Shotgun

Wow, Google+ is even cooler than Facebook because they require "invites." But then being on Facebook is about as cool as.... watching TV. Much cooler to say that you don't do it. I'm just being silly here, of course. With all these new-fangled diddlywhats, I have lost track of how cool or uncool I am.

Why do you hate skydivers and want to take their guns away?

If you want Zuckerberg to steal your soul . . .

I don't know, shah. It's starting to sound like, whoever this woman is, you're just pissed off because she hangs out with lots of dudes and you're not getting laid. Stop hanging out with her. I'm done here.

The original question I was replying to was in regard to women who have "only" (not mostly) male friends. From further discussion, I see that is perhaps not what he meant....

I was being a bit obnoxious. But, seriously... I feel sorry for women who are unable to be friends with other women, whatever their reasons may be. I have a lot of male friends too, but I can't imagine life without the wonderful female friends I have. But then I've had the good fortune of meeting some pretty awesome people in my life, both male and female. Perhaps others have not been so fortunate; I don't know.....?

From this woman's perspective: Men are easy to be friends with, because they only think with their little heads. OK, so maybe they're only pretending to be friends when they really want something else, but whatever, we count them as friends anyway. It takes more work to be friends with other women. Women who choose only guy friends are too lazy to do this work. Plus, they tend to get most of their self-worth from their physical attractiveness, which is reinforced by their male "friends." There also seems to be some sort of twisted sexism thing going on, where they feel like it's "cool" to talk about how horrible females are, some sort of attempt to separate themselves from the (perceived) lowly secondary gender. Did I just say all of that out loud? Holy crap.... Nevermind; I have no opinion on the matter. (Really, I don't. I have no idea why some people do the things they do. But it's fun to be obnoxious about it sometimes.)

OK, I had not heard of Casey Anthony until this Tuesday. I had probably seen some headlines, but they must not have stood out against the countless other murder headlines I regularly see. And, while of course it disturbs me that a child was murdered, I am now finding it disturbing to watch the mob mentality and the blaming of the jury going on in this case. Do we really want juries convicting someone outside of what their instructions are, based on them being "pretty sure" someone's the killer even though there isn't enough evidence to prove it? Grow the fuck up, people. The jury had a difficult job that somebody had to do. I'm sure if they felt she was involved then they were even more upset about not being able to convict her. Sheesh, people get so freaking crazy when they want revenge (especially for a child), that they can't even think straight. They couldn't hang the mother, so now they're wanting to hang the jury.

"Regular" DUI, no. Felony DUI, yes. Oh, OK. That makes sense. I think I've looked that up before but didn't remember.

I thought that a DUI was already grounds for losing one's right to own a gun?

You don't know what you're missing out on! Being painted can be fun..... Well, maybe not by a moderator from SC..... Well, not for you anyway.

OK, "Secretary" is one of my favorite movies. But anyway, yeah, you should read "Choke" if you liked the movie. I really wanted to like the movie, but I guess I just felt like it lost (what I perceived to be) the essence of the original story. I don't always dislike the movie when I've read the book. "Precious" and "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy come to mind as excellent movies made based on excellent books.

I have not been following this case, but... I did serve on a jury for a murder trial where the death penalty was to be sought if there was a conviction, and they were very thorough during voir dire in getting rid of anyone who was against the death penalty or who felt that they wouldn't be able to choose the death penalty. They also got rid of those who were overly-enthusiastic about the death penalty. And, of course, during the conviction phase we weren't supposed to consider what the penalty might be. Now I'm sure it was on our minds anyway, but I didn't use it in my decision, and I don't think the others did either. Oh, and reading the news stories afterwards, along with the comments from the peanut gallery, there was (mostly inaccurate) speculation on why the jury did what we did. From people who hadn't spent the past two months sitting on the jury stand and in the jury room. I'm guessing that if these 12 jurors came to a consensus that quickly, that there must have not been enough evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Unfortunate if she was the killer, but I'd rather see guilty people go free than see innocent people convicted. Innocent until _proven_ guilty.

Wow, the trailer makes the movie look better than I remember it. Seriously.... but then I made the mistake of watching the movie immediately after reading the book, and I absolutely LOVED that book! So, of course, I thought the movie sucked at that time, but maybe I should watch it again now that some time has gone by.

I think that is a great idea. That way people are not getting "something for nothing," and it's better for everyone involved.

I'm curious how it would work to do random testing in this situation. With workers, they're generally at work five days a week, so it's easy to randomly send them to do a test while they're already at work. I don't know a whole lot about how the welfare system works, but I sort of doubt that there is anywhere near that much contact with the recipients, which would make it pretty difficult to do effective random testing. Anyone who has a CDL has to go through random drug tests. No criminal implications with a positive test, just the loss of the CDL for a year (first time caught) Which also means loss of job where I work. Have to have a CDL in many positions To be clear, when I said effective random testing, I'm talking about testing that can basically happen at any time. For workers, that means at any time throughout their work week, throughout the year, someone pops in with a cup and has the worker do a test with no chance to go get something out of the locker or whatever. With a welfare recipient, I think their contact is limited to once or twice a month, and it is generally scheduled, even if on short notice. A scheduled drug test is pretty easy to get around for all but the most severe addicts, either by short-term abstinence or by masking substances. So it seems to me that now the taxpayers will still be funding illegal drug use (for the small percent of welfare recipients who actually use illegal drugs), but they will also be paying millions for drug testing and possibly even the very things that are used to get around the drug tests. While I sort of agree with the idea on principle (though I think most drugs should be legal anyway), I just don't see it being cost-effective or actually solving any problems.

Is this true? Which mental disorders? I am only aware of states restricting for some physical conditions, most commonly epilepsy. I was not aware that any states restricted driving privileges for mental illness. I don't know how often (or how) it is enforced, but this is what the DMV says about it: http://www.dmv.ca.gov/dl/driversafety/pm_guidelines.htm

As quade already mentioned, it's not necessarily about violent tendencies. It's about having the mental capacity to understand how to safely handle a firearm (or vehicle). Some mental disorders may affect this; others may not.

I don't know about other states, but in CA certain mental disorders will prevent someone from having a driver's license.

"Mentally ill" is a very broad term, and I wouldn't want to take someone's rights away simply because they went to a psychiatrist and got a diagnosis. But for the guy who was seeing bears and hearing voices, yeah, it seems like there should have been more of an investigation into his current condition before reinstating his right to own a gun.

I'm curious how it would work to do random testing in this situation. With workers, they're generally at work five days a week, so it's easy to randomly send them to do a test while they're already at work. I don't know a whole lot about how the welfare system works, but I sort of doubt that there is anywhere near that much contact with the recipients, which would make it pretty difficult to do effective random testing.

Wait, why wouldnt it be normal? If I answer that, your thread might get moved to SC.

My thoughts.... Well, currently, I am wondering if it is normal to masturbate in front of a mirror. (Just part of the politics and religion that is currently being discussed in Speakers Corner. :)

I love some of his music. I don't really care about his political views one way or another.

No, he was from Liverpool. Isn't Liverpool in England? I don't think they like to claim the Scousers.