GeorgiaDon

Your comments do nothing to address the vociferous opposition to evidence based medicine from the Republican Party. In fact, they oppose anything that would actually do anything significant to reign in health care costs. For example, when the topic of discussing with patients in advance their options and desires for end-of-life treatment, that became politicized as "death panels". Never mind that such discussions used to be reimbursable under Medicare, after Palin et al got done with politicizing the discussion, payment for time spend discussing with patients what treatment they want in the event of a terminal illness is now excluded. If doctors/hospitals can't get paid, how much time do you think they will spend with patients discussing these matters? So the end result is that, except for the tiny fraction of patients who have prepared a living will, hospitals are compelled to use heroic measures, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in many cases, to keep "alive" a terminally ill patient who is not able to tell them to stop. Sure, if people were "responsible" they would take care of that, but let's be realistic. Most people don't like to think of their eventual death, and certainly don't take the time to decide what they really want, put it in writing in a legally binding document, and file that with their doctor/hospital/family. A few minutes (and $40 reimbursement) spent consulting with a patient could save tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars in hopeless treatment, and better reflect the dignity and wishes of the patient. But Palin (and earlier Santorum with the Terri Schiavo fiasco) would prefer to play it for political points. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Nonsense, with all due respect. Most of the doctor's skill comes in making an accurate diagnosis, and this takes years of training and experience. Once a tentative diagnosis is made, appropriate treatment is begun. Then the patient must be monitored to make sure the treatment is working, and if not alternative diagnoses and treatments are made. None of that can be accomplished by a list, or by a receptionist with a list. Where such a list would be helpful would be in defending the doctor against a lawsuit that claimed negligence for failing to order a test/make a diagnosis that would apply to only a tiny number of cases. Few diseases (none maybe) have a symptom so distinctive that only a single diagnosis is even possible. The doctor always has to observe the symptoms, which is not always easy as often she has to rely on the patient to describe those symptoms, and patients may not mention things because they're "embarrassing", or they don't like to complain, or maybe to do like to complain and exaggerate irrelevant issues. Once a patient becomes ill, they become aware of all sorts of aches and pains, so the doctor will often have to sift through a laundry list of "symptoms" to try to see a pattern that might indicate a possible diagnosis. Under these conditions, you'll end up with the following scenario: Tentative diagnosis A: 55% chance of being correct Tentative diagnosis B: 32% Tentative diagnosis C: 12% Tentative diagnosis D: 0.9% Tentative diagnosis E: 0.1% Let's suppose the diagnostic test for diagnosis D costs $5,000, and the test for diagnosis E is $15,000. What should our doctor do? It seems to me it would be prudent to order tests for A, B, and C, as those would cover 99% of the possible diagnoses. Usually the more commonly ordered tests are less expensive as well, just because of supply/demand. However, if our patient is that one in a thousand for whom diagnosis E applies, the doctor is potentially liable to being sued if she fails to order that test, or even perhaps if she waits for the results of ABC before ordering DE, if a lawyer could argue the delay exacerbated the disease. So the doctor orders ABCDE just to cover her ass. This is where a list can be helpful. If a government appointed panel of experts issues an advisory that says that in the case of a diagnosis of X then tests A,B,C are appropriate, and D,E should be ordered only after A,B,C have been ruled out, then perhaps the courts could exclude lawsuits based on an argument that D and E should have been done first. At least, the doctor would have a very strong defense that they were not negligent in not ordering D and E first. And once again, I don't see anything there that a receptionist would be able to handle, even if he did have a "list". Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

only because the pattent has run out, many drugs are still controled by the company that made them. every drug is cheaper that hits the generic market. What you are talking about is doing away with the patent system. The problem there is that it is hugely expensive to discover new drugs, and then to prove safety and efficacy to a point where the FDA will license the drug for human use. Usually the research to uncover the cause of a disease is funded by NIH and is carried out at universities, or sometimes at the NIH itself. Once the cause is discovered and published, drug companies compete to develop and market treatments. This means synthesizing and screening hundreds of thousands to millions of chemical compounds, and then developing appropriate cell culture and then animal model assays. If you're lucky a few compounds will work and not be too toxic or have nasty side effects, and those will be tested in small scale and then larger scale human clinical trials. At the end of the day, the cost to the drug companies to get a new drug on the pharmacy shelves exceeds $500 million dollars. A period of exclusive marketing of the drug (i.e. the patent system) is necessary for those drug companies to make back their investment in the research and development costs, and begin to turn a profit. If there was no period of patent protection, the day the drug hit the pharmacy shelves it would be reverse engineered by the generic drug manufacturers, who would then sell the drug for much less because they wouldn't have to recover any R&D expenses (except perhaps a few thousand to analyze the drug and work out a process to synthesize it). The effect of your suggestion to remove patent protection would be to absolutely guarantee that no new drugs would ever be developed, because no-one is going to throw away $500 million dollars they have no hope of recouping. Additionally, you couldn't very well abolish the patent system for drugs without getting rid of it for everything else, which means you'd kill virtually all innovation, risk taking, and invention of new products, processes, etc. Technologically, we would stop right where we are now and never progress again. I think the medicine you suggest is worse than the disease it's supposed to cure. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

What you are describing is exactly what the Obama administration proposed as "evidence based medicine". This was relentlessly attacked by the Republicans as government intrusion. Even one or two of the doctors who used to post here in SC opposed it as intrusion into the doctor-patient relationship. I recall being surprised that anyone could object to a mere list of treatments for each diagnosis that have been found to be effective in clinical studies, but I guess if the Obama administration said the sun is hot certain people would disagree. I do agree that such a list would be helpful in cutting down on defensive medicine and unwarranted lawsuits. The problem is these days everything is seen as fodder for political spin and advantage. Some people will do anything to gain power for themselves, and don't much care who they have to throw under the bus. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Would that be considered "urban renewal"? From slum to the latest "hot spot" in a few milliseconds! Come party where Geiger counters aren't just a fashion accessory, they're a necessity. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Hey look, I go out of town for a few days, and come back too discover this thread is still alive! Also from davjohns: Thanks guys. So again we see the argument that a significant purpose of the 2nd was/is to ensure "the people" can defend themselves against the government if need be. And that purpose cannot be met if "the people" are limited to "personal arms" (which seems about as well defined as "assault weapons") and the government has access to the big toys. Drew reminded us that "Surface to air missiles are specifically prohibited by TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g." Would it be too much to say that 2nd amendment proponents consider TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 113B, § 2332g to be unconstitutional? Once again, I'm not seeing convincing arguments that the 2nd permits "the people" to keep and bear only firearms that can be transported and used by an individual. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for your completely useless contribution to an otherwise interesting thread. No-one has suggested anything about restricting gun rights, in fact quite the opposite. Wait, let me write that in words you might understand: No one say guns bad. Only ask why not really big guns OK? To everyone else, thanks for the spirited discussion. Don Pulllease..... It's all about intellectual masturbation by anti-gun nuts. The 2nd amend ain't going anywhere. Do you understand those small words? Hey look! aarco's less coherent twin is back. Odd that you're so defensive about the 2nd that you get your panties in a wad if someone just asks a straightforward question. Worried that it'll crumble into dust and blow away if someone shines a bit of light on it? I'm not, it's survived over 200 years and I'm sure it can withstand a little curious inquiry. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Nope, clearly that isn't the meaning of the phrase. But, I also wouldn't interpret it to say the People should only be allowed to own paperbacks, or only libraries should be allowed to own encyclopedias. I'm guessing you wouldn't read it that way either. Which brings us back to the problem that since there is no controlling role of participation in a militia in determining the scope of 2nd amendment rights, the Militia Act is irrelevant in determining the limits to the types of arms that are covered. In that case, logic and the plain language of the 2nd dictates that any and all arms should be available to the People, just as any book that is available to a library should also be available for private ownership. Lets agree to stipulate that firearms that can be carried by an individual are included in 2nd amendment rights. I hope we can also agree that tactical nukes should be excluded, on the grounds that there is no way to use them for defense without causing excessive collateral damage, and probably destroying the people/property one is trying to protect. Lets also take chemical and biological weapons off the table as well, on the same grounds and also because the government has renounced use of such weapons by the military. That leaves a lot of territory in between. If fear of guns on the part of gun-o-phobes is not a basis for restricting 2nd amendment rights to gun possession, is fear of what someone "might" do sufficient reason to ban private possession of Stinger missiles? Why are missile-o-phobes coddled, while gun-o-phobes are ridiculed? If we admit that the possibility of damage inflicted on innocents is sufficient reason to restrict 2nd amendment rights when it comes to law-abiding non-nutter US citizens who just think it would be a great idea to have a Stinger or two (in case black helicopters full of blue helmets should appear one day), haven't we entered on a slippery slope that could lead all the way back to gun bans? Isn't a right a right? Now personally I think it would be a bad idea to have such weapons sold at the local flea market. I do think it would be a very bad idea to have weapons whose only useful function is to bring down aircraft sold to anybody who can show they don't have any felonies on their record, or who haven't been certified a nutter by the courts. I guess I don't trust people that much. Think of those folks who flood city hall with complaints of noisy jump planes, trying to get the DZ closed. They might not just complain, or moon the plane, if they could easily buy a Stinger. But when I look at the 2nd amendment, I can find no comfort in a clear line that would limit the right to just guns. It won't surprise me if sooner or later some militia group or other citizen goes to court to challenge laws against private ownership of military type weapons, and I wouldn't be totally shocked if they prevailed. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Thanks for your completely useless contribution to an otherwise interesting thread. No-one has suggested anything about restricting gun rights, in fact quite the opposite. Wait, let me write that in words you might understand: No one say guns bad. Only ask why not really big guns OK? To everyone else, thanks for the spirited discussion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

It seems as if people are arguing that the 2nd has nothing to do with militias out of one side of their mouth, and that it's all about militias out the other side at the same time. I can certainly see how the Militia Act, state militias, etc are applicable if the purpose of the 2nd amendment was related to maintaining a well-organized militia, but I though we had agreed that it does not. Maybe the fact that in the 18th century the average citizen only had access to muskets is nothing but a historical curiosity, sort of like 18th century doctors having a fondness for leeching. We wouldn't expect 21st century doctors to restrict themselves to 18th century technology. Why do we expect 21st century citizens to defend themselves using essentially the same weapons [considerably updated of course, but qualitatively the same technology] as their 18th century counterparts? So it has been argued that the 2nd applies only to personal arms, and the nature of those arms is constrained by what was available to 19th century militias. Yet "personal" arms appears no-where in the 2nd amendment, although the writers were certainly aware of guns vs cannons and could have specified guns, had they so wished. To divine "original intent" we turn to laws and writings regarding militias, although we agree that the 2nd amendment in no way, shape, or form was ever intended to limit the right to bear arms to participation in any militia. Surely it can be argued that the reference to militias is the red herring? Even though the reference has deep historical roots, that doesn't mean it is correct. Many bad ideas have surprisingly long lifetimes, especially when they favor the status quo. I though that a right was a right. No-one says I am free to speak only those ideas that were acceptable in the 18th century. No-one says I am free to belong only to any of the religions that were practiced in the 18th century. "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. I really wonder what would happen if a determined (and well financed) citizen went all the way to the Supreme Court to argue that the uninfringible right to keep and bear arms allows them access to Stinger missiles, based on the plain words of the 2nd amendment. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

My copy of the constitution must be faulty. It doesn't have the word "personal" between the words "bear" and "arms". I'll contact the printer immediately. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks. --- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors. Note the mention of "gun" vs. cannon. The document isn't faulty, just your comprehension/interpretation of it. Well, dragging around a cannon would certainly make for a "strong body". Anyway, a personal letter from Jefferson to a correspondent, expressing his personal preference for the shooting sports over other forms of sport, hardly constitutes a binding constraint on the 2nd amendment. Since you brought up the issue of the cannon, it does seem that at the time the amendment was written a distinction could have been drawn between so-called "personal" arms and arms that would have been available to militias (such as cannons). Had the writers intended to limit the 2nd to arms that could be carried by an individual, wouldn't they have said so? I can see the tin-foil-hat brigade making an argument that they need SAM missiles to protect themselves/their homes against the black helicopters and blue helmets [that would be UN troops for those not familiar with American paranoiacs]. As long as they have not been legally found to be "nutters", I can't see anything in the plain language of the 2nd that would deny them that right. This is all just a mental exercise right now of course. Just curious about where things might go (and where people think they should go) with the 2nd as an individual right on par with free speach and freedom of religion. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Yep. That's why the question is interesting, I think. Since the phrase about "a well-regulated militia" has been essentially discarded, we are left with a right to "keep and bear arms" that applies to individuals and is not restricted by any stated definition of what is meant by "arms". If the court goes to "original intent" and concludes that that intent included the ability of the "people" to resist an oppressive government, is there anything in the language of the amendment to deny to the people arms that are available to the government? Agreed. Well sure, the courts will come up with tests, and all we can say for sure is some people will complain that they are unconstitutionally restrictive, and others will complain they are too permissive. What I am curious about is where people think the line should be drawn, and why. I'm just motivated by curiosity, I don't expect anyone to forecast the future and I'm not interested in any sort of silly "gotcha" games. In particular, I'm curious where those people who consistently and strongly defend gun rights fall on the question of what arms should be permitted? If the 2nd trumps the state's interest in public safety with regard to guns, does it also trump public safety regarding Stinger missiles? If the public should not be allowed to keep and bear missiles, how can that be justified? Lawrocket, in other threads you have eloquently argued against prior restraint on free speech. Let people say what they will, and then accept the consequences of that speech. In general, the right to speak freely has benefited society, as ideas can be sifted and ultimately accepted or rejected. But, free speech is a fundamental right that doesn't have to be justified by the potential usefulness of the ideas that are expressed. Speech can be limited only in very limited cases where great harm to the country would result. If we take this as a model for the 2nd amendment, maybe tactical nukes could be banned because there is no way to use them without causing widespread collateral damage. But, is it "reasonable" to ban a weapon because it could be used to kill a few hundred people (say, by taking out a plane)? How about 20 or 30 people? Conventional firearms can, and have been used to do that. Should potential body count even be part of the discussion? What do people think is "reasonable"? You've got me there. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

OK. So is it currently practiced law that any citizen (as long as they aren't convicted felons or have been found to be insane by appropriate legal proceedings) can obtain, keep, and bear all the same arms as the US government can? If not, do you think, considering the language and intent of the 2nd amendment, that such citizens should be able to obtain, keep, and bear such arms? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I think the letter of the law forbids prohibitions on such things and believe that if Bill Gates wants to buy himself an aircraft carrier with a fighter group he has the constitutional right to just like warship owning citizens of the founding fathers' times. Also note that Article 1 section 8 of our Constitution allows Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal which wouldn't mean much if such weapons were prohibited to our citizenry. Thanks Drew. Just to be clear, are you saying that current law is that there are in fact no such prohibitions? That it is currently completely legal for me to buy a couple of Stinger missiles, and keep them in my home, and no-one will come and ask any pointed questions? Because I thought the situation was quite the opposite, but since I have never tried to do that (and in fact haven't any interest in doing that), maybe I thought wrong? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Granted, but I don't see anything in the 2nd amendment constraining "arms" to defensive purposes only. Also, "defensive" is in the eye of the beholder. I see posts not infrequently along the lines of "the government should be afraid of the people, not the people afraid of the government", and to the effect that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to limit the power of the government over the people. If that is true, the effect of the 2nd would be limited a lot by restricting "the people" to guns, whereas the "government" has access to the full range of modern weaponry. Perhaps the 2nd amendment has been historically limited to defensive weapons only. But there are other historical interpretations (such as the attachment to "a well regulated militia") that have gone by the wayside in favor of the plain language (such as it is) of the amendment. Since the amendment does not mention any restriction to defensive weapons, how do you yourself interpret it? If a challenge was brought to court, how do you think they would rule? [Note and disclaimer: I'm just curious about people's opinions. I personally think it would be a very bad idea to have people wandering around airports with Stinger missiles. I just wonder if that is where we are heading thanks to the very broad landuage of the 2nd amendment.] Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the US Supreme Court found that the right to bear arms is an individual right, not connected to participation in a "well-organized militia". A while ago Mealtx posted a link to an analysis of the language of the amendment that seemed to me to convincingly demonstrate that as written the right is quite unrestricted. Yet when people speak of their 2nd amendment rights, they always speak in terms of guns. My question is this: considering the language of the 2nd amendment, why is a law-abiding US citizen (that is, with no felony convictions on their record) not permitted to keep weapons such as missiles, hand grenades, tanks (with appropriate ammunition), or even nuclear weapons? Isn't any prohibition on the ownership or sale of such items a violation of 2nd amendment rights? After all, the amendment talks about the right to "keep and bear arms", not just "keep and bear guns". If someone wants to hang around an airport runway and watch the commercial jets take off and land, and just happens to enjoy carrying a Stinger missile while doing so, why is that not permissible under the 2nd amendment? Why do they have to justify or explain their "hobby" to anyone? While this question may seem to have a "trollish" nature, that really isn't my reason for asking. I am genuinely curious about whether or not people who are strong proponents of gun rights are willing to acknowledge any limitation to their 2nd amendment rights. If "public safety" is not ever acceptable as a reason to limit such rights, why can't a law abiding person hang around an airport with a Stinger missile? How far do such rights go, and if there is any limit then why does that limit exist and why is it not seen as an intolerable restriction on a fundamental right? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Seriously?? I wonder what they would think of this, then. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

God is great, beer is good, people are crazy... Must be nice to have a magic decoder ring. I must admit to some curiosity about what is going on here. Any way to share without getting too personal? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'll do that if you can find a way to feed the population of the United States using the same parameters you want to have with these dogs. I'll have every farmer send you every head of cattle, sheep, pig and chicken and I would expect you will provide each and every animal with an individual 10 x 15 foot pen (at a minimum, so they have space to play), and you will ensure each animal gets a 2-mile walk every day, until you can humanely kill them to harvest their meat. Now, I'll be waiting for your PM. You were the one advocating that animal euthanasia can never be justified, not me. No Don. I was pointing out the hypocrisy present in PETA. From my first post when I said that it was a case of liberals doing one thing and saying another, to my post stating that if you want all pets kept in a 10' x 15' pen then I want you to house all farm animals in the same condition, which we both know is impossible. Killing is killing. There is no good or bad form of it. Is it justified in some cases to ensure the survival of the human race, yes. Is the person who is killed by lethal injection any less dead than the one stabbed to death, no. PETA should either stop killing animals or stop attacking others for doing it. There is no humane way to kill off enough cows, chickens or pigs to keep our species going. If they want to become a for profit euthanasia service for shelters, fine. Just don't go complaining that a for profit service for making fur coats or slaughtering chicken the "wrong" way, and then sending their goons, in the form of the ALF to burn down their farms. Apparently your high horse isn't very high. You started out with two absurd statements: all liberals must support PETA in everything they do, and all killing, including humane euthanasia of terminally sick and suffering animals, is evil. When offered the opportunity to alleviate some of the problem by taking responsibility for these animals yourself, you respond with redirection and avoiding a straight answer. From this I conclude that your only objective was an immature attempt to tar "liberals" with your PETA brush. You don't really give a shit about "animal suffering", do you? You come across as someone who cares only about stroking your obsessive hatred of anyone and anything you label as "liberal". In your hatred, you shoot off words without the wit to even understand what you are saying, and when confronted with their plain meaning you retreat into obfuscation. If I followed your model, I'd conclude that all conservatives are similarly dysfunctional. Fortunately, I have the wit to know no one person stands for the entire group, and I have the privilege to know from personal experience that many conservatives are thoughtful, compassionate, intelligent adults. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Whatever you've been smoking/imbibing/sticking up your colon, I don't want any of it. You're making even less sense than usual, if that's even possible. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

I'll do that if you can find a way to feed the population of the United States using the same parameters you want to have with these dogs. I'll have every farmer send you every head of cattle, sheep, pig and chicken and I would expect you will provide each and every animal with an individual 10 x 15 foot pen (at a minimum, so they have space to play), and you will ensure each animal gets a 2-mile walk every day, until you can humanely kill them to harvest their meat. Now, I'll be waiting for your PM. You were the one advocating that animal euthanasia can never be justified, not me. I have not expressed a moral principle that every animal must be kept alive despite it's condition or prospects for a healthy pain-free live, despite the enormous expense. You were the one who said that. I assume you are a man of his word, someone who says what he means and means what he says. Am I wrong? I'd prefer to believe your posts reflect your actual moral beliefs and were not just an immature and unintelligent attempt to castigate liberals. Once again, I await your address. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Well now that you have assured me I feel so much better. I'm sure those animals that peta slaughters are good killed unlike those for furs who are bad killed. Yeah, doesn't make sense to me either. ... Furthermore, it seems any death of an animal, that will eventually benefit a human is bad, while any death of an animal that will keep their back yards free of feral cats is good. ... Killing a cat because it doesn't have a home is ok. Killing a fox because it has been raised to become a fur is bad. I get it. You're smarter than than the average redneck hick, so you can choose which killings are justified. I'm sure you could justify wiping out entire races and I'd be hard pressed to defend against it, though I would try till the end. ... Last week my wife (who does not work for PETA) had to euthanize a 14-year-old dog that was blind, deaf, incontinent, partially paralyzed, and had a tumor the size of an orange growing on its spine. The owner is facing possible animal cruelty charges for allowing such a sick animal to go without any veterinary care, despite being in obvious pain and distress for a long time. Kindly provide your address so I can ensure any such animals are sent to you in the future. I am gratified to know that you will spend tens of thousands of dollars for vet care for each and every one of them, even thought in most cases the best case scenario is an extra couple of months of life. I will also be sending a large number of dogs and cats that are so feral/food aggressive that it would be a very bad idea to ever try to touch them, and they have to be fed by pushing their food bowl to them with a pole. I do strongly recommend you get a titer check on your pre-exposure rabies vaccination, and make sure your medical insurance covers plastic surgery for facial reconstruction. I hope you have a very large property, as we will be sending a couple of hundred animals per year. It's a good thing our local shelter is able to return to owner or adopt out over 85% of the animals that are taken in, or the numbers would be much higher. Of course you will provide each and every animal with an individual 10 x 15 foot pen (at a minimum, so they have space to play), and you will ensure each dog gets a 2-mile walk every day, for the rest of their natural lives. I eagerly await a PM with your address so I can begin sending these poor animals asap. I'm so relieved to know we will never have to euthanize another dog or cat, no matter how sick or how expensive to treat. The staff at the shelter will be ecstatic to know they won't have to euthanize any more, as they really hate doing that. Thanks again for your generosity. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

First, for the benefit of those who can't open the link, here's what Sullivan had to say: "I supported the Paul Ryan budget and sent it over to the Senate. Now I live with some Senators, I yell at them all the time, I grabbed one of them the other day and shook him and I’d love to get them to vote for it — boy I’d love that. You know but other than me going over there with a gun and holding it to their head and maybe killing a couple of them, I don’t think they’re going to listen unless they get beat.” Now to your response: The comments were made at a town hall meeting. A public meeting with his constituents: republican, democrat, libertarian, independent, whatever. They were made in a context where he knew (or anyone other than a complete idiot would know) his remarks would be recorded and reported on by the local media. Andy's TSA analogy is not too far off. Would you have the same attitude if Nancy Pelosi had said this about Republicans? Inquiring irony meters want to know! The guy admits he assaults his fellow senators, then "jokes" about killing a few of them. He is a thug and a bully. He admits by implication that he is incapable of a cogent defense of his political positions, and must resort to actual and threatened (oops sorry "joking threats") violence to get his way. You think he's funny. Birds of a feather? Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

So death threats,even if made in "jest" (though he didn't sound as if he was particularly joking to me), are a constructive contribution to political discourse? I guess it might, to someone who thinks it would be a good use of the military to take over countries and get rid of regimes we don't like, then "bill" those countries into bankruptcy for our "liberation services". Sullivan is an ass who has, with this one statement, proven himself at best a moron who does not deserve to hold office. The same would be true of anyone who made such a statement, be they a D or an R. He should resign immediately. If he wants to run again, fine; if people decide they wish to be represented by such an imbecile and reelect him, that's their right too. As long as they know they're voting for a bad joke who has ruined any chance to be taken seriously and make any positive steps towards fixing the problems this country faces. In that regard, he has lots of company in Washington. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Good thing Wyoming is rolling in so much money they have a bunch they need to just get rid of, that they can waste it on this. Must be some kind of paradise, what with the best education system in the country, no potholes that need filling, no unmet needs of their citizens. One wonders why it's the least densely populated state in the lower 48, more antelope than people in most parts. Don _____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)