Douva

I think there a lot of reasons why the old rumor about Al Quaeda possessing the missing Soviet suitcase nukes doesn't hold water, but I'm not convinced the "they would have used them by now" argument is one hundred percent valid. There could be strategic, logistical, or technical reasons why Al Quaeda wouldn't use these kinds of weapons immediately. They could be trying to get numerous nukes into strategic positions (such as the United States' most populous cities) for a simultaneous attack at a particularly strategic time (such as an election night, a particularly harsh winter, etc). They might still be working to overcome the logistics of getting the nukes into the United States. They could be unable to use them until they find someone who can do required maintenance on them. I don't think they have the nukes; in fact, nobody even seems certain there are any Soviet suitcase nukes missing. But there is no guarantee they would have used them by now if they had them. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Who's bickering? I'm just curious how Vertifly thinks George H. Bush is going to write-off charitable donations made by other people. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Do you understand how a tax write-off works? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

VanillaSky is the second person I've heard refer to the Dawn of the Dead remake as a rip-off of 28 Days Later. Perhaps it's a cinematic generation gap. Roger Ebert once referred to the original Dawn of the Dead as the best horror film ever, but amazingly few of today's filmgoers are familiar with it. I suppose that's what made it a perfect candidate for a remake. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, the problem with the 45 degree rule is that degree does not necessarily denote distance--For instance, the preceding group could be 45 degrees down but only 100 feet apart horizontaly? That makes sense. A forty five degree angle is a lot steeper than most people probably imagine. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'm not great at physics, so I'm probably just not grasping the way this video was setup, but it seems to me that you would have to see the jumpers pass through the frame almost immediately, simply do to the placement of the camera and the close proximity of the falling jumpers. It seems like you would have to wait for the airspeed of the plane to carry it far enough from the jumpers that the jumpers would "drift" back across the 45 degree line, in order to determine when the jumpers were at a 45 degree angle from the plane. I'm not saying the 45 degree rule is accurate--I've never given it much thought--I'm just not sure how the video disproves it. I've never seen jumpers look like they were even close to 45 degrees as quickly after exiting as that video shows. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The funkiness of the skysurfing didn't bother me (I assumed it was because he was wearing a heavy snowboard with bindings aligned differently than a skysurfing board). What bothered me was the fact that he was skysurfing at all. This film simply could not maintain my suspension of disbelief. In what reality does somebody say, "We need to take out a radio tower. We have explosives and an airplane. I know! We'll drop a skysurfer onto the mountain that looms over the tower. Then we'll have him drop a couple of explosives into the snow, outrun the ensuing avalanche on his skyboard/snowboard, and save himself by grabbing onto the top of the antenna as the avalanche wipes it out!" The film has a weak script obviously centered on incorporating a number of outlandish stunts. Before anybody tries to defend xXx by saying, "It's just a movie," let me just warn you that that is a very weak argument. Movies set their own reality in the first act, and a good movie maintains that reality throughout the film. This movie told us in the first act that we are existing, basically, in the real world--There are some outlandish characters and cool gadgets, but real logic and the laws of physics still apply. For an example of how to this type of film can be done right, look at some of the older James Bond films (the new Bond films are worse than xXx). The old Bond films set and maintain the reality of a world that differs from our own only so far as the secret agents' skills and technology are concerned. I thought xXx had a decent plot, but the action was laughable. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

This discussion is clearly leading to a lot of definition discrepancies. If you are right about the original poster's intent, he should have simply made the question about big government versus big business, rather than polluting the issue with the terms "liberal" and "conservative." I assumed he had added his own definitions of "liberal" and "conservative" simply to help the debate along. Bill Von's definitions were the most traditionally accurate, but my post referred to the socially accepted definitions. In modern America, "liberal" and "conservative" usually identify which social movement a person belongs to. There's nothing inherently wrong with being "liberal" or "conservative," per the traditional definition, but liberalism and conservatism, as contemporary social movements, are both dangerous, in my opinion. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I strongly disagree with your description of Conservatives as wanting smaller government. The way I look at it, both sides want bigger government. They disagree because they both want bigger government supporting their own ideals. Liberals gave us the Environmental Protection Agency, and Conservatives gave us the Office of Homeland Security. Liberals push for gun control, and Conservatives push for limitations on free speech. Both sides are extremist groups, and history has shown time and time again that extremes in politics very seldom lead to any good. Extreme liberalism in Russia lead to Communism. Extreme conservatism in Germany lead to Nazism. We now frequently hear "liberal" and "conservative" used as pejoratives because, to many, the words have come to represent irrational extremist ideals. Rather than judge the real merits of an issue, we are asked to align with "our side." Anyone taking a more moderate approach to politics is disparaged as weak and wishy-washy. Populist pundit Jim Hightower wrote a book titled There's Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos. Maybe that's what we're really afraid of--giving up the security provided by the left and the right. There is no support base for somebody who makes up their own mind. And really, that's all a moderate is--somebody who makes up their own mind. A moderate doesn't try to find the "middle" stance on every issue; a moderate decides each issue based on its own merits. Extreme liberalism and extreme conservatism are like cults. Each side's members are berated with propaganda until they are so brainwashed that some of them are even willing to give their lives for their cause. A lack of intellectual honesty has lead our nation to a state where control is maintained not by rule by the people, for the people but by a sustained civil cold war. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

My problem with the Christians is that they have a great sales department but crappy customer service. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I've been at the SXSW film festival all week. I won't be attending the music festival because I'm not in the music business, so it's not worth the money. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Dude get a grip, get some humor and read my sig line. I am the republican lamb he was refering to. What about my post suggested I don't have a "grip?" It was a calmly and intelligently stated plea against bringing partisanship into this kind of discussion. I'm sorry I missed the joke, but most people's sig lines are completely asinine, so I tend to skip over them. The post by Free Fall Freak that I replied to quoted the body of your post but didn't include your sig line (obviously the crux of the joke), so I naturally assumed he was referring only to the quoted portion of your post. I apologize for my mistake, but I never lost my "grip." --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

You shouldn't try to make this about political affiliation. As for me, I don't care for the Republican party (or the Democratic party), but I'm still an advocate for gun rights. I'm not trying to toe some sort of party line; I'm just stating my strongly held beliefs. Few things annoy me more than people who are completely and unabashedly devoted to one political party to the extent that they actually believe other parties to be "evil." People should look at each issue based on its own merits, not a party stance, and people must realize that the vast majority of politically active persons, despite their party affiliation, have honorable intentions (yeah, yeah, "path to Hell," I know...blah, blah, blah). I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Mice are how you start. After a while, you'll get more comfortable with killing and be able to move up to small game (foul, squirrels, etc). Once you've gotten past the stage of feeling guilty about killing squirrels and pheasant, you can move up to larger game, such as deer. By the time you can kill a deer without remorse, you're really on your way. At this point you want to start moving toward something with which you feel some sort of an emotional link, similar to what you would feel with another human but obviously not as strong. At this point I would suggest that you may be ready for house cats and small dogs. Killing pets will probably take a little longer to get used to. This is really the hardest hump for most people to get over, but once you're comfortable strangling a German Shepherd or drowning a Calico, you should be pretty well desensitized to killing. Now it's time to move on to humans. I suggest starting with drifters and hobos because it eliminates the need to cover your tracks quite as closely on the first few kills. That's not to say that you don't have to cover your tracks at all; you just don't have to get all "CSI" with the bodies. You're generally safe just dumping them in the river (you should still be sure to weight them). After a while, you can move on to neighbors and colleagues. Deciding when a person is ready to move on to killing friends and neighbors is a decision only that person can make. Take your time and get used to the screaming and the blood and, of course, the cleanup procedures. Mindless killing can be a fun, rewarding hobby, if approached with patience and the proper attitude. Good luck. If you were offended in any way, shape, or form by the above statements, congratulations, you have a soul. Now, post a reply detailing exactly how you felt while reading the above statements. If anybody else is joining the debate late, let me just say that the post quoted above does not reflect my views on anything. I had a couple of hours to kill between film festival panels today, so I made a purposely offensive post for no reason other than I thought it would be fun to break up the monotony of the thread. It wasn't meant to compare hunters to serial killers or anything like that; it was just meant to meant to catch you off guard and make you go "WTF?" I'm sorry if I confused anybody. --Douva PS. If any of the moderators want to remove the original post and its replies, feel free. I don't want to start a war over something as stupid as my quick tips for becoming a big serial killer. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

This was, without a doubt, the stupidest post I have read on this thread. I know you're trying to make a point, but that's the most inane post I've ever seen on here. Yes, EVER. I'm done with this thread. It's degraded to the lowest common denominator, which in this case, is you. I won't read or reply to anything else in this thread...and I hope that it is locked or deleted soon. Mike Mike, does this seem at all in line with any of the "points" I've tried to make in this thread? It was simply a joke (not meant to be cruel or make any kind of statement, just meant to be purposely offensive for the sake of being humorous) made towards the woman who said she couldn't kill a person because she had a hard time killing a mouse. The joke being (although obviously not as clearly as I'd hoped) that she could learn to kill with practice. I included the disclaimer because I didn't want someone accusing me of actually condoning anything as sick as killing people or pets. I asked for comments because I thought it would be interesting to see how different people reacted to such a blatantly violent statement, and I thought it would discourage flaming by people who didn't understand the post. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Well, you started out on the right track by laughing, but after that I think you may have been taken my comments a little too seriously. They weren't meant as political satire; they were a joke. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Mice are how you start. After a while, you'll get more comfortable with killing and be able to move up to small game (foul, squirrels, etc). Once you've gotten past the stage of feeling guilty about killing squirrels and pheasant, you can move up to larger game, such as deer. By the time you can kill a deer without remorse, you're really on your way. At this point you want to start moving toward something with which you feel some sort of an emotional link, similar to what you would feel with another human but obviously not as strong. At this point I would suggest that you may be ready for house cats and small dogs. Killing pets will probably take a little longer to get used to. This is really the hardest hump for most people to get over, but once you're comfortable strangling a German Shepherd or drowning a Calico, you should be pretty well desensitized to killing. Now it's time to move on to humans. I suggest starting with drifters and hobos because it eliminates the need to cover your tracks quite as closely on the first few kills. That's not to say that you don't have to cover your tracks at all; you just don't have to get all "CSI" with the bodies. You're generally safe just dumping them in the river (you should still be sure to weight them). After a while, you can move on to neighbors and colleagues. Deciding when a person is ready to move on to killing friends and neighbors is a decision only that person can make. Take your time and get used to the screaming and the blood and, of course, the cleanup procedures. Mindless killing can be a fun, rewarding hobby, if approached with patience and the proper attitude. Good luck. If you were offended in any way, shape, or form by the above statements, congratulations, you have a soul. Now, post a reply detailing exactly how you felt while reading the above statements. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Ah, see, now you didn't read my above (directly above) post. We're both playing catch-up. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

What you would do in that type of situation is a good thing to think about. You need to have a plan of action burned into your brain. Circumstances may dictate that you change your plan, but you don't want to have to create a plan on the spot--That's when you end up making a serious mistake like shooting someone in the crotch because you couldn't think what else to do. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

I'll give you a clue. You piss with it. And after that, either a kneecap or hold the gun to his head. How many hours a week do you spend on the gun range? Please break that down into hours spent on accuracy training and hours spent in high stress simulated scenarios. A knee cap is about the size of a tennis ball. If you don't shoot all the time, you're not going to hit a target that size, with a pistol, under high stress, from more than about five feet away. Even then you may give the perp time to fire his own weapon. How many hours a week do you spend on the gun range? Please break that down into hours spent on accuracy training and hours spent in high stress simulated scenarios. A knee cap is about the size of a tennis ball. If you don't shoot all the time, you're not going to hit a target that size, with a pistol, under high stress, from more than about five feet away. Even then you may give the perp time to fire his own weapon. If you shoot an intruder in the genitals, you'd better get both a criminal lawyer and a civil litigation attorney because your ass is headed up a creek. That judge is going to hear all about how you obviously didn't fear for your life because you took the time to aim for a relatively small (refrain from laughing, children) area of the body with the direct intent of causing extreme pain and irreparable harm to the victim (yes, now HE is the victim). Intentionally shooting to wound is illegal in many states. There is a reason for that. If you have the time and awareness to shoot to wound, you don't really need to shoot at all. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Quote...I'd shoot him somewhere that I know he wouldn't get up, but would still be alive.Quote Where exactly would that be? I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

So you are incapable of anything between getting yourself killed and shooting blindly? Maybe the command "FREEZE!" is outside your vocabulary? Really, if you are holding down on him, and he is unaware of you, how is he a threat to you? What justification do you have there? How would it decrease your safety to try a one word command? I'm speaking in simplified terms of a justified killing. I'm not going to kill someone if they're obviously not an immediate threat. If I catch somebody in my house, and their back is to me, or they're hands are full with my stuff, or I feel that I have sufficient light and time to asses the situation, I will of course yell "Freeze!" But if that person does anything but freeze, he's a goner. My condoning of lethal force was a generalization. I was thinking more along the lines of a guy in a ski mask jumping out at me from the shadows. In that situation, I'm not going to worry about whether or not he is armed; I'm just going to shoot him. It would take me longer to say "Freeze!" than it would for him to pull a trigger. I really don't think we disagree; I think we're just interpreting the question or the situation differently. I'm not a vigilante. I just don't think citizens should be required to determine whether a person invading their home is armed before using force. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The Day After Tomorrow and Dawn of the Dead--I do love a good survival flick! You bring the girls; I'll bring the guns and the gas masks. --Douva I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

Good advice. I had a handgun instructor tell me the same thing. It's amazing how fast a well trained criminal can react. They can draw and shoot or leap and cover twenty feet of open ground in the blink of an eye. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.

The point is not that he deserves to die for steeling your TV; the point is that does not deserve a warning at the risk of your own life. "Sir, do you mean me any harm?" BANG! "GASP! I'll take that as a yes." If somebody is in your house, you don't have to put yourself or your loved ones in danger to give them the benefit of the doubt. They broke into YOUR house, so Texas law give YOU the benefit of the doubt. I don't have an M.D. or a law degree. I have bachelor's in kicking ass and taking names.