Fairweather

Kind of a funny website..... http://search.netscape.com/ns/boomframe.jsp?query=jabba+the+hut+picture&page=2&offset=0&result_url=redir%3Fsrc%3Dwebsearch%26amp%3BrequestId%3D5a4363e09d756872%26amp%3BclickedItemRank%3D20%26amp%3BuserQuery%3Djabba%2Bthe%2Bhut%2Bpicture%26amp%3BclickedItemURN%3Dhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.glennbeck.com%252Fnews%252F05202002.shtml%26amp%3BinvocationType%3Dnext%26amp%3BfromPage%3DNSCPNextPrev&remove_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.glennbeck.com%2Fnews%2F05202002.shtml

I just visited The Sierra Club site and the only link I could find even closely regarding your statement is this: http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/index.ssf?/base/front_page/106440552699250.xml If the Sierra Club wants to "allow" the clearing of trees near homes (on private property?) and considers this a compromise...well then, that's real big of them. The article, and your statement above, don't say if this compromise involved public or private land so I'll just have to take you at your word. BTW, is the Roadless Areas issue decided, or is it still working its way up through the courts? If the Sierra Club indeed came to a compromise on this issue, then upon what do they base their continued harping about the initiative? They don't like the compromise they agreed upon? It wasn't enough? They're angry that they had to compromise at all? I guess I just don't understand.....

1.) The recent Medicare Bill 2.) Steel Tarriffs Neither of these issues were well received by conservatives, and that Bush thought he could ever placate liberals to any degree just demonstrates the folly of 'compromise'. The Sierra Club's version of compromise .....is not to. I can't think of any issue that any major environmental groups have shown any interest in compromising on. There just comes a point when your adversaries say to themselves, "what's the use in talking to these guys?"

I would like to think it was for that assinine picture you posted of the plane crashing into the WTC as a giant seductress licked the towers. (Although I'm sure that wasn't the reason.) That was just as fucked up as Metalhead's picture. Nevertheless, I hope the moderators will find it in their hearts to reinstate you as I don't believe in shutting down debate/ideas. Besides, you provide a nice contrast to Fairweather's voice of reason and common sense.

Okay, Fairweather. I went and read the report. In all eleven cases for intervention to prevent violence, the outcome was the same, "insufficient evidence to determine outcome". This means they couldn't tell one way or the other for a variety of reasons ranging from lack of studies, lack of necessary records, inconsistent results, etc. This is not the same thing as "no cause and effect" as you put it. Did anyone go read that report? Personally, I think that panel was afraid to reach a conclusion for fear of the backlash that would inevitably ensue. Your juvenile attempts at becoming a pollster notwithstanding, doesn't "insufficient evedince to determine outcome" mean essentially the same thing when the original challenge to The Frasier Report came from you? Would you tighten current gun laws when the evidence you need to do so cannot be produced? The onus here remains on you and your challenge to the original post. Where is the study to demonstrate your position in the affirmative? I don't think you've demonstrated anything here other than your own childish nature vis a vis your "poll".

I was playing outside in the snow all day today. I'm too tired to do a lot of research. If I have a slow day at work on Monday, I'll see what I can come up with. A white flag, perhaps?

I suspect that the internet would end up like Canadian talk radio, where you are free to have any flavor (flavour) you want.....as long as it's govt'-vanilla. Eventually, maybe 30 years from now, places like this forum would find themselves "frowned upon" by the watchful UN eye.

...

I'll just post this for anyone interested....(Sorry I couldn't just post the link, but FOXNews website doesn't seem to allow it.) Critics Balk at Efforts to Place Internet in Global Grip Sunday, November 30, 2003 By Kelley Beaucar Vlahos WASHINGTON — A global summit scheduled in December may result in a proposal to put the Internet under United Nations control — an idea that has met solid resistance from the United States. "There are some countries that have been very adamant to get their governments to play a bigger role in Internet management," said Ambassador David Gross, the State Department’s coordinator for international communications and information policy. He is leading the U.S. delegation to the World Summit on the Information Society (search), scheduled to meet Dec. 10-12 in Geneva, Switzerland. Gross said that while the U.S. supports greater access for all nations to the Internet, it will resist any efforts to take the Net out of the private sector. "We will continue to fight hard to ensure that the Internet remains a balanced enterprise among all stakeholders — one of these stakeholders is government, but it is one of many stakeholders," Gross told Foxnews.com, adding that "it must be private sector-led. That is very important to us." The WSIS, sponsored by the International Telecommunications Union (search), the United Nations' key agency on telecommunications, will bring together more than 50 heads of state, along with an expected 5,000 to 6,000 government, business and non-profit representatives from across the globe to discuss in part “the yawning telecommunications gap between emerging economies and the developed world.” The summit’s goal is to achieve consensus on a draft declaration of principles and draft plan of action, which reportedly includes a recommendation to place the governance of the Internet under the ITU or another body created by U.N. member nations, say observers. This is one of several provisions now being debated in contentious preliminary discussions. “Standardization is one of the essential building blocks of the Information Society,” reads the most recent draft of the WSIS Draft Declaration of Principles. “There should be particular emphasis on the development and adoption of international standards.” The effort for global control of the Internet is reportedly led by China, which allows its own citizens online access, but it is tightly controlled by a giant firewall and monitored by government surveillance. China has so far been joined in its efforts by representatives of Syria, Egypt, Vietnam and South Africa, said Ronald Koven, European representative for the World Press Freedom Committee (search), an international media watchdog based in the United States. Other reports indicate that Russia, India, Saudi Arabia and Brazil may be on board, too. Supporters of global governance say that the Internet should be administered and managed by a governmental body, with uniform standards for security and better access for poorer countries. They point to WSIS statistics indicating that only one-third of developing countries' inhabitants are Internet users. They say fewer than 3 percent of Africans can even access telecommunications of any kind. Though the WSIS organization does not advocate specific plans for global management of the Net, it does suggest support for global principles. “The summit aims to jumpstart and speed access and adoption of new technologies through active collaboration and commitment from all,” said a WSIS information brief on its Web site, www.wsis.org. Currently, the International Corporation of Assigned Network and Numbers (search), a non-profit corporation with an international board of directors, manages Internet Protocol space allocation, domain names and root server system functions. It does not have content or security control functions. Critics of the global Internet idea say certain nations like China want to take away ICANN’s duties and place them under governmental auspices, along with increased control over security and content, placing freedom of press and individual freedom of expression at serious risk. “Those governments don’t have any democracy or free speech, it’s dangerous and we’re trying to stop it,” said Julio Munoz, executive director of the Inter American Press Association in Miami. “Of course we are concerned they will try to manipulate the free flow of information.” He said his member organizations, which include Latin American publishers and journalists, are nervous about a potential crackdown on their freedoms resulting from any move toward Internet governance. He said they see it as a backdoor for subverting the freedom of the press as a whole. Even if no consensus is reached on the WSIS plan of action, IAPA is concerned that governments back home will use the proposals to restrict the freedoms they have fought for so bitterly. “We’re going to send a delegation there — to try and defend the press,” said Munoz, who recalled previously unsuccessful attempts in the 1970s and 1980s for U.N.-led media standards. Peter Linton, a spokesman for the European Internet Foundation (search), which works closely with the Capitol Hill-based Internet Education Foundation, said he would be surprised if the U.S. and European nations were not firmly against the Chinese-led movement for global controls. “I know the U.S. government has said it would do everything it could to prevent this,” he said. “I cannot speak for the European Commission, but I would suspect it would look at it with a jaundiced eye as well.” Because so little agreement exists so far on what exactly should be in the declaration of principles, much less the plan of action, there appears to be little confidence that a consensus on Internet governance, which currently includes a reaffirmation of the United Nations' Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (search) — the right of free expression — for the Internet, will be achieved. Debate has also centered on new intellectual property standards and special technology funding for poor nations. President Bush is not scheduled to attend the summit, which will be followed by another meeting in Tunisia in November 2005.

j_b = (bi)Sexual Chocolate I don't think so. Sex Choc would fight more. ...just a hypothesis. I have no research to cite, and I have not applied scientific method.

j_b = (bi)Sexual Chocolate

Went up to Crystal Mountain today for a little slush-fest. There was about 4 inches of heavy, heavy snow on top of what was once the good stuff. Sounds like its supposed to freeze over tonight! Tomorrow morning will be u-g-l-y for skiers of all persuations. Too bad about the bridge! Alpental rocks.

I'd have to agree that any law mandating a firearm in a home is ludicrous. I would rather have a would-be burglar/assailant not know what he was up against, anyhow.

The subject is gun rights. Catbird did no research whatsoever. He simply attacked Scrambler's documentation from The Frasier Institute, as slanted. He did this from memory and a personal predjudice of his own. I posted a CDC report that seems to back up the Frasier report, but apparently you would rather change the argument to the validity of the US Constitution, and Catbird would rather take his ball and play elsewhere.

Looks to me like you just used the classic "attack the source" tactic, and only speculated about its validity without any critical thinking of your own. Don't you think a more reasoned challenge to Scrambler's post would have involved some real investigation? Ahh, but then you're a scientist as you continually remind us all..... no critical thinking? he found out information about the guy who wrote the article and found out what the guy's personal agenda is! He actually had the intelligence to do the research and form an opinion of his own, which is a hell of a lot more than I can say for you. But I guess that he is not interested in challenging the validity of the CDC report that I used to corroberate Scrambler's original post? And apparently, neither are you.

Ummm, that's a document that was written 227 years ago. I supposed you also don't believe in messing with other important documents, such as "the earth is flat", and "blood-letting: a cure-all" Wow. With thinking like that, our republic is indeed doomed. Here is a quote someone like you might agree with.... Ideas are far more powerful than guns. We don't allow our enemies to have guns, why should we allow them to have ideas? - Joseph Stalin, In Politics BTW, Ursa: "That document" that you refer to in your post above, was written 214 years ago. Ratified march 4, 1789.

Here is a copy of the recent CDC report regarding firearms. It pretty much states that no cause/effect exists between tougher gun laws and reducing violent crime....But I'm sure some folks here will be able to drag one or two peices of text out of bed and use them to fit their current beliefs system... http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab

Looks to me like you just used the classic "attack the source" tactic, and only speculated about its validity without any critical thinking of your own. Don't you think a more reasoned challenge to Scrambler's post would have involved some real investigation? Ahh, but then you're a scientist as you continually remind us all.....

It's called S-P-R-A-Y, Catbird. Are you gonna' cry now?

http://www.pawprince.com/2003/hunter/photo%20-%201.html I found this while surfing the net...Cool report of a ski trip down Hunter! I don't know who these guys are, but a neat link/slideshow. Does anyone have more info on the "Ramen Couloir"?

Scrambler, You have stepped outside the bounds of the liberal/Democratic/Green Party playbook. Please review your marching orders once more: Guns are evil. War is always bad. Taxes are always good. Crime is a result of poverty. Individuals can't be trusted to make proper choices for themselves.... One thing I find amusing is that liberals can't explain why crime hasn't gone back up these past three years with the economic downturn we have experienced. Could it be that crime is not[/i] driven entirely by economic factors?! Maybe crime is down because we finally got tough on criminals and locked up over two million of them the past ten years! Good post though, Scrambler.

....and in that spirit, I read on FOX News that Senator Hillary Clinton spent today in Afghanistan having dinner with the troops. A gutsy lady for sure.

Actually, our "founding fathers" weren't to show up on the scene for another 100-150 years. Some were religious, some were agnostic... But NONE were commies.

Good post Metalhead. (You are 'da man.) I can't wait to hear the Bush-hater's responses in the days to come.