davjohns

You keep pointing it out like it is going to effect his behavior one day. There's a reason I refuse to respond to him or even look at threads he starts. It crosses my mind after my last post...could extreme socio-political views be deemed a mental illness? It certainly seems like that is a class who might need to be disarmed. Just random electrons in the brain. 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 ok with your curvilinear space analogy. Any extreme that will brook no dissent or moderation is dangerous. There was a line in the original 'Heavy Metal' movie, "Death! Death to all who oppose us!" There was no underlying creedo, philosophy, sociology, etc. Just kill everyone who isn't us or doesn't join us. Reminds me of some of the people who post 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.

Maybe your wife could accuse you of a crime so you could spend a little time in jail? You could refuse to post bond. Once you've gotten the primo healthcare, she could recant and say it was a case of misidentification? Just spitballing here. I got nothin'. 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 meant with a goal of helping them get clean. But Southern Man presents a better idea of making treatment / rehab / improvement a requirement. 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.

So...we need to institutionalize them? That's the only option I see other than continuing to enable their problem at taxpayer expense. 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.

Fair points and good logic. So, how do we influence them to turn away from the illicit behavior and get off the public dole? We have third and fourth generation welfare recipients in the US. Something is missing in the system. 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.

1. Exept in times of national emergency (such as war), POTUS, Senate, and Congress shall not be paid in any year the budget is not balanced. 2. Under no circumstances shall POTUS, Senate, or Congress receive raises so long as their is a public debt. 3. National emergencies shall be clearly identified by POTUS leading from the front and the first born child of every Senator and Congress member joining the military to enter the front lines. (This will also reduce the US habit of acting as world police and give a real kick to diplomatic efforts to avoid / end military conflicts) Second order effects are that they will come up with alternate sources of income like PACs, so the ethics rules will have to be tightened up. Also, we might get rich people who don't really need the income, but we already get them, don't we? Basically, I think the people we have are plenty smart enough to work it out. They just have NO motivation to do so. I recommend providing clear, bipartisan motivation. 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.

Thanks, Andy. I've never heard the term before. As to your post, I can ALMOST get on board. The problem is one of substitution. Even if the welfare, food stampes, whatever only goes to essentials for life (which they clearly don't always do), then that gain can free up other money to be used for drugs, alcohol, etc. I think the legitimate goal behind drug testing is to create some form of litmus test. Not saying this is the true motivation of all, but it is a possible means test. If you can afford drugs, do you truly need public assitance? That kind of thing. I'm not sure there are many who truly want to take support away from those in genuine need. There are probably some. But I hope most Americans want to help those in need. We just vary on the means to do it and what side we want to err 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.

I wonder if the whole issue can be re-worked. No more welfare. You just work for the government instead. That would make the testing easy enough. You still get the check, it's just not welfare anymore. Maybe you spend 20hrs per week cleaning a public building or something? The rate would have to be something below minimum wage to encourage a return to the private sector. The hours could only be part time to provide time to look for employment. There shouldn't be any benefits. I don't know. Just a thought. 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.

Sorry. You've bought into the media campaign of the medical industry. The standard rule among most medical malpractice attorneys is this: "If you are healthy enough to call an attorney, you probably don't have a viable case." It costs so much to prosecute a case; the law is stacked in favor of the doctor in most states; the defense is so well funded; the returns are so low; that most attorneys have to wait for extremely clear malptractice and a dead or horribly crippled client before they can move. 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 think you misunderstand. I don't care if the actress or someone on the beach or whatever wants to show off their body. It's not an issue or morality. I just don't equate that with being taken seriously as an actress. I'm sure it could be done in a way that was pertinent to the plot and I would have to think otherwise. But I can't recall a shot of breasts in a movie that wasn't gratuitous. Again, if that makes her a greater actress, why aren't the men whipping out their penises to be taken more seriously as actors? 300 was great for what it was. But it was hardly serious theater. It was a comic book made into a movie. I didn't see the new Spartacus. The original didn't need gore to be a great movie. Did the new one? 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.

Nice crossover. 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 still trying to work out the fact that the deaf guy doesn't like her music... 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.

Fair question. Because it is gratuitous. It is done just for the flash of seeing her breasts. I remember when Halle Berry went topless in Swordfish. The stir was about how much she demanded to do it. At that point, it's almost like prostitution, isn't it? I've seen the movie. Her breasts were completely unnecessary to the plot. I'm not complaining...they were nice. I'm just saying they did not add to her talent, but the fact that it cost extra is indicative of what it was really about. Think of it this way...would Hamlet be enhanced from an artistic standpoint if the fights involved more graphic violence with blood spurting everywhere? I don't think so. It would just be for shock value...gratuitous. I would have less respect for the actors who were part of that. Please understand that I am not saying their work doesn't have value. I like action movies. Let's face it...not the height of acting art, is it? I was really fond of Ann Hathaway in skin tight leather on a motorcycle in the latest Dark Knight. But that wasn't about acting talent, was it? I just think that once you show your breasts, you are indicating that you are not shooting for the artistic pinnacle of the trade. 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.

Had to look her up. Still don't know her. Are you saying her career is considered more prestigious because she has shown her breasts or you want to see her breasts despite her age? 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 scanned the thread. What a mess. I've shot with Secret Service. They are about like any other law enforcement. They carry a firearm as part of their job and fire when required. Some are enthusiasts. Some couldn't hit the inside of a room. As a police officer, I was told in the academy to leave the shotgun in the rack most of the time. There was a move to have rifles in the trunks because most didn't consider the shotgun more useful than the sidearm. The one time I pulled the shotgun, I regretted it. For home defense, the shotgun is a viable tool. So is the AR. Pistols are often best...not always. To the OP...there is some debate over the Secret Service mission. I think Quade said their job is to take a bullet. At that point, they've likely failed in their actual job. If it was to take a bullet, they wouldn't need firearms at all, would they? But there is a good point that Secret Service in the field have a different mission than a homeowner. The point loses traction when you note the guards at the White House carry pistols and ARs and often automatic weapons. THAT mission is very similar to the homeowner. So the OP has a point. Biden stepped in 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.

Ooooo...with the current cost of ammo, we could use gift cards. What a thoughtful government. Will the BATF be heading up this effort? 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 Amazon posted once per minute, every minute, for the number of posts she has, it would take her 22.669 days working 24hr days. If she were just a dedicated full-time employee who posted every minute of an eight hour workday for 40 hours per week, she would have three months of labor ahead of her to match her current numbers. 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.

Hmmm...I TRY to not be hypocritical. If you point out evidence that I have been, I'm certainly open to it. I'm as fallible as anyone and more than many. I just don't see that breasts add to the credibility of an actress's talent. If it was necessary to show flesh to prove one's committment or talent, why haven't we seen penises on the big screen? Why are we limited to breasts? Shouldn't vaginas be showing up larger than life? Surely that proves an actress has real talent, right? Why aren't the older or less attractive actresses flashing their headlights? If it is necessary to the plot when the breasts are young and perky, why not add to the plot of Grumpy Old Men and show a few pair that are 'past their prime'? Obviously, I am just as fond of breasts as the next guy...quite possibly more. And I enjoy the occasional sexual joke and such. I just don't think a serious actress adds to her credit with this move. 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.

Nobody surfs the net looking at pictures of prostates, mate. EVERYONE has a vested interest in healthy breasts. 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.

Why would a government want a list of gun ownership? Christmas cards? 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.

Looks like a Chrysler van screwed a Lexus crossover. I bought my ex wife one of the square body Cherokees. It was a pretty good vehicle. I'm on my third Wrangler. This one is four doors and (sigh) has automatic transmission and air conditioning. My next one is going back to two doors, stick and no air. Not interested in Liberty, Compass, or whatever that monstrosity is. I hate that Chrysler acquired Jeep. They've been messing it up ever since. If I had the money, I'd buy Jeep and make it a truly American product like Harley did. And you would be able to get them in any color you wanted...so long as you wanted Red, White or Blue! lol 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 was hysterical. I was surprised Seth could sing that well. Personally, I lose respect for an actress when she shows her breasts. It's not necessary for any plot. Hard to take you seriously as an actress after that. 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 was indifferent toward her until Kanye West pulled his stunt and ruined her moment. I felt such sympathy for her that I've leaned in her favor since...and can't stand him. I was indifferent to him before as well. 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.

So, I was carrying a hot cappucino into the bathroom this morning. I was having trouble waking up. I caught myself singing "I need you" (70's love song)...to my coffee. I'm a little concerned. lol 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.