NBVegita

Until we get universal health care, then we pay for that. Although I do agree, I was stating in reference to: That if simply being able to save more lives is a prerequisite for the government being able to control an aspect of our personal lives, why don't they limit cholesterol production in the U.S.? I personally agree with your last statement suicide, I say let people do what they will, especially if the only person they're effecting is themselves. Which ties into the fact that I don't believe the government should be able to tell us we have to wear a helmet when biking. Now if we had social health care where we're all paying for each others medical expenses all of this would be a different story.

But on the other side, if you don't get in an accident today, wearing your seat belt didn't help you in any way. But if you watch your cholesterol, you are actively helping yourself everyday. A seat belt is useless unless you're in an accident. Watching what you eat is beneficial every single day. It also compounds. If you don't wear a seat belt for 20 years, then wear one for the next 5, if you've had no accidents there is no difference. If you eat high cholesterol for 20 years and watch it for 5, you're already in the negative due to the progressive damage done. I understand where you come from with the instant gratification part, but ideally we should be looking beyond the instant. Heart disease isn't a concern for the majority of young people, but specially for men, it's a bigger problem than cancer. **BTW this all stems from the concept that the government has more right tell you that you have to wear a seat belt, over a bike helmet, because wearing seat belts save more lives.

I still fail to see how Cholesterol isn't a more pressing issue. You're trying to justify seat belts and gun control because they save lives instantly? Well how's this: You've been driving since you were 16. you are now 56 and have never been in a car accident. You now get into a car accident. The seat belt saved your life. You've been eating low cholesterol foods from 16 to 56. Now you have a heart attack. Low cholesterol saved your life. No matter how you beat around the bush, heart disease is a more pressing issue than either of those. !@#$%^&* it would take you 72.5 years worth of gun deaths to equal just one year of heart disease deaths. Your "save lives instantly" only works in unique situations. If you've never been around a gun then gun control will never help you. If you've never been in an accident, your seat belt has never helped you. If you never eat Hydrogenated oils, that has helped you every single day. Can you post that? I'd like to see how they can create a reliable a statistic on a gun repelling an intruder, but !@#$%^&*uming you're right, the problem doesn't come from lack of gun control, it comes from lack of gun safety/education. I would 100% support having to a universal standard for getting a gun license that forces the gun education on you, similar to how they don't just let you start driving if you have enough money to buy a car. Who ever said they have to monitor your everyday habits? Just stop importing foods high in fat and cholesterol. Or simply have the FDA ban them. If the FDA banned all food being produces with H-oil, I bet you would save more lives in one year than you lose to guns and cars combined.

Well we do have the FDA that makes sure things that are inherently bad don't get to us, but Heart disease is the highest leading cause of death in the U.S. and the single greatest cause of Heart disease is Cholesterol. !@#$%^&* I ~12,000 people died from guns last year (half of which were suicides), ~42,000 died from car accidents and as of 2004 ~870,000 peopled died of heart disease. I mean shouldn't we be more worried about cholesterol than gun safety or seat belts? If you found a regulation that cut the automobile deaths by 50% you would save 21,000 lives. If you could reduce heart disease deaths by 1% you would save 4 times as many people.

[irony] [/irony]

So if the government decided that cholesterol was too dangerous to your health and decided to ban foods above x cholesterol you'd support that? If I choose to wear a seat belt or not, vice versa if I choose to wear a helmet or not, the only person effected is me. If I want to take a chance with my life so be it. Being I'm not hurting others why shouldn't I be allowed not to wear one?

Anyone who thinks the cold war actually ended in the 's is simply gullible. I personally don't see where this missile defense system (on either side) is even being considered/talked about. With all of the weapons we have aimed at each other and the minor effect this missile system would have, this is simply the U.S. poking at Russia with a big stick, hiding behind NATO support, hoping they poke back with a bigger one, which would be a big problem for Russia.

I would say a law making you wear a helmet is on par with laws making you wear a seatbelt. Either way I think it should be your decision.

Rock on.

I would personally like to know the evidence behind him getting away with shooting them in the back, because even in NY, you can shoot someone in self defense, but it's a !@#$%^&* hard case to prove that shooting them in the back is self defense. To go along with this, if this happened in your state I would hold the same personal opinion in believing that he did a good thing, but I would also respect that it was breaking the law and agree that he should go to jail. The same way that if someone killed a child molester in cold blood, I'd consider them a good person, but I would also respect the fact that they broke the law and should be punished for it. The way it worked out, according to Texas law, he is innocent.

God !@#$%^&* first music now youtube? I mean cmon. It's not like you're going to go out and buy their product because you can't see it on youtube anymore. I really hope the U.S. fights this.

For Bak, The idea I stated was ridiculous was comparing a minor legal infraction to a major legal infraction and insinuating that there should be an equal penalty for both. In fact I do believe that Exemplified that. As I stated: Neither of us were there, but that sure seems to me like they approached the man once he left his house. As for if he should or shouldn't have left his house I interpret it as a neighbor being concerned with his neighbors property. You say it was a crazy man trying to kill two people. It just so happens a grand jury agrees with my !@#$%^&*essment. If you've ever known a redneck you know there is a big difference between saying you're going to shoot someone and actually shooting them. In this case he actually shot them. !@#$%^&* maybe he went outside to shoot them. Honestly, I say good riddance. If you're dumb enough to rob a house when you know the inhabitants can kill you for doing so, you deserve what you got. Yes this man wasn't an inhabitant of the house, but the law also does give your neighbor the right to protect your home as his own if you ask him to do so. Now they(that is the news) haven't asked the neighbor if he gave that permission or not so again not knowing everything I can't say. Ducky, This is twice now you've attempted to insult me to validate your argument. Please try to stay respectful even if you strongly disagree. Now Two guys who just robbed his neighbors house ended up on his property 5 yards away with crowbars. Yeah that isn't at all threatening. As stated above I view it as a good thing he left his house to stop a robbery. Not doing so is tantamount to seeing a group of kids beating on a younger kid and walking right by. As stated none of us were there so we won't know for sure. If you are that paranoid then you need a mental evaluation. There is a slight difference from two criminals with crowbars on your property and the aforementioned. If you can't realize that then there is no point in continuing to arguing. Any argument can be countered irrationally with a radical situation. Ultimately I feel that if you're going to invade someone's home that you should be prepared to pay the price with your life. On a personal level I agree with him defending his neighbors property with our without any evidence of them approaching him in a threatening manner. On a legal level a grand Jury agrees that these men encroached on this mans property, after robbing his neighbors and approached him in a manner where he believed his life was in danger.

lol? First off if you're going to use an analogy it must be a similar situation. The only vague similarity was that you're breaking the law. One is a minor infraction punishable with a fine, the other is a serious infraction punishable with jail time. That's like trying to say there's no difference between pushing somone and hitting them with a 2x4 with a nail in it. Another point to go along with it is that there is a big difference between someone possibly speeding, which you won't be able to tell unless they're going extremely fast or are driving next to them, and somone breaking into your home. Or !@#$%^&* lets just !@#$%^&*ociate littering with grand theft auto, i mean they're both breaking the law right? Why don't we get the same punishment for both? Don't be rediculous. As for the kids corning a house, I will assume that is similar to egging a house. If you honestly feel that your life is in danger from a kid throwing eggs at your house then you need a mental evaluation and should not own a firearm. I will say, specially because of where I grew up, if I saw a teenage kid breaking into my house with what looked like a gun, I wouldn't hesitate a second.

I should have known you would have gone there with the speeding. The only time I've ever sped is on the interstate. Each time it was to keep up with the speed of traffic as to NOT cause an accident. I even slow down for school zones. And for your speeding argument, unless this man happens to be sitting on his porch with a radar gun how is he to know if I'm doing 32 v 30? Second the road isn't his property. It is the cities property. Third doesn't he have a high powered rifle? By the time he registers that I'm speeding and picks up his gun, I'll be half way down the street. Hope he's a good shot. This law in Texas implicitly states that you are allowed to protect your own property with deadly force if you feel your life is in danger. Got anymore terrible anologies? There are lots of things that could effectively cause a major disaster in your life. Most definitely if you are poorer to begin with. Yet again why should I have concern for a person's life if they are attempting to take what I've worked very hard and trying to make my life difficult. Also I notice how you strategically avoided the point I posted about not knowing a criminals intention(beyond burglary) when they enter your house. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/17/...e=mostpop_story He shot them both on his yard, they had at least a crow bar and they were shot at a distance of 15 feet, or 5 yards, from the 61 year old Joe Horn. If they were walking towards Joe or he was walking towards them I don't know. But I do have to say it's very difficult for an overwieght 61 year old man to sneak up on anyone. I reiterate, you may be willing the roll the dice with your families lives, but I sure as !@#$%^&* am not.

The only way I've ever broken the law is for speeding, which has only happened on rare occasions, I've never even rolled a stop sign. As stated in prior posts I'm one of the few who actually drive the speed limit, mostly to save on gas mileage. I tend to follow the law being it is in fact the law. I've never stolen anything, hit anyone for any reason other than self defense, never tried any illegal drugs nor have I ever abused prescription drugs. I've never contemplated walking into someone's house and stealing their possessions. What if what they steal ruins your life? Why should a criminal be able to abuse my rights, enter my property, steal my belongings and I should not be able to defend myself and my property from it? What the !@#$%^&* kind of idea is that? Honestly if someone is willing to do that to me, I have no concern for their life, because they obviously have no concern for mine. Not in this particular example, but what if the intruder has a gun? What if I've got a wife and two kids? Yet again these vandals come into my house and I'm supposed to pray to god that they don't have weapons and aren't intending to !@#$%^&*ualt my family? They're already willing to break the law by entering my home and stealing my possessions how far are they willing to go? Am I willing to sit there and find out? !@#$%^&* no. As stated, the law in Texas is well known, !@#$%^&* we even know it up here. If you're willing to break the law by breaking into someones house when you know they have the right to shoot you if you do, it serves you right to get shot. Well it hit the news maybe 3-4 months ago where this wealthy family got robbed by two gentlemen. They followed instructions to a T, even drove with them to the bank and took money out of the ATM. The husband was critically injured and his wife and two daughters were brutally murdered. To top it off they burned the house down to cover their tracks. "A court bail commissioner said Hayes and Komisarjevky each have rap sheets with more than 20 prior burglaries, and both were out of prison on parole" http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/07/24/home.invasion.ap/index.html You're right, you don't know anything about the man(men) that just broke into your home. I guess I'm not willing the roll the dice with the lives of my family like you are.

A couple of things. First off way to go with radical exaggerations. If you simply invited someone onto your property and shot them, you would be convicted of murder. Second, this man was on the line with 911 for almost 9 minutes before he went out of his house to shoot the criminals who had just robbed his neighbors house and were now moving on to his property. As to if they were coming towards his house or not I cannot say. And you saying that simply because you know someone with strongly apparent (as they just robbed tons of "loot" from your neighbor) malicious intent comes onto your property you're supposed to wait until they point a gun at you to shoot? !@#$%^&* that. As for the criminals, I would say yes my possessions are worth more than two illegal immigrants lives who had already been deported from the U.S. once before for cocaine related charges and are now trying to take what I've worked hard for (amidst how many other charges). I have no compassion for criminals. It's widely publicized knowledge that you are allowed to defend your property with guns in Texas, so yet again where I am supposed to feel bad for these criminals? On a side note where have I ever stated that I don't believe a source and then asked for another? I have stated that a source is bias (as you have done to me) but I do not recall ever stating that I don't believe the source. When a source is bias it means they're only presenting one side of the story, or over exaggerating it, not falsifying it. If it was false information I would implicitly state it. Ironically I'm pro choice, could honestly care less if gays and lesbians get married because it doesn't affect me one way or another if they call each other "domestic partners" or "married". I support the government working to stop terrorist attacks, but I don't support the Patriot act (even though it really doesn't cause the everyday Americans much harm I am opposed to the resolutions in it for what they represent) To go along with that I am 100% Pro Capitalism and Pro Free-Market and am quite proud that because of "dependencies" I can get just about anything I want to eat right at the grocery store (same goes for non-consumable products) But to go along with this statement I am 100% pro-gun and believe that it is an Americans right and duty to be the primary protector of his property. It is simply impossible for the police to completely protect you and your family. Every time someone can see both sides of the fence they're labeled a close minded conservative. I've stated most of the above close to a dozen times in these forums. Yes I have conservative ideals. Yes I have liberal ideals. Yes the world is not black and white. Yes politics isn't either.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/06/30/burgla...g.ap/index.html Turns out he's been vindicated of charges. I for one am all for what he did. As stated above, I want this guy for my neighbor.

sigh. First off what's the difference from a company selling your name and address and phone number vs companies buying local phone books and getting it that way? How does RFID make you a statistic? And even with all of the above information how is a company going to blackmail you? Only if you're careless with your information. I know you're a high conspiracist but tell me if things like this are so easy, why are there not more iden!@#$%^&*y theft/frauds out there. I mean !@#$%^&* why doesn't everyone with bad credit just steal good credit from someone else? I mean its so easy to do. Yes actually I would like you to find me some articles that show that companies are selling your SS#. Yet again with the internet, why is them storing your browsing information a violation of privacy? Where do they ever claim that you have the right to not have that information stored? That is blatently illegal. As for disposal regulations I don't know enough to say either way, but if some weirdo digs through the trash (which is illegal) and gets years of video with millions of random people on it, by all means what is he going to do with it? Or are you trying to say that the government stores all of the information so that they can create this interactive file that has every last piece of information concerning your life in it? Ultimately why should you care that mixed in millions of hours of footage there is a 2 minute and 37 second clip of you walking into a store and leaving? Well if you want credit you must deal with the consequences. The reason why you need so much information for credit is to that it's harder for someone pretending to be you (with your SS# they bought from your employer) to get credit in your name. As for the bank, they ask to know all of your pertinent financial information concerning the fact that they are in charge of housing said finances. Please do. And again you've shown nothing besides a radical theory that business and government will merge. Very similar to your idea that the president had the power to stop the election. I mean it is amusing that you think all government agencies and large companies are pure evil and have the absolute worst intentions for everything and everyone but lets get real here. The world is not a giant conspiracy. There is little to no foundation for anything you posted. Ironically both items I asked you to cite, you did not.

Inco, a nice meal for the summer would be some lemon herbed chicken (use boneless breasts), with fresh (not boxed) mashed potatoes and fresh mixed greens cooked in light butter or oil (seasoned to taste) Dessert can be either fresh fruit as stated above (if she likes fruit a lot) or something chocolate or creamy (not in a perverted way). Remember you don't have to make dessert you could buy a nice key lime pie from the bakery. As for the mood, set it to what your woman likes, you should know her best afterall. If you decide you want to do the chicken I have a killer recipe.

First off your name, address, phone number (unless otherwise requested), purchasing habits as a matter of fact are not private information. Never have been. The only case I've ever seen where someone can "sell" your ss# is your creditor to a debt collector. Any other form of doing that is illegal (so I'm 99% positive, Hoch would know for sure) and would thus be prosecutable. As for your internet records I believe it was verizon who has stalwartly combatted every inquiry into their users browsing habits. Only in criminal suits (ie child porn and the like) do they give up your information. Remember, the internet is not a free public service. You know full well that you are submitting yourself to the whims of multiple organizations when you decide to join the internet. I mean thats like signing up for the biggest loser and complaining about having to exercise. As for being filmed, why as a store owner should I not be able to video tape my own property? Specially in the interest of protecting my own property. The same goes for government buildings. I don't see a problem with the government using security cameras to protect the building and it's employees (whom are citizens if you forgot). You want to have your cake and eat it too. You can stay under the radar in everything but you lose things like credit. My parents don't even show up if you try to run their credit. They have never put any personal information on the internet, that includes credit cards. Yes they've never bought anything over the internet. In fact they've each never owned a credit card, nor have they ever taken out a loan from a bank. The only information you could find on my parents is their address and phone number in the phone book. The only companies that have their ss#'s are their bank, the U.S. post office and the SS administration. Please elaborate. When has something that was illegal become legal because a company says it would help the consumer? Also elaborate on this corporate/government beast you're so certain is coming.

Whats wrong with that? You bet your !@#$%^&* if I own a store I'm going to have a security system. And I don't see where corporate accountability falls into your argument. Ultimately I don't think U.S. laws are as "totalitarian" as you're trying to represent them. Yes they do harshly effect a minority which does need to change, but as a whole we still have a lot of the freedoms allocated to us via our cons!@#$%^&*ution. Not to say work doesn't need to be done but that is the problem with a democracy. If 60% of Americans vote to take away the privacy to X, then we lose privacy to X. There is a dual problem with both government and civilians concerning privacy.

When don't I cite, when asked? As for that post I think I was more refering to us acting without any Iraqi influence, but I honestly don't remember.

http://jobview.monster.com/GetJob.aspx?Job...3a00&seq=10 There is another one, just monster search national grid and there a lot of openings right now.

Just make an image of a fresh build, with all of your apps in place. That way you have an easy way to reload your system after a format. As for macs, I'd rather not buy a machine for $2000 that I could build for $400-800. No matter if you're for or against mac, you have to admit the compatibility is a pain in the !@#$%^&*. Even my fiance after being a maccer for life is having me build her a machine right now.

very good question.