The Rabbi

That was nauseating. There are plenty of reasons to oppose Obama. You don't need to create innuendoes and false impressions to do so.

Huh? That was an example of an invalid argument. Not being able to prove the existence of something doesn't mean it doesn't have merit. As for God, Western Culture is based on belief in God. Unless you want to say that Western culture is without merit then you have to allow speech about God, regardless of your own views.

Not because you disagree with him. Because his views are wrong on any objective criterion and lack redeeming value. I disagree with people who think we should impeach Bush. But I don't think the views are totally without value and they might add to the quality of national debate. Do you mean regulation in general? If so I'll point out we have the safest food supply in the world. That is especially remarkable given the number of suppliers and the size of the market.

Do you espouse the same views as Louis Farrakhan? Is it impossible to differentiate them? Again, you resort to the slippery slope, saying that since gov't can't regulate some things adequately then therefore it cannot regulate anything adequately.

You just resorted to the slippery slope in making your argument. No one is talking about muzzling ML King. I specifically exempted speech like that, or like this discussion, from consideration. I don't see that your ability to teach your children is a reasonable theory for allowing obviously wrong views without social merit to be aired. Plenty of people don't have children. Plenty of children don't listen to their parents (have I mentioned my teen-aged daughter?). It isn't an argument.

Louis Farrakhan believes white people are devils. I not only disagree with that sentiment, I don't believe a person even has the right to express it. It is not an area for legitimate debate. Reasonable people cannot disagree about the proposition. There is one right side and one wrong side to the issue. It really is not simply a matter of opinion.

I am aware of the argument. I don't buy it. Repeat something often enough and some people will start to believe it. I see this myself. About 25 years ago if you said certain things about Jews you were labeled an anti semite and a pariah. Then some people began to say things publicly but weren't made into political and social lepers for it. Think Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson. Then it becomes a legitimate point of view. Now you have members of Congress expressing this garbage, like Cynthia McKinney. Not so. There are fairly high standards to prove libel/slander, especially against a public figure. As for minority groups I don't know how many successful suits there have been on their behalf. I dont even know you could sue for it.

Darkstar, why do you hate America?

OK. What good do "you" see coming out of allowing it? Without resorting to slippery slope. I see legitimate points being made about gun control. I think debate on the issue is healthy. Reasonable people could disagree and debate will spur people to think about it and maybe change their minds. What is there to debate about the "myth of the 6 million" or whether a white supremacist state in Idaho is a good idea? Reasonable people cannot debate on this issue.

It goes beyond that. Ask, what good is going to come from allowing neo-Nazis or Nation of Islam to publicize their stuff? There is no virtue in it. It isn't helpful to anyone. It doesn't do society any good. Their Holocaust denial only gives confirmation to people to doubt it. I can't see any good at all to come from it. So why tolerate it? This is different from, say, anti-war activists. People can legitimately disagree about the Iraq War and the course to take. That is part of national debate and although I might disagree strongly I recognize that there are legitimate points to be made on the other side.

It wasn't the hat..... And they weren't laughing at you. Really they weren't.

You're right. If you invite attention you tend to get it.

It's actually a "tinker's dam" but whatever. Hate speech exists on college campuses all over. And from there it wont be long until it makes its odious way into the general public. I really am conflicted on this issue. On the one hand who could be opposed to muzzling the really nasty stuff? The only argument in favor of it rests on the slippery slope fallacy. On the other hand I see what similar laws have done in, e.g. Canada where someone writing about Muslims ends up hauled before a magistrate. There is a good video/blog somewhere about a Canadian writer (Jewish as it happens) who had that happen. So maybe slippery slope is a good enough argument here.

Now you're talking dirty to me. The 148gr HBWC is really one of my favorite loads for .38spc. Incredibly mild and it makes a great round hole in the target, like a paper punch. S&B makes them as do a few others. Not a bad defense round if you really needed one either.

Not that I would recommend anyone not get a permit, but how often does someone get busted for carrying illegally in the absence of anything else?

You certainly seem to be going down that route. I gave you ample opportunity to clarify your earlier remarks and you responded similarly. Now you simply act miffed, like my point was inconsequential. It isn't. It is the essence of the issue. There are many ways to determine the attitude and bearing of the suspect without asking to search. If so, why ask to do it? Your explanation is not panning out. Other posters here have questioned your obvious contradictions and the clear implications of what you have posted. And you act like it's simply a personal attack. It isn't. Your responses are not different from what I have seen other officers express. And they are disturbing in the extreme. And the most disturbing part is that you seem to show no self-awareness of this or even comprehend what the problem is.

+1. Also anyone worth his salt should be able to determine within about 30 seconds or less what the attitude of the suspect is, even without asking for a search.

Actually for someone who wanted to see the Progressive platform instituted it did. That's exactly the point. If you want actual change you have to work within the existing system, which is 2 party in this country. Going outside of that makes one irrelevant. If all the people bitching and moaning about libertarian type principles would become active in the GOP it would move that party back towards those principles. By leaving they lose any influence they might have on national policy.

I thought about this. There is a law of unintended consequences out there. If I were in the military and knew that the sleazeball who had just been trying to kill me was going to get constitutional protection I would do my best to make sure he didnt get that far.

Somehow when I look at the justices who were "pro individual liberties" on this case I don't see pro-gun people. I do see people who think the US isn't really so dangerous. So why not extend unwarranted civil liberties to enemy soldiers or allow gov'ts to ban guns?

Oh, TRADE rating is what you meant. I thought it was a rating to see who was the biggest 'tard on the forum. I'd personally be opposed to that as I want people to hate me for what I say, not some rating.

Give someone a heck of a wedgie.

Holster choices for women aren't that great. I did know a woman who carried a Kel Tec .32 in her bra. A belt holster is going to require pants and likely a belt. It isnt the most concealable. Other choices are holster undershirt from Kramer, holster underwear I think called Thunderwear. I know Steelharp uses that. Don't ask me how I know. Belly band is not a bad choice. My wife carries a .38S&W topbreak in a zipped case in her work bag. It was the best I could do and beats nothing.

Voting for a candidate with zero chance of winning is tantamount to not voting at all. Only difference is you get to feel good about yourself. And the Dems and GOP have no monopoly on a$$holes. Go look some Libertarian stuff sometime. When you work within a political system you tend to get more of what you want. The Progressives from the 19th century had most of their agenda enacted by the major parties.

My father was from Georgia. I grew up eating turnip greens. I still love them. Now I understand the problem.