Brandon

Oh good grief. They're making an issue of that? Someone is getting pretty damn desperate over there this morning.

Its more prevalent even than that at Palin's age. 1 out of every 41. http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/downsyndrome/l/bldownssyn.htm

Despite the stats, I was never that impressed during his time at Arkansas (I've seen probably 2/3rds of his games). He's very, very inconsistent and wasn't very effective unless he was running a deep route. Even then, he often played like he was 5'10 and not 6'5. He was no Anthony Lucas in college. He wasn't even George Wilson, in spite of what the stats say. In his defense, I will say that the Razorbacks coaching staff never did him or the others any favors. It was an afterthought and what little they had was a simplistic, antiquated joke and certainly did not prepare him for the NFL. Is he worth bringing in? Maybe for the practice squad. He might develop, but he has a long way to go.

No, but does it matter? Do you think it actually helps Obama that his own VP choice endorsed a possible Kerry-McCain ticket only four years ago?

Its not bad for the country. On the other hand, I can't see it as anything but a negative for Obama's campaign that his own VP was endorsing McCain in that spot just four years ago.

Yeah, that doesn't look to good, especially combined with this: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542473

You can argue purpose all day. The results are basically the same.

The ruling itself placed the reasoning squarely in the corner of self-defense, though. The hunting argument has always been a spin placed on the amendment by anti-gun types in order to justify more and more regulations. Their idea of being pro-gun is to allow everyone to have a musket, the weapon available in the 18th century. Of course, I can only imagine the number of people who would kill or injure themselves with these due to improper loading.

If you applied that same logic evenly, it seems to me that the United States government should ban automobiles, as they kill significantly more people than firearms do in this country every year. Where would you put your bumper sticker?

Agreed. Bloomberg would be a horrible choice. If McCain wants to have a shot at winning this election, he can't afford to further alienate his conservative base. He'll have to choose someone further to the political right than he is, and as you say, that really shouldn't be a problem given McCain's longstanding reputation as a moderate.

That's true, but I don't think that applies to Jindal at all. He's in line with most Republican voters and, as such, won't be offensive to the average moderate. In fact, I think his views would likely be fairly popular among rural and suburban voters in the south, midwest and plains states. That said, I don't think he'll be McCain's choice due to his age and lack of experience. If he chose Jindal, it would negate his ability to attack Obama for the same reason.

I think he's the most likely choice. Pawlenty could help McCain in the upper Midwest, where McCain probably needs the most help. In any event, I would expect that his choice will lean pretty sharply to the conservative side. Another strong possibility seems to be Fred Thompson, who has suddenly reappeared in the last couple of weeks.

Either that, or she's just really pissed off at Obama. Oh well, at least its entertaining.

Generally speaking, I agree with you. However, in this particular case, it seems to me that if Scott McClellan has no credibility, then there's no story here.

Hypocrisy in action: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/03/22/bush.clarke/ You gotta love ol' Scott's comments on that situation.

Then what is the main issue?

Perhaps its just me, but isn't it just a little bit hypocritical to only now believe the guy because he tells you what you want to hear? I'm sure that the liberals running around didn't believe a word that came out of his mouth a week ago. IMO, Scott McClellan has absolutely no credibility. He was either lying then, or he's lying now.

Even though I do not agree with it, I understand what your argument is. I'm not really directing the comment at you. Its simply an observation that in some people's eyes, he appears to be guilty even though we don't know what happened.

And unfortunately, facts are hard to come by in this story. But that's not going to stop anyone from throwing Hardy under the bus. No sir.

You're right, but also realize that this wasn't an altercation between two strangers on the street. This was his dad. They presumably know each other very well. Hardy probably knew that his father wouldn't feel threatened by whatever action he was taking. Maybe that falls outside of the 'by the book' rules of gun ownership, but its also a strong possibility in its own right. I know that if I'd just had a heated argument/fight with my dad and a minute later, he started checking a .357, I wouldn't be too concerned at all.

I understand what you're saying. Normally, you don't want to show a concealed weapon unless you intend to use it. But at the same time, as others have said, we don't know why he drew the weapon. He may have had a perfectly legitimate reason. Again, what if the weapon had taken a hard jolt in the fight? Should he inspect it as soon as possible? Probably. Maybe the holster was damaged in some way? Who knows. There are just too many variables here to automatically assume that he was irresponsible in the matter. And he may have been.

I'm not sure I agree. If he'd just been involved in a fistfight, it would seem like a reasonable thing to make sure that a concealed weapon you might be carrying was secured (in other words, not falling from its holster, safety still engaged, etc). In the middle of the fight, not a good idea, but immediately following? Yeah, probably. That's especially true if he knew the weapon had impacted something or otherwise been knocked around in the fight. In any event, we have no idea of the circumstances which led to the weapon being removed from its holster.

Its nonsense because you seem unwilling to consider that there may be another explanation beyond him just being a thug who obviously brandished the weapon with the intent to use it. There may well be other, perfectly valid explanations that don't involve malicious intent and, in fact, one of them may be a lot closer to the truth.

That's what I suspected. So, basically, it was just a fistfight between him and his old man. Big deal.

We definitely don't. But given the fact that he wasn't taken to the county jail, I think its likely that he actually didn't draw the gun with an intent to use it and all parties (except the neighbor) realized this.