RuntheDamnBall

Wow, man! Awesome! Couldn't be happier for you. Continued warm thoughts coming your way!

Good questions. A lot of people in the establishment are / were afraid to take these guys on. But they are all equally out of their minds, and that includes the pastor in Chicago.

Fred, you're acting like the information wasn't out there and available before 9/11. It seems from everything I've read that we could have figured this information out prior without the means that we're now calling essential to intelligence. Was it shared properly? Probably not. Fixing that is probably the best idea behind the PATRIOT / DHS changes. But it seems to me that for a self-proclaimed defender of freedom, you're far too willing to cede yours to the government. I'm more than willing to listen to experienced hands talk about what is and what isn't necessary, though...

I don't buy it. If Trent was Peyton Manning in year 2 I would be comfortable with such a situation. But frankly I don't think he's proven anything yet (and I really hope to see him do so). You need only look at San Francisco last year to see exactly what you get in such a scenario, and the comparison is more than valid as Trent's injury history isn't much better than A. Smith's. If Trent blows it or gets badly hurt and Losman comes in and suddenly (and admittedly unexpectedly) blows us away in a contract year, there are worse problems to have. A transition/franchise tag solves that woe. Another year of 7-9 or worse, though, because Trent got hurt and Trent Doofus couldn't caretake his way to the playoffs... well, that would suck and would probably mean back to square one for the coaching staff.

My step-grandmother-in-law was a witch, and they burned her. That's why I'm not running for President.

I think if you are vetting people for non-political positions and turning them down because they gave money to a Democratic campaign once, it's definitely political. I think we can all agree for the most part that Bush has not really been emblematically conservative, so I do, to a point, agree that it's not a conservative agenda. It is the bunker/fortress mentality that so many Republicans did buy into, though. Regardless, the rest of what you have to say is spot-on.

Skeletons written about in a national newspaper a year ago. Sheesh. Give it up.

Maybe in the world of automatons you seem to prefer, that's the case, but I've had close advisors that I have serious disagreements with, yet find some wisdom in. You can have it both ways and not be such a reactionary. Personally, I find a few things that are said in churches distasteful. That doesn't mean I associate those beliefs with every person walking in and out of the doors of those churches.

There is a very good article by Scott Horton in Harper's right now about the movement to stuff DoJ with hacks, partly enabled by some obscure PATRIOT clauses. This should concern everyone, not because conservatives are BAD! (I don't believe that). It should concern everyone because the administration has really politicized and massively increased executive power and appointments that aren't supposed to be political, to the point that you're really not going to like it when the other side gets in office and does the same thing. I think the real litmus test on these matters should be -- would you be comfortable with the other/any side having this much power? If you aren't, you shouldn't be comfortable with the Bush administration having it.

If you want to argue that the party of Kennedy is the party of Jim Crow, I'll have that argument with you any day of the week. There's a reason Strom and co. defected to the GOP.

The PJ HRC excuse factory is working overtime. Yeah! Obama, stop calling her racist! Stop pulling out the race card! If you are the first to mention race, I'd say you're the one playing the card. To my recollection, Ferraro was the one who brought this up with her stupid remarks.

Well, that's awesome. Is St. Trent back in college? BTW, Trent has plenty of teachers already. They're called coaches.

Let it never fall off of the first page again... Pinned.

Sounds like they're acknowledging it's real: Link

Again, anti-media brigade, I ask you, who is funding this? Corporate dollars got Don Imus off the air and they keep the news on it. I'm not saying "corporations bad," but I am saying that the deregulated, hysterical thirst for information and getting it out there first, as much of it as possible, cannot happen without the support of corporate entities. That's a whole lot more of America than just a segment of reporters, writers, producers and production crews. If you really hate it and you work for a company that advertises on CNN, MSNBC, etc, get the ball rolling and tell them to pull their ads on such networks. Or if you use a company's products, get a campaign going that says we're going to boycott anybody who advertises on these channels. If you've decided you can't do that, or that you need that product too much, well, you play your part is all I'm saying. Until it's decided by advertisers that this is not, indeed, what we want, we're going to get it.

Mmm hmmm, ruthle$$. And who owns and supports the media?

I guess I'm saying that if they were referred that that should somehow be part of the background check -- not if they received treatment, though even if someone has received treatment and is less of a risk to self/others, I'm not sure that says they're alright to buy assault weapons. I have admittedly less experience with mental illness than many around here but from what I've seen treatment is a constant process that has its own highs and lows and relapses.

Yeah, the stupid kid with the mental illness just needs to be slapped around a little. Edit: not that I have a problem with parental authority or parents raising their children with some discipline, that is, when necessary, forceful and most of all purposeful. I just think that doesn't have much to do with someone who has a mental illness.

Yes and no. We shouldn't let this kid be the martyr that he can become with constant media exposure. However, the best way to honor the memory of these victims is to ensure that people like this kid are identified, helped if possible, and certainly prevented from obtaining the tools with which to commit such horror -- that is, the best way to honor these victims is to try to make sure there are less / no victims in the future. If part of that process means discussing this and moving towards adjusting laws, that's important, AFAIC.

Looking for preventive measures might not be, though. I know this could be really dicey as medical records are generally a very private thing but if there was a way to integrate mental health records into the required background checks for gun purchases it could save lives. I'm not sure if it is or could be done but if so, it would be beyond worthwhile, IMO.

Please read the rest of the thread. That was not my point. I explained my point twice.

I'll be there at the Coliseum, taking it easy for all you sinners.

Not to mention the fact that the cards should really be in the Americans' hands considering the diplomatic consequences of holding hostage and threatening to kill the (admittedly, horse-faced) daughter of a US Cabinet member. No way any President would go through with this. And notice how when it's useful to the plot they try to track a phone call but they didn't even attempt to here? Lordy.

No kidding. This is a pretty weak end to the season, IMO. And if they cut to another close-up of the pervy VP's hands touching his young blond female clone I'm going to be sick.

Because we were talking about the majority of conceal-carry permit holders being law-abiding citizens, and this kid just broke a few laws if I may hazard a guess at how the legal system works. It would distance him from the gun advocate's distinction of a law abiding gun owner, because obviously he was not allowed to carry these legally in public.