willard

But the references to incest should balance all of that!

Suspending a student for using the word "vagina" is not censorship. However, suspending or even giving a detention to a student for wearing a T-shirt with "FUCK YOU" printed on it is censorship. Go figure.

I'm sure glad nobody here acts that way.

His pooper-scooper was right behind.

Ok, I'll play devil's advocate here. When your boss sends you to a meeting or seminar it is well within their rights to set forth what and what not to discuss without having to give a reason. There are enough "meetings" about global warming that result in nothing more than a net contribution to the problem from all the hot air without anything being done. Maybe by keeping the talks centered on what can be done to help the bears something will actually get accomplished.

A couple lessons in U.S. government. #1. The right to keep and bear arms is not a law. It is a right recognized and guaranteed by the 2nd Ammendment to our Constitution. #2. The first ten ammendments to our Constitution are collectively known as The Bill of Rights. These are rights that every person everywhere is born with. Unfortunately a lot of people are born in countries where those rights are taken from them. Here in the U.S. those rights are protected within the foundations of our society. Also, gun crime is extremely rare here also. I have never heard of a single case of a gun commiting a crime by itself.

I was separating the practice from the people. I edited my last post to clarify.

Let me get this straight: your comments about using latin phrases had nothing to do with the specific use of a latin phrase in the post you were referring to. Right? Wrong. "My statement was one of how I feel about the practice, not of any one person in particular." What part would you like me to clarify? Edit to add- My father chews tobacco. I find the practice of chewing tobacco discusting, but that doesn't neccessarily mean I think my father is a disgusting person.

It's the STANDARD NAME for that particular logical fallacy. No more pretentious than using ad hoc Standard where? Forgive me if I question the use since I have never seen or heard the term before. I find it ironic that it is used to describe what you called a "logical" fallacy when "post hoc ergo propter hoc" takes 25 key strokes and "false cause" only takes 11 to say the same thing. Your ignorance is not reason to insult me. It does not translate as "false cause". It is the name of episode #102 of West Wing. It can be found in any list of logical fallacies, such as this, and google brings up a whole lot of hits. Where in this thread did I insult you? My not being familiar with a latin phrase used as the title of an episode of a tv show that I have never watched a single minute of is no reason for you to call me ignorant. The only reason you might have felt insulted is if you do think all statements made in Latin are true and unquestionable. My statement was one of how I feel about the practice, not of any one person in particular. "Nevedomost is odesly dle instruktaz"

Does that apply to comdoms too?

It's the STANDARD NAME for that particular logical fallacy. No more pretentious than using ad hoc Standard where? Forgive me if I question the use since I have never seen or heard the term before. I find it ironic that it is used to describe what you called a "logical" fallacy when "post hoc ergo propter hoc" takes 25 key strokes and "false cause" only takes 11 to say the same thing.

Took this pic last fall and forgot all about it until I spotted it while sorting through old stuff on the 'puter.

OMG this is the funniest thing I have read in recent memory!!!!!!!!! I am about to start pilot school and this really cracks me up! It is terrible what this person did to his child, himself and family......... Good for you! Flight training is a blast!

Evidently some people feel if a statement is made in Latin then it must be true and unquestionable. I find it pretentious, but that's just me. Seems to me the only lives that have been devalued in this thread are those that are saved by firearms. Those lives are just as valuable and several times more numerous than the lives taken by the use of guns.

The problem lies in not having the pennies to spare.

Bob's in town this weekend.

That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun. Conversely, you can't take a pack of ciggs or a bottle of beer and save someones life. My point wasn't to compare numbers of deaths caused by each, merely to point out that while firearms are most defintely used to kill, they are also used to save. Whether they save more than kill is a much debated argument and very hard if not impossible to prove one way or the other. If the last two days have been typical, roughly 100 people have been killed by guns in the USA while you all have been debating this one "save". Why not inform us of how many times guns were used to stop an assault or murder during those same two days? Or does that go against your argument?

First kiss-nothing but the crickets. First

That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that? Somebody who is skilled with a hunting rifle can plant themselves in a clocktower and kill dozens of people. No one can do that amount of damage to others with alcohol or tobacco. Tobacco and alcohol use kill more people then guns, true. Those deaths however are against the user of that substance over a long period of time. You cant take a pack of cigarettes and murder someone, you can with a gun. Conversely, you can't take a pack of ciggs or a bottle of beer and save someones life. My point wasn't to compare numbers of deaths caused by each, merely to point out that while firearms are most defintely used to kill, they are also used to save. Whether they save more than kill is a much debated argument and very hard if not impossible to prove one way or the other.

That is an argument that is difficult for either side to claim victory on due to the fact that while virtually all instances of guns being used to take a life or injure are reported and documented, the number of times guns are used to prevent injury or death are not always reported. In fact, the of times these instances are not reported is often argued about as is the influence of the threat of attacking an armed citizen on a criminal. Guns are like any other object in that merely by there existence there is an inherent threat of danger. People have been beat to death with Bibles...how ironic is that? Yet we don't see groups trying to ban Bibles (Ok, maybe a couple fringe groups). Alcohol and tobacco cause hundreds of thousands of deaths each year and do little if anything to save lives. Should they be banned because of that?

I hate mirrors. The back side is plain and the shiny side is really goofy lookin'.

Buddy Holly - something good that came out of Lubbock, TX. The music LIVES. But he died in a plane crash. Ban airplanes!

It would be interesting to see a double bar graph comparing dems and repubs accused/indicted over the last, say, 60 years and see how it varies with party in power. I would guess it would back what you stated.

Funny how this is ALL the Repubs can say about the Clinton admin..... and they Repubs here get tired of my debt graph as if it's insignifficant. So lying about Iran-Contra is the same as lying about about private sex? Lying about disclosing FBI agents is teh same as lying about private sex? Must suck to be relegated to that. Oh, sorry...my bad. I thought this thread was about what Gingrich did during the Clinton BJ scandal.

And if we took all the money from all the billionaires and divided it equally among all the poor living on less than $2 a day, we would have 2,700,000,946 people living on less than $2 a day. Just imagine how much money those undeserving rich people would have if they hadn't paid disproportionately high tax rates.