John Adams

Is he currently in retired or active mode? I lose track sometimes. He's been quiet for the last couple weeks, but he'll be back.

First of all, EFF off for bringing up Christmas on November 18. Second, I have a few of Jewish friends who think all the "holiday" stuff is nonsense. I wish them a Happy Chanukah, and they wish me a Merry Christmas. We've been at their house with our child when they light the Minora (sp) and their kids help us decorate the tree. Big friggin' whup. What really kills me on this is that on December 24th, the TV crews will be at local malls reporting on "Holiday" shopping. Look, on December 24th, it's CHRISTMAS shopping. I think it's OK to wish people happy holidays as a general December greeting, but I always go with Merry Christmas in our Christmas cards, even to our Jewish friends. And when I see those same friends, I wish them Happy Chanukah. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who gets offended by "Merry Christmas," is an idiot. I play basketball in a league with a lot of Jewish guys. I'm sometimes presumed to be Jewish, and will get Happy New Years after Yom Kippur and the like. You know what? I accept the well-wishes, pass them back, and move on. I don't stop and say, "Actually, I can't accept your goodwill because I'm not Jewish."

Great point. I think Russia is a really hot spot flying under the radar of many Americans at the moment.

I guess the red states really do need help keeping their families together. red states and family Notice where the eye of the gay marriage storm, Massachussetts, is. I don't buy the slippery slope argument about gay marriage for a second, but is there some irony that the 10 states with the highest divorce rates are the same states that claim to provide our moral foundations for the family. Egads. Not more Republican hypocrisy. First they increase the size of government. Then they want the power of the huge government expanded. Now this. Where does it end?

Is Clinton the president still? Are the Democrats in control of Congress? There's no NEED to take back America from the Dems- they are not in charge (thankfully).

Well, we talked about Russia before, and how good a job we're doing turning the other cheek diplomatically. If you're more worried about Iraq than Russia, you are loco.

A small portion of the less than 1% of voters who didn't vote for Kerry or Bush?

Do you think the federal government should be in the business of defining marriage? Is that limited government?

Darin's always looking to the government to solve people's problems. Friggin' communist.

Apparently, he was a Yemeni FBI informant who believed the FBI was mishandling his case.

Has anyone read this book? book I heard the author, a Republican judge, interviewed on local talk radio (one of my cars doesn't have satellite dang it). He makes a great case for the fact that the Republicans, in particular the new breed of Bush/Ashcroft types, don't give a whit about the Constitution and are overstepping their Constitutional authority with great regularity. Of course, I agree. Has anyone read this? Or in general, based on the premises, how do those of you who claim to support limited government but keep voting Republican, respond to his criticisms?

I responded to both because you seemed to want me to. The reason I didn't respond substantively to both of those posts was because I agreed with them for the most part. For the first, arguing quantum mechanics and that maybe just our methods are imperfect didn't seem like it was related to our discussion so I let it drop, but of course, you're right. I never agreed with UConn James beyond a certain point, so I think you and I were in agreement. Regarding the polical link RE "third rail," I also agree with most of what you said, but didn't vote for Bush or Kerry. We just reached different conclusions on who we could support.

Then respond to HIM, not ME! I'm not a mind-reader.

Although we voted differently, I agree with this too.

I didn't answer this because I agree with it.

DC Tom, our uber-PPPrick, once dubbed me an a-hole, so the position has been filled, thank you.

If you have a question you want answered, and I read it, I'll try to answer it. If you feel like I've ignored you when you made a good point, either I didn't see it, or someone else said what I would have said. Please link me to times when you feel I've recently ignored questions, and I'll get on it. I asked "What do you want to talk about?" because you said "Do you think any of his questions are legitimate" without specifying the questions. I didn't have time to respond to that entire article, so if you want to talk about something specific besides the one Q you asked, let me know. If you want to imply that my post was inadequate because I didn't address all of the questions, that's your business. I'm sure you don't agree with every line in posts by Blzrul and Mickey, but by not responding to them all, I don't assume anything about you, except that maybe you have a life.

What do you want to talk about? Gavin and I have played this game before. I don't have the time to respond to the hodgepodge of exerpts from someone's article that seems to conclude something pretty dubious (that the Kinsey report is to blame for all manner of ills). Pedophilia is bad. You want to know where I think the government does have a role: kids vs. adults. If someone makes a movie of kids and adults having sex, they broke the law, a good law.

On the Christian thing, I apologize. You and Scott seem Borg-like in your affinity for the Christian Right side of arguments (at least the ones that have come up on here regarding sexuality), so I confused your intolerance with his. I correct myself then: you are a non-Christian intolerant, tsk-tsk. You addressed your cumbersome post to my call for the government to get out of the censorship business. So, either you were suggesting some form of censorship, or supporting my position. Based on your article, I concluded the former. By bringing up censorship, I continued the discussion. If you want to avoid the issue of censorship, you are the coward. If you want to discuss sexuality in America, that's a new topic. I don't know why you want to discuss this, however, because we've danced this dance before. You think that homosexuality and tolerance of the same leads to some sort of slippery slope that ends with pedophilia and incest, even though you have gay friends and all. I disagree. If you want to go over this again, I'm not really interested, and I'd think that you wouldn't be either. If you are, maybe someone else can engage you in this. If you want to do censorship, which we haven't done before, let's do it.

Smooches to you and your boy Scott for all the attention in the last few weeks! Love it. So all that about Kinsey has something to do with your support of paying the government to be your nanny? Really, if you have such self-control issues, you have bigger problems. Can't you support your repressive ideals and try to convert people with the power and beauty of your vision? Why would you need to resort to force (televise Barney or go to jail) to get people to follow your ideals? Tsk-Tsk: very non-Christian of you.

None of what you say is true. They don't have a legal obligation to allow everyone to set up if they allow one to set up. They can let the KKK set up if they want.

Going to an ND football game makes you understand why so many people like college football more than pro. If we had college football in the Northeast, we'd all feel the same way. The rivalries are fierce, and yet the atmosphere at the tailgates, which always have tons of oopposing fans, is good clean rivalry. (I know this doesn't apply for all rivalries.) Anyway, I agree with an earlier post. Walk the campus on Saturday morning early- it's a lot of fun. BTW, if you are heading to the bookstore (to get a t-shirt or hat or whatnot), do it Friday night before all the people arrive for the game on Saturday. I made the mistake of going to the bookstore on Friday and Saturday, and on Saturday, it was mobbed.

Who wrote this, George Bush? How do you "win" a war nowadays? I really don't know how you do it unless the people are about 99% behind your attack and the attacker. What do you suggest? We obliterate all the substantive military in the Middle East? Then what? We can't win peace in one diddle-dick country that could hardly feed itself for 10 years and had the snot kicked out of it in 1990. Care to see how things would go in Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Iran?

To show how much I appreciate all you vets, I'll even give a special thank you to Rich in Ohio. Thanks Rich.

Here's the earlier related thread. thread I don't think the FCC scared them at all. I think this is a network trying to fight the FCC in general, and the movie they have chosen as their vehicle is one that Conservatives love. Their argument goes something like this, "Your FCC rules are so restrictive that we can't show your own beloved movie, so BACK THE EFF OFF." I think this has little to do with Ryan, as Ryan itself would clearly not be hit by the Bush/Powell free speech big government free speech quenching crowd. We should be able to see both Saving Private Ryan and Saving Ryan's Privates on TV. If you don't like it, turn it off. If you are worried about kids, be a parent. I don't need the government to be my nanny.