NCclimber

I don't condone lying, cheating, stealing, adultery, or sexual seduction or coercion by the clergy. Based on the fact that you do not believe that man has the ability to forego sexual promiscuity, and that they only have the ability to obey those edicts that are easy or convienient, what makes you think that, if the Pope proclaimed today that all Catholics would have to wear condoms unless they were intentionally trying to conceive, all men would immediately obey? After all, isn't it human nature to disobey rules? Especially if they cause inconvenience or result in less sexual pleasure. Royd, is this really that hard for you to grasp... or are you dodging the subject because you know that you are fighting a losing battle... The issues here has nothing to do sexual promiscuity, or sexual pleasure, its to do with the FACT that the Catholic church is openly and knowingly LYING about the effectiveness of condoms.. DO.......YOU......UNDER..STAND??????? I'm guessing he's just toying with Jakee, who seems to consistently display a lot of hostility when Christian topics are being discussed.

I listen to NPR. I said "fairly decent." not absolute. Take 100 people that listen to NPR and 100 that listen to Rush and tell me how far off the numbers would be from reality. I'm guessing not far. LOL The Rush listeners make up what? One... maybe two percent of the population. Your statement was about the average person... not extreme rightwingers!!! As far as NPR goes, I'd guess it's a 60/40 split favoring the lefties. Again... we're talking about a small portion of the population. What about the remaining 90% who don't care for Rush or "Morning Edition", who have never heard of the Tappet brothers.

You might want to try and see things a little more objectively. That statement above is laughably off the mark.

No kidding. Just look at the number of people in this thread who don't think this guy brought it on himself... who simply think it about his right to free speech being taken away... who view law enforcement as a brutal, corrupt entity.

You know the 9/11 report mentions contacts between Iran and Al Queda. Just because they're Shia doesn't mean they haven't supported Sunni terrorists. The USA has supported Muslim extremists. (the Taliban and OBL when fighting the Soviets.) That's a myth. The US never supported OBL. The Taliban didn't exist during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

No, they should not. Speech is not a crime, and it was speech, though ill-advised. ANY restraint or criminal prosecution for speech should be eliminated unless it DOES cause violence. (unfortunately, this seems to me to be a but/for cause of this, but not the PROXIMATE cause of the ultimate event) I don't know about nooses, but I'm pretty sure that burning crosses is against federal hate-crime laws, except on your own property.

I listen to NPR. On the topic of Ron Paul. He doesn't stand a chance!!! He's part of the "et al" group.... doesn't really register on the radar. Even if he was able to get his message out to the masses, the GOP power base would make sure he didn't get the nomination. NOKD (not our kind, Dear) And as far as him beating Hillary... that line of reasoning has a whole lot of "what ifs". IMO, it's a house of cards.

Do you think it's realistic to expect individuals, whos healthcare costs are fixed, to show restraint in seeking medical care, out of concern for the total cost to society?

Because he was behaving like an asshole!!! Believe it not, actions can have consequences. Ask for facts and then claim my logic is twisted. What specifically are you talking about? This is a lie. You might benefit from taking your own advice.

We're not talking about the 'survival' of the country - we are talking about improving the one we live in for everyone involved. We also survived 100+ years without water and sewer - should we take that away because taxes pay for it? try a realistic argument. "We have always done it that way" is not a valid reason to do or NOT do anything. A realistic argument? You mean like claiming a society that promotes individual responsibility is anarchy????

I dunno, isn't someones faith a motivating factor? It's true to say that people vary greatly on how they interpret the basis of their faith but on a personal level, faith can be a very strong motivating factor. For example, you can't hold your average muslim responsible for Al Qaeda, but without Islam Al Qaeda's number one stated motivation wouldn't exist. You could argue that it's a corruption of a belief system that leads to crimes such as this but I don't think you can say that the belief system plays no part at all. Bingo. Al Qaeda embraces a militant, dogmatic and orthodox form of Islamism. Their agenda is driven by the Islamic faith. Conversely, there is no evidence that Timothy McVeigh was religiously motivated when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building.

You claimed he was tazered without ever being given the chance to leave peacefully. This is a LIE! Goes to credibility.

Oooo Word games with Billvon... Oh boy!

"Too funny"? "TOO FUNNY"????? How can you laugh when we spend so much money on an illegal war? () What are we leaving for our children? Massive federal debt! An irreversably warming planet! Oh, the horror!!!

In Sub-Saharan Africa there are more Christians than Muslims. And only 1/6th of of the African population is Catholic.

I think that's the point. White assailants get off scott free. Black kids retaliate and get charged with attempted murder.

I'm sure there are plenty of objective stories about this on the net. Look around. From what I know. Some nooses were hung from a tree on school property. This was clearly done in response to some racial tensions. The "pranksters" were expelled, but the superintendent of schools reduced the penalty to a short suspension... then the school got torched... not sure about the extent of the damage... a few days later a black student tried to enter an all-white party. He got beat up - including getting beaten with beer bottles. The assailant(s) got probation. The next week at school, one of the assailants (who was also a party to the noose incident) started talking trash to the black guy who was beaten up. The black guy and five of his friends kicked the white guys ass. Here's where it gets interesting. The six black guys get arrested and charged with assault. At least one of them is charged and prosecuted for attempted murder! So what we have here is a blatant display of bigotry, followed by assault, which results in a slap on the wrist. One of the culprits starts another fight... gets beat up... and these assailants are charged with attempted murder. Justice is blind, eh?

Since you obvously didn't bother to read the thread, why are you commenting? Lecturing others about going off tangent? Too funny.

What are you talking about? When did I claim "hyperbole for the sake of emphasis"? The emphasis was mine, the hyperbole (or was it a joke or sarcasm, you changed your story once or twice) was yours. This brought to you by... The Ministry of Truth I do find your unique perceptions amusing.

Everybody drink!

You Tube is your friend.

LOL You crack me up. Comparisons to Canada's system has been a part of the US healthcare debate for as long as switching to universal healthcare has been an issue. Making it about a specific quote on this forum is too funny. Is this gonna be another semantics shell game? Climate change = Anthropogenic Global Warming US healthcare = national health = socialized medicine LOL Good stuff

I agree with you, Quade. I fully believe, that someone indoctrinated in a fear-of-guns type of brainwashing all their lives, could very well go through a transformation of that type. They don't have a realistic view of what a firearm is, nor do have any sense of how to 'responsibly' own one. I'd personally rather not see them anywhere near a firearm. They consider them mystical and out of the ordinary and confusing - of course they'd treat them like some kind of super talisman to fix all wrongs. "Firestick go BOOM! Make bad man fall down."

Of course it is, but if you think nobody has ever had a similar story in real life; turning from victim to gun owner to vigilante (on a subway no less), then you're not paying attention. See THIS. A single case of vigilante justice from over twenty years ago doesn't really say much about "how easy it is to let the weapon give you a sense of power, that it is a corrupting force to not only the owner, but to those around the owner." Easy? There's not too many real world examples on par with this film. One key aspect of most psychological thrillers is the tapping into our fears, about extreme (and highly unlikely) situations. You seem to be saying this film speaks to some universal truth, that we should be aware of. From what little I know about this film, I don't see agree. It seems to a bit of entertainment about an extreme situation. After I see it, I'll send you my critique.

Without going into too much detail, that IS the entire point of the movie; how easy it is to let the weapon give you a sense of power, that it is a corrupting force to not only the owner, but to those around the owner. This is a fictional movie, right?