Guard Dog

Fair enough. But in most states life in prision without possibility of parole is usually reserved for 1st degree murder. Is that an appropriate punishment?

I think you are referring to legislation passed preventing municipalities from suing gun manufacturers for the cost of dealing with gun crime? Think about it this way, that would be like suing Ford if a drunk driver kills someone while driving a mustang. I did a little snooping on google and I am not seeing any correlation to funding cuts to BATF (or even that it's funding was cut) and any data or enforcement info it produced in the last 5 years. The NRAs website has nothing at all on the BATF other than a few non exciting news links. That's not entirely accurate. The NRA supported the 1994 Crime Bill that among other things introduced a new ban on a number of imported "assault weapons". Actually Heston was the Association president then. Of course it had a number of pro-gun provisions as well. LaPierre is a bombastic clown who has done more the hurt the NRA than anyone left or right.

The US is hardly alone in buying from China. They are the number on manufacturing county in the world. However, I did my part last week! I was ordering RF components for work and opted to buy from a German company over a Chinese one. So I did my part!

Excerpt: Link :http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/ind....xml&coll=1 So the question at bar here can be summed up this way: Is the death penalty appropriate for someone who rapes a child under 13? Opinions? This might surprise most of you but I'm going to say no. Although I will admit, I have moderated my stance on capital punishment from strongly in favor to moderately opposed. However, life in prison without parole is completely appropriate. That is another sentence usually reserved for 1st degree murder. The other important aspect here is this: If the Supreme Court decides that death is a cruel and unusual punishment for rape does that not open the door to challenge it as cruel and unusual for anything. How can it be cruel for one crime and not another? The punishment is the same. The author of the article seems to think the decision one way or another will not be far reaching. I'm not so sure. Even innocuous SCOTUS cases tend to set far reaching precedent. The other thing it if the sentence it upheld it will open the door for law changes in other states allowing DP for sex crimes against children. Would that be a deterrent?

I'm not really sure how it works but I don't think the Olympic comittee sells advertising. I know the national teams do, the networks covering events do, etc but I do not think the Olympics themselves is a capitalist enterprise. I may be wrong. Disrupting the Olympics will change nothing and as we saw in 1980 and 1984 boycotting will change nothing and cause a PR backfire for the boycotting nation. As for what you can do about China? Nothing. A nation can go to war, or stop trade, or offer better trade cultural exchange terms etc to another nation. But one nation cannot force another to do anything. And aside from carrying a sign in front of the Chinese embassy there is absolutely nothing an individual can do to influence policy in another country except check the label of eveything you by and don't buy it if it was made in China. I don't like the fact that Dennmark places a 15% surcharge on Tuborg Beer exports. I have to pay $9.99 for a 6-pack. Elephant Beer is nearly as bad. But there is nothing I can do about it but pay, or don't.

Ditto what Volo said. You are way wrong Samm. The NRA is a group fomed to protect a fundamental American right and has done great things in terms of teaching and advocating safe and legal gun use.

As for Kelo v. New London I completely disagree with you both on your assertions that the originality dissent was activist and on the motivations of the majority. I think that is worthy of another thread to discuss and is a little OT here. And you are also correct about it being near impossible to predict a judges mind set, however, I do think it is very important to start with individuals who take a constructionist view of the Constitution. At least if that is their starting point they will be more inclined to judicial restraint. One of the reasons I think judicial appointments are so important is that as a voting and politically active citizen I have some input into the legislative process. I do not fear the outcome of bad law so much as bad court decisions. A bad law can be challenged in court, it can be repealed, it can be outright defeated by a groundswell of voters talking to their representatives. A bad court decision is as strong as law and much much harder to do away with. And the individual citizens have no input into judicial decisions (nor should they). That makes it particularly important to see that the individuals making the decisions try to apply the law to modern life rather than rethinking it to accommodate modern life. Once again I expect a better chance of getting the former from McCain and the latter from Obama.

I have always thought that the Olympics, World Cup, "insert international sporting event here" should be above politics. Boycotting the Olympics or its ceremonies will not change a single thing about China as far as human rights go. There are other arenas with stick and carrot methods for influencing policy in foreign governments. The Olympics are supposed to be about what the people of the world have in common, not the differences in the governments of the world. Sadly, as Carter and Breshev demonstrated, that is not usually the case.

Any game you can get a dog in is a must buy in my book!

If I had said last week that Detroit would be 0-6 you would have called me crazy.

Well, let's look at recent history. From 1992 to 1994 the Democrats held all the cards. They first voted themselves the largest pay raise by percentage in US history. Second they passed the largest tax increase in US History, then they made a determined and credible attempt to nationalize a number of private enterprises that made up 1/7th of the US economy. Add to that the fact that Bill Clinton had FBI profiles on all the top Republicans of Congress in his possession because he certainly did not have to worry about being called down by congress. From 2002 to 2006 the Republicans held all the cards. We got them spending money like drunken sailors on their pet causes, the Patriot Act, oh an a little thing we might have heard of called the Iraq War. So, what was it about gridlock and inaction that was so bad again? Besides, if you will remember, the federal government was shut down for some 4-5 months during the budget battle in 1996 or 1997, I forget which. The world did not end. I would argue that is is the most important thing. Lets set aside signing legislation because that is just finishing the work of Congress. A Presidents executive orders, foreign policy moves, policy initiatives and political appointments can all be undone with a stroke of his successors pen. And they frequently are. Judicial appointments are for life and failing misconduct cannot be undone by subsequent administrations. And I would hardly call the moniker "liberal judge" or "activist judge" a campaign speech straw man or scare tactic. Or can you tell me with a straight face that Kelo v New London was properly decided? Or do you really believe the US courts should consider foreign court precedent in domestic cases? There are many others I disagree with and I find that the self titled originalists on the Court Scalia, Thomas, Rehnquist (and Roberts after him) and Alito (in the few cases he's had), vote in favor of my interpretation of the law. There are many more cases where the originalists won out over the liberals that would have led to just terrible results (like Kelo). Medellin v. Texas for example and DC v Heller (yes that one has not been decided yet but it is expected to go our way 6-3) You are correct the politics of judges is meaningless, all that matters is their interpretation of the law and Constitution. I have found that judges appointed by Republicans tend to take the "Chiseled in Granite" approach (with a few terrible exceptions) and those appointed by Democrats take the "Silly Putty" approach (with no exceptions). And as you pointed out, it must be one or the other.

She hated the NRA, he was the President of it and she felt "betrayed" that "one of their own" would even associate with them.

I'm finally reading that last 3 books of Robert Jordans WoT. Heart of Winter was great, Crossroads of Twilight was slow and hard to get through. Knife of Dreams has been pretty good. Nice to see some plots actually concluding. Looks like the last book will have to tie up a lot of unfinished business though. Am I the only one who wants to see Tam and Rand meet one more time before the end?

Grrr. I was going to say that too GDM, you beat me to it. Goodbye and Godspeed Mr. Heston. RIP.

Gromnir is, as usual, completely correct. The ideal situation is a President of one party, a Senate controlled by the other, and a narrow division in the house. The one thing, the single most important thing, a President does is appoint judges. Not just Supreme Court justices but appellate and Federal district judges. My fear is that Obama/Clinton will give us more abominations like Ginsburg, Stevens, Souter (GHB should be strung up for that one). Thats one of the big reasons i'm voting for McCain. Not because I like him or his politics (I do not) but because the alternative is so much worse. Hmmm seems like all of the presidential elections I've ever voted in were the same way. Choosing the lesser of two evils.

Dean "Florida Democrat Delegation Will Be Seated" This is big new if he follows through. Hillary won big in Florida and if they seat FL, MI, and she wins by the expected margin in PA she will have a very good chance of winning the over all popular vote if not the pledged delegate count. Remember what I said, the majority of the Supers WANT to vote for her. They are afraid of Obama because he is from outside the political machine. If she gives them something to hang their hat on like a popular vote win the majority will throw in with her. My dream scenario is close to becoming a reality!

So far this season I have been surprised by two things, 1) The inability of Detroit to do anything with KC 2) The Marlins have actually broken 30,000 in attendance after just two games. I thought it would take at least 10!

I've finally made it to a spring game. I drove over to Jupiter to watch the Marlins and Orioles. The fish were beaten like red headed step children. But I got my first look at their prize prospect Jeremy Hermidia. He was one of the bright spots especially when he hit a HR that cleared the stadium wall at the deepest point. But he was hacking at some really bad pitches trying to make something happen. The rest of the team played pretty dismally especially the bullpen. Nolasco pitched three perfect innings before giving up a hit. Then the bullpen pitchers came in, a new one every other inning. They gave up 16 hits and 7 earned runs. The prognosticators have not had much nice to say about the fish. So far I'd agree.

More expensive by a long way but doing the most humane thing is seldom the most expedient or least expensive.

I've been a little busy these days Wals. I work in a dog rescue (when I can find the time) and I have 14 dogs of my own and I can categorically state, animals do not have rights. Having a right implies the ability to assert it. I can't even convince half of my dogs that the front door and back door lead to the same yard. It is a sad (bitter gut wrenching for those who have seen it) necessity to put animals to sleep. And in a situation like the article paints, rabies is a real concern because it turns a harmless stray into a raving monster with a deadly bite. But you are all right, methods are important and it should be done in as humane a way as possible. I suggest a sedative dart followed by a Sodium Pentobarbital injection. It painless and used by vets everywhere. And no Wals, not shotguns because there is a real probability of doing a half way job of it.

Mets Say No to Bonds, Becket out with Back Injury, Cubs leaving Wrigley? The homerun king is officially persona non grata in MLB these days. When Tampa and NYM say no (both teams in need of a power hitter) you know it's over.

Oh man did I call this one right of what? I'm telling you this Florida Michigan thing is going to matter. If Hillary wins every primary she is expected to of the ones remaining and the supers continue to break in the same pattern as they have so far the delegates from FL and MI will be needed to form the majority. If it comes to that Clinton wins. The states will not pay for a revote since their election was lawful, and apperently the Dems wont either. If the rules comittee of the dem party tries to disallow those delegates and nominate without the 2021 majority Clinton will sue and this gets settled in court. You know how much Americans love lawyers and lawsuits? Not one little bit http://thehill.com/campaign-2008/sen.-bill...2008-03-06.html Enoch, I really believe the majority of the super delegates are scared to death of Obama. They are afraid to support him and afraid not to.That is why so few have openly comitted to him. They were equally afraid to comit to Clinton because the elections were going against her. But if she gives them a viable out I really think they will vote for her by a fair margin. I may be wrong on this but I don't think so.

I think your $100 is safe Tarna. As I've stated before, Hillary is a machine politician. She is the safe choice, the known quantity. The party hacks that make up the superdelegates WANT to vote for her. They want a reason to vote for her. If she wins in Pennsylvania (as seems likely) she will have swept all the big populous states. She can not catch Obama in pledged delegates but she is close enough that her wins in Florida and Michigan would have made the difference and the majority of the supers will use that as the pretext for voting for her. A fresh face like Obama riding a populist groundswell scares the machine democrats half to death. I agree, the convention will be where the nomination fight ends and it will be ugly. And Hillary will come out on top.

Your thumbs will be just fine Pop. Unless the US enters another two front world war (like 1941) you will never see the draft rear it's ugly head again. Believe me, the military does NOT want another draft. The reason it is so effctive is because it IS all volunteer. It doesn't not suffer the considerable morale problems that come with conscription. Besides, McCain has been one of the biggest advocates of turning away from the the 3 Bs (boots beans bullets) of defense spending and developing unmanned systems like the Predator and that new remote controlled robot, I forgot the name of it. Come to think of it, you were hyperventilating about the draft after Bush was reelceted on 2004 too. It did not happen. This thing with Iran is a whole lot of nothing too. McCain is not stupid, he is not going to want to wade into Iran with Iraq finally starting to stabilize. Unless they do something dumb like give a nuke to Al-Qeada all that will ever come of it is saber rattling and posturing.

You might want to reserve judgement on that one. The LOTR movies actually got finished. I kid.