many counties and cities in this country prohibit the sale of alcohol. They exist peacefully next to counties that are wet without developing a crime network to supply intoxicants. If you dont like your county being dry, move or bring it to vote. As far as drugs are concerned there are good arguments for making them legal and good ones for keeping them illegal. I do know that what we are doing now has not and will not work. There is no way to win the "Drug War" if its primary function is to remove the distribution network. It can and will be replaced all to easily and the only impact it has is that it makes law abiding citizens pay to catch the offenders and then pay more to jail them. It has no significant impact on the customer or the producer. Something must change. It must be made legal or the penalties for breaking the law must become more severe specifically for the users. Personally I think that locking someone up for a long period of time because he wants to smoke a joint, smoke crack, shoot heroine or some other self destructive activity isnt right so I tend to lean towards making it legal. Legalizing drugs PROS Drugs would become very cheap. (this would have many secondary effects) . Stop the funding of criminals here . Reduce crimes associated with users (robbery, theft etc.) . Remove a huge negative influence in poor areas . Stop the flow of cash to producers in many third world countries Create a source of revenue for the government and and entire new industry Greatly ease the stress on prisons nation wide Allow law enforcment to spend more time on protecting people from real crimes Make drugs safer through FDA regulation Allow for reduction of spending on law enforcement or reapplying that funding to something more beneficial such as education/treatment/counseling Crime rates associated with drug trafficking like murder would drop Lower disease transmission (HIV, hepatitis etc.) CONS Increased drug usage and dependance Increased secondary crimes (DUI, Rape etc) I think an overall policy of legalizing them while restricting them would be the best choice. No advertisements, stiff tax, age restriction, heavy penalty for secondary crimes, funding of treatment facilities and more funding on prevention would do more in 5 years than the "Drug War" has accomplished in its entirety. Self-destructive behaviour is its own punishment and jail time isnt necessary or helpful to anyone engaged in it. Our time and money would be much better spent on prevention and treatment instead of seeking to punish people that cannot possibly be placed in a worse situation.

The only way I am equating "gaining" with "using" is when talking about Iran. They have repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel and they support several terrorist groups aimed at the destruction of Israel. It is an assumption on my part that they will use their nukes as soon as they get them either through a terrorist network or directly.

Ding, Ding, Ding!!!! We have a winner.

I agree with what you are saying. I think I didnt make myself clear enough. In the part you quoted I was referring to abortions late in the pregnancy. There are plenty of people who find it acceptable to have an abortion well after the point where a fetus develops into a human life. Not a majority of pro abortionists but enough that I run into them too often. I do believe that humans have a soul at the moment of conception but I also realize that my religious belief system should not have any bearing on the laws we all have to follow. I am also against abortion at any point of the pregnancy because it allows people to escape responsibility for their actions. I am against late term abortions because its obvious that it would be killing a human life.

1. no 2. yes 3. yes 4. no abortions after 22 weeks unless mothers life threatened. Parents of underage mothers and wed spouses should be notified and have say in the matter. I say 22 weeks because it errs on the side of caution. Its plenty of time to determine pregnancy and make a choice. While I am against abortion, in most cases, I think its necessary because we all know that making things like this illegal just makes it go underground and creates more problems. A person should be held accountable for their actions. Men are held financially accountable regardless if they wanted the mother to keep the baby or not. Women should also accept responsibility for their actions. Any person choosing to have an abortion just because they dont want the baby is morally bankrupt. I just love the irony in people that equate a human life to an animal one then find it perfectly acceptable to terminate a human life simply because it hasnt been pushed out a vagina, as if somehow the act of birthing determines life. You can spot these types quickly because they use the words "fetus" and "it" alot, I guess denying a persons existence makes them feel better about murder.

Yep' date=' you were right to question it. I was wrong. It was some military history professor at some Israeli college named Martin Crevel that said this But several Israeli defense officials have alluded that Russian cities are targets since they believe that no attack on Israel would happen without Russian approval or backing. I think that this is much more credible than the above since alot of the Pollard spying revolved around US nuclear targeting strategies against Russia. Global Security has a good breakdown on Israeli doctrine and capability. They have more nukes than I remember.

I tell you what scares me is that these nut jobs have learned alot about what to do from the Iraq War and they are actually putting it in action. 1. They cleaned out the military, intelligiance and security forces, replacing many top level people with hardliners. 2. They are appointing military officers to positions normally held by civilians such as mayors. 3. They have built new bases and command bunkers next to (or under) important holy sites and areas with high civilian populations. 4. They have built a series of deep bunkers in the mountians along the Iraqi border that can hold 250K troops and another 500k civilians. 5. China and Russia both used Iraq to test out some weapon systems and have helped Iran greatly in applying the knowledge gained. Example is the silkworm missile that hit Kuwait City and now Iran just completed testing its new and revamped silkworm missile batteries in late December. 6. Iran has undertaken a huge military buildup expected to be completed sometime in 2007 7. Use the media especially the US media. Remember how "hopeless" Afghanistan was after 3 weeks? How about the "huge quagmire" the US Army got bogged down in because of a sandstorm in the middle of the fastest military advance in history? The media just loves to over dramatize things. You start piecing all this together and intentions become clear. They believe that they can get into a fight with the US and others and win, not by actually beating them but by outlasting them. I believe their overall plan is something like this. Commence puffing the chest and blustering. Begin developing nuclear weapons or make it look like you are and deny it. Walk a fine line between diplomacy and threats to draw the aggressive nations into attacking but without the wide support of the UN using a Russia and/or China veto to stop any major multination attack. While that is going on prepare to hold off against a ground invasion and move priority targets into areas that will sustain collateral damage during bombings. When the attack comes get lots of pictures of people carrying arms and legs around digging for survivors, wounded women and children in the hospitals and blown up holy sites to distribute to international news services. Force the US to commit ground forces and inflict high casualties at any cost. Hold out against a ground attack long enough for world wide protest to cause the UN to intervene or the US to stop and broker a ceasefire. Allow the inspectors in to show that no nuclear weapons are being developed (if there actually never was any real attempt) or tell them to piss off because there is nothing they can do about it anyways. In the end, come across as if it was the big bad old imperialistic US thats in the wrong and setup shop to start serious work on a nuke without being bothered again. Bonus Rounds Israel attacks, use Hezbollah and possibly some Iranian special forces to launch multiple attacks on Israel. Can probably get most other Palestinean terrorist groups to attack also even if they arent directly backed by Iran. Unleash the Taliban that have been under protection in Iran into Afghanistan to tie down US forces there. I dont know maybe this is all farfetched but it sure doesnt seem like it right now. Its just my own opinion of whats going to happen based on all the info I have read. I mean they have purposefully put us in a position to where we cannot ignore them, rebuffed diplomacy and are forcing a direct confrontation. They are even trying to make it so that a bombing campaign will not be enough and that ground troops will be necessary. Right now it would take weeks of bombing and even then that might not be enough. The easiest way would be if China and Russia both helped but thats not going to happen unless we have some type of significant leverage to use on them. This is just a bad deal all around. Its like VDH said in his article last week, its either a really bad choice now or a much much worse choice later. When this starts all these people screaming about high numbers of innocent deaths in Iraq will get to see what that really means.

War isnt a sport so I dont really see why a kill is sporting enough or not matters. War isnt fair so I dont see why it would matter if a target gets a fair attempt at defense or not. If that shot was made at 1250 meters I gotta hand it to the sniper, thats one hell of a shot. Certainly not a travesty, rather an extraordinary display of skill and discipline. No innocents hurt, 1 dead bad guy...hmm I have to say its a good deal all around. Just wish he would have been able to do it sooner.

One problem with socialized healthcare is that it will be run by the government. Another problem is why should I be forced to pay for someone elses cancer treatments because they smoke 2 packs a day or some idiot tries to see how fast his bike can go. Another one is that it doesnt address the real problem. There isnt a lack of healthcare in this country but there is a lack of affordable healthcare. Another problem is that I do not want to be penalized for being more productive. Another problem is that socialism removes personal responsibility. I dont have to save because I have social security. I dont have to work because I have welfare. Another problem is that I dont want someone else choosing what treatment I get. Call me heartless if you wish but healthcare is not a right, its a privilage that I earn. Having a good retirement is not a right, its a privilage that I earn. Doing as I see fit with the money I earn is a right. I would not object to a well ran healthcare program for the people who truly need it. If however it resembled something like the current welfare system or social security system, no thanks, I want no part of that.

With all the intellectuals swinging their massive cranial organs around here, I thought this might be enjoyed. CAUTION: Anyone with extreme Left or Right tendencies may suffer involuntary convulsions. enjoy! http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-0512280311dec28,1,3243.story?coll=chi-opinionfront-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true