Guard Dog

I know Mr. Gore... somewhat. I had the chance to meet him twice when I was involved in politics. This man is no crusader. He does not care about saving the planet, or the environment. To him, environmentalism is simply the vehicle he has chosen to advance himself. As with many politicians he is a study of narcissism gone wild. In 1991 he was the junior senator from Tennessee, bucking for a 1992 Presidential run. He involved himself in a protest/court battle involving the Georgia Pacific Co. timber operations near Covington TN. A number of environmental groups filed for a court injunction to stop timbering PRIVATELY OWNED land they had leased timber rights to. The cause was based on a report of some endangered bird that made it's habitat in that area. While the court battle went on Mr. Gore got his picture on the front page of the Memphis Commercial Appeal standing arm in arm with the protesters blocking the access road to the land. Eventually Ga. Pacific stopped fighting and pulled out of the area. The enviro groups claimed victory and most of the people in Covington TN lost their jobs. At least if Mr. Gore was a true believer then those who lost their jobs would have been the tragic side effect of "doing the right thing". But all he cared about was the publicity it generated for him which makes him a despicable cold blooded S.O.B in my book. The sad thing was the Tennessee Fish and Game commission maintained that species of bird no longer inhabited the east side of the Mississippi River. But as a few of you pointed out here, facts mean little compared to the perceived importance of the message. This incident played out after he became VP but I'm convinced it had a lot to do with why he lost in Tennessee in 2000. No one likes to be used. Lady Crimson is right, open any newspaper and you can find dozens of examples of hypocrisy. But seldom does a total fraud like Gore get embarrassed like this. And Sand it does matter. Even if he is not in politics at this moment he has become the de facto leader of the "New Left". And trust me, we have not heard the last of him in national politics. And any opportunity to discredit him should be capitalized on. Have you guys actually read his book? If you think Bush is scary, take a good hard look at this guy. Here is a man who has discreetly hinted (in his book at leas) he does not believe in private ownership of land, and has argued for nationalizing property and businesses. No thank you. And yes Wals, politicians MUST be held to the same standards as regular citizens because they ARE regular citizens just doing a government job. The moment there is a separate law for us and them Orwell's worst imaginations will become our reality.

The final WOT book might be a long time in coming. Mr. Jordan has been fighting a usually terminal blood disease this past year. The good news is, he is doing better. Much better in fact. I know he says he is comitted to finishing his series. But I think concerns like that are secondary to him right now.

No, the problem is in his world I should be cooking over an open fire and walking everywhere I go. Meanwhile he sucks up more power than a suburban city block, rides in a small fleet of SUVs, and flies private planes any time he needs to go from here to there. To me this is an example of "All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others".

Hydroponics maybe? Actually it is closer to being a castle than a house.

The festival is regularly marred by casualties caused by sharp kite strings or celebratory gunshots fired into the air. Well, what goes up sooner or later must come down.

How concerned could he be if he does not practice what he preaches? Unless he KNOWS his movie is a steaming pile of you-know-what. A fiction based on an exaggeration with little chickens running around crying out how the sky is falling.

Over the Edge of the World by Laurence Bergen. It's about Magellan and his bid to reach the Spice Islands by circumnavigating the globe. Excellent book, and very interesting if you have any interest in history or sailing. Also reading How Dogs Think, Understanding the Canine Mind by Stanley Coren. Just started that one.

Go to your local animal shelter and take pics of the dogs and cats there. Then find a website (like this one even) and post the pics with contact info in case anyone is interested in adopting. That what I would do.

Count me in the number that say "Thank God" the Constitution is difficult to amend.

Heh, nah, I'd rather get good and drunk and tell everyone how I'd have done a better job had I been in office!

Heh, and what would I do AFTER I voted in every election.

because with electoral college only certain states get attention paid to them You won't find this going away without the Electoral College. There's already a huge amount of attention paid to states like Florida and California, two states which get "the shaft" when it comes to the amount of people represented by their electoral college votes. Getting rid of the Electoral College will shift the already lopsided focus moreso in favour of the more populous areas. As it should. No you are wrong on this one Sand. Politically speaking the country is very different in the less urban, more rual areas compared to the major urban population centers. However, under a popular vote a candidate who captures the majority vote in only a handful of the urban centers will overwhelm the remainder of the vote from the rest of the country. Look at the election map in 2000 as an example. Gore did poorly in "Heartland America" or what the west coast liberals refer to as "Flyover Country". Under a popular vote states like Mississippi, Arkansas, Nebraska, and others of the like will never even see a presisdential candidate visit them. Much less listen to their concerns. This diagaram is all the evidence I need to oppose removing the Electoral College. By the way, had the 2000 elections ended the other way and Bush won the popular vote but lost the electoral college I would bet you would not be in favor of scrapping it then.

Uh oh. Sand if you have Alan and Meta after you at once, you are doomed. Either is more than a match for you, both together......

Huh?????? She reminded me of John Elway with long hair. I would have had a lot more respect for Clinton if he just came out and said "Yes I had a fling behind my wife's back, yes I smoked pot in college, and yes I ducked out of serving in Vietnam. so what?'

See, I knew there was a libertarian somewhere inside you just dying to come out!

Not to ruin your opinion of me ( ) but i'm a Christian and I think (hope) i have a healthy dose of common sense. We don't all think non-christians are bad people going hell. The only thing I believe to be true with respect to religion is that 1) There is a God, 2) We will all meet Him in the end. This is strictly my own opinion here but to me, christianity is a code you must choose to live by. It is neither right or proper for me to ask anyone else to make that choice. Or hold anything against them if they choose differently. I would not force religion down anyones throat and only ask the same from them. That includes non-religion. Seeing a monument honoring a different faith in public does not bother me. Seeing people pray in public does not bother me either. Preventing people from enjoying their own personal freedoms and choice, that DOES bother me.

Not the history I'm familiar with. Quite the opposite on both counts. It never left the developmental stage and was out of reach in the 80's. But The Soviets believed we could do it and that is what mattered. Reagan even believed it I think. Check out the book "The New History of the Cold War" for more info. Don't remember the author. We are not going to come to an agreement Pidesco and that fine. Reply if you wish and I'll leave it at this. This thread has potential and I don't want to side track it.

From my political perspective yes. Lincoln suspened due process and comitted more than a few constitutional transgressions during the war. His thoughts were "Inter Arma Silent Leges" and the "Ends Justify the Means". I disagree. However, he did save the country a had a much wiser post war plan than the one actually enacted after his death. To say nothing of taking the first step to correct the monstrous injustice of slavery. In my opinion he was the third best president in our history. Had he done it without violating the constitution in the process I would have him and #1 easily. Ever since FDR (who consolidated more power, seized more land, and violated the 10th amendment more times than all of his predecessors combined) America has been slouching towards a more socialistic society. Reagan was one of the bright spots to take a more Libertarian view. He drew a hard line against the Soviets when all of the world was quailing before them. Plus he pulled off one of the greatest bluffs in history, SDI. Before him and after Watergate and Vietnam the contry was floundering. We had lost our pride and direction. The government was swelling in size, the economy was tanking, US flage were burning in protests world wide as nations cozied up to the Soviets thinking that a new World War was inevitable and that they would win. Reagan brought a sense of pride and optimisim, the first to do so since Kennedy. Thats why I ranked him with Lincoln at #3.

Reagan, hands down. He alone in recent years understood what Jefferson said: "The government that governs least governs best". I would rank the last 5 in this order 1) Reagan 2) Bush I 3) Clinton 4) Bush II 5) Carter (this man is a national disgrace) Best of all time I'd say a toss up between Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson with Reagan and Lincoln tied as a distant 3rd.

Don't go fishing for herring here Sand. To deal with your post. If Philly wants to make the Scouts pay their way, that is fine. It is the perogative of every municipality to run their city as they see fit so tht is hardly a constitutional issue. You passed this off as a violation of the 1st Amendment which is really what this debate is all about at this point. Based on my response, is it? Is it a violation of the first amendment to have the 10 commandments posted in a public place even if not a single penny of state money was used to put it there? The line between a free society and a repressive one is precariously thin. If zealots on either side win out and the US becomes one or the other then they might be happy but nobody will be free.

Neither. Take either one to the extreme and you have a society that is certainly not free. In the old Soviet Union ( a totally godless society), if they found out you were Christian you would either see the inside of the Lubyanka or die in a gulag somewhere. In most Muslim countries (the other extreme) you can expect to be beheaded at any time if you are not Muslim. To paraphrase Aristotle, nature must find the mean.

As expected, I completely disagree with you. The first part of the first amendment (also known as the "establishment clause") states Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The way I read that is that the US Government cannot make a law that says "You must be Christian". It does not prevent the government (or it's agencies like schools, police, etc) from allowing VOLUNTARY religious observances such a moment of silence, or a prayer before a meal, nor does it prohibit the display of any religious monuments (such as the 10 Commandments as in the Montgomery AL. case). Nor does it prohibit a public servant from relying on his religious beliefs in a decision making process. Heck, Minnesota elected a devout Muslim to Congress last year and he took his oath on a Qua ran. As you will recall, I said he had every right to do so based on the 1st Amendment. None of these things "forces" anyone to comply with anything. That is all the Establishment Clause is designed to do. As for your example, the Boy Scouts are a private organization and also a 501c charity. I'm positive they do not receive a penny from any level of government. Their issue was access to public facilities. Allowing them to meet in a Community Center does not mean everyone must join the Scouts nor does it imply endorsement of anything the Scouts stand for. If (to steal a line from South Park) the Gay Scouts wanted to meet there, more power to them. If the state prevented one and not the other then you have a case. Technically by denying them access the state has violated the Assembly Clause which states or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. The same with the 10 commandments monument. If a Muslim group was prevented from putting up a monument next to it (all of these things have been paid for privately by the way) then there would be a case and I would be the first to point out the injustice. But the law cannot (or should not) be construed to prevent private religious expressions in public. This country was founded on the most basic of Libertarian principles: "Live and Let Live". It bothers me to see the religious right insisting on my compliance to it's world view. It is equally wrong to see the anti-religious left perverting the constitution to force it's world view on me.

Yes. The ONLY circumstance that allows a soldier to not follow orders is if they contravene the Geneva convention. Or the UCMJ. Incidently, Iraq is not a Geneva signitory therefore not entitled to protections. We give them anyway though.

I have this exact same fear. I am a pretty good swimmer and have no fear of water. I once got stranded outside the safety area of the beach on a tube because I was trying to catch the biggest wave that I could and some boats had to come get me. But once I jumped into the waters from a rock and just went deep into the water. I opened by eyes and could see only a dark blue nothingness stretching out before and under and everywhere and I freaked out. It was like something was coming to get me only I couldn't see it. A general feeling of helplessness floating in cold darkness. I've never strayed out into deep water again. Except for the swimming pool There is a place near Ocala FL called Forty Fathom Grotto. It is so named because it really is that deep. It is a pretty freaky place because it is a nearly perfectly round cyndrilical limestone shaft roughly 100 meters in diameter. The water is fed by a very weak spring at the bottom and has a greenish tinge. Anyway, I did my advanced diver class there and one of the dives has you going to the sport limit of 130'. Well, that is still over 140' from the bottom and all natural light is lost at about 80'. So at 130' you float there, your dive light cannot penetrate to the bottom and you cannot see the sides if you are in the center. You defeinitely can't see the surface and it's a little disturbing. Heck, at first I could not tell which way was up. If you turn off yorur light you see nothing! Pretty cool in a scary/zen kind of way.