davjohns

And I have no doubt that there are plenty in the GOP leadership that dislike the President because of his race. That's abhorent to me. So is stuff like this. I don't care about color of skin, gender, religion or any other factor that does not effect your ability as a President. You can't encourage a race of people to vote FOR someone due to race and simultaneously chastize another group for voting AGAINST that person for the same reason. Both sides of that coin are not acting in the best interests of the country. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I hope it is all due to voter registration at the polls. It just seems like one of those things that should be checked out when better than 100% turnout is expected. If they were required to show ID, we would have a better idea if anything was going on. I know this is a big issue in WI, but those kinds of numbers raise eyebrows unless you are determined beforehand that nothing is going on. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

How many times did YOU vote? :) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Not sure if this was tongue in cheek or not, but thanks for the grin. I'm just sick of this whole garbage. When I was a kid growing up in the South, we didn't care what color your skin was. I honestly think this whole mess has gotten worse in the last twenty years because people keep drawing battle lines rather than erase them. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Then you've totall lost me. I did google it. It's on the barrackobama.com website. It has apparently been around since before the last election. The video I saw just announced the latest campaign. The same video is posted on the website. I hope you are trying to tell me this is some elaborate hoax, because I'm tired of people drawing lines between races in this country and claiming it's in the name of equality. I would like to see people look at a person and judge their merits for the office. Just once, I'd like the color of skin to not be an issue. I would like RELEVANT factors to be discussed and IRRELEVANT factors to not be at issue. I guess I'm a fanatic. Just an idiot to believe equality is possible. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

You've lost me with these comments. Are you calling me a christian fanatic? All I want is for people to be treated equally without reference to their skin color. It's a pretty simple thing. If wanting people to not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character makes me a fanatic, I'm a fanatic. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I certainly know it when I see it. This is it. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Ummm...someone posts a link to an article that shows something is clearly rotten in Wisconsin voting...and you blast him with insults? Credibility ratings can actually be negative for some people. Welcome to that category. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Can someone help me with this? I just found out about the African Americans for Obama Campaign. Watched the video where he proudly introduced it and gave the web address. Where's the site for the caucasian campaign? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm having trouble finding crime stats for Germany that are analogous to the US. Nation Master has them, but they are sometimes raw numbers rather than per capita numbers. Still, it looks like Germany surely does have a low rate of firearms crimes and homicides. But you guys are doing drugs like crazy! Which probably makes it a good thing that you don't have many guns. :) And the overall crime rate seems very high. Actually, #1 on one of the charts. It appears that property crime is the problem. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

This word is used quite commonly in this topic. Pardon my foreign ignorance, but what does that catch-all actually define/describe? Thanks John Good question. I will not vouch for a good answer. In the Army, we use the term 'entitlement' to refer to something you earn. That is almost exclusively pay and reimbursements. The other stuff, like medical care, gyms, etc. is referred to as 'benefits'. In the United States, the trend has been to declare most things a 'right' or 'entitlement'. Clearly, the same kind of thought process does not apply. It generally means anything that you might qualify for under the law. On a related note: I get irritated when I hear people talk about 'rights' such as a 'right to healthcare'. They use this mythical 'right' as justification for passing legislation that creates the legal right. I can not find this 'right' delineated in theological works (bible) or the Constitution. Therefore, I cannot define it as a 'right'. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

OK. You at least got a laugh out of me. I plan to visit Germany during my next assignment (Belgium). I'll be interested to see a place where nobody needs the right to defend themselves. :) I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I'm going to side with the pig and John on this one. The question was: If possession of firearms by individuals is against your values in any way, why do you own a firearm? (I think I caught the flavor) I think it is a valid question. It's one of the reasons I can't respect Dianne Fienstein. She is a devout opponent of private ownership of firearms, but has one herself. Please don't argue that you would give up yours if everyone else gave up theirs. 1. Everyone will not. Only law-abiding people will. And some of those will hold onto them to protect against the criminals. 2. There will still be a disparity in safety. The weak will be greater prey to the strong. (God made men. Samuel Colt made them equal.) So, you did dodge the question and demean piggie in the process. I think your answer (re-worded for clarity) was: "I say one thing and do another". I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Instant replay, please? I see where piggie was slightly taunting, but in pursuit of a valid argument. Unless indicating an aversion to calling someone 'sheep-like' is a PA, I missed it. Not trying to be adversarial. I truly don't see the PA. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

People are on heroin? What the hell are you talking about?? You had me questioning myself. Had to look it up to make sure I was grammatically correct. here·on (hîr-n, -ôn) adv. On this; hereupon. In this case, "On this website". Hereupon. I chose it over herein, because I ordinarily think of herein as referencing the document or post that I am authoring. Do you prefer herein? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

I guess it's just me being lascivious...some reports indicate Amelia could be wild. I wonder what Fred and Amelia were doing on that island while waiting for rescue? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Agreed. And I'm not saying our social policies should regulate individual behaior. I am, afterall, a Libertarian. It just seems that our financial support should end at some point of egregious conduct. For all I know, it has in these cases, but since the children are spread over multiple women, I doubt it. I don't think there is a solution in today's society. I just find it frustrating that we have created a society where this conduct is tolerated. When taking care of your neighbor is a local community issue, these things are easily corrected. When the federal government becomes a nanny, there's just no reasonable way. I've always maintained that government is the least efficient means of doing anything. It must therefore be restricted to those things that absolutely cannot be done at a lower level. Taking care of those down on their luck is a local issue. Only the locals know if this person is truly in need and deserving. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

It's not derogatory toward him, just humorous. So, I put it on the order of 'any publicity is good publicity' thinking. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Having agreed with the court in my previous post, I have thought through this matter and now reverse myself. :) Yep. Flip flopping on this issue. Here's why: Although I agree with the court's logic, I do not agree with an underlying premise. I do not think society has accepted homosexuality to a degree that takes away the stigma of the accusation. I point to the recent and ongoing dispute over homosexual marriage in our elected bodies and before our courts. I point to outcries from the homosexual community for affirmative action on their behalf. If we can declare sexual preference discrimination a thing of the past after such a brief transition (it has only been on the boards seriously in the past decade or a bit more), then why do we still have affirmative action for race after several decades? No. I have to think there is still a stigma attached to sexual preferences and it is too early for a court to declare otherwise and change case law on the matter. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

If you had read, you would have seen I was responding to a specific question. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Well, duh! :) I had the same thought when I saw it. I'm sure it was very specific candidates that they expected to win handily. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Mmmmm...I think I understand what they're getting at. See if you agree. Being gay is no longer considered shameful. Therefore, the lie is not slanderous because it is not innately injurious. For instance; I tell someone that Jerry doesn't do criminal law. That person goes elsewhere with their legal case. What I said was a lie and harmed Jerry...maybe even to my advantage if the person used me for their case...but what I said was not defamation or slander. It was merely a lie. Hair splitting, to be sure. But I think I agree with the court. If the woman spread the rumor that the man did not love his girlfriend and it was believed, the same result may have been attained. Would that be slander or defamation? I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

Same here. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

In my research, I came upon multiple cases where people were sentences to LWOP and later released. Even Manson comes up for parole now and he was given the death sentence. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

That's pretty interesting. I notice Teacher's Unions and Lawyers don't even appear as a blip in the Republican category. I was a bit surprised unions gave anything at all to Republicans. All of the industries seemed to prefer Republicans. I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.