Fairweather

Here is a compromise that the wives will find is sure to work: 1.) Don't nag. 2.) Have sex.

Yes. And more.

I know this is widely assumed, but is there anything to back it up? I'm not so sure there is a relationship.

What I'm saying is that virtually all liberal remedies to crime have failed. Crime is largely down the past twenty years because we stopped putting up with shit and locked up almost 1% of the population. BTW: Your premise re war and murder rates implies that males have an innate need to kill, and I couldn't disagree more. (Respectfully )

www.drug-war.us Your side had it's chance in the 60's, 70's, and 80's...and you blew it. 1990's moving forward; overall crime has come down, I can once again walk the streets of downtown Tacoma (and do...every day). Again; I'm not talking about pot. Can you provide stats re: small time marijuana users in prison? I've read it is incredibly small.

I can't even count how many ideas you have just erroneously attributed to me or how many words you have just put in my mouth--simply because I question the validity of someone's claim with the one-syllable response: "no". I'm/we're not talking about pot. We're talking about methamphetamine and comparable drugs that utterly destroy lives, families, and the societal fabric. Do you really want to argue for legalization or make the lame argument that criminal acts should be excused because the perpetrator has what you view as an "illness"? Gimme a break. edit: alcohol??? Are you kidding? Have you seen what happens to someone with a DUI? I would say we're on the right track re alcohol, but you're right, it's probably worse than pot re it's negative affect on society. More than probably, actually.

Got no problem with it. Unrelated subject.

I still can't believe there are people who think like that. http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugIssue/MethResources/faces/index.html

No.

Sorry Bug, but your dick isn't likely to get any bigger, nor your wife any happier--although it may be a life long project for you to convince her otherwise.

Not a chance. Late June at the earliest, or, maybe, mid July this year.

LU8DDYz68kM

Wow, good (and shocking) info. Thanks! Is it true that mountain bikes are allowed on the Lower Lena trail?

...and we put a stop to this: http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Nanking-Massacre/images/Nanjing_ditch.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.b-29s-over-korea.com/Nanking-Massacre/index3.html&h=453&w=400&sz=38&hl=en&start=9&um=1&tbnid=TRKsbsB0XRh9EM:&tbnh=127&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dthe%2Brape%2Bof%2Bnanking%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26sa%3DN They had it coming. Go fuck yourself, commie dickhead.

When did the price go up?

I'm not the one claiming it is settled science. Now it sounds like you aren't either? In any event, this new model clearly does weaken the the case for global warming--and is clearly an attempt to provide cover for poor data and/or interpretation thereof. Anecdote on both sides is available. How about some solid numbers to back up your claim? I am all for drastic reduction in the consumption of oil, but there still isn't anything to replace it. The same folks who worship at the altar of global warming don't like nuclear either...or hydro...or... And so far, all that the biofuels crowd has accomplished is higher food prices and more third-world starvation. Well done.

Obama has nowhere to go but d o w n. The mystique will disappear and McCain will win--as long as he doesn't chose a total bonehead for a VP.

Content? G W Bush? His name is a weak leg upon which to state your case. Evolution? Settled science. Anthropogenic global warming? Not settled by a long shot. I'm surprised you can't see that you're running with a herd that doesn't even know where it is going.

Well said. Unfortunately, there are people with agendas...and they aren't as patient as you are.

I don't believe this is the case. I don't think any so-called consensus exists, and data like this only strengthens the case for uncertainty. IMO, this story is about politically tainted scientists hedging their bets such that they can claim their data was correct no matter what the outcome.

http://www.wilderness.net/index.cfm?fuse=NWPS&sec=legisAct&error=404 DEFINITION OF WILDERNESS © A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain. An area of wilderness is further defined to mean in this Act an area of undeveloped Federal land retaining its primeval character and influence, without permanent improvements or human habitation, which is protected and managed so as to preserve its natural conditions and which (1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work substantially unnoticeable; (2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; (3) has at least five thousand acres of land or is of sufficient size as to make practicable its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition; and (4) may also contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, or historical value. Portions of Wild Sky are second growth and do not meet the criteria set forth in the original document.

Straight to the racist gutter...as usual. Dickhead.

Seriously, though... http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7376301.stm

I generally support compulsory vaccinations that protect against easily and passively transmissible serious diseases for the greater good, but do you recall the cash that exchanged hands and Clinton Administration attempts to require Chicken Pox vaccines for public school admission? Chicken Pox!. Or that current goof ball Republican Governor in Texas who signed off on mandatory HPV vaccines for school aged girls...right after he received a "contribution" from the pharmaceutical company that produces it?

Never reveal your hand.