TomAiello

What's an Animal Style fry? I've had the double-double animal style--just not the fries, and I'm having trouble imagining what that means. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

As long as we're creating extreme thought problems, let's make him a terrorist that you know for certain is responsible for decapitating your brother, and put the ticking atomic bomb at your childrens' school. Again, I'm not saying I support the techniques under discussion here. But, I think there is a point at which a reasonable person is going to decide that extreme measures are justified. I don't want the government doing those things for several reasons, chief among them that I don't trust the government to exercise such drastic power wisely, well, or even accurately. That doesn't mean that I can't imagine a hypothetical scenario where I'd say a reasonable person could legitimately decide to use those techniques, or others even more severe. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I don't think that the enhanced interrogation techniques are/were a good idea. But throwing out silliness like that isn't really very useful. The situations are not comparable at all. It's unlikely that those common criminals would possess knowledge that would save thousands (or more) lives. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Serious question: do you think South Africa would be better off today if they had prosecuted FW DeKlerk? Do you think that they are better off for having tried to prosecute PW Botha? I think that engaging in prosecution against political leaders for decisions they made in office is likely to be extremely polarizing, and further widen rifts in this nation. It also threatens to become a deeply politicized "trial" where facts take a back seat political beliefs and actual guilt or innocence takes a back seat to the court of public opinion. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Don't get me wrong. The "Cheney branch" (more accurately, the New American Century branch) of the Republican party is exactly what I think is wrong with it. But I still don't think that prosecuting people who lose elections is very good for the nation. It engenders too much resentment and bitterness. Combine it with wide swings in policy and you've got a recipe for disaster. The rift in this country's politics seems, to me, to have been widening steadily for some time. I was hoping that the election of president Obama would change that, as he's typically been a consensus builder. Unfortunately, I don't see that happening, and it appears that his administration is further alienating citizens in "red" parts of the country. What's needed now is not further partisanship and swings further away from the center (in either direction--and I say that despite my own views being way out on one end of the spectrum). We need some national reconciliation, and that's not really possible at the same time as pushing an agenda that's not significantly centrist. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Could it be that instead of a single thinking organism, maybe there are actual PEOPLE with independent thoughts that might not entirely agree exactly with every one else within that collective group? Nice try. However, the evidence of this forum over the past 3 months is that the right will take any opportunity to bash Obama, even if it means contradicting themselves over the space of a few hours. Wow. Just wow. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

But it makes for very profitable radio and television. It also gets you elected. But it's still bad for the nation as a whole. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yeah! It's the ultimate in partisan bitterness. Now, if you lose an election, not only are you out of power, but you're subject to prosecution! The bitterness and bickering continue to escalate in the American political system. I can't wait to see what the next Republican administration comes up with. Maybe in a few years we can rotate politicians in and out of jails when they get elected. Does anyone besides me wonder if this is the new Administrations way of telling Dick Cheney that his dissent from their policies is not acceptable? "Don't agree with what I'm doing? Well, we'll see if a stint in prison will make you more amenable..." -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

And yet incredibly awesome in a sort of train wreck way. I seriously didn't get past the opening. What is the group, and what does it do? "ICCM" sounds like some kind of strategic weapon. "InterContinental Cruise Missile"? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Could it be that instead of a single thinking organism, maybe there are actual PEOPLE with independent thoughts that might not entirely agree exactly with every one else within that collective group? Come now...it's much easier to hate people if you can create a stereotype of them in your mind and then simply detest the caricature. Viewing them as individuals defeats the purpose. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I see him as the man who can expected to be the 1 in any 8-1 decisions. He's the Rainman of Justices. And the rock of the Establishment. Even Scalia can't agree with him all the time, though often they make up the 7-2 Duo. I've read a lot of decisions from this court (and previous groups). About 1 case in 5, I find myself going "that's what I would have said!" about 90% of those cases, I'm reading something written by Clarence Thomas. While I admit I've disagreed with him, there is no other justice I've agreed with so vehemently on so many occasions. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Right. Which is why, as you pointed out, we have a Republic. If 99% of the people in the USA want to lock up the other 1% in interment camps, even though that would be a democratic result, I'd be against it. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

The problem with that logic is that it assumes the US is one big homogeneous mass--which, earlier today, you wisely pointed out was not the case. The US is geographically diverse, and one of the designed features of our government system is supposed to be that it is difficult for one state (or group of states, or region, or group of regions) to impose it's will upon another state (or group of states, or region, or group of regions). If you begin thinking "well, we've got 60% of the total people on our side, so let's vote and have our way" you're well on your way to perfect democracy, fort sumter and other places along the superhighway to national self-destruction. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm in favor of skydiving "controls". I don't want to take away all of your parachutes--just the square ones. Not quite. That would be like saying you want to take away shotguns and hunting rifles, but we can keep muzzle loaders. I disagree. It's more like saying you want to take away semi-auto (self-loading) firearms, and leave only bolt action weapons in private hands. I honestly have a hard time seeing where an "assault weapon" can be realistically differentiated from just a semi-automatic (self-loading) firearm. edit to add: while we're at it, I think there are certain rounds that I'd like to ban, as well--say the one's made out of ZP fabric. That would be equivalent to banning single shot rifles if I didn't like the caliber they are made in (like 50 BMG). -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Ah, the joys of democracy. What was that other thread, about the possibility of liberty without democracy? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm not too worried about that, because my grandfather died in 1989. It would have been impossible for anything in that collection to have been purchased after his death. Isn't there a limit to the total number of assault rifles you can own, too? I wonder how that plays in if there are more than the legal limit. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I'm in favor of skydiving "controls". I don't want to take away all of your parachutes--just the square ones. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Do you happen to know what the deal is with assault rifles (or standard capacity mags) that are still in the state, and were legally purchased by California residents prior to the current law? I'm pretty sure that someone in my family in California (and probably someone who knows zero about guns) is still in possession of some firearms my grandfather owned before his death, which probably qualify. Are they breaching current California law just by ignorance? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I can say with great authority that it is completely legal to buy a long gun in Virginia while one is a resident of Idaho. I had thought this was the case for the vast majority of states. I know the ATF has ruled that FFL's may transfer (in person) a long gun to out of state residents, but I'm not sure which states have superseded this with their own requirements. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Well, only the states in the 9th Circuit. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Imagine if an American had posted a link to a Norwegian political rant, and then followed it up with that question. Wouldn't that be a huge case of American arrogance? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Yes, but what about an American who travels to Perris? Now there's an exotic, mind-expanding locale. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

What's the law about bringing personal firearms into California these days? Isn't it legal to buy a long gun in any state with an ID from another state? So couldn't you just drive up to Reno, buy a rifle there with no waiting period (I'm just assuming NV has no waiting period, I don't know that for sure), and bring it back home? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

Now I wonder... If you were to attend an event at the Alameda county fairgrounds with an unloaded pistol holstered openly on your hip, and then be arrested, could you then argue that you were engaged in (Constitutionally protected) political speech (specifically, protesting the ban)? -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com

I was going to answer the poll, but decided I needed to check in with the government first to see what I'm supposed to say. -- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com