kbordson

I've been catching babies.... and one left to go yet. No rest for the wicked here.

if GWB can get 2 terms, than it is possible that BHO could get 3! Well... if there are plans to change other amendments, why not the 22nd?

hmmmm. Name that Hooha!! Something tells me I would not get many submissions. Reverse psychology. Nice try. Not really. I just know where the lines are. Trust me. I know where those lines are. Some threads you probably do NOT want!!!! You mean like a "Hangy-Meaty Curtain post whore glory" thread? Or a "there's a REASON that some women visit their gynecologist." If there's a vote - I would advise a HELL NO on threads like that. Might be better to let your imagination be free and not confused with what can be reality. (just google "netter" and "vulva" and you'll get the picture)

All very true. And... even if all of us were there, we would still have different perspectives of what we HEARD (not necessarily what was said) and would defend that belief despite what someone else HEARD.

hmmmm. Name that Hooha!! Something tells me I would not get many submissions. Reverse psychology. Nice try. Not really. I just know where the lines are. Trust me. I know where those lines are. Some threads you probably do NOT want!!!!

{{{{{{{{HUG}}}}}}} You is the sweetest and bestest card giver!! (OH.... and THANKS for the onsie!!!

sigh I like the analogy too.

I bet you would be good with the death penalty for him..for treason.... good thing for him we did not annex Iraq. Then again.. as much as he has been beaten and abused by the puppet goverment.. is probably good with the dead enders as well. HOW dare he huck a shoe at your Imperious Leader. Nope. You don't know me. But... if you want to take that bet, how much money do you have to lose?

Your opinion on the politics of that war, invasion, military campaign does not change the legal charges against someone accused of assault/attempted assault.

It looks like he was charge with "attempted assault of a foreign leader." If you think 3 years is "fucking stupid" for that charge, what would you have argued for? And is your outrage just due to the fact that he was attacking President Bush or would you feel the same way if someone attacked the Queen? btw. He's still alive?! By the way some people talk on here, I thought he was martyred at least 7 times over?!

Is your hour of basking in brilliance over yet? Actually, that's a very good insight. If only we had more of this kind of thinking here, and less of Amazon's kind. The only problem I have with your idea is this: The people in the first category have faith in the police to protect them, but that's a false and naive faith, because in fact the police can rarely be there to actually prevent crime. And then once they become a victim of crime and realize their folly, they move into the second category and take steps to protect themselves, because they now realize the police probably won't be around when they need them. But then those that do still trust that the police are there to protect them tend to think that those that feel otherwise are paranoid.

And all skydivers are suicidal, too.

His number actually reveals quite a lot. It shows that he gets his gun violence numbers from anti-gun organizations, which count suicides in with murders as "gun violence". Explain how shooting oneself is not violent death. The difference here is a harm to society issue. Suicide, although illegal, typically does not endanger others. If guns weren't available, knives would work; if no knives, 20g of tylenol... or 50g...; If no tylenol, a rope or a motorcycle or a car or a "no pull." Once someone is committed to go forward with that plan, it's violent regardless of how it's done. But it's not necessarily a threat to society (likewise I don't think intentional deaths while skydiving should be counted against the sport) Pretty convoluted logic you have to use to make a gun suicide not violent. I wonder if the ER doc can tell the non violent shootings from the violent ones by examining the victim. You did read the bolded part, right?

Actually. I think you're quite correct.

His number actually reveals quite a lot. It shows that he gets his gun violence numbers from anti-gun organizations, which count suicides in with murders as "gun violence". Explain how shooting oneself is not violent death. The difference here is a harm to society issue. Suicide, although illegal, typically does not endanger others. If guns weren't available, knives would work; if no knives, 20g of tylenol... or 50g...; If no tylenol, a rope or a motorcycle or a car or a "no pull." Once someone is committed to go forward with that plan, it's violent regardless of how it's done. But it's not necessarily a threat to society (likewise I don't think intentional deaths while skydiving should be counted against the sport)

Read through this thread Did anyone actually post what the current laws are? I read that the firearms used were "legally" owned by his parents, but remember having been told by a friend of mine in Germany that he had to keep his weapons in a locked facility at the shooting range. That seems in conflict with the "parent had them at home" argument. What are the laws (I did find some in German... but my German isn't good enough to read legal German) And.... why did he go back TWO YEARS later? I hate psych stuff. It just doesn't make sense. I like order and logic. Things like this just amaze me. It's sad that someone gets THAT crazy.

What are the actual laws there? I found ["http://www.scribd.com/doc/1762038/US-Army-Gun-Ownership-in-Germany"]US Army: Gun Ownership in Germany[/url] that explains how to go through the process of gun ownership over there, but it doesn't link to the actual laws.

We definitely need more information on this situation before anything "logical" can be said. At first it seems like it was calculated, starting at his mothers house... but then becomes more random (per the press and our understanding) We don't know if the firearms were legally owned or if he stole them or if he "borrowed" them from his parents house. We don't know what instigated this attack and why drive to the other town? Sometimes we can learn from sad situations.... I'm sure that more info (or speculation) will be revealed in time. Let just hope we learn something helpful. (very sad about the child though )

You sound very socially liberal.. but the claims and the posts.. just don't add up Actually yes I can see both arguments.. but I am quite happy to take a stand when the other argument is divergent from what is right. Sorry but tolerance of the INTOLERANT..is just not in my makeup. The problem with that stance, is that you become judgmental and intolerant yourself. (and as far as not adding up.... remember, you don't know me.)

proper way? What does that mean? Belittle others opinions if they vary from your own? Be quick to bite and don't even think about any potential of truth that the "other side" might have. THAT is the problem. On this site, with the two parties.... all this anger. All this immature bickering. And in the froth, you don't even need to know where the "others" stand - just lash out and attack. What truly was my stance on the First Amendment? Do you even really know? I sure as hell bet that you don't care. Just because some one believes in the RIGHTS, it doesn't mean that they practice that act. I believe that a woman has a RIGHT to her body and personal decision with respect to reproduction (read as right of choice), but I would not do that myself. I believe that every one has a RIGHT to his/her religion, even if I personally am torn between my Catholic roots and an agnositc belief system. If someone is Jewish or Buddhist or Wiccan.... those are beliefs that THAT person has and he/she has the right to practice without interference. I believe that people have a freedom of speech, whether it's using words that I wouldn't (and you might want to look up how many times you've used slanderous words) or even words against a position that I respect (GRANTED... I do NOT believe that he had a right to try to physically harm him) My point in this thread (not that you truly even care) is that the current government/education/whatever is not the first or the only one that has tried to impose their beliefs on others. AND... as I stated...."I can see both arguments." Can you?

So what words are ok? "Repubican" makes you giggle and in fact you've used it in 84 instances. And "rabid right" gets 13 hits. But saying "Liberal" will get you quite spun up? You openly ridicule others religions. You mock anyone from any state other than those that you deem "blue" enough. Basically, you don't seem to care if you act offensive, but then act as a bully if you feel that others are.

I can only base my opinion of someone based on what they type here. When you feel that using certain words is limiting to you.. whats a girl to think. I use an example of someone that adopted a broad speech code that was found unconstitutional by a federal judge to prove that violations of First Amendment rights have existed since prior to Pres. Obama. (note... no comments on your religion or slander to your political opinions) I then further point out in post 54 that "I can see both arguments." And you feel so righteous that you can then judge me, whom you have never met and have no personal experience with and w/r/t post here on this forum.... basing opinions on what is posted on this forum would not do you any favors.

So. You're ok with limiting speech? But, if I recall correctly; You seemed ok with the actions of someone protesting President Bush by throwing his shoe. words back attcha I'm seeing a hypocritical stance here. Nope I am not for limiting speech.. call other people what ever you want there in JesusLand... but please do not be surprised when you go outside your insular little world where people have moved on and find your speech offensive. And just because some guy tosses his shoe at your LORD... does not mean he should get the treatment he did. ... but you probably think the death penalty would have been good for that one. not for limiting.... but.... and only if I agree with what is said..... And see how tolerant I am to allow you the privilege of slandering my reputation. You don't know me. Never met (thank what ever god you you think I choose to worship) You don't know my personal beliefs (except for those that you seem to have imagined) Yet you find it necessary to insult and demean. Why is that? Just walk away. (like you said you would)

Please do. It honestly won't offend me if you never reply to me or fail to comment on any post that I make. Please do.

So... let me get that straight. But using an example of someone violating the First Amendment rights, you are insinuating that I am racist? or bigoted? or whatever else you already think in a prejudiced type fashion? It has been my experience in life that those who decry politically correctness as an infringement on their right to call whomever they wish whatever name they wish.. as yes.. usually racist sexist or homophoibic etc...... bigots If you are going to talk the talk... pardon me if I turn my back on you and walk the walk .............right away from you . Pardon me for pointing out that fact. So. You're ok with limiting speech? But, if I recall correctly; You seemed ok with the actions of someone protesting President Bush by throwing his shoe. words back attcha I'm seeing a hypocritical stance here.