DaVinci

Which is why I said: 1. Kid. 2. Parents. And why I ASKED why he was not on some type of medication.

If found guilty, should he go to adult prison?

Hah... You did that long before I got even close to doing that. "Like as in: Let people bring what ever they want on airplanes. We'll just punish the guys who hijack the plane and fly it into a building. " Having a logical discussion with you based on facts is impossible... you have shown that on more than one occasion.

Got it... It is OK, according to you, to make fun of some people but not others.

Then follow the laws for BAC in place at that location at that time. Do you propose that police should be allowed to pull over someone for no reason what so ever and strip search them, blood and breath tests, DNA sample..Etc? Illogical position... they have done something wrong. 1. Speeding 2. Driving under the influence (according to the test) Fact is that you seem to be supporting random searches of people and I am supporting only checking people that have shown through ACTIONS to be breaking the law. In my world only the guy that is ACTING suspicious should be subject to additional checking. In your world any random person may be stopped and searched by the police for no reason.

The police now has suspicion of DUI. And can test accordingly. If there was no smell of alcohol, then no suspicion and no test. No, the person should be *tested* for DUI. Then they would not get pulled over. And if they "drive perfectly well at that BAC", then they pose no risk to others. My position is completely workable. If someone is suspected of DUI due to their ACTIONS then you test them. Your position of randomly pulling people over to test them is a violation of civil rights. Sure. Although I think a guy with a CHL should not be prohibited. Do you think police should be allowed to randomly search people like an airport screening for no reason other than to check for things?

The kid clearly has issues. The parents clearly have not done a great job. I can't fault the police for spraying him... I think it was justified. I am glad he is under care of a Dr... I wonder why he is not on some type of drug????

What part of "When they are driving erratically like a person over the legal limit THEN pull them over and CHECK" was hard to grasp? When they appear to be intoxicated, then pull them over and check. That is a FAR cry from pulling people over at random. Putting interlocks on 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States (2007) when there were only 1.4m arrests for DUI seems a bit excessive.

Your argument is sad. I DO trust people. When they are driving erratically like a person over the legal limit THEN pull them over and CHECK. You want to pull anyone over at random and arrest them without cause. Nope. Border checks sure, but a random checkpoint no.

Until you have proven to be guilty of something, I do not feel you should be punished for it. Innocent till proven guilty and all that nonsense. I guess you support interlocks on every car *except* people with a history of DUI's? You do know that hijacking a plane was already illegal... Yet they did it. And you do know knifed were not allowed... Yet they took them anyway... Right?

Please back up this claim, or admit you made it up: "except when it's welfare for the rich - which you approve of..."

And photo shopping a picture of Bush eating a kitten would be? Telling a joke about Bush being from TX would be?

Until you have been proven to have an issue with something, I think you should be trusted. Putting interlocks on 254.4 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States (2007) when there were only 1.4m arrests for DUI seems a bit excessive. The whole innocent till proven guilty thing. Check points designed to go fishing for DUI's. Checkpoints at military facilities etc are not fishing expeditions.

No, but I do think laws restricting someone who has not done anything wrong in the hope of stopping drunk driving is wrong. Interlock on a guys car that has had a DUI - Great! Interlock on everyone's car - Wrong Pulling over a suspected drunk driver - Great! Pulling over a car at random to test - Wrong Check points - Wrong.

Find one example where I have said I approve of it... Or admit you are making things up. Go ahead, bring FACTS to the discussion.

And different jokes were made of Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan, Carter........

I agree... Someone on here (I think Kennedy) said that the standard for a rule about firearms should be, "Will this also apply to the police?" If not, then it should not apply to civilians. Personally, I prefer "military"... But the question is a good one.

Makes some assumptions in the article. "In a nutshell, this theory associated higher incomes with higher productivity and a greater contribution to society. It is a theory that has always been cherished by the rich. Evidence for its validity, however, remains thin" And any other process has ALSO shown to have problems. Look at how taxing the rich in England lead to an exodus out of the Country... Same thing in NJ. "First, growing inequality is the flip side of something else: shrinking opportunity." A guy that was born a bastard to a single mother is now President of the US. Even the most poor have refrigerators and color TV's... Many have cars. Education has never been as accessible as it is right now... you could go to school instead of posting and end up with a degree. And "shrinking opportunity" does not jive with this sentence a few inches down the page ,"To give just one example, far too many of our most talented young people, seeing the astronomical rewards" "Third, and perhaps most important, a modern economy requires “collective action”—it needs government to invest in infrastructure, education, and technology." Total speculation... Pushing an agenda. "Of all the costs imposed on our society by the top 1 percent, perhaps the greatest is this: the erosion of our sense of identity, in which fair play, equality of opportunity, and a sense of community are so important. " I would say the same about welfare. Too bad most will be disarmed huh?

I agree. Just like if legislation could prevent criminals from driving drunk, then since we have had laws against drunk driving for years there should be no drunk driving now.... right?

Sure ya did, "Yep. Even Egypt has their own version of Tea Partyers." You didn't say extreme version, you labeled them all the same. And I guess only the "Right" does bad things? DALLAS -- Dallas police are looking into a shocking crime against an Iraq War vet that took place on a college campus. Overnight Tuesday, someone took vandalized 23-year-old Army veteran Viktor Whitlow's vehicle while it was parked at Dallas Baptist University. Ironically, the mascot at DBU is the Patriot. The vandals used a box cutter to destroy the inside of his jeep, they slashed five tires and smashed through the windshield. Perhaps the most shocking detail to the vandalism was the message spray painted on his hood. In red paint the vandals spraypainted the message, "Soldiers are murderers." The message was quite a shock to Whitlow, who has been deployed twice to Iraq as an Army reservist. "It makes you seem like a murderer -- a cold blooded killer and that's not the case," said Whitlow. Dallas police said Whitlow's case is not considered a hate crime because military personnel cannot be members of a hate crime.

Smart investing means I am making more than ever before. I am not a millionaire, but I live beneath my means and that allows me to do pretty much whatever I want.... For example I just dropped over 10K on a new toy.. Paid cash. Just put over 25k in improvements into my house... Paid cash. I make 200-300 jumps a year, both my wife's and my cars are 2006's and paid off.... The only debt I have is on my house, and it was a house that was priced at MUCH less than we could afford. Through all of this, I was laid off, got a new job, sold my old house, moved 1200 miles for a new job, lived in a condo on the beach, bought a new house... Etc. Since 2000 I have gone back to school and gotten a degree, made 3k jumps, traveled to the Bahamas a bunch and a bit to Central America, and some to Canada. Bought a second skydiving rig and I am looking to buy a plane or small helicopter. I work mainly from home. Specific to the time: I have a computer that fits into my pocket that holds over 1500 songs and lets me surf the internet from just about anywhere in the US. My car has airbags everywhere anti skid everything and still has 300HP and gets 23 MPG... It is expected to last close to 200k miles. My portfolio is doing better than before the crash, smart investing means I have twice as much today than I had before the crash.... Based mainly on picked undervalued stocks and buying at a discount during the crash. I didn't vote, but I can easily see why some people would pick 2000+ as the best time to live. Smart choices can make ANY time great and dumb choices could make any time suck ass.

The "blame" would be: 1. The person who did the killings. 2. The person who ordered the killings. You are correct that the final responsibility is the individual that did the killing. But the person who started the riot and incited the crowd to violence caused the dangerous situation. The pastor may be a jackass... But the fact remains that his actions (while distasteful) were within our Constitution and in and of itself did not create a dangerous situation. If the act had been responsible, it would have happened three weeks earlier when the jackass actually burnt the books. More likely a call to denounce the faith than to kill them.

OK semantics... You have also said (post #820): "He is innocent until proven guilty. period. It's in the constitution. And its in the facts as they stand today." So if OJ was found not guilty, and since he is innocent till PROVEN guilty... then he is innocent. Your words, not mine. You can't hold fast to "innocent till proven guilty" in one case (Assange) and then play fast and loose in another (OJ). OK and B-D and mnealtx are saying the SAME type of thing about Assange. Assange is wanted by Swedish authorities for questioning in connection with one count of unlawful coercion, two counts of sexual molestation and one count of rape. He is being held without bail by the UK. Eric Holder has said Assange put national security at risk. Now, he is not guilty of any of those crimes... He is accused of some and the US is looking to decide what he might be charged with. Your anger should be at the UK for not sending him to Sweden already.

And Does not jive here. OJ was found INNOCENT in the criminal trial. Therefore he must be innocent according to you, but you have claimed he 'got away with murder' To have intelligent debate requires evidence... But it also requires having a standard. You have shown a double standard in the OJ case. Is it not possible that if you have shown a double standard once that you might again?

But you support public HC?????? How in the world does that not make you support "irresponsible numbnuts that feel entitled to FREE healthcare when they did not buy insurance"???????