Terry Tate

I don't think euthanasia will lead to the death of a baby for it's brown eyes - it'll be advances in genetics combined with abortion that will eventually produce that. However, accepting euthanasia as a remedy for suffering will inevitably lead to expansion. When killing is redefined from moral wrong to a beneficient and legal act, it necessitates defining which specific case meets the criteria. Care to guess how many different answers you would get on that? Witness the Dutch for a lesson. Peter Singer, the Princeton University professor that forwards some of the strongest arguments in favor of euthanasia, has clarified at least one aspect of his opinion - his mother, suffering from Alzheimer's, is not subject to euthanasia. But if she were, it would be morally acceptable. At least to him. But she is not.

What a great school. I regret that I only attended it two years.

No kidding. Right now, I'd settle for a Bills win in Pitt or NE.

As I said in another thread (that is remarkably like this one in every way, but good idea starting a new one ), I have no illusions about steroid use in the NFL. Yes, even on the Bills. Haslett had no business naming other players. That shouldn't be so hard to understand.

Give me your snot, your chemical concoctions, your huddled insects yearning to be free... Years of military chow/mess halls, living off the economy in third world countries, I think I can eat virtually anything. Mad-cow disease infected beef, e-coli? Eh, I'll just work it through. The only part of 'Fear Factor' that impresses me is when it involves eating something still moving - that's a psychological barrier that's tough to overcome. Which I've also done. Of course, at this point, I wouldn't go as far as to say my innards are in the best possible condition.

I'm not pretending no one took them. Like I said, the fact that the league started testing for it is enough proof it was an issue. If he had stated it the way you said it - 'the era when he played football, alot of the players took anabolic steroids' - and left it at that, it wouldn't matter. Naming specific people was wrong; he had no business calling out other players.

That story is disturbing for so many reasons, I wouldn't know where to begin. Yikes.

Naming other players, what a crappy thing to do. The fact that the league starting testing for it back then is proof enough you weren't the only one. Let the other players speak for themselves.

Sure they do. Health Care Decisionmaking and Declarations in New York.

Does that have anything to do with the toilet paper shortage?

This is the strength and conditioning coaches have their initial impact. Go get 'em, Brad Roll (and best of luck to Rusty Jones in Chicago).

Was that on bingo night?

Oops - sorry.

A look at Gulf coast beaches. The only one I've been to is Clearwater, many years ago. Fort DeSoto Park and Caladesi Island State Park are said to be pretty nice.

Maybe he was dictating it.

And imho people taking similar action is the only positive aspect of this story.

Yes, that outrage. Where for years while the hunt when on, and after the criminal was caught, members of his community were/are absolutely stunned and shocked that someone would do these horrific crimes. The vigils for the victims, the crowds that ventured to the facilities where the subject is held. Many of which who are now bemoaning the fact that he will not be subject to the death penalty. Does that meet your standard?

In every story I've read about it so far.

My thought is you are furthering an argument that is predicated on the very foundation that you recognize as artificial. Passing a law that restricts people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm sounds reasonable. Certainly no one could be for arming terrorists, but please consider: 1. Who maintains this watch list, and how? 2. If you were a terrorist, would this law in fact prevent you from obtaining a firearm (or box cutter, as the case may be)? 3. Would this law restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens? This should be explored for any law, and any restriction of rights weighed against the desired effects. I won't go into detail, but you can imagine for this to have any hope of actually preventing a terrorist from obtaining a firearm, it would be easy to extend this train of thought to a national ID system. Papers please. I need to see your papers (that was for the slippery slope folks). 4. Would this law have prevented the law enforcement officer from discharging his firearm in the classroom, or the school shooting you cited that was the catalyst for this discussion? Improving an existing law is always worth exploring. But it's never as simple as 'make terrorists unable to buy firearms'.

Yet that's all you've offered in support of 'fine-tuning things.' Placing further restrictions on a right guaranteed in the constitution should have a higher standard than a casual reference to 'a zillion other insane activities'. I assure you there's a lot of data out there that supports the argument that we would in fact be safer by issuing concealed carry permits to any law-abiding citizen who wanted one. But a 2nd amendment shootout isn't worth the trouble if you're only bringing a pea-shooter.

Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in.

First story - "She fired her gun at least eight times, but missed the intruder." Good job lady - now get back out to the range and practice.

I'm still trying to figure out what 'fighting for the rights of the homeless' means, but I don't think you should have to live on the streets to do it. Whatever it is.