DaVinci

You can preach all day not to touch a gun. And they will. They see it as something neat. Take them to the range, let them use it and the magic goes away. Show them the damage it can do, let them clean it when they are done. If you let them use a gun with supervision, they will be less likely to use it without. With supervision, yes. Better than just telling them to stay away from it. A stupid analogy. It is not like they can buy a ticket and get on a plane. How much experience do you have with guns? Do you own any?

For the non gun savy people....Shotgun or REVOLVER...Double action so they don't even need to cock it. .357 and you can teach them how to shoot it with .38, then load it with .357 and let them shoot it. Autos are great for a fire fight, but they can jam and most cases in a home invasion you don't need more than 5 shots. Should have a quick trigger lock, or be kept in a quick gun safe. Children should be taught to shoot. That way they don't think of them as magical and want to play with them. If you are not going to practice with the weapon, and you are not going to teach any children about weapons....DON'T HAVE ONE.

And you and others are not mouth pieces for "moveon"? The humor I see here is that some want to blame one man for NK going nuke. Truth is the list of failures is quite long and contains people from both parties over several years. Is it so hard to admit that Bush got what he wanted here and that might be a good thing? Maybe not as good as NK never getting a nuke, but before you blame Georgie alone, you should admit that the list is longer than one man and 6 years.

Uh, it seems to me that the Democrats are bringing him up to try and show how screwed up the republicans are. Very normal in politics to try and prove the other side is bad, and when a guy screws up like this its kind of easy to point it out. But you just seem to keep passing right over that he DID resign, and the republicans do not seem to be trying to protect him other than pointing out what he did my not in fact be illegal. The FBI had the emails and did nothing. Now the IMs we will have to wait and see. But the Democrats actually can't wait and keep bringing it up. How about: Wayne Hayes, D Ohio did not resign when it was found his assistant was nothing more than a girlfriend that could not even type. Studds actually had sex with an underage page and did not resign. He got two standing ovations. And was re-elected 6 more times. Barney Frank knew a prostitution ring was run out of his house...He is still in Congress. The difference between the two party's is that when a Republican pulls one of these stunts, they don't get standing ovations and re-elected.

OK but above you said "...For hundreds of years the parts of the koran that prohibited usury were interpreted to mean basically no interest at all. Which puts quite a damper on banking. If I understand it correctly, it's only in the past 30 years or so that western banking companies have found ways to concoct instruments acceptable to hard-line Islamic governments." And to me that sounded like you think the Islamic prohibition against usury had kept banking down until the last 30 years. And that that is quite a big obstacle to an economy.

Not even close. Considering the Email's that might have been to someone over the age of consent. If the IM's show he is guilty I bet no one would say they have done the same. Also, sending explicit emails is not illegal if the person is over 18. Creepy? Yes. Illegal? No. But you don't seem to care about legal at all, only a head to put on a pike. If that head will advance your cause. And you, and others, think anything done by republicans is wrong and anything done by democrats is right. I personally prefer to only go after the people that are actually guilty.

Like it or not, it is the standard that widely accepted. Rising home ownership is considered a sign of a good economy.

The last President to kill a raise in min wage was CLINTON. The Issue was on the floor and the two sides could not agree. Congress voted 282-143 to increase the Federal Minimum wage a dollar. HR3846, which later became HR3081. Republicans wanted the increase to take three years, Democrats wanted it done in two. Republicans said OK, two but wanted tax cuts to help small business absorb the extra cost, Democrats called it a deal breaker. Clinton said he would VETO any bill that had tax cuts in it, so both bills died in Congress. The DOW is a really bad measure of the stock market. Popular, but bad. Standard and Poor's is much better. The DOW is based on just 30 stocks, S&P is based on 470. DOW is based on ANY stock rising or falling any amount, while S&P uses the real amount of dollars earned or lost. Also the all time high was midday Jan 14,2000 at 11,908. Outsourcing had not gotten popular. More people owned homes in 2004 than EVER before. The rate was expected to drop a little in 2005, but it was still high http://www.danter.com/STATISTICS/homeown.htm Latino's rate is higher than national average http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061008/HOMESCAPE/610080494/1186/HOMESCAPE98 MORE millionaires is bad? I see that more people are able to make money is better than more people on welfare.

As a whole, the left defended Clinton and is attacking Foley. They say such things as, "No one died when Clinton lied." and "It was just a BJ." No one on the right is defending Foleys actions.

Great idea...Never happen. The problem would be that a country like Israel would never admit to having them would suddenly be the world power. Or that all the others get rid of them and then a country like N.Korea suddenly has them. Are you going to invade a country that has nukes? MAD worked as a deterant since both sides were afraid of dying. But a country like Iran might not be as afraid. My biggest fear is N.Korea will lob one at Japan when Kim comes close to death. The UN does a poor job of controling anything. Think Darfur. What makes you think they could handle this? Didn't work with Korea...No one wanted them to get the bomb. Not working really well with Iran.

So would you agree that the religion has held the region back?

Thats one person you made a claim about and was wrong. And asking if what Foley did was legal or not is not the same as defending him. We don't know if he did anything illegal, and the left wants his head. We know Clinton lied and the left defended him by saying it was no big deal. Both have valid points, but I find some deal of humor in how the left's outrage is dependent on what party the guy is from.

From what I have read so far, it is the PERFECT use of a gun. A guy is minding his own business and gets attacked. Gets attacked bad enough that he gets knocked to the ground, no one is helping him, and the guy who attacked him is saying he is going to kill him. I'd shoot. Glad he shot. The police seem to not have an issue. The victim was 50 something and the attacker 25.

I have read it...It is clear you have not.

That is my point. But the left defended Clinton, and the right is not defending Foley. I guess I am not explaining myslef well, or you are ignoring or avoiding my point. The left seems to defend when it is them under attack for these kinds of acts, while the right does not.

So you do agree that the left has a double standard?

Add in the years : 2000, 1980, 1976....basicly every "big" election and I would agree. The undecideds get pissed and vote the morons out of office no matter WHICH party it was.

I think that while the question maybe was wrong. The answer was not to lie about it. And lying about it was illegal. And lying under oath is enough to get any of us in trouble. So, Getting a BJ from some fat chick that is not your wife? Stupid. Lying under oath? Illegal. I have no issue with the stupid, only the illegal. Agreed, but do you not see a double standard when it comes to sex and politics at all? It sure seems that the left only gets really upset when there is a political advantage.

Same for Clinton. It was stupid to get a hummer in the oval office. But REALLY dumb to lie about it. I would hope that when people look back they see Bush as a guy that, while a little nutty, tried to do what he thought was right. I am really sick of politics. Bush is overly religious "I got myself a mandate!" Kerry was a JFK wanna be....along the lines of "Single White Female".

Question, if we had evidence that would hold up in a court of law showing that Bush did lie. Do you think that Congress would do anything? Do you think that the American people would just sit by and do nothing?

My point was that the left defended it and even defended him lying about it under oath, while the right attacked him for both. While the right is not defending anything Foley has done, but the left sure is attacking over it. In fact I don't think many people other than MBLA would even think about defending Foley if it is proven he did anything wrong. But some people did defend Clinton even after he admitted to it and admitted to lying. Both parties are going to use something like this to their advantage. However, I don't see anyone defending Foley, and we do see the left defending people on the left who are involved with sexual cases.

No, but for a 1961(?) weapon built by the US Government it sure was stupid. Hence my vote for dumbest weapon ever. "Hey, lets shoot this nuke with an effective range that is further than we can shoot it".

Agreed. Or maybe there is not enough real evidence to prove he commited anything close to a crime?

I give a crap about BOTH. One did illegal things, and it sure seems the second one did as well. I want them both punished by the government they were in. The difference that I have seen is this, Clinton lied and was attacked by the right, defended by the left. Foley seems to be an ass, and is attacked by the left, and I have yet to really see anyone defend his actions, and I doubt I will. The left takes a lighter view on sexual issues unless it will help them, the right seems to have one stance that has different levels of severity depending on the political motive. But no one has flat out defended Foley.