RobertNashville

Actually, unwed mothers and nontraditional families are the symptom.

One can make arguments about almost anything but without empirical data to support the arguments I'm not sure they have much value.

The only way that any law can be enforced is if the vast overwhelming majority of the people are willing to obey the law thus allowing identification/incarceration/eradication of those few who don't abide. We could destroy the income tax system, property tax system, sales system or any other system in very short order if people simply refused to pay (which is why most taxes are collected automatically before you get what's left).

Humm...well...I'd at least think about it if he was a capitalist and not a socialist...

More likely they have higher standards that he couldn't meet...you know...like a brain with more than two neurons.

I took the Fighting Pistol class in March of 2011. I used a very pretty, very expensive 1911 that is, allegedly, designed for carry (for the sake of feelings I'm not going to name the brand). Less than halfway through the first day the pistol was choking so badly I was spending half of my time clearing malfunctions (good practice but took me away from what I was supposed to be learning). I switched to a different 1911 and finished that day and the next day with no malfunctions other then then ones purposely introduced. Neither of the two instructors made fun of my pretty 1911 nor suggested that a Glock was the best defensive pistol in the world. One of the girls in the class had an HK45 (just like the one I bought from TGO David)...big gun...worked perfectly for her although I can't imaging carrying it...the instructors never made fun of her either. I'm a big guy (read that fat) with a bit of a bum knee and not able to do all the on the ground work you do in the class...the instructors didn't chide me about being fat...they showed me how I could compensate for my weaknesses. I learned a lot during the class...I highly recommend it. I also learned a lot at the Rage Master Tactical Pistol II class I took last Sunday and I highly recommend it...I've learned a lot form Larry Yatch at Sealed Mindset and if you've got the time and money I can highly recommend him. I hope I learn a lot at the Fighting Rifle class I have scheduled at Tactical Response this fall. I suggest that you take a lot of training from a lot of different instructors...if you come across one you don't like, don't take any more classes from him. P.S. I still have plenty of great 1911s...I love 1911s...but I now carry a G31 with a G20 or G21 as a backup; not because anyone belittled me but because my experience has shown me that my Glocks tend to go bang with a little more dependability than my 1911s. Now, if I had my old Navy issued government model 1911 that might not be the case but unfortunately, I don't have that one.

The idea sounds well intentioned - but I think it would have exactly the opposite effect than the one desired.

I can't argue with the statement but what empirical evidence do you have to think that it will ever change? I've been voting in Presidential elections since 1973; the first year I was old enough to vote. Since then, I've I've never missed voting in a general election and I think only once have I missed a primary, even when deployed. I'm not a political junkie but because I tend to hold to specific political beliefs I've tended to watch what happens closely and occasionally I've involved myself when I thought an issue or a candidate justified my time. In all the years I've watched and in all the history I've looked at I've see nothing to lead me to conclude that a third party (or an additional party to the two big ones we have) will ever be more than an insignificant blip on the radar screen. To be blunt, our system of elections simply doesn't seem geared to more than two parties....it might work in other countries but I don't see it happening here. The Republican platform pretty much satisfies my political concerns; not perfectly but close enough and probably as close as any third party would. Most of what is wrong with the Republican party are those who control it...who are more married to the party than they are to principles. However, the infrastructure is there...as such, it seems to me that the most logical course of action is to keep pushing, contributing to and voting for candidates that most closely align with my political views; who will put principle ahead of party and the more true Constitutional Conservatives we can get elected the less relevant the Republican power brokers become. So, if you want to vote for a third party or try to get a third party going...that's up to you, I just don't think it's the way to effect real change.

Few pension plans exist any more outside of government service. I've worked for two different companies and qualified for their pension plans; neither company offers then any longer. A pension can be crafted however the employers wants to do it but in most cases, the retiree usually has a choice of several options as to how the benefits are paid including whether there is a survivor's benefit or not.

So....let me understand... Someone so "smart" as to register again after getting banned thinks it's a good idea to announce to the forum that he did that AND to do it in the same thread that got him banned in the first place?

The statement isn't exactly accurate but I think the message it's trying to convey is true. In any election where the candidate with the most votes in total wins, then any votes cast for a candidate with no or negligible chances to win decreases the number of votes the winning candidate needs to have; mathematically, there is no getting around that. so, the question is not whether a vote for a third party candidate impacts the the major candidates; the question is by how much. If you were going to vote for Obama but instead you vote for candidate X then it helps Romney (if ever so slightly)...if you would otherwise vote for Romney but you vote for candidate X then you help Obama (by that same slight amount). Of course, there is really no way to know with certainty who some group of people would have voted for if the didn't vote for Obama or Romney. It's also, given the small number of people who will vote for a third party or write-in, unlikely that voting for a third party this time will have any more impact on the outcome than it usually does; at least I hope so.

Okay, as I've said before...let's make all drug use legal but the moment they harm another person with any sort of abuse/violence/property crime we lock them up forever...not probation...not a suspended sentence...not just a few years...forever (or at least for so long that by the time they get out they are too old and a frail to be a threat to anyone).If the punishment is sever enough it might keep some from taking that road in the first place but if they do anyway then at least they only get to hurt others one time before they are gone for good.

It is, currently, public record but just because information exists in a database doesn't mean that is should be. Many states specifically make data about citizens non-public which in this day and age of completely out of control ID theft is the only logical thing to do.In this case, the Communist Appeal did it, I believe, simply to irritate and/or intimidate HCP holders...or perhaps it was just a desperate attempt to be relevant again.

Debra Maggart's maneuverings this past session would have made Jimmy Naifeh proud...the head of the scheduling committee keeping sending a bill to "summer study" to keep it from being voted on because they don't want it to pass is exactly the kind of stuff the Republicans complained about for years. Democrats were eventually replaced for that kind of garbage and there is no reason why Republicans should be immune. This is what truly frightens the Republican leadership at all levels; more and more people are voting based on what incumbents have done rather than what they've say they want to do...if you want to tell me you are a staunch Constitutional Conservative then don't go sell your vote to the highest bidder; at least be honest that you are for sale.

Except I think it is relevant so I guess we'll have to disagree.The results of narcotics abuse are a bit different than eating a burrito or me driving my 15mpg SUV. Maybe it's happened somewhere but I don't think we have a lot of people assaulting people/breaking into homes, etc to steel their money or property they can concert to money to feed their burrito or SUV addiction. Oh; and my conscious about my the SCARs is quite clear even though some friends of mine think the SCAR is evil because it looks mean (which is funny since it isn't even black).

At the risk of participating again in a thread I'm not supposed to be in... When I hear anyone make statements about how poor the candidate choices are for any given office and how they wish others will get out there and run, I always want to ask "have YOU run for office? Why is it some nebulous "someone good" who needs to run...if people really want better choices then why aren't THEY running for office instead of expecting someone else to do it? After having just helped a candidate in a very small way in a relatively small race I once again became amazed that anybody would want to run for anything. As such, I think we ought to be damn glad that anybody even slightly decent will run for office.

It' been my experience that what you are responding to is a fairly typical libertarian view which is one of the reasons why true libertarians an true conservatives don't really get along...their views are similar, up to a point but then diverge significantly.

I appreciate that you were going to come to my rescue but it's okay. As to "Reputation Given"; you do realize, don't you, that looking at a member's "Reputation Given" shows what posts he has given a reputation point to but does not show whether it was a -1 or +1, don't you???If I give a post a +1 but two others give the same post a -1 and you look at my "Reputation Given" you will see the net points given (in my example, a -1) even though I actually gave it a positive point. It took me a while to figure that out but I'm pretty sure that is how the system works...if one of the mods want to clarify maybe they will. Of course, I may be wasting my time pointing that out since you may not see this post at all - I suppose I'm going to have to go back an delete it since I'm not supposed to be participating in this thread.

If you think a member should control who is allowed to participates in a thread why not run the idea by the mods...maybe they'll set up an area where you can have absolute control over who can participate. If you don't want me to participate in your thread you might try to forgo replying to my posts...oddly enough, yesterday, in a different thread, I was taken to the woodshed by "sigmtnman" on that issue.

My apologies...I didn't realize that it was supposed to be a semi-private thread.

Funny...I thought I just agreeing with bkelm18's post; you know...the one I was replying to.

Isn't it odd how some people refuse to understand that?What I find most strange are those who feel that because Romney isn't "X" enough for them, they seem to believe that (or at least are willing to accept) continuing to move toward socialism is somehow as a superior position to take

You've obviously had more direct experience with substance abusers than I have. As I just mentioned in a post just a moment ago, my opinion that narcotics should no be legal is based on what I believe is the usual and predictable outcome of the use of narcotics (which are often different and much more severe than use and even abuse of such substances as alcohol, marjuina , etc.From NIDA: "It is an all-too-common scenario: A person experiments with an addictive drug like cocaine. Perhaps he intends to try it just once, for "the experience" of it. It turns out, though, that he enjoys the drug's euphoric effect so much that in ensuing weeks and months he uses it again -- and again. But in due time, he decides he really should quit. He knows that despite the incomparable short-term high he gets from using cocaine, the long-term consequences of its use are perilous. So he vows to stop using it. His brain, however, has a different agenda. It now demands cocaine. While his rational mind knows full well that he shouldn't use it again, his brain overrides such warnings. Unbeknown to him, repeated use of cocaine has brought about dramatic changes in both the structure and function of his brain. In fact, if he'd known the danger signs for which to be on the lookout, he would have realized that the euphoric effect derived from cocaine use is itself a sure sign that the drug is inducing a change in the brain -- just as he would have known that as time passes, and the drug is used with increasing regularity, this change becomes more pronounced, and indelible, until finally his brain has become addicted to the drug. And so, despite his heartfelt vow never again to use cocaine, he continues using it. Again and again. His drug use is now beyond his control. It is compulsive. He is addicted. While this turn of events is a shock to the drug user, it is no surprise at all to researchers who study the effects of addictive drugs. To them, it is a predictable outcome." So the questions then seem to be "how predictable" and "how often does the use lead to abuse"? I don't know the answer to either but as I think is usually the best course of action with many issues; if I'm wrong I'd rather be wrong on the side of caution. For those who want all substances "legal"; perhaps the answer is exceptionally long, long (i.e. decades) sentences to either prison or a secure facility where these people are separated from society so their chosen activity can no longer harm anyone else.

The difference, my friend, is what those various things do to those who use them, to those immediately around them and to society itself.It's been both my observation and the conclusion based on looking at the issue that there is a much larger "cost" to narcotics use and abuse than can be measured in dollars alone. They are often not easy to quantify but that doesn't negate that they exist. Leaving any "moral" considerations out of it for the moment, in a sealed environment where absolutely no one else can be negatively impacted, I don't give a flying you-know-what about what anybody does to themselves. However, narcotics use very often (I believe usually) doesn't just impact only that one individual and since it does not, society has the right and I would submit, the duty and obligation to act.

Well said.