TomAiello

And the correct response to that, which you've implied, is to discuss the actual issue with them and determine (and address) their objections (real or, as in this case, illusory). If you'd just started off by calling them bigots (or, what was the other choice, mindless drones?), you'd probably not have been able to find out why they'd voted the way they did. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

and even it there was no immediate thread; the officer did a damn fine job of heading off any pending threats that might have resulted in the officer being forced to shoot the perp. Yes, but he landed himself, and his department in a public relations nightmare. Leaving aside the brutality issues (and honestly, I think he was pretty out of line, regardless of the post-facto rationalizations delivered by the PR department), his chief ought to hand him his ass just for doing something as totally brain-dead as doing that with news choppers circling. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

i find alternet makes a refreshing change from the paranoid rightwing drivel fox delivers to its consumers

I'd prefer to judge it on how much opportunity it gives those at the bottom to move up. Giving people things isn't necessarily compassionate. It simply teaches them to keep asking for handouts. What's that old saying about teaching fishing skills? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What would you call them then, mindless drones willing to go along with the program laid out by their religious zealot leaders? Because that's kinda the only two options here. There are a lot more than two options. I'd call them "people who I disagree with." If you really care about changing people's minds on an issue important to you, calling them bigots is pretty counterproductive. Engaging them in dialogue, although perhaps less satisfying, is a lot more likely to achieve your goals. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Ya know what Mike . . . it kinda does. Prop 8 was extremely mean spirited. Voting for it was a vote for hate and certainly not a very "Christian" thing to do. Sorry, but the truth hurts sometimes. I don't think I'd say the majority of California voters are bigots. Labeling those who disagree with you is easy. Actually discussing things with them is harder, but always more productive. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I agree. That's just craziness. I think I'd prefer to stick with something a bit lower--just to be safer. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Correct. I have trouble understanding why we need the government to be in the marriage business at all. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Um, have you been watching the policies, or the rhetoric? I'm not seeing any "swing" at all. On real world foreign policy (escalation of hostilities in Afghanistan, withdrawal of troops from Iraq, military tribunals to try terrorism suspects with reduced due process, failure to close the Guantanamo Bay prison), Obama isn't even "Bush light"--he's more like "Bush heavy." The Obushma administration has pushed ahead (and in many cases even harder) with virtually every foreign policy objective of the last administration. Look at domestic policies, and the congruency is just as pronounced--if not more. 16 years of Obushma...hoo-fucking-ray. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What if it doesn't say that? Driver's licenses, which are quite analogous (they are an operating license for a potentially dangerous piece of equipment that is also quite useful), are generally recognized in other states, under the Full Faith and Credit clause. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Sure we can. Microfinance, for example. But in many places, microfinance is either hamstrung or totally banned by the same banking laws that prohibit usury. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Actually, they're both and more. The specific park in question (the one with the sign posted in the attachment) seems to be operated by the City of Boulder, and does not appear to have any status (or intention) as a wildlife refuge. I may be misunderstanding, or Boulder may actually operate municipal wildlife sanctuaries, but I don't see any indication of that on the sign. Regardless, if it came down to an animal, no matter how cute, or how endangered, or how deep in a wildlife refuge, about to maul a human, I'd shoot the animal to stop it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Don't forget the capewells and belly mount reserves. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

we've already been subsidizing this woman's lifetime of poor choices. am i supposed to feel sorry for her? her kids, grandkids, and great grandkids will all be a drain on society. maybe instead of paying for her house and food, we should have bought her uterus a long time ago and stopped this cycle. We should just stop paying for her lifestyle. She's free to make whatever lifestyle choices she wants--it's just not fair to ask me (or, more accurately, my children) to pay for them. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

It's a park, not a wildlife preserve. The park is operated and maintained (and in many cases purchased) with tax dollars, paid by those people who wish to use the park for their recreation. It is understood in the status of the land (as a park) that it is intended for recreational use by average citizens. If you want the land to be an area where wildlife lives undisturbed, then you ought to close it off to human traffic completely. That's not what's happening here, though. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Suppose a same sex couple who were legally married in one state subsequently moved to another state that does not recognize same sex marriages. If that state did not recognize their marriage as valid, it would appear to be a violation of Article IV, Section 1 of the Constitution: "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." I completely agree with you. It follows, also, that when a concealed weapons permit holder from one state travels to another, the Full Faith and Credit clause requires that state to honor the valid permit issued by another. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

A rate cap would _hurt_ the people in dire need who really need the loans. A maximum allowed rate will simply result in people getting denied more often. If the lender can increase the rate to compensate for the risk of default, it can make loans to people with worse credit, who may need the loans "more." If it doesn't have this option, it won't extend them credit at a lower rate--it will simply refuse to extend them credit. From there, what are you going to do? Force the lenders to make loans that they know aren't going to pay off? And then when those loans fail to pay, and the lenders are going bankrupt, will you want to give the lenders trillions of dollars because they are "too big to fail"? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What about the middle class who get nothing but the bill? +1 -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

So what's the irony? You could obviously go cycle somewhere else. That wasn't about the cycling. It's the juxtaposition of the two signs. The first notifies people that there are dangerous wild animals around. The second notifies people that they are not permitted to carry an appropriate tool for defending themselves from those wild animals. The animals are going to be dangerous whether you're on a bicycle or not. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Honestly, I don't think it matters. I'm an atheist, and I don't think anyone ought to clothe their wars in religious doctrine (not that it hasn't happened regularly for thousands of years), but I don't think the cover sheets on executive level briefing papers having goofball quotes on them is very important to the actual execution of the war. This is one of those side issues that doesn't matter much and distracts from the important, underlying issues (the war(s) itself, in this case). Taking those quotes off the cover sheets would matter not one whit to what's happened already, or what will happen in the future. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

A judge usurping the prerogatives of the legislature (and in this case the voters directly) is no different than the cop usurping the prerogatives of the judge. It's actually way worse. The cop only effects one (or a few) people. The judges here will effect millions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

we've already covered many of the flaws with this. The flaws with me thinking that people ought to, and with doing so myself? I'm not arguing that there ought to be any kind of law governing this, or that anyone should be liable for misuse of their property by another. For what it's worth, in my opinion the best argument for not locking up a home defense gun in some kind of easy access safe is that handguns are often not ideal for home defense, and it's virtually impossible to find a "quickvault" style safe for a long gun. If you don't have children around, that's a pretty good argument for not locking your home defense weapon. In my case, I've accepted that my decision to have children means that I am going to take a few extra seconds to access a handgun, and something more like 30 extra seconds to access a long gun, in the event of a home invasion. That's a decision I've made, for me. The decisions you make, for you, are exactly that--your decisions, and none of my (or the governments) business. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Not a political argument, but a technical question. John, do you carry with a round in the chamber? My situation is vastly different from yours, so I've made the decision to carry with nothing in the chamber. I have two small children who are with me most days (and one who likes to put things in and out of my pockets), and I'm sure that my familiarity/comfort with firearms in general is years behind yours. I figure that carrying with the hammer down on an empty chamber requires only one more step should I actually have to use the weapon, and I'm willing to rely on my ability to predict a dangerous situation to earn me the few seconds it will require to rack the slide. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't know that I can answer that for certain. Fundamental abrogation of rights on a wide spread scale, in general. I've actually spent some time asking myself this question, in particular in comparison to real events in US history. Are there any events in US history that would have caused me to take up arms against an oppressive government? While I am uncertain (it's a very tough call, especially when you have children), I think it's likely that I'd have been willing to participate in an armed resistance to the wide scale internment of my fellow citizens that occurred in the early 1940's. I find it shocking, and reprehensible, that there was so little resistance to that massive violation of fundamental rights. Other examples? I'm hard put to find any clear cut cases, but that doesn't mean that they don't exist. I just haven't spent enough time thinking about them. Should I make the decision to engage in armed resistance against an oppressive government, then, yes, of course shooting at it's soldiers would be something I'd do. That's sort of the meaning of "armed resistance." I'm sure that firing on our own soldiers seemed pretty strange at Lexington, too. Because at that point, the British soldiers _were_ our soldiers. The same applies to Fort Sumter, actually. Standing up to defend our Constitutional principles is actually a very constructive form of patriotism, because it represents a defense of our principles (and our underlying social contract) rather than an adherence to slavishly following a leadership that diverges from those principles. There is no harm, and in fact, I think that any responsible gun owner ought to lock them up. Even if you want to have them handy for self-defense, it's very easy to buy (for less than a hundred dollars) a handgun sized digital entry safe that can be opened in less than 5 seconds and easily fits under your bed. That doesn't mean that there should be a law mandating such--I'm strongly against that, just as I'm against mandatory use of seat belts, even though I personally buckle up every time I'm in a motor vehicle. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Then the students should change schools to a public or private liberal college-they're pretty easy to find. Once again-you go to Liberty, you know what to expect. I'll admit that I set you up. Student fees from most public universities are generally used to lobby the government on a wide variety of issues (abortion among them, from a pro-choice stance), by the United States Student Association (which, despite it's name, is basically a run of the mill leftish political action committee concerned with a grab bag of issues) and other groups. I have a USSA "students for choice" pin that was given to me by a legislator back when I was in college--he had received it from a lobbyist who was being paid with student fees. Check out Smith v. UC Regents for an overview of that debate, recognizing that further decisions and other jurisdictions have held differently. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com