DaVinci

Heros to their party. Not heros to the US. The next election will not bring much change. We are in Iraq and while an exit would be a good idea, a fast exit would be very bad for all parties. The biggest problem is that the Democrats have not been able to bring a canidate to the table that was even close to a common man. When a spoiled rich Republican from an oil family is seen as more of a common man than the best that the Democrats could bring. Well, that says tons about the best the Democrats have. I would like to see both parties bring a really good canidate to the table. IMO Bush was the better canidate last time.

Agreed. I don't mind LEGAL immigrants. But these people broke the law and then demand rights for breaking it?

There is no law that says you can't. But the law also says that you are not allowed to have a weapon in an establishment where the owner says you can not have one. Find me a bank that does not have the no guns allowed sign please.

It is illegal to carry a weapon into a bank if they have a sign not allowing them....And I have yet to ever see such a bank. So the law abiding citizens were unarmed. And even if you have a gun, it is not a license to use it. You have to look at the risk of pulling it out vs playing along.

Fair answer. Its possible that a Mod did not see the attack. Another fair answer. But that is often subjective. One might say that some get more of a break due to one reason or another just as much as some get looked at more. Anyway, not that it really matters much. Just something I saw. As for the movie. Well, I wonder if it will really change much in the way of movies, or society? I tend to think it has to have an effect and I am sure most here think it is new. But it is not. It is just the first one to make a really big noise. Anyone wonder why this movie is making such a fuss?

Ah yes but one the guy in question from my example is called a troll on here about once per day. So there might be more to it than that.

She fit the profile of a drug smuggler. The test showed it was drugs. This is also fact.

She fit the profile of a person smuggling drugs. A test showed it was drugs, so she was arrested. The second test (three weeks later) showed it was not drugs and she was released. Do I think 3 weeks is a long time? Yep. But LEO's have the right to make arrests when they have reasonable evidence. And they did.

Yep. And I have seen people who just HAVE to respond to certain people also. I have seen people make attacks and not get warned ever. I have also seen people get warned for the SAME thing. Case in point I saw a guy get banned for a little play on words when someone did the SAME thing one post earlier. I don't know why one got the boot and the other did not. So, I have seen this before also.

Your opinion. Others do not agree with you.

I have seen it before.

That was funny...Answer is neither. Both have strong opinions. Both have good reasons for their beliefs. Both have support groups that think they are correct and the other side wrong.

A simple test was done and it said it was drugs....A better test (that took three weeks) said it was not and she was let free. She pulled a joke and it bit her. The bail was high since if it was drugs the person would have been able to post it and skip... Drug offenses often have high bail amounts set to prevent people from paying and skipping out easily. She was froma good home? Lots of people from a good home have smuggled drugs. She played the game and got bit. I think three weeks is a bit long, but she should not sue someone for her being stupid.

WHO is being partisan? Your group may think you are being rational, but that does not mean that its true. Skydivers think most skydivers are rational, whuffos think we all are crazy. Like minded people will agree that they all are rational. Bill Cole's church friends think he is quite rational for his views too. I think you BOTH are extreme, just on different sides. You do the same. Saying things like like you did to the one guy about his "cluttered mind" does not help you prove to be non biased and rational. As for evidence I have seen a few posts from you where you attack anyone that does not agree 100% with your views. In that manner you are the same as Bill Cole. I personally think that some of the things you have posted have been pretty good. I also have seen you write some nasty semi-attacks. (i.e. the cluttered mind thing). For the record before you think I am attacking you....I kinda respect you. You didn't like the status quo, and you took steps to change it. You got married when you could, and when that turned on you (Something that would make me angry BTW) you tried to fix it. When you could not fix it you went to a place that would let you live the way you want instead of just bitching about it. For that you have my respect. While I am not sure I agree with your lifestyle, its not my place to make you live one way or the other. It SEEMS to me that you don't have the same views about leaving others alone (Just like Cole). Maybe I am wrong, but the tone of your post makes it seem that you have a problem with anyone that does not 100% agree with you. Edit...Back to the topic. I will most likely not see this movie. I don't normally go to movies anyway, and to be honest while this is a ground breaking movie, it just does not interest me. I would not go see the movie if it was about a guy and a girl, so why would I see it if its about two guys? The great thing about this movie is it is about two guys. But thats not enough to make me want to see it. And I am not sure the movie would be as "good" without the ground breaking subject. So, I most likely will not see it. Of course, I said the same thing about Moores movies, but I still ended up seeing most of them at some point.

If one person sees anger. They might be wrong. If several people see anger then you just might be projecting anger. Your posts are anything but "dispassionate". Don't know. But while you have some valid points, you dismiss and belittle anyone that disagrees with your views. And the irony is you tell others they don't have an open mind. You made a claim that gays if in charge would not bash straights. That was a statement that was questioned by several people. The simple fact is you made a statement that was pure speculation and history has shown that people in power who have fear of something have hatred. You are of course very invested in this argument, enough that you move to another country. It is easy to see how passion can cause anger at anyone that disagrees. But to claim you are being dispassionate, analytical and thoughtful when you post a statement that has no basis in fact is proven incorrect.

The 9/11 hijackers all passed screening. Yes, you could claim the screening is better now, but it it worth it to risk it? People who suffer from mental illnesses do dangerous things. Maybe not more than the rest of the populace, but just claiming a person has an illness is not a free pass.

sorry it took so long to get back to you...I was booted for my play on the SWAT word... Anyway I don't think he was calling me gay. He might have been, but who knows.

For the same reasons that some straights hate gays. They are different. If gays ran the world, then "breeders" would be the strange ones. Religion does not help. There is not yet (that I know) a religion that is anti-straight. But if gays were top dog then it could have happend. Your gay...great. But some of your posts show anger towards people who don't respect that. Its pretty easy to see that people are people and gay or straight will not change hatred based on fear.

Pure speculation. There was a girl I dated years ago. She was Bi. On many nights when we would hang out with her friends some of her gay friends were quite rude to me....Refering to me as "The Boy Toy"...ect. People like to claim that hatred is only one way, but thats often not the case. Edit...After reading some more I forgot all about the "Breeder" comments they used to describe me. Yes, you could claim it was not an insult. But it was in the tone and manner they used it.

As opposed to your SWAT (sarcastic whining and thickheaded) If you like, we can compare military/police backgrounds. Or, you can continue to talk without having a clue, just to start trouble. I know which you will pick already. To everyone else. I realize he is a "sniper" (A person who makes statements to aggravate and start trouble, then hides).

I opened this thinking I would be outraged at them being suspended. However after reading it, I have no pity...One is a death threat. You post on a public forum/blog, you are held accountable. If they had written it on a piece of paper, or said the same thing out loud they would have been suspended.

And IMO the company had the right since they were a health care company and had offered assistance to quit and gave the employees plenty of notice. Smoking has been shown to increase the amount of sickness and sick days an employee takes. It also reduces the amount of work being done with all the uncoded smoke breaks. I have heard of people taking half days on Friday and being able to justify it since they don't smoke.

The topic was why do I have to submit to releasing a bunch of personal information to get a job to include a drug test, background check, and credit check. It has since moved to if drug testing is good or bad. And if drugs affect work performance. Simple facts are that studies have shown that drug abuse is bad. This *includes* alcohol. However, alcohol is not illegal. I think, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, bad credit and a bad background are all good indications of a potential bad employee. The fact remains that since alcohol is legal is is not legall to bar employment for its use. But Pot is illegal. I think Pot is pretty harmless. However, I would rather employ a person without *any* drug use.

Don't know. However, tax breaks I do not agree with. Insurance discounts I *do* agree with.

Did I say it does not? The fact is that we are talking about drug tests, not alcohol. There is no test for alcohol use like drug use. Alcohol is legal. That is why I did not mention alcohol.