Comment history

Senate bill would give prosecutors right to carry guns into court

Wow. So now we are a state that allows people to pack heat whenever they want as long as a business doesn't have a "no guns" sticker (like a sticker is going to do any good), we will have guns in court, in Dr.s offices, in school. When did the days of Wyatt Earp really end, have they yet? I've already made the point that its impossible to be both pro-police and pro-handgun, most cops hate hand guns because they cause the most trouble. This is assanine.

January 22, 2009 at 5:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Few topics are safe for Muslims

Just another bozo on this blog you are a dunce. Just yesterday there was a story on this very site about a man who forced an abortion on his teenage sister because she had been raped. Tradition states that cutting out the clitoris of coming of age women is virtuous. Killing non muslims yields you a special spot in heaven in their eyes. If you took Israels guns away they would be slaughtered, if you took the Arabic weapons away the Israelis would live in peace. Airplanes have been about the best way for terrorists to strike fear into us because it hits on all our mortal terrors: heights, being blown limb from limb, being trapped, being dead. And Confrontation you are equally off on this one Christianity has absolutely nothing to do with it, let's not forget Islam celebrates Jesus as a prophet, no Confrontation this is about survival. Even you should be able to understand that, when the people who are attacking the U.S., England, Spain, etc. are of the Islamic faith is it a product of psycho Christians or astute amateur detective work? You so hate Christians that you attribute every ill in the world to them, how many times have you been wrong? A whole lot dude. There is very little to be angry at the New Testament about, it's not Christianity thats the problem it's people." In this case you're blaming the victims. When Muslims are so sick and tired of being kicked off airplanes and being otherwise inconvenienced they will force changes in their religion--a belief that many believe values killing.

January 11, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush takes last look back

*thats why aren't more people my age in the military. Not whay are...

January 11, 2009 at 3:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush takes last look back

Duplenty I agree with you in part. I think it is obviously a good thing we don't haven't been attacked again--go ahead and file that in the "no s--t dumbass" file. I only mention something that obvious because I also think the "terrorists" (I don't like dubbing such a diverse group of evel doers with one general name but I'm not Kofi Anan) think it is a good thing that America hasn't been attacked again since Sept. 2001. Recruiting for these groups is up but you look at the groups leadership structure and it is as fractured as ever. Groups are like organisms in the sense that they are wired to preserve their own life. I know terrorists claim to love death but notice it isn't any of the group leaders, or "shot callers" that are flying themselves into buildings. What do they get in return, aside from a hideous high when they kill white people? They lose power and influence. "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" In a sense it's almost shameful they are not more dedicated because it would be easier to see them as unflinchingly dedicated, and it's our good fortune they aren't. No, they are a bit pathetic, their image is a magnification of their reality. This isn't to say they aren't capable of awful things, they obviously are. I'm saying they learned that their groups and their power structure exists because they have a group, we destroyed that. This is because we hit them with a hay maker when first we got there. Were we attacked again our efforts would be redoubled and even the most liberal peace loving person (and we need more of them) would refrain from recognizing borders between Middle Eastern nations. We are waging a half-assed war on terror. There has been something that has been chewing at me from the beginning of our war on terror: if this is truly a global war on terror and a complete liquidation of terrorists why then haven't more people been forced into service? Yes friends, I mean the draft. This is partly due to technology advancements but I point out "the surge" was effective in quieting violence in Iraq. That's a surge of people mind you. My generation has had no broad and defining struggle aside from W's administration (Im 24). My father's generation had Vietnam and both grandfathers fought in Europe against Hitler but we have been lucky to float along on a breeze, mostly. I'm not degrading the service of those in the military, I'm wondering why if this is such a life and death struggle are more people my age, including me, in the Middle East right now? There are three answers as I see them, first technology can take care of it. In my mind I have largely debunked this thought with that surge bit. Second, maybe this isn't the global struggle for the life of our ideologies we have been led to believe. Third, this war sincerely needs more people and is being fought the wrong way. I worry that I'm not sure whether I lean more toward answer 2 or answer 3. My next comment will be one sentence.

January 11, 2009 at 3:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Bush takes last look back

Tom you remind me of me 4 years ago, heels dug in holding onto the roap tied to the back of a train named neoconservative as it hurdles off a cliff trying in vain to keep convincing yourself you're being wise. I left the republican party because they don't stand for anything. Sure, they say they are for fiscal responsibility but look at what has gone on the past 8 years, neocon's have had a blank check and a loaded congress in order to accomplish whatever they want, government is huge by comparison and spending is at its worst I can remember. Ronald Reagan didn't cut spending or the size of the government he just spent more on defense because 1,000,000 nuclear warheads won't do we needed 3. This taxes thing is a joke, look how prosperous our country was at the end of Clinton's presidency, so we were taxed higher, do you think that we, per capita, get to take home more money today with lower taxes and a recession than we did with prosperity and slightly higher taxes? Be honest with yourself, I'm not asking you to become a democrat just be an independant like me. The only loss is voting in a primary election, which has it's nice points. Please don't hide behind the fact we have a war going on, Afghanistan started in 2001, 8 years ago Iraq in '03, we only had to go into Afghanistan, Iraq was a choice, and a damn bad one. No friend, the Republican's said they were for small government, low taxes, low government spending, fiscal responsibility and strict interpretation of constitution but they abandoned each and every premise other than small taxes. Any fool, seriously, any fool can see that for what it is: a recipe for disaster.

January 10, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )