minx

...

...

i largely agree with you. the debate here is over a subtle point. something i see as an absolute and separate from religious morals. i see this as wrong regardless of religion, history, culture etc. killing someone is wrong. i've drawn the line there. i have no qualms with the woman being punished if she's violated their law. but taking the life of another human who isn't threatening yours is wrong! we all put up with plenty of imposition of other's morals each day. i don't see this in the same category.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

greg you've managed quite the trifecta here you've been inflammatory, not answered the question posed and failed to site your sources. bravo.

i didn't say they were right i did quit climbing b/c it wasn't safe, then i broke my elbow walking across a floor.

maybe it is?

welll? that's a good question...come on, step up greg_w? incubus?

i still would like someone to define arms....

fuck greg, chill, go turn on some Dr. Phil or something

i recently purchased a gun but that doesn't mean i think that every type of weapons should be legal. i guess we need to define "is"

while why not "no automatic weapons" that's what my common sense says

Our glorious, dead-letter Constitution states that the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." I know this will infuriate you statist heathens with an ax to grind, but 'not infringed' means if you're tall enough to put your money on the counter, you can have a gun. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it you anti-gun anal buccaneers. ok now i need you to define "Arms" further, there is no specificity to which arms (guns if you define it that ways)mentioned. Couldn't we just as easily say that you have the right to bear only a 12ga w/o violating the second ammendment. please note when evaluating my comments that i believe that since i hold the first and fourth ammendments in high regard that i also have to support the second. i'm just not sure my support has to include automatic weapons.

damn it i hate to agree with erik again but he's on the money here. i love the willy nilly way that repubs have gone about restricting our personal freedoms. i also loved standing half naked in a the denver airport waiting for a female screener b/c i happen to wear an underwire bra this after going to the extreme of only carrying my ID, ticket and a book to make the screening process easier.

Good logic, Erik. We need some guy to make a movie filled with errors and outright lies and that's A GOOD THING? You're smoking too much pot. hey hey hey! for one brief moment erik might have a decent point. it provokes thought. i read up on some of it after seeing that movie. while i think it's cruddy that he's not accurate, erik is right, it makes people think and hopefully learn more. go back to watching dr. phil and your group hugs

can we move on now? please everyone?

Dean's position on privacy rights, particular those related "homeland security" disturb me. Not sure he is better than Bush and Co.

easy there big fella philosophical that's all. didn't accuse you of driving illegally. difference of opinion. for the record, i wouldn't have bothered honking. i just think it's a passive aggressive move sorry you've got to make a point to be nice. just be

i think that's great....in your own private world. not on a public road. maybe the person behind you should've planned better, maybe you should be more considerate, maybe they aren't in hurry but sitting there is a waste of time and you're imposing yourself on their time unnecessarily. whatever. it was just a philosophical question. you've shown your philosophy...