DaVinci

How many young kids have a job and buy a tree? The image is trying to draw in the adults, not the kids. As someone said: "Don't like it, don't shop there"

Same thing I think when I see you avoid a topic and start throwing insults.

1. Prank calling someone != murder. 2. you CAN be released after 25 years for murder. So using your logic, once a guy commits any crime (say jaywalking) he should be thrown in jail till he dies. Most logical thinking people thing the punishment should fit the crime and that after so many years the statute of limitations has taken over.

No, WB *IS* rich. So you claim is not correct. If he had made that claim BEFORE he was rich, your claim would be correct.

and how do you propose to do that without creating inflation?

Consumption tax hurts the poor more than the rich. So you would create ANOTHER govt program? You would have most Americans waiting each mth on a check from the Govt.... totally wrong direction to go in, IMO. Not a bad thing. Then you cut tax revenue and do not increase spending... Instead you have people waiting on those weekends to spend.

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981) "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."-- 7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES The administrator of the estate of Ruth Bunnell who had been killed by her estranged husband brought a wrongful death action against the city whose police department refused to respond to her call for protection some 45 minutes before her death. Mrs. Bunnell had called the police to report that Mack Bunnell had called saying he was on his way to her home to kill her. She was told to call back when Mack Bunnell arrived. The police had responded 20 times to her calls in the past year, and on one occasion, arrested her estranged husband for assaulting her. The Court of Appeal held that the police department and its employees enjoyed absolute immunity for failure to provide sufficient police protection. The allegations that the police had responded 20 times to her calls did not indicate that the police department had assumed any special relationship or duty toward her such as would remove its immunity. Hartzler v. City of San Jose (1975) 46 Cal.App.3d 6, 120 Cal.Rptr. 5 A husband and wife who were assaulted in a laundromat while the assailant was under surveillance by officers, brought legal action against the city and the officers for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and for negligent investigation, failure to protect and failure to warn. The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a “special relationship” between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant’s conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer’s prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer’s surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer’s inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct. Davidson v. City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 The widow and sons of a motorist who drove into the void where a collapsed bridge had been, brought action against the State, county, and county deputy sheriff. The California Department of Transportation (Cal Trans) was aware that a violent storm with heavy rains had caused a bridge on State route 118 to collapse. A county deputy sheriff had observed the beginning of the collapse, reported it and requested assistance from Cal Trans. A jury award of $1,300,000 was reversed in part by the Court of Appeal which held: (1) the county deputy sheriff had no duty to warn drivers that the state highway bridge had collapsed during the storm, and his efforts to warn drivers did not in any way increase the risk of harm to users of the highway, and therefore the county was not liable to motorist’s wife and children; and (2) the judgment was upheld against the state because the Cal Trans was notified at 1:52 a.m. and at 2:35 a.m., but no Cal Trans personnel nor CHP officer appeared at the scene until 5:45 a.m., and that such delay was unreasonable. Westbrooks v. State (1985) 173 Cal.App.3d 1203, 219 Cal.Rtr. 674 Here are more: DeShaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (1989) 489 US 189 Bower v. DeVito (1982) 686 F.2d 616 Calgorides v. Mobile (1985) 475 So.2d 560 Warren v. District of Columbia (1983) 444 A.2d 1 Morgan v. District of Columbia (1983) 469 A.2d 1306 Sapp v. Tallahassee (1977) 348 So.2d 363, cert.denied 354 So.2d 985 Keane v. Chicago (1968) 98 Ill.App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 Jamison v. Chicago (1977) 48 Ill.3d 567 Simpson’s Food Fair v. Evansville 272 N.E. 2d 871 Silver v. Minneapolis (1969)) 170 N.W.2d 206 Wuetrich v. Delia (1978) 155 N.J.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 929 Chapman v. Philadelphia (1981) 290 Pa.Super. 324, 382 A.2d 753 Morris v. Musser, (1984) 84 Pa.Cmwth. 170, 478 A.2d 937 Weiner v. Metropolitan Authority, and Shernov v. New York Transit Authority (1982) 55 N.Y.2d 175, 948 N.Y.S. 141 Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)

Well he "seems" to be willing. He says he should pay more. In practice he is not willing.

Missed this part did ya? "While a dick move" So I never said it was OK. 25 years is quite a lot of digging to find something to bitch about. I don't like the guy, but I am not going to dig 25 years back to bitch about him.

Say the Govt shutting down this website since they do not like the content. That would be a violation of the 1st.

Well you still seem to be playing the same tactics over and over. You can't debate on the subject, so you start the lame insults. Good to know you are at least consistent.

Yes. But that does not change the fact your first response to anyone is some shade of personal attack.

Its not.... The guy is an idiot.

So the only people that should be for gay rights are gay people?

And now Obama and his boys did it. They kept the tax cuts, so now they own them.

Warren Buffett seems to be willing. Maybe we should only have programs that are needed and not wanted. Everyone wants ice cream... The problem is when some people want only the "others" to pay for it.

People would hopefully not just start spraying bullets. So far, in every State that has CHLs this has never happened. 1. The rate of people with a CHL is lower than you might think about 1.5% of the population over the age of 18. About 250k in TX have the license compared to the population over 18 in TX. 2. The rate that they actually CARRY is even lower. I do not have numbers on this, but most people I know with a CHL do not actually carry. 3. Wack jobs tend to go to places where they know people are unarmed. You do not see people go into gun stores, gun shows, ranges, and police stations to start a shooting spree. 4. Survival instinct has shown that even troops tend to hold fire till they feel threatened. Add all of those up and I think that you will find that if a wackjob starts shooting there most likely will not be a bunch of folks armed and willing to fight. But it only takes one and in #3 maybe just the threat of one to alter the wackjobs course of action.

No, but it is nice when people with opinions can back them up with rational points and not just more opinion.

Incorrect. Gun Control Act of 1968 stated: Minors defined as under the age of eighteen for long guns and handguns, with the exception of Vermont, eligible at age sixteen You only have to be 21 to buy from a DEALER.

While I disagree with only allowing owners to vote..... The FF could not have imagined the internet, so do you think the 1st should not apply to it?

Uncalled for.

While a dick move..... It was also 25 years ago.

Why is it OK for Doug Forth to have a mustard stain set of jump wings on his backpack? Who really cares? I doubt anyone thinks Beck was ever a SEAL and he has stated why he wears it. I personally find it weird, but I find anyone wearing something they didn't earn as weird.

I think a State anything is a bit silly.... This no more than anything else. So who cares really???? I don't really like the 1911 that much, but can see the point with Browning being born there and all.

Well since you have to be old enough to handle a weapon... I think giving baby jesus a weapon is a bad idea.... Now, give 30 year old jesus a gun and maybe he would not have been put up on that cross!!!!