davjohns

I saw that she was also nicely accurate while keeping that rate of fire. Yes, it was a trick shooting technique, but it is highly unusual for someone to be able to shoot like that and have no other ability with a bow. Of course that bow is set up for what she is doing. She's playing around. I have rifles for precision riflery, sniping, hunting and combat shooting. Just because you see me shooting one style doesn't mean I can't shoot another way. It's possible this girl is a one trick pony, but it isn't particularly likely. Nor would I assume 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.

I thought she was doing really 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.

Not disputing your point, Jerry...but sometimes it seems like the government doesn't want you to have a job. We pay people to not work. We provide housing, utilities, healthcare, cell phones, food cards that can be used at the liquor store, and bring the polling place to them so they don't have to work too hard to vote. At tax time, we give them money for not paying taxes. Sounds like income tax is a penalty for working. 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.

Madison: Quote: If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions. Quote: The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined . . . to be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. Quote: I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents. Jefferson: Quote: The Constitution allows only the means which are ‘necessary,’ not those which are merely ‘convenient,’ for effecting the enumerated powers. If such a latitude of construction be allowed to this phrase as to give any non-enumerated power, it will go to every one, for there is not one which ingenuity may not torture into a convenience in some instance or other, to some one of so long a list of enumerated powers. It would swallow up all the delegated powers, and reduce the whole to one power, as before observed. Quote: Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated. I guess the current government's extended reach is one of those things we signed up for when we voted for 'change'. We've changed from anything the Founding Fathers envisioned. I guess people are ok with that. I preferred the less intrusive government model. 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.

Now what? Does the House Sergeant at Arms go arrest him? I'm not sure how they can enforce it since the Executive is clearly not going to cooperate. I've always wondered why the House doesn't just do the obvious and cut the purse strings when sections of the government get squirrelly. This is shaping up to be a weird election year. 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 appreciate your attempts to keep me in line, but...do you even read my posts before you disagree with them? This is not the first time I have wondered. 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.

Yup. Saw some more on it. I don't like ANY mandatory sentencing, so I can support the SCOTUS decision fully. Heck, I hated the old Federal Sentencing Guidelines when they were mandatory. I actually had a bit role in getting those made advisory. 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.

Wow! The scenario you describe is out of line. Sorry you had to go through all of that. If you had been a deadbeat, it would have been different. That's the problem. Some are getting away with no responsibility. The responsible people are getting screwed...seems like. 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.

Exactly. Another part of the issue is the disparate burden on a single mother. If there was a way to make deadbeat dads pay up, it would help alleviate the anxiety of a mother to be. 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. Very difficult area in which I'm perfectly happy saying I have no good answers for every situation. And I agree that many men skip out on responsibility for their actions. Nature gave them that option without extending the same option to the mother. Then, there are some men who are responsible and pay for someone else's decisions after they make a bad 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.

My point was more to the arbitrary nature of the age stipulation. In Alabama, the age of majority is 19. I understand it is the same in Vermont. So, the punishment is cruel here at the same time it is acceptable next door in Georgia. 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.

Ya, it's called a red herring...I don't have my fishing license yet so I just let it go. I don't think so. But I agree that it is a minor issue and barely worth mentioning. 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.

Of course, that option eliminates the room for error. 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 like the reasoning behind using brain activity as a measure. I see an issue with the analogy. Left alone, the fetus will develop brain activity. Left alone, the incapacitated person is unlikely to. Still, it is the best thought out position I have heard on the subject. Given the other problems surrounding the issue, I think this is an excellent position to take. Thanks, Wendy! 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.

My concern is taking the decision out of the hands of the jury that had the facts. If sentencing is now based on the demographics of the convicted, where do we go? If the person has cancer and only a year to live (Lockerbie Assassin), do we let them go? Keeping them in prison for that final year could be cruel and unusual. Should I use 17 year olds as assassins? If there is no death penalty and no LWOP... I understand the argument. We want to believe that minors are still salvageable, where adults may be hardened. But the hardening process does not recognize age. Ad some of these minors may have anti-social personality issues that do not recognize age. I hope this only applies in cases where the sentence is mandatory. I don't support mandatory sentencing at all. 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.

Okie doke. Normiss says you can't abort the fetus until it commits a felony. 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 my question, exactly. If it is a child, we are not discussing a woman's right to control her body. We are discussing a child's right to live. If it is not a child, everyone definitely needs to back off. The problem is, I can only tell the difference before fertilization. I understand that's my problem, but I really don't think anyone else can tell, either. Is it a child when it has a heartbeat? How about limbs? Brain activity? Fingers? Movement? Can live outside the uterus without support? Cries? Walks? Pays taxes? 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 have to disagree. If you would look at the post I responded to, they are decrying that men are trying to control women and that is the totality of the problem. I am pointing out that people are concerned about an unborn child. It is not about controlling women. Pretending the only issue is controlling a woman's body is posing an emotional argument that avoids the legitimate issue. Is there a child inside the woman or not? If not, she can do as she likes. I have no desire to control her body in any manner so long as she is not harming another. If there IS a child in there, however, society has a legitimate interest in protecting that child and there is a question of how to balance the child's rights with the mother's. These arguments that it's the woman's body and nobody else can speak to the matter are all distractions from a genuine concern. I think you are agreeing with me, but missed the post I was responding to. Not sure. 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.

Now, we're treading on thin ice again. Whether the discussion is being had between men or women is only relevant if there is only a man and woman in the dispute. AGAIN, this is only relevant if you buy into the emotional argument that abortion is about men trying to control a woman's body. It assumes there is no child involved anywhere in the equation. If, however, you suspect there might be a child involved, there is an issue for society to mull over and the gender of the participants in the discussion should not 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.

Goodness, yes. I know. He was avoiding a trap laid for him by others. They thought he was going to oppose Rome and allow them a reason to claim he was an insurgent. His response was to pay taxes as they are due and pay God what he is due. It was a clever way to avoid the trap. The coin had Ceasar's face, so they must have been his. My use of it was more along the lines of 'give the grade to the student who earned the grade'. 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.

High five? Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's? If a man will not work, let him not eat? Was Yeshua a Republican? I must have missed that part. 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 doesn't come up much. Just another of my crazy hobbies. I do find it interesting when I explain to people the calm I feel when I hit the sky, I often mention that I like it because I am in complete control of my destiny right then. Every move I make effects what happens to me. They always lock in on the word 'control' and tell me I'm a control freak. No matter how much I direct their attention to the calm and centered feeling I get, they jump to something negative. I've learned to ignore it...and not talk about my hobbies. 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 hate to being conspiracy minded, but I think what happened here is pretty clear. Consider a political application of Occam's Razor: The AG said the POTUS didn't know anything about it to protect the POTUS in an election year. Things progressed too far, too fast and the AG got a subpoena he couldn't get out of. POTUS can't hang him out to dry in an election year because the AG has the goods on him. So, POTUS throws a cloak of protection over the AG. I don't mean this in a partisan way. I think any AG would have likely told the lie in an election year. I think any POTUS running for re-election would have allowed it and protected the AG in return when needed. I expect the hope was to delay the whole thing until after the election. I also expect the opposing party knew this and pressed it for that very reason. It's certainly cynical, but I expect many on this forum will recognize the likelihood of it. And the cynical answer is likely the right answer in American politics. Therefore, Occam wins again. 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.

Please keep in mind that I don't care for either party...but I'll offer this: A man visits his daughter at college. He is proud to learn she is carrying a 4.0 GPA. He asks her how her friend and roommate is doing. The girl laments, "She's been staying out late, skipping classes and doesn't study much. She's only earned a 1.9 this semester and is in danger of being expelled." The father advises his daughter, "Maybe you should go to the Dean and offer to transfer part of your GPA to your friend so she will not be in danger of being expelled." The girl gets indignant and exclaims, "Dad! I worked hard for my GPA! I got to bed early! I attended all classes and took lots of notes! I ignored parties and going out with friends so I could study! Why would I give something I worked hard for to someone who didn't work hard?" The father smiled and put his arms around his daughter as he said, "Welcome to the Republican party, sweetie!" 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 keep insisting that this issue is about controlling women and religion. It isn't. It's about whether there is a child about to get killed or a mass of cells about to be removed. The connection to women is created by nature. That many who want to protect the child / potential child are religious does not make it a religious issue. Attacking people based on their religion is not viable debate. Attacking people claiming they want to control women is not viable debate. You are trying to change the subject to something emotional and only tangentially related. 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.