dt_3pin

Don't tell me you haven't seen one of the paris crotch shots floating round teh interwebz? Her junk looks busted up.

It'd be like throwing a hot dog down a hallway. . .

:lmao:

I love that site. :lmao:

I'm kicking myself for not biking in this morning . . .

Funny. The 9-11 conspiracies were the first thing that crossed my mind when I saw that in the news yesterday. But then I discovered that a picture of George Bush and Satan shaking hands underneath that very bridge appears if you take a $5 bill and fold it in half, then in half again, then look at it in a mirror wearing ruby glasses. Then, I knew the gov't uncontrovertably did it.

No doubt. Apparently, they're not just after the gun owners.

Not as fucking stupid as somebody who would bring that to the table. Screw you. If it makes you feel any better, I used the term "retarded" rather than "stupid." I guess I was edited or something.

Your logic is flawless. Prohibit semi-automatic handgun purchases by people who have been diagnosed as being a threat to themselves and society at large obviously leads directly to zyklon-b chambers and government-sanctioned genocide. Anyone who tries to analogize nazi germany to modern America, or invokes nazi germany as some sort of precautionary instructive for debate on contemporary political issues has no intellectual credibility whatsoever. Left or right, it doesn't matter . . . you're fucking stupid.

My training philosophy can be summarized as follows: aim low and overachieve.

We cannot proceed. You cannot make another search at this time. Please try again in a few minutes. Please use your back button to return to the previous page.

Who Killed the Electric Car is a pretty interesting documentary. Check it out.

But that's not the question. My commute = $0 too (bike). Changing commuting habits is quite hard (not impossible, just often impracticle) for a lot of people, so gas costs relating to commuting are somewhat a given. The question is whether $4 gal. gas will impact your extracirricular driving. I suspect one weekend trip to NCNP takes more gas than most people use in a week of single car commuting.

And expected to go over $4/gal this summer. On one hand, I hope prices that high will curb demand and result in increased use of public transporation and alternate forms of transportation. On the other hand, it's gonna be expensive to go to drive to da hillz. How will $4/gal. gas impact your summer plans? Prices like that will make me think twice about where I drive.

an explanation, please? No doubt. Hasn't BushCo taken the position that the laws of war (e.g. Geneva Convetion) do not apply to the United State's treatment of enemy combatants? But now, those same people are being charged with violating the very rules that they themselves are not subject to. My brain hurts.

I recommend an immediate retaliatory invasion. The pentagon should call it Operation Leaf Blower. Canadians Hate Freedom

Karen Forbush. Seriously.

Didn't Lynn Hill benchpress like twice her body weight or something equally ridiculous? I wish I was half as strong as her . . .

Your point is well taken Arch, but I think there is a distinction. Despite what gun rights advocates argue, the 2d amendment right to bear arms is limited rather than absolute (as are all constitutional rights - don't yell fire in a theater or take peyote for your religion). One could argue that prohibiting some felons from purchasing guns in an extension of their punishement (commit crime = go to jail + can't buy guns). Still, there is a distinction between limiting gun purchases on past convictions and basing new convictions on past convictions. The former involves limiting an already limited constitutional right. The later potentially subjects individuals to all sorts of sanctions (jail, life in jail, execution). In other words, the consequences are quite different, potentially by an order of magnitude. But you note a good quandry - limiting gun purchases is really a preventative meaure based on propensity - but it's an inconsistency I can live with.

Okay, let's flip the question around. Take someone who committed a few robberies as a young adult, but then reforms themself. They are then wrongly accused of a new robbery, which they did not commit. The evidence before the jury is the defendant's prior convictions and some circumstantial evidence (wrong place/wrong time for example). Would it be fair to convict that person based largely on the prejudicial influence of their past actions? It would certainly make convictions (not necessarily correct convictions) easier for the state. The reason character/propoensity evidence is inadmissible is exactly because of fairness considerations - it is usually more prejudicial than it is probative of actual criminal intent and conduct.

Generally speaking, evidence of prior convictions is inadmissible as character or propensity evidence. Such evidence, however, is often admissible for other limited purposes.

Ivan's search obviously passes constitutional muster, as it was narrowly tailored to ferret out secret Bon Jovi collections. As the initial search complied w/ the 4th amendment, I believe his subsequent discovery of the panties and blow pictures was constitutional under the plain view doctrine. But really, Jay-Z tells you everything you ever need to know about search and seizure law: Glove compartment's locked So's the trunk in da back You wanna look around You gonna need a warrant for dat

Bike Sports on 24th in Ballard is a great shop. I bought a road bike there last month, and all the folks I worked with at the shop were super helpful and pleasantly attitude-free.

Fair enough, and I agree that everyone (even Gary) should be able to live w/out fear of gun violence. Gary, however, is presented with some choices that school shooting victims aren't. Principaly, he is aware of the risks associated with living where he does and could likely find alternative housing that meets his criteria without too much difficulty. It's not like he's unemployed, unskilled, and trapped in a violent neighborhood. Hopefully that won't be necessary, and in a perfect world, the police and bar owners would address his legitimate complaints. But there comes a time when you need to take responsibility for your choices. I lived on capital hill for a while, which was convenient for school at SU, but we had chronic problems with violently aggressive transients living in a van in front of our house, syringes and shit in our garden, and car prowls. My wife and I (justifiably) felt unsafe. We made complaints to the police when we could, but ultimately decided to move to a less convenient, but quiter, neighborhood. I assume that if those kids at Va Tech would have been given an analogous choice, they would have taken it. But Cho did not present them w/ choices.

Brah, you should have saved yer 420 post for something a bit more kynd. . .