john5746

I would rather throw flip-flop under the bus, but maybe I'll have a different opinion next week.

Hand guns are obviously not just for suicide. I used a .22 pistol to kill my dogs during spring break from college. They had gone off for a week chasing tail and had fought other dogs and probably themselves. They were in pretty bad shape, so I ended their suffering with a bullet in the back of the head. I doubt if I would have done it with a knife or bow and arrow. I would have had to take them to a vet, which would have been difficult, pretty big dogs and one of them was in a creek and was in no mood to be moved. I could have used a rifle of course, so this is no justification for a pistol.

Dynamite isn't made to kill people either. Cars have a purpose - to transport people quickly. You need to take a test and get a license to drive a car. Guns have no function short of entertainment other than to threaten bodily injury.

I find that redneck sarcasm seems to be repetition with emphasis, usually with a partner. EX: <dude> "Hey guys, you like beer?" <redneck#1> "Hey, Billy Bob, he wants to know if we like beer!" <redneck#2> "Shucks, I was hopin' fer some wine n' cheeeeze" Laughter Or, its the stealth sarcasm - hard to detect. <dude> "Hey is that knife sharp?" <redneck#1> "Nah, I stabbed a guy in the head with it and ain't got around to sharpin it yet"

I agree with you that first world countries should make the oppressive government argument obsolete, but I don't think you are being intellectually honest with your examples. The Middle East is a nation? I can't find much info, but I doubt Iran, North Korea and Saudi Arabia have lots of citizens with guns. Most oppressive governments try to take rights - especially arms, away from the public. Countries that have conflicts, like Afghanistan and Iraq do not even have functional governments yet. Look at South American countries. Top guns per 100 civilians from 2007 Small Arms Survey US: 90 Yemen: 61 Finland: 56 Switzerland: 46 Iraq: 39 Serbia: 38 France: 32 Canada: 31 Austria: 31 Germany: 30 Compensating much? Anyway, guns make killing easier, that is the main purpose. Of course you will have more deaths with guns around than without, but you can say that about many freedoms that people enjoy. It is a cost/reward equation with a big part of that equation influenced by individual attitudes and the culture of the society. People in a rural setting have much different needs than those in urban settings for example. Having said that, I do not think guns should be a right, but a privilege - especially in an urban setting.

I guess that is the argument of some for #2, but isn't it more about keeping options on the table? Just as with energy, the more options you have the more likely you will have success. So ES might be the only, the best or the worst option. It might be the only or best option for a finite period of time. Research needs to be done to find out - which #3 rules out. So I think the only argument is: Is it ethical to try?

Nevermind

It's possible some of this might happen, but a "good deal" implies a significant amount - sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. I doubt the press, the GOP and especially Clinton would have allowed that to go unnoticed.

That is the primary issue to me as well, but I would like to see some max limit agreed upon prior to a race. For someone to spend close to half a billion to become President is just too much, IMO. Also, I could see candidates who represent the poor possibly being at a disadvantage, even with small contributions. We will see in the future when the other side prevails in the money sweepstakes

Averaging Rev Blair with Bush sounds about right to me. As far as terrorism, well I still maintain you can tell a difference between terrorists and freedom fighters. Sure, the side you are on can create a bias, but it will not cloud who they are primarily attacking.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/vandhist.html An excerpt: Well, I never really read into this amendment much - not sure that this is completely correct, but it does appear that the amendment was intended to give private citizens the power to fight a potential tyrannical standing army. So, I should be allowed to purchase military equipment, like a tank. I mean a shotgun isn't going to do it. Maybe the problem is we don't allow these rights to be fully realized, so that people can learn that it is no longer needed and in fact dangerous.

Only because everyone doesn't have a machine gun or nuke. Bombing primarily military targets is not a terrorist act, IMO. Yes, civilians may die, but if the primary target is strategic - weapons factory, training camp, etc - and not to terrorize the populace or government into submission, then it isn't terrorism. I've seen something like 4000 civilian deaths? That is not much different than the 9/11 deaths. Also, keep in mind that the idea is to prevent more attacks as well. If you allow people to just get away with shit, pretty soon they come and make you take bowel movements outside.

On the contrary, I think it is a good topic for discussion. In this case, I can see where it would bother some - the tongue bothered me.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/27/asia/korea.php Looks like some great progress in regards to North Korea. I hope this will eventually encourage Iran to do the same. I think this shows some desperation on the part of North Korea via China and perhaps more flexibility from Bush to get the ball rolling. I have a feeling that our administration bent a little more than they wanted in order to have this done prior to Bush leaving office. The results look good so far though and that is what matters.

I didn't like the tongue out thing myself, but then I don't have much experience with Downs. Other than that, seems OK to me. It makes dolls that look like them available, if they want them. If they don't like them, they don't buy them. I guess if they sold like hotcakes everywhere and were being displayed all the time and it offended most of them, then that would be a different story.

On this issue: The 5 that voted against banning guns Kennedy Anthony McLeod................ Reagan John Glover Roberts, Jr. ................ G. W. Bush Alito Samuel Anthony Alito ................ G. W. Bush Antonin Gregory Scalia ................ Reagan Thomas Clarence Thomas ................ G. H. W. Bush Those who dissented John Paul Stevens................ Ford Souter David Hackett ................ G. H. W. Bush Ginsburg Ruth Bader ................ Clinton Breyer Stephen Gerald ................ Clinton I have always disagreed that the 2nd amendment is clear about individual rights to bear arms. It justifies it with the need for a militia. To say this is a "sacred" right comparable to opening your mouth is retarded, IMO. It is unclear enough to me to at least let states decide, but I think the legislature needs to revisit this and make it clear - is it an individual right to own a gun for self protection or is it a privilege much like driving a car. Gun ownership comes with much responsibility and has different applications in urban vs rural areas.

I would say tactics. When I hear freedom fighter, I picture rag tag rebels fighting soldiers. When I hear terrorists, I picture people killing or holding civilians hostage. Terrorists can employ non-terrorist acts and armies can employ terrorist acts, so there is a big gray area, of course.

Those who voted against death penalty for child rape - Stevens wants to abolish death penalty completely John Paul Stevens................ Ford Kennedy Anthony McLeod................ Reagan Souter David Hackett ................ G. H. W. Bush Ginsburg Ruth Bader ................ Clinton Breyer Stephen Gerald ................ Clinton Those who dissented John Glover Roberts, Jr. ................ G. W. Bush Alito Samuel Anthony Alito ................ G. W. Bush Antonin Gregory Scalia ................ Reagan Thomas Clarence Thomas ................ G. H. W. Bush So, the current Bush justices went pro-death penalty. It does look like a Bush-packed court when you include Daddy.

Solar - all that energy beating down on us everyday. We need to find better ways to store and use it.

They must read that as a specific religion, because tax free status obviously helps support religious organizations. As for the rape case, well I would like to see the guy dead myself. Maybe castration could be a compromise.

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bulletin/bulletin_080625.htm This is a slight change of subject, but I didn't want to make a thread just on this remark. The McCain camp called Obama "Dr. No" on energy. I think this is a good one liner - look for McCain to use it in any debates. Obama is going to have to detail what he is for as far as energy solutions, not just being anti-McCain. Having the government on the backs of oil companies and mandating technology is not going to do it. It mentions in the article that Obama is against this 300 million proposal as well as extensive nuclear plant building.

Amen! err....um....I mean Right On!

LOL, I think they go straight for the brain with a meme virus. I'm pretty immune, but I didn't stand around long anyway - boring fantasy in my opinion.

I thought about bringing this up in the Obama vs McCain thread. I think this relates to Paranoia's idea that drilling will have a speculative effect. I am not sure on this one, I think having some price increases forecasted into the equation can be a good thing - to bring about market changes quicker. Creating a bubble at the expense of the working class doesn't sound good either, but at least the money would be domestic, I think. I didn't think it was that large an effect though. McCain is vulnerable on this one, his economy mentor, Phil Gramm and wife were in on the Enron deal up to their eyeballs. Guilt by association.

I learned about his death at the dentist this morning. The twenty year old assistant didn't know him. I love stand up and Carlin was one of the best. I found his political humor of late to be bordering on crazy, but maybe I have just changed. Still funny though.