pajarito

It needs to now, though. By the way, I can do both pretty well. We're not talking about hitting an object from 300 meters away. We're talking about hitting a target less than 10 feet away.

How do you know that?

Recent terrorist events have shown that the people in that airplane are dead anyway. It's just a matter of time. More than likely, there will be a whole lot more deaths than just the people on that plane also. I think the risk of rapid depressurization is of lesser concern than the other possibilities.

So, there shouldn't be any rules based on the fact that someone somewhere will sneak away to the neighbors and watch HBO "Real Sex?" I think the "standard" should be set for what "should be" rather than what "might be." So, I should explain to my 6 year old girl all about gang rape b/c that was being discussed or shown in a movie on CBS or that she'll eventually be exposed to that kind of obscenity? I think there will be time for that once she reaches an age where she's intellectually and emotionally mature enough to handle it.

Do you have kids? Views can sometimes change when you have "and experience/spend time with" your own children.

There are always limits Kevin. There's not freedom of speech or expression to the point of anarchy. I mean, come on. You may not agree with the current standards but you've got to agree that there must be some standard, right? What's open and available to everyone who lives together must at least be decent. How do you determine that? I don't really know. It's necessary, though. I don't really want my 6 year old daughter watching guys walking around with their dicks hanging out. Even if the Greeks did it and it’s historic. You can't watch your kids all the time. Its "public" "broadcast" media for crying out loud. It's got nothing to do with "keeping the man down" that can't afford cable or satellite media.

Me too. I think, given recent events and the predictability of the intentions of terrorist plane hijackers, the cockpit is the last stand. The pilot should be able to use lethal force to defend it at all costs.

"Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism." Stephen Hawking has stated, "It is difficult to discuss the beginning of the universe without mentioning the concept of God. My work on the origin of the universe is on the borderline between science and religion, but I try to stay on the scientific side of the border. It is quite possible that God acts in ways that cannot be described by scientific laws, but in that case, one would just have to go by personal belief." Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God I also appears that even the likes of Stephen Hawking was waffling between Agnosticism and Theism at the least. He apparently rejects Atheism. I guess belief in the concept of God isn't just for the weak minded after all.

How bout it?

That's a nice quote! I'm saving that one if you don't mind.

The best one I ever saw was in the movie "Heat" (1995) starring Al Pacino, Robert De Niro, Val Kilmer, Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore, and Diane Venora. That was one hellava street firefight scene! Heat

Quote from the link below: "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." – Albert Einstein It is the second part of the quote that reveals the reason Einstein rejected the existence of a personal God. Einstein compared the remarkable design and order of the cosmos and could not reconcile those characteristics with the evil and suffering he found in human existence. How could an all-powerful God allow the suffering that exists on earth? Einstein's failure to understand the motives of God are the result of his incorrect assumption that God intended this universe as His ultimate perfect creation. Einstein could not get past the moral problems that are present in our universe. He assumed, as most atheists do, that a personal God would only create a universe which is both good morally and perfect physically. However, according to Christianity, the purpose of the universe is not to be morally or physically perfect, but to provide a place where spiritual creatures can choose to love or reject God - to live with Him forever in a new, perfect universe, or reject Him and live apart from Him for eternity. It would not be possible to make this choice in a universe in which all moral choices are restricted to only good choices. Einstein didn't seem to understand that one could not choose between good and bad if bad did not exist. It's amazing that such a brilliant man could not understand such a simple logical principle. "Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein Did Albert Einstein believe in a personal God? Although, I disagree with regard to the personal or impersonal nature of God, it appears that Albert Einstein was at least a deist in the end. Edited to add: And if he was a deist, he was a creationist. How everything developed from there is secondary. Religion doesn't mean one has to reject science. They're two different things. The problem is with which has dependency.

Now why you gotta go and insult our (dz.com) liberals, when they obviously don't agree? Shouldn't we all treasure the few times we can agree on something? He is pretty quick on the draw, isn't he?

Lighten up, Francis.

I agree and think that is definitely a symptom.

Really, I think we all have the capacity to do evil. It just comes out more clearly in some. That is pitiful. Seeing someone die, even the enemy, is troublesome. At least, it is to me.

Because the correct punishment was handed down. I am always happy to see scumbag, murdering assholes die. Damn dude... I sense way too much exitement on your part from this post. I agree with the sentence but it troubles me to see or hear of anyone dying. Even if they deserve it. I'm happy that justice will be carried out because I think a great injustice occurred with the death of Laci and her son. I, however, also feel pity for a person such as Scott who could perform such a horrible act without remorse. That, IMO, is true evil coming to the surface. Edited to add: I'm really just glad I won't have to see as many "Breaking News" clips concerning this on the news channels. Holy crap that was getting old.

Damn! THAT is the best gift I've seen so far.

Maybe. But an entirely different situation altogether. I agree that he broke the rules. I don't think it helps matters that the story has been broadcast all over the world now, though. If it truly went down like it was described above, I'm not so sure he should have gotten a penalty as severe as he did. Seriously. Yes. He screwed up but the circumstances behind it all are important. I don't think it warrants 3 years in jail. The fact that he will spend that kind of time in jail probably has a little to do with the fact that the media gets to broadcast his mistake almost in realtime around the globe and "uneducated public opinion" will demand that the boy be hung out to dry.

Case in point.

The environment of war is very different from the peaceful existence that we both enjoy back here. The comparison between a medicated American lying in bed with a painful terminal illness who is asking to die is a far stretch from an insurgent mortally wounded and about to burn to death in a truck. The attempt to make the events of war relative to the ones we experience in America in peacetime doesn't always work. Again, I don't think anyone who hasn't served their time should have the privilage to critique what a soldier has done.

Via internet would be cool if they had faster access. The few times I got to travel back to base in Afghanistan and got to use the internet, it was barely fast enough to bring up Yahoo and check mail. Everybody listening to streaming audio or video will probably clog their pipes considerably. I like the "send stuff" idea, though. All of this is a very nice thought. I just question the practicality of sending audio thank you messages. But hey, maybe things have improved since 2002.

Wow...

Yeah...but who's going to hear them? Even those inside the secured areas with access to phones aren't going to use their minutes that they had to wait in line for to call and get some anonymous thank you message. Nice thought but I don't know how practical it is. They'd probably like girly magazines and DVD's a whole lot more.

The line between what is right or wrong is sometimes blurred in different situations. It's not always clear. Despite what the rules might say in some book. His may have been a bad choice. The military obviously decided as such. However, given the circumstances, I'm sure that's why his sentence wasn't extreme. It certainly doesn't help the soldiers much when a CNN camera is following their every move. That complicates things exponentially when the "uneducated" public opinion is factored in. Soldiers should be controlled on the ground by commanders and punishment should occur within. The world shouldn't have access to video like that, make one-dimensional judgments, and make life harder for all involved. Joe Shmo sitting at home in front of his computer who decided not to toe the line himself but to ride the comfort wagon of security paid for by soldiers like this should mind his own fu%$ing business and keep on enjoying the good life without arm-chair quarterbacking complaint. Yes…I’m done.