That illustrates the huge problem with everyone having guns: most likely one of the parties involved is going to die, and thus there is only the surviving party's story to go on. Which may or may not be true.
Tell that to Susanna Hupp after the Luby's shooting. She watched a gunman shoot both of her parents, while her gun was lawfully elsewhere, it was illegal at the time to conceal carry in Texas.
I fail to see what conceal carry has anything to do with anything. She didn't have to conceal it, and quite frankly, if most of the statistics about guns scaring off attackers are to be believed, they would be more effective if you had to carry them out in the open, in view of everyone.
But I am a member because a) the ACLU doesn't believe in the full bill of rights
Or maybe the ACLU has limited resources, and would rather leave the gun related stuff to the organization dedicated to gun rights, rather than try to spread their already thin resources thinner.
Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie
No, they don't. The only people who say this are those who only say it so they can bitch and moan about how he's not living up to that standard that they are making up themselves. Much of what he's done, especially the drone stuff in Pakistan, is all stuff he said he was going to do when he was campaigning.
While amusing, I would imagine that the US (and probably most other major world governments) have access to people talented enough to pull stuff like this off even if Microsoft wasn't cooperating.
I wouldn't attribute that solely to this. I would attribute this more to the fact that Republicans hate anyone who doesn't toe their party line with a fiery passion.
I honestly don't get what the fuck this statement is supposed to mean, or why people think it's so god damned "insightful". It's almost like you people expect nothing to ever change, or for relationships to never sour. Back in colonial times, relations between the colonies and England were fairly good. Then they started to sour, and ultimately ended up with the American Revolution. And then relations warmed up again, to the point where we are two of the closest allies.
They've wanted that for a long time, even before this happened. But they know that if something like that does happen, they're all going to end up like Saddam.
Look at the destruction and fallout caused the only time nuclear weapons were used. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used.
There is absolutely NO legitimate reason that North Dakota should have as much representation as New York.
Why not? What makes North Dakota not worthy of equal representation?
Besides, we already have a part of the legislature tied to population. Tying both of them to population gives the populous areas disproportionate representation. Do you really want California making most of the decisions?
Again, do you have any evidence in THIS specific instance? Because you're claiming that the reason Ron Paul is losing is because of rigged voting machines. You'd better have something to back that up.
He's cheating and you know it. The people clearly stated they wanted Romeny as their candidate. Ron Paul is trying to impose his will on them. Extremely fucking hypocritical for someone interested in "liberty".
Democratic Republic. But in whatever the hell you want to call it, those in power are supposed to be elected BY THE PEOPLE. Sad you don't care when someone is trying to ride in against the people's will.
So you'd be perfectly fine if Obama pulled the same thing, or if someone tried the same thing on Ron Paul? Or do you only like this idea because your guy put it forth?
And you can justify it however you want, but you're still subverting the will of the people, which is extremely fucking hypocritical for someone who claims to be for "liberty".
Slashdot Mirror
That illustrates the huge problem with everyone having guns: most likely one of the parties involved is going to die, and thus there is only the surviving party's story to go on. Which may or may not be true.
And his attacker wouldn't have been able to kill him so easily if his attacker wasn't armed.
Tell that to Susanna Hupp after the Luby's shooting. She watched a gunman shoot both of her parents, while her gun was lawfully elsewhere, it was illegal at the time to conceal carry in Texas.
I fail to see what conceal carry has anything to do with anything. She didn't have to conceal it, and quite frankly, if most of the statistics about guns scaring off attackers are to be believed, they would be more effective if you had to carry them out in the open, in view of everyone.
You mean the "Socialist Democrats" who ended the ban on guns in National Parks?
But I am a member because a) the ACLU doesn't believe in the full bill of rights
Or maybe the ACLU has limited resources, and would rather leave the gun related stuff to the organization dedicated to gun rights, rather than try to spread their already thin resources thinner.
I have to say, I am quite interested to see what their statistics on violent crime are a few years in the future, as compared to today.
The fact that Fox News isn't reporting on them kinda disproves your theory.
Everyone has this notion that Obama is some peace loving hippie
No, they don't. The only people who say this are those who only say it so they can bitch and moan about how he's not living up to that standard that they are making up themselves. Much of what he's done, especially the drone stuff in Pakistan, is all stuff he said he was going to do when he was campaigning.
While amusing, I would imagine that the US (and probably most other major world governments) have access to people talented enough to pull stuff like this off even if Microsoft wasn't cooperating.
That's why you need my new app, which will deliver you a new list of bigoted terms every week. You'll never be without a degrading name again!
Given much of Israel's actions during their occupation of Palestine, you can't really say that.
I wouldn't attribute that solely to this. I would attribute this more to the fact that Republicans hate anyone who doesn't toe their party line with a fiery passion.
I honestly don't get what the fuck this statement is supposed to mean, or why people think it's so god damned "insightful". It's almost like you people expect nothing to ever change, or for relationships to never sour. Back in colonial times, relations between the colonies and England were fairly good. Then they started to sour, and ultimately ended up with the American Revolution. And then relations warmed up again, to the point where we are two of the closest allies.
They've wanted that for a long time, even before this happened. But they know that if something like that does happen, they're all going to end up like Saddam.
Look at the destruction and fallout caused the only time nuclear weapons were used. The more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that they will be used.
There is absolutely NO legitimate reason that North Dakota should have as much representation as New York.
Why not? What makes North Dakota not worthy of equal representation?
Besides, we already have a part of the legislature tied to population. Tying both of them to population gives the populous areas disproportionate representation. Do you really want California making most of the decisions?
Yes, but now you're putting another artificial hurdle in the way of people making their opinion known.
No, I mean the will of the people who actually cast ballots.
Again, do you have any evidence in THIS specific instance? Because you're claiming that the reason Ron Paul is losing is because of rigged voting machines. You'd better have something to back that up.
He's cheating and you know it. The people clearly stated they wanted Romeny as their candidate. Ron Paul is trying to impose his will on them. Extremely fucking hypocritical for someone interested in "liberty".
Democratic Republic. But in whatever the hell you want to call it, those in power are supposed to be elected BY THE PEOPLE. Sad you don't care when someone is trying to ride in against the people's will.
Extremely hypocritical stance for someone who claims to be for "liberty"
So you'd be perfectly fine if Obama pulled the same thing, or if someone tried the same thing on Ron Paul? Or do you only like this idea because your guy put it forth?
And you can justify it however you want, but you're still subverting the will of the people, which is extremely fucking hypocritical for someone who claims to be for "liberty".
And yet, you would be screaming bloody murder if that happened, because your guy would be the one screwed by it.
Republicans are for a smaller government than the Democrats
No, they really aren't. Republicans are for just as big of a government as the Democrats, just regarding different things.