Greg_W

Good eye, dude. Except her gear is marked differently and I know schnitzem (there can be only one).

Check out "South of Heaven" - it kills. Checked in on some Metallica on the drive in, "...And Justice For All".

the damned e-bay links. Wasn't this discussed this a.m.?

Some old Slayer (totally rockin', what else is there to say?), STP (mixing it up), Sanctuary (good steady metal, great singer, solid sound), excerpts from Verdi's "La Traviata" (might go see it). How's that chuck?

Great, more uneducated drivel from idiot-boy. In your world it looks like we all should just roll over and take whatever the government doles out. As far as the effectiveness of firepower, consider that approximately 2 million potential crimes are averted by citizens possessing guns for personal protection. I won't bother citing this statistic from John Lott, Jr., noted economist, as you will all decry it as NRA-funded propaganda. We won't convince each other, so I'll stop responding to you now. rbw - what you discuss re: the choice to enter military service is a personal choice and decision that I am not willing to get into in this venue. Greg_W

Citations please? Not that I disagree, because I don't, but I'd be interested in reading these cases. This article contains a fair list of cases where this has been addressed and ruled on.

Okay, so color me stupid. I don't know that the Czechs and Slovaks have any great love for each other; isn't there some sort of ethnic battle going on? How was said peace maintained if not with force, guns, or troops?

Are you talking in the '90's? Are you fucking kidding? Why was our military over there then? Why was Sarejevo a smoking ruin in the years after the Olympics? Am I way off base here? I could be.

Citations please? Not that I disagree, because I don't, but I'd be interested in reading these cases. Seems to me though that someone so ardently in favor of protecting the liberties of american citizens would be willing to actually put his ass on the line, money where his mouth is so to speak, and join the military. Until then its just double-speak for wanting to play with bang-bangs. I'll find the case; it happened back East. The military was not on my path; something I regret at times. What I hear you saying is that because I haven't served, I have no right to ardently believe, or speak about, personal freedom and the defense of same? This doesn't make sense to me, as protection of personal liberties is inherently PERSONAL (in my view). Are you relegating the defense of your rights to the government? Do you think they are the best one's to hold that trust? Greg_W

That skirts the issue of securing my PERSONAL liberty, and the ways I choose to do that. And don't fall back on "that's what the police are for." Becuase they are not. Case law supports the assertion that the local police ARE NOT responsible for your personal safety or security.

No harm intended, bro; just funnin' ya. Hope you make it.

How do you think people enforce their liberty? How do you think the brave souls who fought for the ideal of life, LIBERTY, and the pursuit of happiness in this country won their liberty? WITH GUNS. With force. With the staunch belief and resolve that freedom was worth the sacrifice. How can you restrict liberty in such a way? Your statement implies that all are entitled to liberty, but not the freedom to choose how to defend that liberty. So, which is it? Are you going to tell me I'm free but bind my hands when it comes to how I fight when that freedom is threatened? One final thought, you are right in that they should not be equated with each other, per se. However, you need one to guarantee the other. Greg_W

Well in a way I am a two planker too, since I do ski uphill. So, you're really like a snowsport-hermaphrodite.

Take out the trash on-time and hide out in the garage for the rest of the week, dude.

In Sierra Leone and Liberia guns are everywhere. Everyone has an AK47. Are they a free people? I could be wrong, but aren't they using those guns to fight for their freedom? Or are you insinuating that because they have guns they are not free? I would posit that the strong have guns and they have oppressed the weak; this is the source of this "lack of freedom".

Uh, you asked...and keep asking, actually. I had that alarm system installed the other day. So, don't even think about breaking into my house and stealing all my odd matched socks again. Who does that?

School bus? Old enough to know what to do and young enough to deliver...for hours.

Nope, just the shirt. I did mention that my birthday is coming up, right?

Right on!!!! I want one. My birthday's coming up, too. Size XL. Thanks!!!

I resemble that remark! I'd agree that your existence is insulting to all other women.

He'd hit that, bro. THat'd make a good helmet sticker.

Cool, at least I can say I climb a Grade V 5.11d R without aid somewhere.

SEC rules on insider trading. That's a common misperception. On the contrary: the feds didn't charge her on anything to do with insider trading. All the charges brought against her, and for which the jury found her guilty, had to do with lying and "obstruction of justice"--her behavior and cover-up activities--once the feds started investigating her for possible insider trading charges. If Martha had more fully "cooperated" with the feds from the beginning after the initial allegations of wrong-doing, she likely wouldn't be in the trouble she is in now. If the feds thought they had anything on her regarding insider trading, they obviously would have charged her for those too. Thanks for the clarification. Everyone gets hit with Obstruction of Justice, from what I know.

Wasn't this all started under Clinton?