sfc

However, they do want to eat puppies. Preferably in front of children. And kittens, don't forget the kittens, I bet Obama kills more kittens than McCain. McCain is 70+ do you think his pecker is still working? Look at his wife's face, she hasn't had any for years. Not that there is anything wrong with that :)

George W. is endorsing Obama? No... Al Gore!!! No, not Al Gore, Dopey is really thick, GWB is the only politician that fits :)

However, they do want to eat puppies. Preferably in front of children. And kittens, don't forget the kittens, I bet Obama kills more kittens than McCain.

I'm relieved that this decision went the way it did. The basic principles of the 2nd has been decoded into modern language. The part of it all that made the most sense was: "2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" These guys are really smart, all the talk had left me very polarized on this subject and I didn't even think on how a compromise could be found. It is unlikely that we can ever stop a criminal getting a gun but the idea that 2nd gave a criminal (or nutjob) the right to have a gun really worried me (until they made this decision). I hope that the various folks involved in gun debates (NRA and government) will now be able work together to come up with a way of preventing weapons getting into the hands of undesirables now that the basic rights of law abiding folks has been settled. There will still be loads of arguments about what kind of guns are legal (the line between nukes and muskets has to be drawn) but the government (at all levels) will never be able to circumvent the basic right of the individual to arm themselves.

If you let the administration deny one group their rights, they will start to define other groups and deny them rights citing the first and before you know it they will define a group that includes citizens, maybe even you, it was the thin end of the wedge and had to be stopped.

thank god for this ruling, it a step backwards from the precipice of a police state we are getting very close to with this administration.

Unemployment is at 5% and rising, so it did not do down after bush cut taxes, more people need government assistance (rising number of uninsured) with health care than ever before, this is despite the bush tax cuts. Home sales are falling (requiring assistance) despite the bush tax cuts. Some of the points you make are valid, but not all, you should test ALL your hypothesis against what happened after the bush tax. Also considering tax cuts in a vacuum is kindof pointless, it would be like discussing swooping without considering there is a planet, you have to way up all the factors and that includes government spending. You did not answer my point from the other thread about who will pay the soldiers if the government does not have any tax revenue.

Again, I agree - thank you for an honest answer and speaking solely to the question asked. So, it becomes apparent that tax increases affect the amount of money that flows through the economy to a varying degree (the sliding scale mentioned above), agreed? You have broken your own rules in this thread discussing outside the personal/business impact, but to answer your question... No. The taxes raised by the government are also spent by the government in the economy, how much money do you think a soldier would get without taxes, how would he pay his rent or buy a car, how would the car manufacturer sell as may cars if the soldiers and other government employees had no money. You are trying to describe the tax issue with childlike simplicity when in reality it is way more complex.

Anyone with an ounce of common sense can understand that a box-cutter with a razor blade can be used to do serious harm. That same amount of common sense can realize that there is absolutely no way that a one-inch silver gun charm can be used to hurt anyone. Yet somehow, these security guards failed to possess that common sense. All the liberals ought to quit making excuses for such poor decision making, and just admit that they screwed up. The Dems? The TSA was introduced by Bush (a republican if you forgot). Get your facts straight.

Omagh was a terrorist attack not a military action, no soldiers died, have a look at the people who died here http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/users/ireland/past/omagh/dead.html how many soldiers do you see, I see children and pregnant mothers. You make me sick with your defense of this. You sound like one of those armchair terrorists who send cash to noraid which was then used to fund this kind of activity. You are two generations out from being Irish with some romantic idea from stories spread with a twist to get people like you to open their wallets, the proof being you support the actions of a bunch of thugs, even when the Irish (south of the border, no English there) call them criminals and explain how they left bombs where kids could get hurt, it is sickening. You don't even know what it is like over there you are just perpetuating support the kind of violence that many Irish and English folks have worked for years to stop. The RIRA & CIRA are terrorists, get it, check with the state department, they are the same kind of people that are blowing up our soldiers in Iraq.

I jump the same canopy and wing loading, about 4-500 jumps on it. I totally agree with the packing, just let the nose hang, this is really important. I also quarter the slider again after I let the nose go to give more consistent opening force. Body position is very important, I get an off heading about 1 in 5 jumps. Something I got from B Germains canopy course was don't fight the line twists during opening, when I feel it turning (I often get 180s on opening) go with the turn, it prevents line twist, if you fight it the canopy goes one way and you don't and then line twists. I jumped a stiletto before so I know what line twist can be like. I love the katana, I have had one line twist in 4-500 jumps, on the stiletto I used to get 1 every 10-15 jumps.

The thought of eating food grown next to or on a highway is not appealing, I bet some of the pollution that cars and trucks pump out would make its way into the food.

Must be very comforting for you to think that while you pay nearly $4/gallon for gas, watch house prices slumping, and growth rate < rate of inflation. 2 consecutive quarters of GDP contraction is not the only metric for identifying recessions. According to the economists at the National Bureau of Economic Research, a recession is defined as a "significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months." By their methodology -- and they are the official arbiters of such things -- this is a recession. Well there we have it folks.. Mr kallend has stated there is a ression and so it must be so. Why, cause he has appointed himself the officail arbiter of all of this, , ,,, I guess So you are not paying close to $4 for gas? You would come over much better if you stated you own views. I think we are in a recession, just look at the data. What do you think, you are so focused on proving certain folks wrong that you can't present credible arguments.

I don't think it is because of a republican present, because bush has not behaved like a republican, he is an anathema to real republicans (think small government and fiscal responsibility). Is it because of the current president? I don't think he is responsible for 9/11 as America was blind to the threat, it would have happened if Gore/Kerry had been in charge. I do think he is responsible for what happened afterwards, 1000's of Americans have died in a foreign country, it is sickening. He and his buddies have used 9/11 and Iraq and as a way to line their own pockets. The only folks who are doing well from his 8 years are the super rich, oil, and defense contractors. I can't wait for him to go. Not that this has anything to do with the repetitive and boring title of the thread, but it is more interesting than yet another UK bashing biased BS thread it was...

I disagree. I believe you're showing a very poor understanding of economics. How do you maintain a healthy economy? You keep money circulating through it. If you give the poor, rich, and average money who is going to circulate that money through the economy the most? I believe it is the middle class ... PS: Feel free to inform me if I'm wrong. You are not wrong in theory, but in practice this is not what is happening, every year we ship $100billions to china and the middle east and borrow back some of it so we can pay interest and ship the borrowed money back in exchange for crappy leaded throwaway good and overpriced oil. The fiscal policies of the feds/white house are crazy, they allowed the housing/credit bubble to build with poor regulation and over stimulation caused by tax cuts and that stupid rebate they did a few years ago. We borrowed our way into the economic crisis and we are borrowing our way out.

A GOP baseball stadium owner concerned at the lack of attendance and lost revenue due to the fan not being able to afford the tickets lobbied the government for help. The politicians eager to help passed tax breaks for the oil companies so they could lower the cost of fuel making it cheaper for fans to get to the game, they then borrowed money they don't know how to repay from the Chinese and gave it to the fans so they could buy tickets. The GOP baseball stadium owner was happy and made a big donation to the GOP.

Faster... probably. But I don't recall a time when a local polling site was unable to count votes in time to submit them. More accurate.... that depends on how careful the folks who tally the votes are. Paper / pencil voting systems are not subject to "chad" problems Good electronic voting systems generate a paper record of the vote for auditing. No real savings on paper or ink That leaves faster. And a hell of a lot more expensive. And easier to break than paper and pencil. The car vs. horse drawn carriage comparrison is not fair. There are times, even today, that a horse is still more efficient for a given task than a car is. A lot of people want to apply technology to every situation simply because it's "newer". This is the same mindframe that sees every problem as a nail because the only tool they happen to have on them is a hammer. My motivation is convenience, being able to do it on a web page would save me time, not that I think it is cool. I also think it will save money over all. Think about all the time (i.e. money) a citizen could save if they did not have to get into the car, and use expensive gas to drive to the polling station? Also for absentee votes it would save the postage and processing. A lot of resistance to change is just that, resistance to change, people get comfortable with the status quo and don't want to move on.

Pluses are: Faster accurate counting, no more "chad" problems, saves a boat load of paper and ink. Kindof like asking why we are using cars instead horses, CDs instead of 8-tracks, digital cameras instead of rolls of film, we figure out newer ways of doing things, I don't write anything on paper for anything other than government paperwork and checks, even that is changing, i now file my taxes on line from the comfort of my home. I hope in the future (if I ever decide to become a citizen) that I can vote on-line as well, I see this as a step towards doing that.

Hey Mike, You should come back to the Bay Area, I took my son to the emergency room a few months ago with a split lip and he was being stitched up within 20 mins of getting there, it was 9am on a tuesday, the waiting room was empty. Have to say the UK (where I started out life) is good too, I have an older son there who I rushed in with meningitis, he had 10 doctors and more nurses than I can count in 15mins, and he survived. Same child with meningitis had a fall on vacation in Portugal and again perfect zero wait time while he had stitches in his nose, good care with no cost (other than my taxes) and no paperwork. I think it has more to do with what part of the country you live in than the country itself, although not having to deal with blood sucking money hungry hospital accountants who count the number of band aids you use when your child is sick is really nice and one thing I miss from back home in the UK. In the UK I paid about 10% tax for "national insurance" which is supposed to cover health care and a state pension, and the employer payed the same, there was a maximum monthly limit as to how much you had to pay. No co-pays, and no deductibles. In the US I pay 6.25%, plus 1.25ish% for medicaid, my employer pays 6.25%, there is also a yearly limit. Me and my employer also pay a huge amount (at least 6%) for my medical insurance, I also have to pay co-pays and deductibles for visits (several $1000 dollars last year and my family of 4 is very healthy). Medical care in the USA cost me and my employer more than it did in the UK and from my experience the level of care is very similar. I think I got better value for my money in the UK than I do in the USA, doesn't want me want to move back though, the same American dream I am chasing is what the insurance companies use to get wealthy off our health care. The only thing that really annoys me about the USA health care is that people who don't pay do get care and the money to pay for them comes out of my insurance payments, if everyone was taxed for health care then fewer people would be taking health care for free.

Fail, hardly, if you didn't know congress just voted to raise the CAFE standards, seems like the lefties are getting their point across quite well :) You call someone a smug elitist and then ask for a civil exchange, are you sure it is BV that is embarrassing himself? You come across as someone whose position is driven by a political and/or religious agenda, I find it hard to be persuaded by this kind of argument. I am not the one that keeps posting about gravity, smokers and SUV when the dinosours lived in a Global Warming thread Are you saying that because you think BV is posting about other things it justifies comments like "smug elitist". I think he is making a valid point, it is analogous to you post.

Fail, hardly, if you didn't know congress just voted to raise the CAFE standards, seems like the lefties are getting their point across quite well :) You call someone a smug elitist and then ask for a civil exchange, are you sure it is BV that is embarrassing himself? You come across as someone whose position is driven by a political and/or religious agenda, I find it hard to be persuaded by this kind of argument.

Did you say the same for Jefferson? true to form, the "but they did it first" response... both (assuming conviction) are a pair of turds in office, why do you make a deal about party affiliation, sounds like you are unable to speak harshly of crooks that represents the GOP Not at all. The point I am trying to make is it not just R's. It is all of them but the Dems and the media report it as if it is different. It is not Crooks should go to jail! Jefferson got plenty of coverage IIRC. The real reason that folk have the impression that the GOP is more corrupt is because more of them have been investigated/indicted/convicted than Dems in the last 2-3 congress sessions. On a related note it is good to see the house pass the new ethics bill today with a huge majority, it will make it harder for lobbyists to legally bribe lawmakers.

Did you say the same for Jefferson? true to form, the "but they did it first" response... both (assuming conviction) are a pair of turds in office, why do you make a deal about party affiliation, sounds like you are unable to speak harshly of crooks that represents the GOP

So drink drivers should only be arrested if they wreck and hurt someone, after all just being drunk at the wheel is not bad, I mean you will probably be OK, most of the time they will not wreck. The law is trying to prevent a bad situation from even happening, it is not the law that it daft.

So the state tried to stomp over the constitution and the judge stopped them. The man has not been convicted of anything why shouldn't he be free, or do you think the constitution should be not apply for black Africans who are accused of child rape? If we don't hold the government AT ALL LEVELS responsible for abiding by the constitution then we will find they will piss over all of us. (current administration is a good example of how the government will try). I'm angry that the victims will never had their chance to see the accused in court, but I'm also angry that the state failed and broke the constitution. The state fuck up is the reason that this man did not face a jury, period.