Commissar

You think so? I think McCain would be too busy looking over his shoulder to make sure Bush doesn't screw him again to pay much attention. But we're not going to see either of those guys in 2008. The Republican leadership won't let McCain run; he's much too moderate, and if the "Global War On Terror" is still going on, McCain can't be trusted to let Jesus direct our airstrikes. Dean, on the other hand, hasn't wussed out like all the other Democrats and started scrambling for the center and randomly inserting the word "God" into his speeches. Once the Dems realized that the last election turned into a referendum on boys kissing, they all decided to head towards the right. I suspect we'll see a southern Democratic governor, maybe Warner.

I'm not really sure what you're asking here. Emergency medical treatment isn't denied, but if you can't pay for non-emergency medical treatment, then yeah, you're kinda SOL.

But it's very possible that they'll get severely funted if they give in, since they'll have zero control over any of Iraq's oil wealth, while the guys to the north (Kurds) and South (Shia) will be rolling in dough. That's their biggest fear, really. And a fundamentalist state won't happen. Bush won't let it. If the Iraqis go hardcore Muslim all of a sudden, I have little doubt that the government will be deposed and we'll all get to go through this particular ringer again. That's really the only thing that can happen; if they went fundamentalist and we pulled out, we'd actually be worse off than before we went in. No matter what you right-wingers say, Saddam couldn't move an inch beyond his borders. He had no links with al-Qaeda (as he was a secularist, and ObL isn't a fan of those guys), and while he may have been crazy, he also knew that you don't win a war against the US by attacking the US. We were completely safe with Saddam in power; his people and the region might not've been. If fundamentalists step to the plate, though, it's a whole new ballgame. I hate to be a naysayer, but I think we're going to learn some hard lessons about nation-building over the next few months.

...

Well, this is kind of ironic. I was out for my morning run and managed to cough up something that looks suspiciously like a piece of one of my lungs. I believe I'll be laying off the cigarettes until I can figure out if I'm dying or not.

You really are out there on the fringe, man.

Thats probaly true, but only because we are told that "drugs" across the board, will kill us. When someone gets ahold of pot for the first time and the worse thing that happens is a bad case of the munchies, and uncontrollable giggling, a reasonable person might ask, "What else were they wrong about?" <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree, and I'd suggest that we do better - or maybe I should say more realistic - drug education across the board. On the other hand, a smart person's going to be able to tell the difference between pot and something that's actually capable of killing you. Comparing heroin deaths to marijuana deaths is one of those things that makes you wonder why everyone's so up in arms about weed.

Repealing seat-belt (or motor cycle crash helmet) obligations of vehicluar drivers is only acceptable if there is some sort of mandatory health insurance. Otherwise, others have to pay for the idiot that spils his brains on the pavement and has neither health insurance nor a helmet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Welcome to government. Plenty of people have to pay for plenty of stupid stuff they'd prefer not to. Plenty of people spill their brains on the pavement by not wearing their seat belt or a helmet despite the laws. If you want to argue that people ought to have to pay for their choices, fine, I'm all for that. Don't give medical treatment to the guy with the spilled brains if he doesn't have insurance. But can we please, please, please, as a global society, agree that it's a bad idea for the government to regulate personal choices/morality/et al? And I say this with Bush getting to appoint not one, but two Supreme Court justices.

Pitiful.

What, pray tell, is wrong with Master and Commander? Fairly faithful adaptation of the PO'B novels, an amalgam, certainly, but faithful to the themes to a certain extent. As far as the accent...well, that's something only you folks still in the Commonwealth would be able to tell. Sounded English to me.

I'll definitely finish out the season. One thing I didn't like was them stealing the trephining scene from Master and Commander.

Middle school fieldtrip.

That's a subjective call. I'd take weed over vicodin any day of the week.

What's the real agenda? The real issue? People like getting high. They don't like getting tossed in jail for it. I'd say that's the real issue and the real agenda. Health problems, etc. etc. etc. Have you ever known anyone that lived until they were a hundred and five? Let me tell you something, they're not particularly lucky. It might strike you as some kind of victory to live to be a gibbering idiot in a nursing home somewhere, and I have little doubt that a healthy diet of tofu and prayer and clean living will get you there. That's not the path that everyone wants. As far as the addictive qualities of marijuana go? It's nowhere near as addictive as nicotin. It's simply not. I would argue that it's not even addictive except with certain people, but what the hey. And as far as it being a gateway to other addictions...could be. I know plenty of potsmokers who have yet to start ramming horse. But even if it is, c'est la vie. I've never been a fan of having the government save people from themselves. You say you're all for freedom, but you want to regulate self-control? Trust me on this, there is nothing that happens while firing up a blunt that forces you to go out looking for coke.

We had tons and tons of painkilling drugs. THC isn't much of a painkiller, but pot does have thousands of carcigens. It doesn't make sense to smoke pot, and get lung cancer while trying to treat the "pain" caused by your existing cancer. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Unless you're a terminal case.

Anyone who has been extremely high and extremely drunk will tell you that you're a hell of a lot more dangerous to society when extremely drunk rather than extremely high.

You people are nuts.

Are those the only options? 'Cause often I tend to assume that Poster B isn't taking the discussion as seriously as Poster A, and is likely sitting there chuckling to himself while Poster A gets all worked up. But, that's just me.

How do you know? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Corrected. How do I know? I've read his book, for one thing. And I must say he sounds like a very smart guy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hear it was all done by ghostwriters.

You're all about the semantics today.

How do you know?

On the other hand, he got him elected, and Bush is the type of guy to pay back a favor.

Hey, is anyone else a little worried that Bush is going to try to nominate Jesus H. Christ to the Chief Justice position?

If you say so. On the other hand, we can actually drive cars.

I'm not really interested in this thread anymore but I thought this is interesting. Actually, psychologists suggest that women that sell their body for a living are always suffering from some kind of emotional disorder, often a childhood trauma. The fact that they "appear" normal and "seem" happy doesn't preclude the possibility that they can be emotional wrecks. Don't take my word for it, though. Do some research on the matter and see what you can dig up. Prostitution isn't just another job, and while I'm all for it being regulated (as it's obviously impossible to suppress completely), I no longer think it's "okay" and I won't be supporting it by being a consumer of prostitution. Plain ol' smut, on the other hand... " <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I have to totally agree with numbers here. I've know alot of strippers in my time, and more often then not they have been addicted to some sort of drug. Even those who don't have a "physical' addiction, more often then not evolve some sort of sickening mental addiction. Where as our and alot of societies seems to treat women as *items* in almost every facet, its an entirely different thing to participate freely in such things. Just the idea that money and some sort of "power" is enough for these women to want to be a part of it seems sick enough for me. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ah, the every-stripper's-a-drug-addict argument. And, of course, it's due to the stripping. It couldn't possibly be because the majority of strippers come from low-income blighted areas. The drug use and mental disorder statistics for such communities are almost identical to the stripper community, such as it is. You can use personal observation all you want, but then so can I. I've dated two strippers in my lifetime; neither were addicted to anything, though one had a habit of stealing from customers. I wasn't very fond of her. The other was rather down-to-earth. Smoked a little grass on the weekends, and that's about it. No kids, no crazy home situation, and she was making about double what I was and didn't regret it for a second. You know, I think if the social stigma attached to strippin' and whorin' was lifted - as it's slowly starting to be by swanky, trendy clubs like 40 Deuce - I think you'd see a great decline in the number of "problems" associated with sex industry workers. Personally, I'm far more disgusted by people like Fallwell and Roberston whoring out Christianity to make themselves millionaires than I ever would be by a girl who's found a way to make four thousand bucks a month working two days a week.