ivan

i'm not a big fan of having cameras all over the place either - sure is helpful after folks spray-paint swastikas all over the bathroom though

Any resemblance between moi and Jefferson or Hamilton is purely coincidental. However: it seems to me, in observing other countries as Juntas develop, if you control the weapons, then later controlling the media and speech is an easy thing - and not the reverse. Joni Mitchell: " You don't know what you got till it's gone". i argue for amusement now seems to me that countries w/ juntas are broiling w/ ak's - and the journalists in those countries are scared to death to write anything unflattering about either the government or the rebels as both will use their guns to kill them - there is no freedom of speech b/c there is too much freedom of guns

hey! i know this one i think - schroeder's cat, right? uncertainity theory?

michael jackson for child-protection czar?

dude, you look like you might recently have seen some giant bats attacking your sweet ride...get a cigarette holder and a hawaian shirt and the look's complete

great show - watched that one too

standard rack's fine do gandalf's grip - coolest climb there, imo.

then why did the tyrant-fearing founders put it in article 2 then? Is this going to be on the final, Mr Ivan? come one, you should know that EVERYTHING is going to be on the final!

this means something!

then why did the tyrant-fearing founders put it in article 2 then?

nice.

so bill, how do you rate the rights, that is, which is more important? speech or guns? or are they tied? if speech is more important, it would stand to reason it should be less restricted than gun rights. both rights are already subject to restrictions of course.

a free press will do more to keep your goverment in line than a closet full of glocks i know you were kinda joking, but what element of the press do you think so deleterious? i could deal w/ every publication in the checkout isle of safeway getting the censor's jackboot

You are more likely to get laid if you aren't an asshole, can carry on a decent conversation, and you take care of yourself. hmm...so you're saying no kinda climbers got much chance of getting a slice of the shush? Ab-so-f*cking-loot-lee so are sport climbers just having a lot of sex w/ each other then? 'cuz they act like a well-laid bunch - mega-american.

makes sense - you don't hear much about bowlers drowning in the stank neither

You are more likely to get laid if you aren't an asshole, can carry on a decent conversation, and you take care of yourself. hmm...so you're saying no kinda climbers got much chance of getting a slice of the shush?

ain't no sense in paying good money to go to a circus - plenty of freaky shit going on 'round you fo' free

so were you just not able to convince the others on the jury or did you not vote w/ your gut? i'm pretty much fine w/ jurists ruling on their instincts, even if it's a mono y mono kinda thing.

seems like you're more likely to get laid if your a badass rock climber versus a badass mountaineer - chix don't dig the ratty polypro

if i was sitting on a jury, i'd appreciate some evidence indicating the defendant was guilty beyond 1 person's testimony - call me a free-thinker - the justice system's got the baseball rule: tie goes to the runner. if it's just 1 person's word against another, i'd go w/ the defendant. not saying, btw, that was the case here - the article hinted at the existence of evidence beyond the girls testimony, that's why i was curious what it was, 'cuz the guy looks guilty as fawk.

descents - blah!

the guy admitted to banging the 12 year olds. it was just "consensual". He's a sick fuck who should die. period. i have no problem w/ killing child molestors or at least locking them up for life - and there'd be plenty of space for them if we decriminalized drugs

perhaps he wore the wrong color spandex while styling chain reaction and the locals ate his liver and throw his corpse in the crooked?

you're not george bush I and i'm not dukakis, beyotch, so answer the goddamn question - why spend all the time, money and energy on the judicial branch if we're not going to accept it's work? and to answer your question - sure, i'd kill the asshole who defiled my daughter - but i wouldn't bitch about going to jail for it either. we can not live in fucking afghanistan where all justice is private and blood-fueds last centuries - the state must be the impartial and fair arbiter and it must strictly enforce it's monopoly on force and murder or we'll all be extras on a large scale reproduction of "deadwood"

i try to be a realist - so realistically there's no way to take away a right that's so ingrained into our national ethos - at least not without seriously thinning the herd of the republican party and radicalizing the hell out of the democrats in the process - i'm certainly not signing up for the gun collection job in such an eventuality i still think the 500 foot statue of charlton heston made out of melted-down glocks would be cool but you are fooling yourself if you think the usa is a better place for having all these guns in it - you are no safer, you just feel that way - i suppose illusions are more powerful than realities, and trying to wake up crazy people who are asleep is stupid-dangerous (good scene in "band of brothers" about that sorta thing) red dawn was a sweet movie - i recall distinctly the way they became such a badass guerilla group was by using the primitive weapons they had (bows n' arrows) to kill those cheez-photograph-taking-godfersaken-commies and then use their more sophisticated weapons to uncage the soul, wolverine-style, on larger supply columns - i.e., you don't have to legalize rpgs and ak-47s or even semi-automatics in order to eventually defeat a more well armed opponent