SH3RL0CK

Or better enforcement of current laws. I do not know if the guns, ammo, etc. were legal. Alternatively to them being legal, they were possibly illegal, but perhaps the DA didn't want to take the case to court. Perhaps he didn't think he had a strong case, maybe he was lazy or overworked, maybe they thought the sentence was sufficient punishment, there could be lots of reasons for this. In fact, I had thought that conspiracy to commit robbery is a felony and that it is illegal for felons to own guns...but maybe that was not the case in the early 1990's? More and stricter laws do not help when current laws are not being enforced. EDIT: Indeed the DA really dropped the ball here by returning their guns. Felons, even in the early 1990's were not permitted to own or possess guns... http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1032128620083 http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/cri...ome-felon.html

So since people are now living much longer today than they were in the past (due to better medical knowledge), it should be expected that cancer is more common now. During the stone age cancer was probably rare because most people died before reaching 40 years old. Now that people live to nearly (on average) 80, there is more opportunity for cancer. What is difficult to deduce however, is if some of the increase is due to chemicals we are exposed to that simply weren't around during the stone age.

To be fair, I did hear about this program several years ago - long before Obamacare. And for the most part the criticisms of this plan can be said of our current system (i.e. coverage being dropped, paperwork regarding claims being a horrible mess to deal with, etc.). Not that I would put my money into one of these plans... however you've got to admit there is no evidence (at least I couldn't find any) that these are any worse than the current system. I agree with JohnB, and additionally I think the facepalm should really be towards the current (broken) system, not to people who are proactively pursuing alternatives. Were the system working, this "patch" as Padren states wouldn't exist.

You mean this article? http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090929/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_vaccine_death Certainly, people occasionally get sick and/or die from vaccine injections. In the past, there wasn't any outcry, but I think some reluctance on the part of people to these vaccines is understandable. IMO, the difference is that in the past the vaccine was to prevent illness which was both more serious and more immediate. An example would be the smallpox vaccine - smallpox is both highly infectious and has a high death rate. Thus, even though there may be some problems with a vaccine, the cost/benefit analysis is clear. But with a vaccine for HPV; the cost/benefit isn't as clear...the disease is not as easily transmittable nor does it have as high a death rate (at least in the short to medium term). I still think the HPV vaccine is probably a good idea, but the case here isn't nearly as strong as it is for other diseases. At some point (and we might be there now), the pharmacutical companies and regulatory agencies will need to grapple with the concept that the cost and problems associated with a vaccine or with a new miracle drug isn't justified by its benefits. That won't be pleasant to the pharmacutical company that spent $billions to develop the vaccine/medicine. Nor would it be for the regulatory agencies who are expected to so something to fight disease (the public and politicians are never pleased to hear the proper course of action is to do nothing). I'm not an expert on medicine, hopefully people with more knowledge will be weighing in on this topic.

The dealer of the illegal product does not care why their customer comes to them, except where the dealer can use these reasons to increase sales. You are correct that the gun black market will be/is smaller because of the above, but in the end it is no different, just a smaller market. There are, no doubt, criminals who will sell whatever (drugs, prostitutes, guns, etc.) brings them cash. Not at all. A gun is not really that technologically challenging. You can build a crude gun from components and chemicals you can legally buy at the hardware store. In my opinion its at about the same technological level as a crude "still" for making alcohol. It might actually be easier to build a gun than to produce some of the drugs out there...I'm not sure - will coca (the feedstock for cocaine) even grow in a temperate climate? true, this is the best arguement, but its far from the only one...but it is good to think through all the reasons for forming an opinion, not just the best. Well, I think Prohibition clearly shows this isn't necessarily the case. But whatever the future for guns and gun control, it probably won't fall along party lines (much as Prohibition, IIRC, didn't). The gun issue doesn't divide along either political parties. I do feel the 2nd amendment is quite secure, however we shouldn't take our rights for granted. You may be on to something with regards to efforts to indirectly bypassing the rights, and not just for the second amendment. I think many other rights could also be threatened in this manner...

Well, the big red flag, to me, on what may be Obama's extremism is his following belief: http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/...un_Control.htm Unless I misunderstand Obama's position, a local gun ban is where a city declares no guns by citizens permitted under any circumstances within the boundaries of the city. Local gun bans are, to me, an extremist belief (however reasonable restrictions such as a "shall issue" licenses are ok with me). The rights of citizens should not depend on where that citizen happens to live or work. You cannot say you respect the 2nd amendment, then immediately state something absolutely contrary as being acceptable. Would Obama feel the same way about the 13th amendment not being applicable in Birmigham Alabama? I accept that he views more gun restrictions as the proper course of action and I respect this viewpoint. But to do as he suggests, a local gun ban, without trampling on the constitution would, in my opinion, require no less than an amendment to the Constitution repealing or modifying the 2nd amendment. It should not be attempted by local, state, or even federal laws.

There probably is a black market for guns just as there is for drugs. While I suspect most guns in this black market are from the US (originally sold by a licensed dealer), there are probably lots of ways these guns go from legal to illegal hands. And there is no realistic way for the law to stop the black market for guns. For example, if you are part of a criminal enterprise shipping in a few tons of cocaine from Columbia, I don't think it would be a big deal to throw in a few guns as well. As long as there are drugs on the black market, there are going to be guns on a similar black market. The solutions for both can't be entirely more laws and harsher penalties (we've seen how well the war on drugs has worked). Yes. This is expressly permitted by the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution. Until there is an amendment to the Constitution repealing the 2nd amendment, Americans will have this right.

This is very good news. Very good news indeed, I don't think the advantages (no CO2 emissions, no shortage of fuel, etc.) can be understated. IIRC, back in the 1950's (nearly sixty years ago) fusion power was said to become developed for comercial use within 50 years...of course as we now know, using fusion to generate electricity is much more difficult than it appeared then. Glad to see we are actually making progess and its now only 24 years away

Well, one thing about this system, the retalitory strike wouldn't have to happen right away. Later might even be preferable. Whoever would have control of the red button could wait a while, maybe even a couple of weeks just to be sure, before launching.

I do like the idea of the space elevator (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator) to enter earth orbit. As the saying goes, from here you are half-way to anywhere. Interplanetary, I still favor chemical and ion rockets and/or solar sails (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_sail) as I'm not excited about nukes in space for lots or reasons. Interstellar, I would prefer a solar sail if this could be made workable. But I think it would have to be one of the nuclear proposals you mentioned above.

Specifics? Look at my link in post # 31. It is NOT CLEAR what Obama stands for. Much of what he says appears contradictory to itself and to how he has voted. You have made the claim that he is for common sense firearms laws. You need to back up your statements here. Perhaps you should explain what is "common sense" to Obama as I can't tell? You should also try determine if Obama's "common sense" is the same as the nation overall. You have made other claims you have not supported, and when I asked for this all I got was a wiki article which seemed to support my view and the original link you provided which does not provide the full picture (and which, to be fair, I can't view). see for example you stated I think my links show the above is simply not the whole picture I've demonstrated that you haven't proven this...In fact, I have provided evidence to the contrary. Based on what? What is their stance (perhaps its on their website -- http://home.nra.org/) and why is it extreme? All I have done is try to demonstrate that neither Obama nor the NRA are especially evil here (and neither are being exactly honest either), they are simply both playing politics. What, really, would you expect from a politican and a lobbyist group (though I think its clear the NRA is much more than just a lobby group)? You on the other hand are painting the NRA, Republicans, and others in a very bad light without any supporting documentation. Gun control and the NRA are separate from the Republican party; the NRA routinely backs Democrats as well as Republicans and there are many Democrats in favor of gun rights just as there are Republicans in favor of gun control. This particular issue doesn't divide cleanly along party lines. In fact, your original question in this thread was asking if the Republican party was a cult. It seems to me the consensus answer has been a resounding no, unless you have some point or example which has not yet been brought up. If not, consider your original question answered.

I agree, which is why I asked This wasn't meant to be a rhetorical question, but rather to point out the uncertainty that at least I have on Obamas position regarding guns. Neither previous voting records nor his rhetoric are entirely consistent, nor do I think they are extensive enough to completely determine his actual views on gun control. Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough information to get a deeper look (and this is probably intentional on the part of Obama - he is, after all, a politician).

Again, I can't do so from work and am busy this week with other things. I'll try to do so this weekend. But you should really try to consider that perhaps the NRA aren't being the extremists you make them out to be...looking at my link on Obamas stance on guns there is certainly ample reason for concern for the 2nd amendment. Looking at his actual voting record, I'm not sure the assessment by factcheck.org is accurate - I think the problem is his rhetoric isn't matching his voting. So should we accept what he says today or how he voted 5 years ago?

yes it is. I agree the NRA is targeting Obama - but they feel this is necessary. Again, this is called politics, something all political parties and action groups engage in. But to my question, what is Obamas voting record?, see http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm A quick summary is as follows, I'll bold some items of interest: nice. So people who maybe disagree with him are "frustrated" and "cling" to guns or religion or bigotry? Is this what Obama really thinks? I'm curious that it appears he views his oponents in terms of guns, religion, and bigots ... and belittles people who disagree. But I'm not here to bash Obama, who B.T.W. I think has done a decent job as president so far. An obvious contradiction here that cannot possibly be reconciled...how do you tell someone they can't have free speech in Washington DC? Or how do you tell someone that the equal protection clause doesn't apply in Miami? Or how do you tell a religious person they can't worship in Chicago? Obamas not the most extreme politician out there, but there is certainly enough where I can see why the NRA does not view Obama as friendly to the 2nd amendment. Which would explain the normal political mudslinging they are engaging in. I'd also say Obama is much more extremist here than the NRA actually...

You are free to make your beliefs. But you have certainly not convinced me that they are extremist - to the contrary. You made the claim, you need to back it up or withdraw it. Whether or not they propose common sense gun laws has no bearing on whether or not they are extremists. To be fair, I haven't looked at the site (I am at work) but regardless of what is there, so what? It can't be any different than some of the propaganda put out by moveon.org, etc. Its called politics; you can go talk to Michael Moore about how unfair this is if you would like... I will, however, try to find time to look at it (I can't, unfortunately, tonight and probably not until the weekend either). Also, to be fair to Obama, you have claimed I'm not familiar with how Obama has voted...considering his short tenure as a senator I doubt any significant gun legislation even came up. How about you provide us with a link(s) on his voting record with regards to gun laws to back up your statement? Back to topic, I'm not sensing any conspiracy theories out there at all. Just a lot of politics, which is to be expected now that the honeymoon for Obama has ended. Happens to all presidents and doesn't mean they won't be able to accomplish anything.

Ok, lets look at some quotations from this site: Note empahsis on Most, not all... Note the specific criticisms by gun rights groups... From these quotes it appears to me that the NRA has a stance on gun rights which, while certainly conservative in nature, is not extreme. Certainly I cannot conclude it is common knowledge, based upon this, that the NRA is such - did you even read the article and if so what did you see in it that I did not? These statements do not support the assertions by gre: is this website sponsored or endorsed by the NRA? And gre, why do you imply the NRA is responsible for ignorance considering they do more to educate people about guns and gun safety than anyone?

IIRC, the NRA has supported some reasonable gun regulations. From my experience, they are not the rabid extremists you portray them as. Please provide some links in context, most preferably from the NRA website itself (avoid Handgun control Inc. and the other anti-gun websites as they could be biased), to prove these statements of yours.

The feds quite often threaten to withhold funding to get what they want. Its common practice and AFAIK its been going on for a very, very long time. As far as bribing journalists, well I can't condone that behavior, though I think it also speaks volumes about the quality of the reporting the public receives. Who are they receiving money from this week and how is this influencing the debate on current hot issues like healthcare? Is it any wonder many people are skeptical about the news provided by mainstream media? I don't recall if anything happened to whoever was bribing the journalists, anyone know? Regarding the secretive behavior, I suspect they felt if they ignored the questions, the questions would go away. And to an extent they were right because this isn't a big deal to me and to many other Americans. Or rather, I should say, it isn't new behavior by the military and the government. In vietnam, you could be outright drafted for service with no need for recruitment by the military. Nothing at all new or unusual here... I think it is more likely I fit into some kind of profile they believed to be more likely to join. Perhaps you fit into a profile most unlikely to join? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedGre, Clearly, the answer is no. But what specific issue or topic or action by the republicans makes you ask if the republican party is a cult? There must be something here or you would not have asked.

Whats the big deal? The govt. gets this information anyway. You know, the selective service requirement that all men within +/- 3 months of their 18th birthday sign up so, if necessary, they can be drafted. Of course, the govt. now gets this info a bit sooner than they once did by the selective service, but its not like they can't get this information anyway in the same way that all the other telemarketers keep getting my phone number despite being on the "do not call" list. And why is it you think the kids, or the kids parents, simply cannot say "no thank you" to the recruiter? I had absolutely no problem telling them this when I was constantly being called by the recruiters many years before the no child left behind act. I think I was contacted by them for a period of about 10 years...they were calling me even after I had graduated with my masters degree! I find it very hard to imagine NCLB making any significant difference here given how easily they were always able to find me, even in college. Just my perspective on this.

But its not just the distribution costs to consider, which I agree are relatively minimal. There is an immense opportunity cost as there is a limited number of screens and timeslots available. Instead of filling a theater with 5 people (= $50) per showing, they could be filling a theater with 50 people (= $500) per showing.

I agree completely. Regardless of whether or not Americans accept evolution, in the end the distribution is a business decision. I don't think they are really afraid of controversy (there have been many controversial movies that were readily distributed). Sometimes the controversy helps them as people go to see the movie to know what all the fuss is about. Perhaps the movie title "Creation" instead of "Darwin" is an apparently futile attempt to stir up controversy and therefore generate publicity for the movie? I think the distributors are afraid of a movie that no one will go to see because then they lose money.

I have heard theories about this along the lines of the additional soot generated by industry falls on the snow and ice. Thus causing them to absorb more heat from the sun (as opposed to reflecting it back into space) which makes them melt. This doesn't happen (as much) in Antartica due to less industry in that part of the world. But this is only one theory and I wouldn't use this theory to claim global warming via added CO2 isn't happening...

You really need to think carefully regarding the great lakes. These are indeed freshwater, but at the same time they can be considered as seas as well. Oceangoing vessels routinely traverse these, and these boats have access to the open ocean via the St. Laurence seaway. Also, these lakes have measureable tides and are not always calm. In fact, there have been storms similar to tropical storms in these waters...see for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Lake_Huron_cyclone

I am an American, but haven't commented for several reasons. One of the reasons is that the requirements are contradictory. It has already been pointed out that the request for Humidity and Water conflicts with the request for greatest distance from the sea. I might suggest Michigan, except I'm not sure if the great lakes would be considered a sea by the original poster. There are other conflicts in the request as well. I'd suggest Fargo, North Dakota. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo,_ND From the article:

Well, theres always the PACER proposal for power generation by nuclear fusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(fusion) From the article, This can be done today (and could have been built using technology from the 1970's). But it was determined then (and probably still is today) to be impractical. Again from the article: See also Project Gnome which was a real test of this concept in 1961: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_GNOME