davjohns

I much like Jefferson's stance on the religions of others. However, I will offer this: Anyone who insults the majority of the world population for no more reason than to be insulting shows bad judgment. 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 saw another article about how the Vietnam Memorial was shut down for hours while POTUS was to give a speech on Memorial Day. I wonder if the SS was this protective previously or if they consider him more likely to be a target than past Presidents. 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.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/21/politics/gergen-holder-contempt/index.html At this point, it is hard to believe anyone in congress has grey matter engaged. The vote to hold in contempt was 'along part lines'. Any time I see that phrase, it tells me that people are voting politics and not convictions. If everyone were being honest, some republican would have voted against and some democrat would have voted for (or vice versa depending on the issue). When they vote along party lines, they are not thinking. They are obeying. 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.

Double dog dare! 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.

Do you have the time? I left my rolex in the lamborghini. 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.

The first video didn't look that bad to me. I would have expected the landing gear to absorb that and prevent structural damage. Clearly I would have been wrong. The second video was clearly wrong from the beginning. I knew he was going too fast at too great an angle from the start. Neither video showed any flare at the end. Not sure what that was about. 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 it when parts fall off on landing. I fly a hang glider. I hope parts falling off on landing are the glider's and not MINE. 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 we should have a 'guess this self-help technique' thread? And let's face it, the 'guess the rack' thread is not about the guessing. It's about the rack. 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 assholes telling women what to do with their vaginas....soon they will be telling us what to do with our dicsk! thanks buddies! no really thank you! freaking dicks! I often find you amusing, but you seem a bit obtuse on this issue. Maybe you're just pot-stirring, but it is a very sensitive issue and I'm having trouble finding amusement in it. It's not about penis v vagina. It's not about vagina at all. It's not about control. It's not about health care choices or controlling one's own body. Those are all red herrings. Many peolpe are concerned about the child. I'm one of them. Two adults decided to take a risk for momentary amusement. If there is a child inside that woman due to the choice of the adults, the rights of the adults pale in comparison. If there is not a child inside that woman, she can do what she wants without input from anyone but her doctor and the sperm donor...her decision trumps. The only issue then is making sure the sperm donor covers his portion of the consequences, whether that is cost of abortion or of raising a child. Again: If it is a child, "my body, my choice" is just a slogan. Arguments about control are mute. Arguments about sex organs are mute. The rights of the child trump all. Everyone else got a choice already. If it is not a child, the only legislation necessary is to make sure the male does not walk away from responsibility of the consequences of a mutual decision. Now: When is it a child? If we can't answer that question, we can't go forward with any degree of certainty. Thus, neither side will ever have a clear answer. All of this discussion of vaginas and circumcision has nothing to do with the actual issue. That's why the lady was forbidden to continue in the discussion in the legislature. I suspect there were lots of other peolpe who should have been excused from the discussion as well...just like this forum. For reasons of party affiliation, this woman lost this particular battle. 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 and I are in violent agreement on this. You even went on to a point that I have been thinking about since posting... Every year, our federal government has to pass a budget. In the past 14 years, they can't perform that basic function on time. They can't balance a budget. They can't do lots of things they are required to do to any level of reasonable efficiency. Do we really want these people trying to figure out the complexities of such a debatable matter? It is no better at lower levels of government. These are not the people that I want passing laws on such a difficult matter. I would rather have no or minimal legislative action on the matter. It might not be a good solution and it has its own consequences, but it might be the best of a bad lot. 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 about their ability to own a woman and the generic imperative to copy their genes. Once they get a woman knocked up and she gives birth she's more likely to stay in a bad marriage "for the children." After some time out of the workforce at home with the kids she'll have a much harder time surviving by herself and may stay for the financial security. Obviously that whole process would be easier if she couldn't get birth control to prevent pregnancy or abortion to end it. 1. As I mentioned and some failed to notice; the vagina is not at issue. Babies are made and grow in the uterus. The vagina is primarily a sex organ. That's why it keeps getting brought up. For shock value. Some of the guys here didn't catch it or didn't do too well in anatomy class. 2. It's a difficult issue. Some of us (me) don't understand the concept that life doesn't begin until it gets out of the uterus. Some of us think that thing inside a woman looks like a person or at least something that will be a person soon if nobody interferes. And if being born makes one a person...my kids were both C section. Can I still abort them twenty years later? 3. There is a control issue, but it goes both ways. I don't want to tell a woman that she must carry a child (rarely, but sometimes a child of rape) when she does not want the child. I don't want to tell a woman that she must accept financial responsibility for the next 18 years when she does not want to. The other side of that sword is that the guy might not want to be on the hook for 18 years either. He has no input. Both of them accepted the possibility when they had sex. Only one has any choices after sex. Not a huge deal to me. The guy knew that nature gave the woman the control and he accepted that. He should have been using the big head. Still, the fact that the man has no choice bites ever so slightly into the argument that woman should have complete control over the situation. 4. For me, the ultimate issue is 'when does life begin'? If it begins at conception, the woman's right to control her body (and the man's input as well) ended when she chose to take the chance by having sex. The unborn child's rights trump. If life begins sometime later, it gets really dicey. The rape issue makes things incredibly difficult, but that issue is so rare that it is just a distraction from legitimate debate. I'm not saying ignore it. I'm just saying that if you can't answer the issue of when life begins, you can't hope to drive on to an even more difficult aspect of the debate. 5. The bottom line is that I can't imperically answer the abortion question. For me, I would rather see people have safe sex and avoid the issue. I would like to see people take responsibility for their consequences and raise a child. But then, I would like to see the end of wars, hunger and sadness as well... 6. Until I have a definitive answer on the subject that covers everyone's rights and issues, I don't get too excited about the individual woman doing what she feels she must. If you are very keen on the issue and don't want her to abort, go to the clinic and stand outside with a sign that says you will cover her expenses and adopt the child. It's a start. Not sure anything I just typed is worth reading. Sorry about 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 would like to think she is not a total wackjob because they made her Speaker. But there just isn't much evidence support that position. 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 saw something on this just after it happened. While I don't have an issue with the word vagina at all, she did not use it in a clinical sense or any way that was relevant to the debate. She used it for shock value. I saw where she later complained that she used the proper clinical term. She did. But it was not the part of the female anatomy at question. If she had used the word 'uterus', she could have at least said it was relevant to the conversation. The quote 'no means no' was also irrelevant as it references non-consentual intercourse. I have mixed feelings on the abortion issue. There are perfectly good arguments on both sides. On the issue of what is appropriate debate in a government forum, however, she stepped over the line. I'm not sure it was far enough to warrant the consequences. I think those were politically motivated. More so when you look at some of the ridiculous things done in government forums previously. Still, defending her words is a lost cause. Decrying the overzealous consequences would be more supportable from my perspective. 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 do some people assume that anyone who disagrees with them is RWC? The 'Wing' suggests they are way out of the mainstream. It's become just a standard insult as far as I can tell. 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.

Jetblue again. Interesting. 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.

RWC wackjobs! 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 dunno... it looks pretty cut and dried to me. Elaborate? It means I was up late and trying to be funny. It's meaning is clear to me. 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 pretty sure that doesn't mean what it appears to mean. 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! That's an awesome chair. I really like the design and the colors. The only thing I would prefer is that it be a highback design, but that's just my preference. I thought about a crossbar in front, but that would get in the way of your feet as you rock. Without actually sitting in it, I can't see anything that I don't like. I hope this is a great success. 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 had forgotten SF banned happy meal toys. Wow. We've lost 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 took 'The Royals' to reference those within the beltway that think they are above the law, elitest, etc. Not necessary specifically POTUS, but all predecessors 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.

I don't do imigration law. But it would be ridiculous to think someone could lose their citizenship by being away from the country. You have to do something to renounce your citizenship. Otherwise, we have astronauts who would touch down with no place to call home. I suppose an intentional absence of great duration could be an indicator of intent to renounce, but these circumstances don't support that. Call the imigration service. Sounds like an easy 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.

16...not worried about the relationship with you...you have no control...ex has problems...ex hubby can drive a vette...you aren't comfortable... Were there any points that indicated you SHOULD do this? Seems pretty plain to me that you should not. Andy is right. Call the insurance. Explain it fully. This is probably a no-brainer from more than one perspective. The wife wanted custody. She got it. Two edged sword. 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 this is going swimmingly. My only complaint is that people can still make really poor diet choices in their homes and thwart all of this excellent legislation. Perhaps some kind of monitoring device in the home that is monitored by a government agency? We could call them...oh, I don't know....'Thought Police'? It makes perfect sense to me. Since the government is responsible for caring for our health, they need to keep an eye on our caloric intake, exercise, potential drug abuse, smoking, drinking and such. I think a monitor in each home is the only reasonable solution. 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 familiar with Newsmax or anything in particular. Post a link and I'll be happy to see if outrage follows. I only brought up this incident because someone else mentioned it in another thread in SC. I didn't go looking for it. I think Andrea was clearly trying to make it appear that MR is out of touch with today's technology. She was disparaging him and even laughed at him (along with her guest). That wasn't reporting. It was school-yard insults with no value. Like I said...both sides do it. Every time I see it, I think less of the people engaged in it. Kind of like when everyone who is conservative is called a Right Winger or anyone who is liberal is called a Left Winger. It's an attempt to discredit someone with no legitimate examination of their point. Like a little kid who is out of his depth and comes up with the stunning "I'm rubber, you're glue!" I'd just like to see everyone take one step closer to acting their 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.