jackattack

Temper tantrum for a bag of skittles?

The have education. And policies such as welfare and minimum wage only contribute further to crime. Why not compare two U.S. states with different attitudes towards gun control? How about California and North Dakota?

They passed a bill opening up anwr in like 1998 but Clinton vetoed it. We'd be getting that oil right now. They did try to open up anwr to drilling back in 2001 or 2002 but the democrats blocked it. And back then it wasn't as big of an issue when gas was cheap. And how is it a bad idea? Even democrats say they aren't against drilling just opening up new lands to drilling. Obama doesn't have a comprehensive energy policy. So far besides drilling all I've seen from him is "throw $150 billion dollars in the air and hopefully within 10 years we will have a new magic source of energy" Thats a far stretch from the American energy act which encompasses nuclear, oil, clean coal, oil shale, renewable energy, natural gas, and conservation.

There was a ban on exporting oil from 1980 or so until 1995. They never renewed it. Even if it was exported it still creates American jobs and would lower prices globally. Thats one of two good ideas I've heard from the democrats in total. I'm not sure if it is already included in the American energy act. If Nancy Pelosi would at least let it come up for a vote they could introduce amendments to it and debate it instead of going on vacation without doing anything. The democrats were so adamantly against it that when they get back they are going to look pretty stupid now that there is the gang of 10 and Obama changing their minds. Of course now that Obama would support offshore drilling it's a genius idea.

Fairweather theist. footsteps poem? ;)

No one says drilling is the sole solution. It would have affects in the short term and long term. If we finally decide to untie our hands it would make a difference in the short term. In the short term speculators would not continue driving up the prices because there would be more supply coming online. Look what happened when the President lifted his moratorium on drilling. I know thats not the full reason prices went down but it had an affect. Also Opec would lower prices. If Chuck Schumer says another 1 million barrels a day from opec would take 50 cents of the price of gas what would the millions we could have here do? Even if it would make no difference shouldn't we use American made energy? We could stop sending money to Iran and Venezuela and create American jobs. And the millions of acres you talk about is just some bs. Why don't we let oil companies trade out 10 aces they have under lease and trade it out for good 1 acre. The Republicans want an all of the above energy plan. The American energy act has conservation, increased domestic production and renewables. Nancy Pelosi won't even allow a vote on this. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121391719487790187.html

Yes they are. Watch cspan. They want drilling, oil shale, clean coal, nuclear solar, wind, geothermal, and conservation. I'd call that all of the above. edit: forgot hydrogen and natural gas.

^^ I don't know where your getting that from. What the politicians are saying is that they want an all of the above approach. Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid won't even allow a vote.

It would be better if a company had discovered it. Then it would hit the market faster. Being published in Science doesn't make any difference in the real world.

Move back to my hometown, get an ok house, slippers on my feet, wife in one hand, beer in the other, the Warriors winning on t.v., kids in the next room screaming, this in the garage [hide=][/hide] gotta get the Denali, a boat, maybe a party barge, for weekends at clearlake, a jetski to go with it, and a lion head over the fireplace.

[hide=][/hide] Got my vans on but they look like sneakers. [hide=][/hide] This is what I usually wear. The color of the top one. [hide=][/hide] I have a pair of boots like this for work. Only difference is the laces.

If it's someone you know in real life put him on suicide watch. If it's just some random person there isn't much you can do.

There is one common denominator throughout the whole cartoon.

Why you have the impression that people who own guns would chase an unarmed robber and shoot him in the back while he's carrying away their t.v.? I can only think of one time that anything even like that has happened. And saying the 2nd amendment is for keeping a militia doesn't work anymore.

Well you think that.

Here's a game: guess the quote, no googling. I want to say John Adams. "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." - John Adams "To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason "(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison "Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the people's liberty teeth (and) keystone" - George Washington

Yes, that's right. I protest against the Church's blatant homophobia, and this is the same as encouraging a Communist state. :roll: The argument is this: if the only place a couple in either of our two countries can get married is a religious institution, but this institution denies the right for gays to be married, and yet gays are supposed to have equal rights, then the Church should either allow gay marriages or, as I actually said, lose that exclusivity, and we'll have state marriages as well. I don't mean civil partnerships, I mean actual marriages. I don't see how the latter option is forcing the Church to accept a certain viewpoint. Well gays do have their own church. I'm not sure if they perform marriages but they do commitment ceremonies. We do have state marriages. Thats what people are talking about. I've never heard anyone even suggest what you have. I don't think we should though, you can't really legislate love. The whole point of civil marriages is to give tax breaks to married couples to make it easier for them to have kids and pass their wealth on to the next generation. Two gay men don't really need a tax break but if it's that important to them I say go for it. I'm always for lower taxes. Only when you live in a country where the majority of people aren't even Anglican, yet it's our established church and we still have Spiritual Lords in our second chamber, will you understand the deeper frustrations between the state and religion in the UK. Sucks to live in the UK then. So you have a problem with religious people in your parliament yet you want to pass laws to force the Church to go directly against the teaching it's had for thousands of years?

Sweet dude

Lets just slowly kill her. :twisted:

It is my religious beliefs. Why do I need a secular reason to be against gays getting married in my Church?

Just be happy your not a girl. It could be wayyyyy worse.

I still can't believe what your saying. It's one thing to say that the government should sanction gay marriages, but to force the Church to marry gays? Thats a whole other level. Should we force the Church to operate an abortion clinic as well?

I respect your right to an opinion. However, you turning round to gays and saying, "Not welcome" is forcing your opinions onto them. It's their Church, their God just as much as it yours. Being gay makes no difference to their faith. Give me one secular reason for gay marriages not being allowed inside a Church. And I mean secular. No, forming an angry mob and breaking up a commitment ceremony would be forcing my views on them. What your saying is if someone comes into my house and starts doing meth I should let them because if I didn't I would be forcing my views on them. In a Church gay marriage would be going against what the sacrament of marriage inherently is.

So? Why is it you think we should only challenge inequality when hatred is involved? I couldn't care less whether Christians hate gays or not - the fact is the Church denies them the right to get married, and despite many being otherwise devout Christians, they are shunned simply for their sexuality. This, whatever way you look at it, is inequality, and in the glorious land of freedom should not be happening. I respect the Church's right to hold its own opinions. It is not right that we force morals onto others. However, when you are denying rights to gays that would be open to heterosexuals, that's crossing the line. That actually becomes discrimination. Wait so we should force the church to let gays get married even thought you respect it's right to hold it's own opinions?

Opposing gay marriage=/= Hate