Terry Tate

My thought is you are furthering an argument that is predicated on the very foundation that you recognize as artificial. Passing a law that restricts people on the terrorist watch list from purchasing a firearm sounds reasonable. Certainly no one could be for arming terrorists, but please consider: 1. Who maintains this watch list, and how? 2. If you were a terrorist, would this law in fact prevent you from obtaining a firearm (or box cutter, as the case may be)? 3. Would this law restrict the rights of law-abiding citizens? This should be explored for any law, and any restriction of rights weighed against the desired effects. I won't go into detail, but you can imagine for this to have any hope of actually preventing a terrorist from obtaining a firearm, it would be easy to extend this train of thought to a national ID system. Papers please. I need to see your papers (that was for the slippery slope folks). 4. Would this law have prevented the law enforcement officer from discharging his firearm in the classroom, or the school shooting you cited that was the catalyst for this discussion? Improving an existing law is always worth exploring. But it's never as simple as 'make terrorists unable to buy firearms'.

Yet that's all you've offered in support of 'fine-tuning things.' Placing further restrictions on a right guaranteed in the constitution should have a higher standard than a casual reference to 'a zillion other insane activities'. I assure you there's a lot of data out there that supports the argument that we would in fact be safer by issuing concealed carry permits to any law-abiding citizen who wanted one. But a 2nd amendment shootout isn't worth the trouble if you're only bringing a pea-shooter.

Just when I thought that I was out, they pull me back in.

First story - "She fired her gun at least eight times, but missed the intruder." Good job lady - now get back out to the range and practice.

I'm still trying to figure out what 'fighting for the rights of the homeless' means, but I don't think you should have to live on the streets to do it. Whatever it is.

That's horrible. When you benchpress, don't put locks on the ends of the bars, you can just lean right/left to dump the weights if need be. Don't know if that necessarily would've helped him in that situation, but you really should always have a spotter when you lift.

It's the consumption tax web site FAQ list (dubbed 'fair tax' by it's supporters). It has a list of it's arguments for the most common oppositions raised. Just thought I'd throw that out there if you (or anyone else) wanted to see the counters.

"The state budget has been late for 20 straight years, ..."

Fairtax FAQ list.

Good point. A trade for Shelton may be a good idea (I honestly don't know), but some people here seem to be in a bidding war with themselves - worst possible negotiating position. If he's worth more to another team, so be it. Doesn't mean it's the best plan for the Bills.

What a sweetheart. So are you the crazy uncle, or the funny uncle, or what? My nieces and nephews need to keep their wits about them when I'm around.

If (IF) Arizona cuts Shelton on June 1st, and Buffalo signs him, calling for TD to give the Cards anything for him right now is going to seem kind of silly.

That was innapropriate. You can make your case without those types of comments ('most of America' against a 'charade' by the 'far religious right', 'zealots', etc).

A website that published fake news stories from CNN has been taken offline after receiving a threatening legal letter from the cable network alleging copyright and trademark infringement. From Wired news.

That's some funny stuff there.

LOL, I just skipped right past this when you first mentioned it. Levittown, named after William Levitt - the man who introduced the whole concept of affordable suburban tract homes to post-WWII America. That's a bit of history there; there were other Levittowns (and of course, a lot of other suburbias), but that one built on the potato fields was the first one.

Perhaps you believe this is not hyperbole because your habit of overestimating people extends to rapists and pedophiles. Or, you could have some as yet unrevealed data of some sort to prove this claim. Any example, at any level of government, at any time in history, in any location on earth of raising taxes having successfully fixed a corrupt, bloated, inefficient government would be very illustrative.

If it's within your abilities, I'm a fixer-upper guy. Nothing like sweat equity. Even if you hire some work out, there's lots of ways to save on materials. Just depends on how much your family will put up with. Living in a fixer-upper takes some patience. Our last house shopping, we drive up to a place, my wife takes one look from the car and says "Tell the agent 'let's go.' I don't even want to look at it". Yes, it was that bad. Long story short, I talked her into buying it, and got to work. By the time we sold it five years later, my wife had become more attached to the 'new' version of the place than I was. There are no bad houses, just bad prices for condition. A whole house inspection will give you a laundry list of items - review the required repairs to see if you want to take it on (ability, material cost, etc), and use it as a checklist as you work on them if you buy it. If you can handle living in a fixer-upper while you work on it, they're money in your pocket. On the other hand, if the house that would make you happy 'as is' is within your means, I can't argue with that. I enjoy doing the work, so it's not a chore to me.

I'm just glad my fair-haired, very light-skinned friend from Iran doesn't have to worry about getting pummeled for going to the bathroom on an airplane.

Doesn't count. Not a terrorist act.

Barry? Barry Switzer? Is that you?

A guide to health care decision making. The Living Will

A guide to health care decision making. The Living Will

US Congress, s686, For the relief of the parents of Theresa Marie Schiavo: Rep - 156 for, 5 against, 71 not voted. Dem - 47 for, 53 against, 102 not voted. US Senate, s653, A bill for the relief of the family of Theresa Marie Schiavo: Unanimously approved. Most of the House and Senate Republicans obviously missed the memo on how to be Republican. Apparently, so too did half of the house and all of the Senate Democrats. But here's where I get confused - did the House and Senate Democrats who voted for or against the bill do so because they were good Republicans, or bad Republicans? Since some here are apparently having little luck teaching Republicans or Democrats how to be real Republicans, maybe their wisdom would be better utilized should they concentrate harder on teaching Christians how to be real Christians, or teaching those with families the real meaning of compassion and love.