John Adams

Easy there AD. The role of government is to protect people from themselves. We all need the government's help to make us good people.

This is Bush's Republican FCC... It's gotten so bad that the networks are afraid to air Saving Private Ryan?!? article BTW, I think this a network slap in the face of the Bush/Powell free speech quenchers. I don't think the networks are really scared of fines for Ryan; they just want the FCC to back off, and this is their vehicle to start this fight.

Your avatar is creepy.

The Shackleton book is an incredible read- just amazing. There can't be many more unbelievable stories of survival. This famous quote sums him up, "For scientific leadership, give me Scott, for swift and efficient travel give me Amundsen. But when you are in a hopeless situation, when you are seeing no way out, get down on your knees and pray for Shackleton. Incomparable in adversity, he was the miracle worker who would save your life against all the odds and long after your number was up. The greatest leader that ever came on God's earth, bar none." There's a movie coming out next year about this. I'm sure it will be Hollywood-ed up, but the story is so unreal that I'm not sure Hollywood can do it justice. I recommend: A Short History of Nearly Everything, by Bill Bryson. It instills a sense of wonder about science that we should have all learned in school. I think every kid in high school should have to read this book to get a better feel for the fun and awe of science, instead of just pounding out dry calculations. Best book I've read in the last several years. Of course, on the biographies, McCulloch is amazing. His Truman and the bio of me are fantastic. Ellis's Founding Brothers is a good short read about our Founding Fathers. Thanks to KRC for the Lincoln recommendation. I've been considering that book for a while, and with your recommendation, I'm going to read it.

I carry an airhorn when I go camping. Once when I was camping, a bear came into our camp and I'm a pretty calm dude, so I just evacuated the generally area and was happy to let the bear have his way with my belongings. But a guy I was with had an airhorn and when the bear started going for his tent, he let that thing rip and the bear headed for the hills. Not many animals with ears will tangle with something as loud as an airhorn.

This is a strange question, because most of the pepper sprays seem pretty much the same, but is there any particular one that you think is better? I know there are a lot of people on here WAY more knowledgeable about these things. Here's what I need: 1) portable unit for my wife who jogs a lot// also to carry in purse and/or car...also for me on my long bike rides home through North Philly at night, 2) a few units to have at locations around the house (near doors and in bedroom). It's one of those things that is way overdue for us to have on our person, but whatever. Here I am ready to buy a few things. Save the "buy a gun" speech if you don't mind. I'm not anti-gun, but this is just about having something else. Again, to me, a know-nothing on this, all the sprays look about the same (they shoot 10 feet, they seal eyes shut, come in different sizes etc.), but is there anything else to look for? Thanks in advance. I'll post my homewrk questions later.

Yeah, George Bush.

How do you extrapolate that from his survival argument? Just because he thinks we have adapted to survive doesn't mean that every single action we take is survival-based. And if you want to discuss the fact that every thought you have is an electrochemical reaction, which it is, then maybe the "soul" or god or self is in those reactions. At the electron/photon level of those reactions, you can't ever predict the state of an electron, so some things are just not predictible. Maybe this scientifically proven unpredictability is the basis for free will. Free will may be built in to us at the electron level. (This is not an original idea- it's been postulated by many scientists.)

When you ignore the 4 paragrapghs that follow that one and you have a point. Got anything else?

Yeah, but those facts get in the way of insulting the media and calling it an orgy. 40 years, a guerrilla terroist to a Noble Peace Prize winner, to a terrorist, in arguably one of the most flammable areas of the world. I guess Rush and Hannity have decided to ignore all that and have it be media bashing week.

Why can't some of you respond to what Mickey is saying? The problem of Creationism isn't that one religion wants its story told. I think a survey of major world religions would be FANTASTIC to teach to older kids. In history, teachers have to dance around religious issues and yet religion is such a huge part of history. How teachers teach history without giveing their students a fundamental understanding of the religions that underlie t he cultures is beyond me. That being said, Creationsim has NO PLACE in science classes, except for about 15 seconds that goes like this, "Science is not perfect. Scientists theorize about what HAS happened, what IS happening, and what WILL happen. Unfortunately, along the way, scientists can't explain every nuance of these theories. You can fill the nuances and the theoretical failings in by saying that only god can explain the nuances and failings. And that's OK, but that god answer is not science." You see, god is fine. God does explain things. But Creationism is not a scientific theory any more than a statement like "God is infinite" explains what the Higg's Boson particle is. If you want to know about the Higg's Boson particle, you don't consult the Bible, because it's not science. That doesn't diminish science or religion. Nor does it mean they are exclusive (microbiologists love saying that God is in the details of their work). IT just means that when studying science, study science, not religion. If you want to study the science/religion overlap, study philosophy.

Klaro. If someone wants to leave, leave. On the PPP board, at least one person has retired more times than Jordan.

Somehow we need to associate "lemmings" with Darin, although it would be unfair to change lemmings to Darins, since Darin is anti-lemming. billsfanone

You think Seattle, St. Louis, and Cinci are easy? This isn't 1991!

Thanks again Bill. What is your definition of "is" Mr. Clinton? You righties are so funny sometimes. Pot, kettle, and all that.

That's fantastic. Are you Bill Clinton?

There was never any link or source for that "low turout" story. Just hearsay and people wanting to believe that the kids weren't voting.

good news The Under 30 crowd had its highest turnout ever. Hopefully they can turn around the poor voting habits of their parents.

I feel your pain. This is at least part of what being a lawyer is about. The anti-VP people will argue, persuasively, that "electible" and "eligible" are identical. The pro-VP people argue that the two requirements are different.

Easy killas. We had this debate in 2000 on this board, and in the end, I think both sides had to agree this was a stalemate. A court would have to work this out, but here's the gist for how Clinton (and now Bush II) could run for VP in 2008. The 12th Amendment only bars from the vice-presidency those persons who are "ineligible to the office" of President. Clinton is not ineligible to the office of president, however. He is only disqualified (by the 22nd Amendment) from being elected. The Constitution actually paints a different and clearly distincy meaning for ineligible and electible. Article II of the Constitution who is "eligible to the Office of President": anyone who is a natural born citizen, at least 35 years old, and has been a U.S. resident for at least 14 years. So Cliniton (and Bush II) are eligible to the office of the President, and the 12th Amendment does not apply. Arnold, so far, is ineligible. The 22nd Amendment prohibits being elected to a third presidential term only. The 22nd Amendment states: "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person [who has served more than half a term] shall be elected to the office of the president more than once." The language is quite clear. It places no limits on how many terms someone may serve as president, only how many times he can be elected. In other words, the 22nd Amendment does not set conditions on what the 12th Amendment calls eligibility to the office of president. Anyone who is born here and has lived here for 14 years becomes eligible to be president on his or her 35th birthday and is then so eligible forever. Thus, if Clinton were to be elected vice president, he could serve as president if the need arose. Good stuff that Constitution, although I'm sure the soon-to-be Right Wing Court would somehow abandon their strict constructionist interpretations and figure out a way to boot Clinton if this happened. If Bush did it, look for the opposite. This is the MO of the strict constructionist: strict when it works.

Food and Jesus.

You following the maps (and threads on here) showing where Kerry picked up ground on Gore? Watch out for that second commandment Scott. It's a doozy.

That's why SS is the third rail. I think I stole that analogy from the West Wing, but I could be wrong. Either way, it's appropriate. Any politician who touches SS dies.

Pillage and plunder?

I agree with that. It ain't perfect, but it's the best there is. If there was a better game on Earth, I'd join (the vote with your feet theory), but there's not. USA all the way.