EvilMonkey

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 04:10 PM) That wasn't my intent, and I don't know if it was her gun. I'm not even assuming it was. Rather, I'll assert that the spouse of such a vocal gun owner/lover is probably a like-minded individual and probably was also a gun fetishist with his own gun. In either case, gun accessibility combined with emotional instability culminated in a tragedy. http://www.examiner.com/x-12837-US-Headlin...-murder-suicide Scott Hain worked as a parole officer and was a former prison guard at the State Correctional Institute in Camp Hill, Pennsylvania. Sp he was empowered by the state to be carrying a gun and would have been able to shoot her, regardless of his wife's gun-toting, had he disired to do so. Which, apparently, he did. Should we ban cops and other law enforcement types from bringing their guns home, since having a gun in the house is so bad?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 9, 2009 -> 03:43 PM) First of all, that'd be an impressive insult to the people on the Nobel committee. Secondly, when there's a unanimous vote, there's not exactly a 2nd place finisher. The Nobel commmittee has proven themselves to be a jobe before with some of their award winners, like this, or Arafat. Maybe they need to be insulted back into reality?

You know, he could just refuse the award and ask that they give it to whoever came in second place.

Let's help Obama win the Heisman too! Vote here! Write him in, I did! http://promo.espn.go.com/espn/contests/theheismanvote/2009/

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 04:54 PM) So let's see, if he doesn't tell anyone, we hear from Kap and SS he doesn't practice what he preaches, if he does, it is a publicity stunt. I have to hand it to the GOP, they sure know how to discredit someone. Brilliant strategy. if he does it, puts it in his movie and writes it off as a business expense, what else can it be?

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 05:46 PM) I think I heard he paid off a couple of those people bills. Not too mention at the end of the movie he anonymously paid off the medical bill of the wife of the guy who owned the number 1 anti-Moore website at the time. Yeah, he 'anonymously' paid off the bills, and then put that fact into the movie. No publicitystunt there. The site is called Moorewatch.com. Here is a link to the post omn that site detailing some of the history around that donation. http://www.moorewatch.com/index.php/weblog...ecord_straight/

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 8, 2009 -> 02:27 PM) I think it's not irony so much as it is a statistically striking coincidence that the woman who became a gun rights poster child was killed by a gun. It's not a coincidence, however, that having guns in a household leads to a higher probability that something bad involving said guns will occur in that house. Unsecured guns and unsupervised children. Or in this instance, accessible guns and an emotionally distraught spouse. Those are bad things waiting to happen. My heart goes out to the children who have to live through it. You need way more deatils than were available at either of those links. Did husband shoot her with her own gun or his own gun? If it was his own, it would seem that in this case, having one didnt help. Althogh not having one wouldnt have helped either, so it would be a lose/lose situation all around. I don't see how her having the gun increased the probability at all, if the hubby had his own and was intent on killing her anyway. Did another story come out saying she was shot with her own gun? Your post seems to imply that.

QUOTE (Brian @ Oct 7, 2009 -> 04:46 PM) I didn't know companies did that. The families in the movie knew nothing about it until they got a letter in the mail. One case was a company getting 5M after an employee died. Some of that should go to the family. They are typically called 'Key man' policies. The proceeds are used to recruit and/or train the person's replacement, because in the higher executive positions it is sometimes costly. Businesses of all sizes do it. I had one on me several years ago, as I was the backbone of a small operation, and if I suddenl;y died, it would have cost tyhe owner a bundle to have someone do my job until he could find a replacement. nothing wrong with it and no reason whatsoever that any of it go to the family. It was his responsibility to take care of his family, not the companies.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 02:41 PM) This is what I was referring to. This, plus the fact that it is a religious symbol, makes it a very difficult call. It's like a statute of limitations. It's been there for so long, should it be granted access to stay? I don't know. The only problem is that we need more information. KyYlE23 says that it was erected without permission from the landowner, but no where in that story does it say who the landowner is. The story says he erected it without permission from the government, and that the land was transferred to the NPS, but doesn't really say who owned it before. It implies that it was government owned before that, but doesn't say. But again I ask, just because it is a religious symbol, does that mean it isn't historical?

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 01:19 PM) I don't think that was stated as part of the issue you initially brought up, i.e., that the monument (religious or otherwise) was originally erected without the landowner's consent. The lines I read said that he never got permission form the government to erect the monument, but the government didn't get the land until thte 90's. I didn't see that as he didnt have permission to put up the monument fromthe land owner, unless it says just that somewhere else I didn't see.

QUOTE (CanOfCorn @ Oct 6, 2009 -> 12:50 PM) But would ya'll consider those sites mentioned religious, as well? I mean, it is a crucifix. The things you have all mentioned that have been there prior to being a nat'l monument are not necessarily a religious object. Although the Native American relics can be and probably should be considered religious. I really don't have a side in this debate. If it is religious, does that make it any less historically significant?

Imagine the media firestorm had this been Glen Beck.

I saw Roller Ball and Meet the Spartans. My boys had rented the Spartans one, and I had to see Roller Ball because I liked the original a lot. Was disappointed, to say the least, but at least there was lots of action and violence.

And in related news, Ted Kennedy has been sober for over 2 weeks now.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 18, 2009 -> 11:58 AM) Here's the final paragraph, and it contains an interesting note; they also asked "why are you uninsured" to the people without insurance. Since a few here have made a big deal of the personal choice aspect I think it's instructive. Simply citing cost doesn't mean that much. They might mean that they choose to have yearly vacations rather than insurance. Or, might mean they might want to eat instead of insurance. Leave a lot of room for whatever meaning you want. Just because they cite price doesnt mean they can't afford it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 09:56 AM) Those won't be new patients - not sure why people keep saying this. Those patients are already in the system. Now, one can make an argument that some of them will go more often - but if you are insuring 30M (for example) more people, that is not 30M new patients. It is probably some % of that with no change in behavior, and some % with an increase in visits. So yes, you will see an increase, but it won't be anything like the total number of new insured. Also, you seem to be ignoring the reality that Balta has pointed out continuously, that by insuring these people, you actually help the existing providers save some money. That is why so many doctors and providers actually support a public option. NSS, those patients are already in the system, only when somethign serious happens to them. If changed, every sniffle, cough or sore wrist will result in another visit to the doctor.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Sep 17, 2009 -> 09:52 AM) If there's no spare capacity then why do so many doctors support it? Link Yet 45% would consider quitting if congress gets its way. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/A....aspx?id=506199

QUOTE (Tex @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 02:02 PM) What are you basing that on? I see spare capacity all over the place. One easy thing, how many Doctors are advertising? Why advertise if you have no capacity? Also, if there is money to fund expansion, don't you think companies will expand? Another idea, since we are making some major changes, let's build into a new system more P.A.s and R.N. care clinics. There will be a growth curve, and some growing pains, but Americans have always found ways to ramp up and get the job done. That's how we won WW2 and it is how we will win this. Tex, you see capacity, AP says otherwise. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32829974/ns/health-health_care

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 11:38 PM) What reform would you propose should be done? Go back several pages, NSS actually laid out his suggestions which weren't that bad Certainly better than any pile of crap either side has come up with so far. I just don't understand why they can't fix things piecemeal instead of risking the whole game on one play. Fix Medicare first. prove you can do that. Then you have more cashe to get other changes done. And so on.

QUOTE (greasywheels121 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 05:52 PM) Better: I like that one. nice.

QUOTE (DukeNukeEm @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:11 PM) The more I think about this thread the more it frustrates me: 1) Its the end of the world if Obama says white cops are stupid for arresting a man in his home. But when Obama calls one of them uppity negro rapper types a "jackass" the whole of the right cant help but seize the oppurtunity to... 2) ... make it sound like they dont hate Obama and merely assault everything, even so innocuous as a speech to kids telling them reading is cool, for partisan purposes. If something is inconsequential enough they can muster up the energy to agree with Obama! Oh my! The bipartisanship! Too bad that African Nazi Socialist Terrorist is trying to trying to destroy this country, because he really hit the nail on the head when it came to that Kanye West guy. Well, it was meant in a more light-hearted way, but since you brought it up....When Obama called the cops stupid, he had not seen the incident, but merely reacted to what someone had told him had happened. i don't know if whoever informed him what had happened had used the words 'white cop' or not, but Obama didn't either. And in case you forgot, the other cop on the scene there was black. Obama got flack for calling COPS stupid, Not a WHITE cop. And in reference to 'them uppity negro rapper types', once again the only person who mentioned race was you. Kanye has some talent, but he is still a jackass, whether he be black, white or green. Oh, and he hates fish sticks. And lastly, I don't hate Obama. I hate the job he is dong and most of the political positions he has, but I couldn't care one way or another about the man himself.

QUOTE (FlaSoxxJim @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 03:00 PM) Come on. . . You are just angling to be invited to the WH for beers with Kanye and the President when the summit is called to hash out the misunderstanding. I would go there for that.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32859148/ns/po...house?GT1=43001 Obama: Kanye West a 'jackass' for outburst!

Race, as always, is a tricky subject. Where one person sees racism, another may not. What offends one group may not even cause others to shrug their shoulders. But as a while man, after reading this story, I have to say that Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga. can kiss my ass. I am sick of hearing how every criticsm of Obama is racism, veiled or otherwise. WHITE PEOPLE CAN disagree with his positions on principle. We can even disagree with them on a party basis. I can say unequivocally that my disagreements with him have absolutely nothing to do with his race, and take personal offense to the constant suggestion that every time a white guy speaks up, you see racism. Look within yourself and quit projecting onto others. YOU always see race first, sir. The constant shout of racism does a disservice to those that ARE truely effected by it and dilutes whatever credibility you think you have. You criticize the balking by the Blue Dogs bringing race into the forefront. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124865363472782519.html Then, you try to equate Wilson with the KKK? There is more at the link, but this is the money paragraph. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/15...wilson-rebuked/ I realize that you took over for Cynthia McKinney, but that doesn't mean you need to be as bat-s*** crazy as she is. Oh, and for the 2 or 3 of you that will no doubt come on here and type something about 'manufactured outrage', you can also kiss my pasty white a$$. Nothing manufactured about it.

QUOTE (chunk23 @ Sep 15, 2009 -> 12:33 PM) Also, every bill being considered at this point has the public option as budget neutral, so it wouldn't add to taxes. They're supposed to be self-sufficient on premiums and deductibles. You must not have read very many pages back before deciding to post. Note the highlighted part, and then guess just how likely that is to happen.