diverborg

Tonight is the first time I have listened to Ron Paul. RP is out of touch with the reality of, not only America, but modern times. His foreign policy sounds eerily like Neville Chamberlain's triumph, circa 1939, in Munich. Food for thought... More of our servicemen and women support Ron Paul over any other GOP candidate and also more than Obama. I'll trust their opinions on foreign policy more than anyone else's for that matter. The guy definitely has a different approach, but his points are well thought out if you actually listen to his arguments, unlike everyone else who just panders the fears of the general public because we've always been told to think a certain a way. Its not like the guy can be president forever and completely demilitarize the world. But we are in a budget crisis that cannot be touched, until we start to drastically pull back our military influence. I'll never understand how anybody could say Ron Paul doesn't have a clue. He's the only damned GOP candidate we've had in a long time that actually has a freakin clue. The rest that think we can somehow touch our budget crisis without drastically changing our foreign policy are living in la la land. The future consequences of our current budget crisis and impending economic collapse is far beyond what a handful of boogeymen in the middle east could ever accomplish against our country.

Lawrocket = winning I don't have much to add to this discussion other than that. You've said it all much better than I could. Run for president, I will vote for you and donate to your campaign.

Holy Crap!! This is the most disturbing post I've seen on spearkers corner in a long time. Hard to believe something like this could happen in this country. I can't believe the country isn't screaming over this.

Here's my favorite Ron Paul video. I've always wondered why so many consider him unelectable. I listen to him, he makes sense, so I like him. What are people looking for in a candidate that makes this guy so unappealing? http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ia8GoThBBhY I'm not foolish enough to think one guy is going to solve all our problems, but hey at least maybe we can get pointed the right way. I don't see any other candidate out there that could honestly be considered an improvement over the current catastrophe.

We aren't sure where the story changed, but anybody with two brain cells would come to conclusion that McQueary told JoePA the whole story the day after it happened. You don't go to someone's home on a Saturday and not tell the whole story. Knock Knock Who is there? Just me, coming to your house on a Saturday to interrupt your life to mention some minor horse play with a 50 year old and 10 year old in the shower. Doesn't ring true. I agree. Its quite likely everyone involved knew the whole damn story. Hence the cover-up. The grand jury believes they perjured themselves in their testimony with the whole "horsplay" talk anyway.

Huh? Wow, I don't even know how to address this. First off, never said JoePa was guilty of a crime. The courts will decide that, and perhaps one of our lawyers on here can add insight to that one. 2nd, nothing you said even comes close to raping a child. 3rd, lets just use your bank robbing example. If you managed a store and had an employee that admittedly robbed a bank, and you still let him handle the deposits and lo and behold a few turn up missing. Do you not think the district manager would have a right to fire you for being a dumbass. 4. Take the #3 scenario apply it to an employee that you know raped a child, allow them to be around children, then the word gets out and you get fired. Thats unfair to you?

Yeah, I can see that. Just wanted to get another side of the story out there for those that may not have realized all the complications to the proposed pipeline.

How did you miss the part 7 times about JoePa being told by McQueary that a child was being raped. He was never told "horseplay". It was the communication from JoePa to his superiors where the story changed a bit. Are you a Penn St fan? I can't see how anybody other than someone blinded by the deity of JoePa could possibly stand beside this guy. Regardless of who told who what. JoePa got the full story from Mcqueary who the grand jury find very credible, and he continually employed a child rapist as hs DC and allowed him to be around children knowing the guy was never punished for his crime. Whether Joe did anything wrong criminally is arguable, whether he deserved to be fired is absolutely without question.

Being from Nebraska most my entire life, I'm very happy with the decision to hold off on this. Its not the existence of the pipeline that's the problem. Its that they want to route it through one of our most environmentally sensitive and last remaining wilderness areas in the state that haven't been turned to all cornfields. If the sandhills meant to others in the country what they meant to Nebraska, there would be a different tone from the rest of the country. There is a lot of poor info on this from proponents of the pipeline. The aquifer is not the problem, the sandhills are the problem. I could write 4 pages on why a pipeline through the sandhills is a bad idea, but I don't have that tiem or energy at the moment. Nebraskan's don't oppose the pipeline, they just want it rerouted to follow the exisiting keystone pipeline outside the sandhills area. The oil companies want to cut throught the most environmentally sensitive area of the state just to save a few bucks and shorten the pipeline. Some things don't have a price tag on them, and the sandhills is one of those things. Just reroute the dang thing, its only gonna be a drop in the bucket. As far as why waiting till after the election to rule on it, I don't know, but there is more to it than just politics. Nebraska's governor is lobbying hard to get the route changed on this thing, but the rest of the country seems to have no problem sticking the screws to us if it means some oil company can save a couple million in construction costs. Pretty F'd up really. Just wanted to get at least that side of the story out there. Not many "unspoiled" places left in this country, and this isn't one that I want to see go away.

I really think it would benefit you to read the whole grand jury report before making any more comments on how you think things went down. It will change your opinion of JoePa very quickly. Its public record, plenty of places to read it out there on the www. Its a tough pill to swallow I know. I once admired the man greatly and he was one of my favorite college football coaches at one time.

I would have to say that I have benefited from this in my community, however, I don't see how its really helped our area economically. At least in my area the program is a waste. If it were helping stimulate growth in anyway, then load factors should at least show some sign of growth. They haven't, and I can't tell you how many times I've had a Saab all to myself and at most 3 others. There's no way an airline would keep that route if they weren't being subsidized, and if the majority of the people make the hour to 2 hour drive to bigger airports, then so can the other 4 passengers.

It was meant to be a joke "for the most part". I live in Mississippi, and its not the folks with the accents that I can't understand. Nothing wrong with pronouncing stuff differently, but in some of the very "urban" and also very "rural" extremes, there are dialects down here that are virtually impossible to understand, and it goes beyond accents. It has almost evolved into a language of its own for that locality. I'm also an avid kayaker, and I run into some serious backwoods rednecks on some of these rivers that I just have to nod and smile when they try to talk to me, and its not just their accent.

I'm all for making English the primary language, but considering there's tens of millions of native born americans in the southeast that still can't speak the language after living here for up to 70 years. I don't think expecting immigrants to learn the language after being here a few years is a realistic expectation.

I couldn't agree more. The issue I speak of has no social boundaries. There are as many poor uneducated folks out there, as there are are highly educated kids coming out of college with absolutely no idea of what "work" is. We've interviewed some recent graduates that think a bachelors degree with no experience somehow makes them qualified to run the company, and expect to make more money than any of us who will be training them for several years. That is sure way to get a quick "thank you for your time, c ya later", in an interview. I grew up in a low income family

I'm relatively young (30), so take my observations for what they are worth (short term). But it seems from my experience at least with my last two jobs which were in two different parts of the country that unemployment is more linked to an increase of people being "unemployable" than it is a shortage of jobs. I understand that at one time we had some high paying unskilled factory jobs that have moved overseas, but its time to adapt. The days of making $40/hr to sit on an assembly line are over. My wife is in charge of hiring at her job, and I literally sit in amazement at the stories she tells me every night. Finding anybody that wants to actually work is next impossible and those folks are usually in such high demand that they won't settle for a low paying unskilled labor job. We've been trying to find another person to work alongside myself at my job. We've received hundreds of resumes but most people don't even hold the license required to do the work, let alone have the education level/and or little experience we require. The interviews we've given for the few folks that actually meet those requirements are laughable at best. AND, I'm in a career field that is supposedly suffering right now. There are some really sorry people out there, and they're breeding at much higher rates than the moderately competent folks are. With my experiences I simply can't understand the unemployment situation with it being almost a year now without finding anybody qualified to hire for my line of work. My last job did do a massive layoff, but there was no coincidence in the folks they choose to cut. If you want to get paid, you have to work. Good help is tough to come by, and I see that as much higher factor to our current unemployment crisis, than I actually see a shortage of jobs. Its a problem I see only getting worse with time because it just seems that the population of people that want to just self-destruct their lives is growing at a frighteningly scary rate. Then agian, like I said earlier, this is a relatively short term observation based on my age.

Guns are bad Sorry, its speakers corner, someone has to say it even if I don't feel that way.

Nurses do not prescribe medication. That order must come from the physician. The problem then lies with an inappropriate doctor handling a hospice pt. Many families choose to have the oncologist stay on as the primary because they have formed that relationship and trust that doctor. Although this is understandable from a family's perspective, it is ultimately devestating for the pt. It boils down to treatment vs comfort. Oncolgist only know how to treat. They can't fathom morphine 100mg/hr when they are use to prescribing 4mg/hr. It seems like it would be simple math; the pt is in pain = give more meds. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way with many doctors. The key is to sign on with a hopice physician. They allow the nurses much more autonomy with pain meds. (They prescibe a scale. Again, nurses do not prescribe) They are also much more liberal with robinol which is key to the last few hours of life. When asking an oncologist for this drug, the most likely response is, "what's robinol for again?" On a side note, Kevorkian died at my hospital. It would have been interesting to care for him. I understand, I just picked some bad wording with the nurses "prescribing". Thats why I also mentioned that it never got better till we switched Dr's that gave them a higher range they were allowed to work with as we felt it was needed. I know it sounded like I was blaming the nurses, but that wasn't my intent. I don't know all the technicalities to it all, in addition to what kind of doctor we had or switched to. My stepmom took care of most that. I do know the last 6 months he was no longer being treated for the cancer and strictly the pain.

At one rather naive point in my life I would've thought there's no way this should be legal. This past year I watched my father at only 56 years old die a very slow and miserable death from an extremely rare form of slow growing cancer (chordoma) that basically started in his sacrum and eventually spread tumors all throughout his body. I had to watch him day in and day out as the tumors basically attacked his nerves cutoff all of his functions and press against his lungs. He was completely paralyzed and wincing at every breath he took. He survived 3 months in this condition. 6 months before his death while he could still walk he was told by his doctor that he's never seen anybody with that much cancer in their body still alive. But anyway to make a long story short, the hospice nurses never seemed to be able to keep up on the pain meds and were afraid to prescribe him more because his dosage even 2 months before his death was more than they've ever used. It wasn't until we finally got a Dr that knew the cancer well and what he was dealing with that he told them what they should be prescribing. Well the last couple weeks it seemed they finally got the pain under control to an extent judging by the expressions on his face, but my father was so incoherent there was no way to know what he was experiencing. Despite what you always here about people passing away peacefully, this was anything but that and the images will haunt me for the rest of my life. I remember thinking to myself several times how horrible it must be to be in his shoes and how I probably wouldn't have objected if anybody knowingly prescribed him a lethal dose. I can't say that I would've thought it was right, but it certainly made me realize that I would never judge another individual in that scenario, and that its certainly none of my dang business what other families and their doctors decide upon in situations like these.

Can I vote for all 4 choices.

So be it... (Secret code for "amen.") However, on a side note...do we really believe God cares about any of this? I mean, I could go on the rest of my life with out praying aloud. If anything, maybe with a few brothers in privacy. The following scripture may not necessarily be relevant to this public prayer fiasco, but it's been on my mind: Matthew 6:1-8 "Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. "And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you. "And when you pray, do not heap up empty phrases as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard for their many words. Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him. Thanks for posting this.

Yeah, I could see it going that way on all accounts as well. One thing to consider about Cain... I'm not sure who all watched the "first" debate in South Carolina a while back (not sure how many we've had since then thats the only one I watched), it was Pawlenti, Paul, Cain, Johnson, can't remember if anybody else was in it, but anyway, Cain had like 90% of the favor after that debate from polls taken by Fox News. The guy shocked a lot of people. In a interview of the audience after the debate maybe one out of 20 people said they came in with Cain as their pick, but about 9/10 raised their hand that he was now their favorite candidate. Personally he appeals a little too much to the mainstream right wing for my taste, but evidently theres a broad base of folks out there that are still looking for that in a candidate. That said, I don't think the guy would be a terrible president either. Depending on how things go in the other debates and the dirt they find on the guy I think he's got a real shot. I definitely agree with you that he's likely to be on the VP slot if he doesn't get the nomination.

I don't know if thats just a totally twisted piece of writing considering the source, but if that article is being truthful, I see a lot more pissing on the consitution going on that protecting it. Banning a planned prayer that is part of a ceremony is one thing. Making it illegal for "students" to use certain religious terms in school seems like a much more blatant violation of free speech to me.

Call me crazy, but I think strategically its going to end up being Herman Cain/Bachmann. Personally I just can't let my hopes go on Ron Paul. As discouraged as I am, I can't help but have a shred of hope for my fellow man to see past superficial side of an election. But sadly it seems the majority of folks in this country still think they're voting for they're high school president and pick the most popular guy thats gonna throw a great post-prom party. I actually really like this Gary Johnson guy as well. Sadly I'm totally with Quade on this one though. There is no way the GOP will give the nomination to any of the few guys that are actually capable of beating Obama. Jeb Bush??? Not a chance in hell he'd ever get elected, but whether or not the GOP is dumb enough to nominate him... well thats entirely possible.

LOL, not gonna disagree with you, my only knowledge of criminal law comes from watching Law and Order. I did serve jury duty once, but it was a civil trial. I understand you're a lawyer, so from a legal perspective do you feel a murder charge is more appropriate than manslaughter? The reason I wonder is because have a relative that served 11 years on a manslaughter charge for a situation that seemed less ambiguous than this one. But he probably just had a "real good" lawyer.

Edited after watching video... I'm going to assume the jury had more evidence than that video based on photographs and forensics of perhaps the offenders position when he was finished off. Edited again... found out the dead kid was unarmed. Given the circumstances though if he unnecessarily went back to ensure the kid was dead, manslaughter would have been a more appropriate conviction. This guys lawyer must've sucked. Murder in any degree seems a tad extreme for a situation that began as self-defense from two armed robbers regardless of the final outcome.