JohnnyD

Sure. Representative government is part of the framework of the greatest nation (currently) on the planet - the USA (yes, I'm biased). Your very life has been pledged to preserve the right of that or any qualified American to run for office, yet you believe he has no right to do so. You should be happy, because it is a direct reflection on the hard work of yourself and your brothers before you that he can run for office. The military was on the fore front of integration. Also - you must not watch C-Span very much. If you really think one guy will totally screw up a state, remember that in the last few years Americans have elected to office various criminals, crack heads, and political prostitutes. The simple fact that Sir Charles would go in there and do what he wants regardless of party affiliations or political pressure would instantly make him a better representative than 95% of the politicians we are currently getting shafted by. Just him alone would make C-Span as watchable as the days of James Trafficant.

Sometimes I question if you were born abroad and just moved to the US for the women.

With the beer frige in the background.......a true work of art.

I have DTV and love it. My cousin has Dish and sacked it. We live where it snows. Some observations: 1. The guide function of DTV seemed to work a lot quicker and was more user friendly than dish. 2. DTV only went out once - there was a lightning strike @ 10ft. from the dish. Dish had to have the snow swept off it with a broom. This could just be an installation/location issue, not sure. 3. I have an unobstructed line of view (edge of open space). That may be a real difference. I liked DTV so much I have sat. internet and that has worked flawlessly as well (knock on wood). 4. All in all, I liked the "fit and finish" of DTV much more than dish, but personal preference and all.

This has large suck potential. I have both - love Sirius / hate XM. I hope it turns out good.

The guy is simply saying that it is his opinion that there is no place for such weapons in the hunting community, not that such weapons should be banned or make the owners terrorists. I happen to agree with him, reasonable person that I am.

It is anti hunters using and being associated with assult weapons, not anti gun. The fevered pitch that has gone into discrediting this guy's reputation is disturbing. His opinion seems reasonable, if not rational. Its ironic that his statements are intended to preserve and protect the image of hunters in the general public and the gun crazies are attacking him with unbelievable passion. The result to the general public: exactly the opposite of what I believe his intentions were.

It's provided by the Patriot Comm Satelite Constellation. And now I know, and knowing is half the battle. The other half is protecting my constitutional right to securing some high explosive hollow point rounds incase I'm assulted by killer liberal communist prairie dogs.

OK, at the considerable risk of getting sucked into the vortex (I'm not a "gun debate" person, and I don't want to start now), and especially since I'd never heard of JZ before this thread, let me ask you: what do you suppose JZ's true motivation was in writing that article, and why do you think he has it? Note: please don't just insult him further; I'm asking you to take a mature, educated guess as to his thought process. (Remember, now: mature.) It wasn't an article, it was just a blog. It wasn't anti-gun at all. It simply said he was surprised at what the guide told him about the growing popularity of using assult weapons for hunting. His opinion was that assult weapons should not be used for hunting, rather that hunters should use "sporting arms". The reaction is a pretty good indication of where people are coming from. I'm shocked they can get internet access in their bunkers.

No limp wristed liberal is going to tell me what to do.

Not at all. I hunt 2 pound animals with assult rifles. I fish with dynamite. Red, white, and blue all the way through.

Hell yes! I mean seriously, have you SEEN the size of those prairie dogs? You better be damn well healed before you walk out into a wide open field to take one of those guys on. Also, semi-auto just gives people with poor skills and judgement the opportunity to be a better hunter. Sure, you may be taking a poor shot, but you can squeeze off three, so it evens out. If you have poor marksmanship or one too many Budweisers, throw some extra lead! GET SOME! GET SOME!

postpartum depression?

What is unusual about criticizing poor decisions and failures?

Check the temperature of the incubator. Also, if its overloaded, it could throw the control characteristics off.

Rum and chicks with issues.

Hell,after all the people getting all pissy and everything I'd be afraid to tell a joke in here. I know a guy with a trailer for sale...................

SEP http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=111419,00.html#1

Do you like gladiator movies?

Ever been in a Turkish prison?

The distinction is between diplomacy and military. Our military mission in Iraq is over and has been for some time (mission accomplished?). Our only hope at avoiding more major military action is pulling out and attempting to repair the diplomatic disaster we've created there. It may not be possible. If we have to return with a military solution in the future, so be it. The situation will not improve until we take the military out of it. Even if we can't remain out, there is no sense at all in remaining once the mission is over. We are stuck in the quicksand that is a military success precipitated by diplomatic failure. IMO, there can be only one use for the military. That is to defeat a given enemy. In the "war on terror", it is an impossibility. We should leave now and let the situation work itself out. If we have to go back, it will be to face a clear enemy, not something we conjured up to save face.

It is important to realize exactly who, or more precisely, what we're at war with here. Its not the Iraq War - its the War on Terror. This creates a whole bunch of problems. 1. It is utterly impossible to win a war against an inanimate opponent. 2. There is an unavoidable diplomatic nightmare when you decide to fight the previously mentioned opponent in someone elses country. 3. Increasing troop strength to fight an inanimate opponent is absurd. 4. The finest fighting machine the world has ever known (the US military - yes, I'm biased) is being misused. Marines are NOT peace keepers. They went, they saw, they conquered. Time to leave. 5. There is a difference between a diplomatic failure and a military failure. For some reason, US citizens are being successfully convinced that the two are mutually exclusive. They are not. The military has done exactly what it was supposed to. The decisions that followed are where the failure has occurred and our military, our taxpayers, and our next generation are paying the price now and in the future. 6. The reality is we have taken a bad situation in Iraq and made it absolutely terrible. We have taken an area we didn't want terrorists and accomplished the incredible feat of getting them there in droves. There is no doubt we may have to go back if we leave now, but I think the only prayer we have now is to embrace the reality of the situation. We can not now and we have never been able to force democracy on a nation that doesn't want it. We should leave immediately and let the people of Iraq sort it out. We have enough of our own problems. If the time comes when we have to return, we should do it with the full force of our military and with a clear objective.

By how much and in which direction? May be nothing serious at all.

Just a side note/thought: If I were looking for a CPA/CFP and saw that website, I would not contact that person. Nice cats though.

When you die, I will not go into Bonfire and say - didn't agree with him much, but he was a good man and will be missed. Blue skies. Fuck that. I'll post up "good riddance". Asshat.