birdlike

Maybe it's the fact that the guy wanted to be the vice president of our nation, and these are his morals and ethics. This is how he treats his seriously ill wife. I am confounded by people like you who say they don't think these things matter--that the makeup of a man's character should not be a consideration when deciding whether he should lead! If people like you won't hold any elected leader to standards of morals and ethics that we pretty much can all agree on (can't we agree on faithfulness to a spouse without trying to downplay adultery as though it's insignificant?) then it's no wonder we get crop after crop of amoral, corrupt officials. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Evidently took his chivalry cues from that shitbag Bill Clinton. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

How does it differ from being incorrect and letting the guy rot in prison for sixty years until his death? Dead is dead, regardless of how long it took, if you were wrongly convicted. And ironically, I'll bet that the system and the prisoners' advocates take a lot harder of a look at the trial that got a guy sentenced to death than at the trial that got a guy sentenced to life. Imagine being the lifer who is standing at the bars begging someone to take another look at the fraudulent evidence that was used to wrongly convict him, and being told, "Hey, do you mind, we have limited resources and this guy was sentenced to DIE in 20 years so he's our priority, ok?!" So you sit for decades because everyone wants to prove the condemned guy innocent. So how is life imprisonment so much fairer if there's been an error? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Billvon, you are pro-death penalty? Or rather, you are not opposed to it? I am surprised to learn that. Now, as for "whatever's cheaper," it seems to me that the only reason the death penalty is more expensive is all of the appeals granted to the condemned. In some states, there's AUTOMATIC appeal. How much sense does that make? It's like a tacit admission that the justice system hands down verdicts even as it admits there's a good chance it might be wrong. If we said, "Verdict's in; it's guilty; come with us" and put a bullet into the killer's skull, capital punishment would be mighty inexpensive. I guess that in the current situation, capital punishment is more expensive than just warehousing criminals for life because since it takes 20 years to get the criminal finally executed, he's been sucking up that $40k/year cost of being incarcerated! And then you add the court costs of all his appeals. Take away the appeals, and you take away the need to warehouse him for $40k/year, kill him expeditiously and promptly and you saved all that money. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Sounds like he got all the motherfuckin' due process a piece of shit needs in a case like this. Thank you for reproducing the graphic details of this story so that the whiners can see just what the fuck they are defending. Thank you very much for that. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

There is no need for a "line" there. Where's the line between, "I got money from you by stealing it from you at knifepoint and I deserve to go spend it," and "I got money from you by working for my day's wage and I deserve to go spend it"? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm in agreement. You might as well deny them ice cream for dessert after their dinner until you have coerced them to prostrate themselves before the veterans who earned them the ice cream. As a concept, being grateful to veterans is just fine to me. But just like police officers and firemen, I don't think they should be huffy about being thanked or appreciated. If you go into that line of work, do it because you want to be doing that line of work. And if you're doing something that you like, what need is there for me to thank you for it. Now, if people were conscripted into these jobs, then yes, I would expect the people who were not conscripted, and who benefited from the service they gave, to be appreciative. This teacher sounds like she just wanted to get her name in the paper. Personally, I like the "Pay It Forward" concept if that's what the goal is. At least that actually accomplishes a discernible good. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I'm sure there are plenty of people who know how to shoot and still oppose second amendment rights. Same as there are people who support second amendment rights and still have never owned a firearm. Tom, you clipped off the part where I wrote, "And that's before anyone tells them they'd be obligated to bring "at least a few" of their own guns." Now, if that were a requirement, and these people who know how to shoot but oppose the 2nd Amendment had their own guns to bring, well, two things: - Yes, they'd be able to maintain their "cover" - THEY'D BE THE FUCKING HYPOCRITES WE'VE BEEN SAYING THEY ARE. (Like Carl Rowan, the anti-gun D.C. columnist who shot a kid in his backyard with a gun he owned illegally in the district; like Rosie O'Donnell who sends her kids to school with armed bodyguards and thus benefits from guns' protection; like Chuck Schumer, who has secret service protection but rails against RKBA) Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Flippin' sweet! Congratulations!!

Yes, because it'll be great for the Democrats when they can add all those waiter staff, bartenders, cooks and busboys to the rolls that "the Republicans have made jobless." Bad news is good news to Democrats. Bring on the bankruptcies! Free tax-money redistribution for all! Come and get your welfare checks! It's a great day for those who love high unemployment rates and prefer being able to say "I told you so!" to "How's your job treating you?" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Oooooh, he has 3 1/2 years under his belt. Surely he has what he needs to lead 300,000,000 people now! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I didn't mean to forget to mention that I think your assertion is bullshit. You said, "In general it stands that when within a country the rate of gun ownership is high, the rate of gun related deaths is high as well." I call bullshit. The rate of gun-related deaths will be higher in areas of a country that have a high rate of gun ownership than in those with low rates of gun ownership, because you can't kill people with guns that are not present. But whether that rate itself should be called "high" as opposed to "higher than where there are no guns" is the point of debate here. Besides, we really should be talking about "places where gun ownership is legal, versus places where gun ownership is illegal," because anyone knows that just because it's illegal does not mean that criminals who want guns are not in possession of them. This could be why for 32 years, Washington, D.C., with a total ban on handguns, "enjoyed" a staggeringly high gun-death rate, FAR IN EXCESS OF THE VAST MAJORITY OF PLACES IN THE U.S. THAT PERMIT LEGAL GUN OWNERSHIP. Can you really dispute that? Can you really dispute that D.C. and Chicago have gun-death rates far higher than just about every other part of the country, every other city in the country that does allow legal gun ownership? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

So, you're comparing different areas within the U.S. to each other, and claiming that where per-capita gun ownership is high, gun crime is high? Are you factoring for the number of those guns owned legally versus illegally? Doesn't it stand to reason that in order to have gun crime, you have to have guns around? Do you recognize that the thing causing the guns to be used in crimes is not the simple existence of the guns and their being possessed by human beings, but the decisions made by those human beings; so that it is not axiomatic that a place with lots of humans owning guns has to have a resultingly high gun crime rate? You seem to be willing to make a lot of very specious conclusions and insinuations on this subject. In many ways, your logic is quite suspect. Then what is the point of focusing on gun ownership? Is it that you care about wrongful deaths only when they are caused with guns? If all the gun deaths dried up because you made a (successful) gun ban, but knife crime rose to where the murder rate was unchanged, would you be ok with that? Would you call out for a knife ban? Just what would you do? Once again, just what is the point of focusing on only gun-related deaths, in a practical sense? Other than as a purely academic exercise, I cannot see the point, unless the only wrongful deaths that bother you are those that involve guns. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Is that to say that if he's not assassinated, he's got it sewn up? That seems to be your subtext... Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

OK... how many people seriously OWN a hospital. I can see the need for a clinic, or as mentioned above, even home remedies for personal use. Only the government should OWN hospitals cuz they wouldn't do anything bad with them..... would they? Ask someone from Tuskeegee. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

No sense in both of us dying of hypoxia; how about you hold your breath waiting for that proof, and just tap me on the shoulder if and when it gets presented, 'k? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Is that a way of rationalizing that if you're poor, it's to be expected that you'll commit crime? That it's ok? Why can't we expect the poor to be law abiding, and see about working their way out of poverty? See, I don't think that everyone is just entitled to be fished out of poverty! That's a fundamental difference between liberals, and, well, the sane people of the world. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

All cars are blue! No wait, All cars like pie! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Why does it have to be a choice between those two? Why not NEITHER. I am by no means the staunchest conservative. (I'm for damn sure no liberal, though.) But I am growing more and more weary of looking through the newspaper and seeing what to me seems to be the obvious detrimental results of our society tolerating (even seemingly cheering) the breakdown of the traditional family. I know that not every single mom is that way by choice--but a huge number of them are (Either choice or negligence, take your pick) I DON'T WANT THAT REWARDED. Why should some inner-city welfare whore be rewarded from bringing 11 shitpile vermin soon-to-be-criminal kids into the world with MY MONEY? One such fine specimen was shot to death recently in Belle Glade, Florida. He was the fifth of 11 kids; 21 years old; unemployed; had dropped out of school. WHO WANTS TO TELL ME HE BELIEVES THIS GUY WAS A CONTRIBUTOR TO SOCIETY IN ANY WAY OTHER THAN NEGATIVE? When he was shot to death, the newspaper stories did not have any quotes by someone identified as the "father," that's for sure. Is this the single mom who needs my money? Why the fuck shouldn't I be angry that she gets it? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I as a conservitive, Dont want to give my money to any of the lazy liberals I pay more in taxes every year then the average american makes You brag about your income too much to actually earn it, and your Republican friends give away more than their Democratic counterparts. I, as a conservative, don't want to be forced to give my money to anyone, but since neither party gives me that choice, I'll choose the disadvantaged as recipients over the already wealthy every day of the week. Blues, Dave Disadvantaged does not necessarily mean deserving, and that is a very important distinction that it appears to me you might be ignoring. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Sorry, it is well known and well established that Democrats are heavy into taxing the money that others have worked hard to earn, and giving it to the lazy, shiftless, irresponsible members of society. "The poor," who in many cases are poor because they are lazy, or uneducated, or both--and much of that is because they thought they were so smart that they didn't need school. All they needed was big rims on their car, expensive clothing, a pair of 12" woofers, and LCD screens in the headrests. "What I gotta pay tenshun in skoo fo?! Teacher don't know nuffin! Sheee-it!" Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

Also, about how long should I expect to lose the rig; and what's involved in the servicing they'll be doing; and how much will it cost? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

I don't know why I didn't think of that, but that's where I'll head first. Thanks! And thank you to the poster who pointed out that it's CR2330s that I need! I don't know why I have these two dead CR2032s sitting around. Must be from something else? Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

The funniest thing about this thread is how far it has drifted from the original post. Shee-oot! Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire

If the were that smart, they wouldn't fuckin' be ANTI-gunners, dude! C'mon, now! These are people who believe that when facing an armed robber, you are somehow BUYING his agreement to not hurt you after you've given him your wallet and jewelry, and that surely he won't, or perhaps even can't, hurt you after that. Spirits fly on dangerous missions Imaginations on fire