Dr D

makes sense to me. I have yet to meet a group of people of any kind that didn't splinter into some pattern of diversity on any number of issues.

PINK PISTOLS: Gays, gun rights movement merge BY LAURA POTTS FREE PRESS STAFF WRITER August 25, 2003 <!-- AG_BEGIN --><TABLE cellSpacing=5 cellPadding=5 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD width=250> J. KYLE KEENER/DFP Albert Lowe, 47, of Leslie is a member of the Pink Pistols, a national gay gun-rights group. He is working to found a Michigan chapter. "There are a lot of people in the lifestyle who are interested in firearms," Lowe said. His goal has gotten some support -- and some criticism. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- AG_END --><TABLE width="65%" align=center><TBODY><TR><TD>It made one state senator laugh. It made one of the leaders of Michigan's gay community cringe. But the juxtaposition of gays and guns made perfect sense to Albert Lowe, who is starting a Michigan chapter of the Pink Pistols, a gay gun-rights group with 37 chapters in the United States and at least 5,000 members. "I'm politically incorrect, totally," Lowe of Leslie said, chuckling. If the group takes hold in Michigan like it has in places such as California and Tennessee, the state could have a new set of hobby target shooters and a broader, stronger gun-rights lobby. That's the aim of Lowe, who is in the early stages of building membership, and of some traditional gun-rights groups, which are anxious to gain support. "The more the merrier, in that battle," said Chuck Perricone, executive director of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners. "As long as they're supportive of the underlying issue, which is self-defense, we welcome their support." Lowe said his primary reason for starting a Michigan chapter was to provide a forum to "go out and have fun target shooting" in an atmosphere that's friendly to gays, lesbians and others who may not feel comfortable in traditional gun groups. But Lowe, who said he has a permit to carry concealed weapons, said he also supports loosening Michigan's gun laws. "There are a lot of people in the lifestyle who are interested in firearms," Lowe, 47, said. "And there are some of the more conservative gun groups around who are not friendly toward the gay lifestyle. I've run across a few people who didn't like me because of my viewpoints and such." A few years ago, while living in Chicago, Lowe met Doug Krick, who started the first Pink Pistols group in Boston, also with the social aspect of gun ownership in mind. Krick created a Web site to get the word out. "The next thing I know, I'm having people calling me from across the country saying, 'I want to play. Can I set up a chapter?' It wasn't my intention. But I'm not complaining," said Krick, 32. From there, the Pink Pistols morphed from just a collective of gun enthusiasts to a more proactive, political group that educates, lobbies and speaks out in the gay community in favor of gun rights. The Pink Pistols' Web site, http://www.pinkpistols.org/, is peppered with adages boosting self-defense, such as "Armed gays don't get bashed" and "Pick on someone your own caliber." Indeed, Krick said he believes that "when the queer community can defend themselves, they're no longer going to be perceived as an easy target." But that's a dangerously misled assumption, said Jeffrey Montgomery. He is the executive director the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based civil-rights group for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered issues. "Like many minority communities who are routinely targeted and highly at risk of being victims of violence, ours would be a community I would hope that would lead the discussion and debate in favor of gun control," Montgomery said. "I firmly believe the presence of guns in confrontations does not diffuse those in any way, and does not make anyone safer." Krick said most resistance to the Pink Pistols has not come from gun groups, but rather from gay groups who view them as a political hot potato. "People hear gays, guns and their brain breaks. These stereotypes they have in their heads aren't accurate," Krick said. "As a general rule, it's from the gun community that we've been welcomed with open arms. It's from the queer community that we get the interesting reactions. We've run across a lot of opposition." Others in the gay community, however, see gun ownership more as an issue of personal choice, even if they don't choose to arm themselves. As a Ferndale City councilman, Craig Covey helped pass an ordinance that would add municipal buildings, such as libraries, to the list of places where concealed weapons are banned. Still, Covey said he takes "a middle-of-the-road approach that gun ownership is quite the American way, but there has to be regulation and safety and common sense applied. "I don't see a problem at all with a gay gun ownership group," said Covey, who is the chief executive officer of the Midwest AIDS Prevention Project. "Though I suspect the vision of gay people with guns might strike fear into the likes of right-wing, antigay, evangelical organizations." Or, in the case of state Sen. Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, disbelief. "Are you serious?" he asked, when told about the gay gun-rights group. Cropsey, who in 1996 received the National Rifle Association's Defender of Freedom Award, also has been outspoken on gay issues, including pushing for a constitutional amendment to define marriage as a union exclusively between a man and a woman. Cropsey said he is surprised at the creation of the group and thinks it's a "publicity stunt." "I suspect it would have very, very limited appeal," he said, adding, "Everybody has a right to keep or bear arms." But he said "it strikes me as funny that" the Pink Pistols are "being taken seriously because it's just so unusual." But in the first few weeks of recruiting efforts that Lowe admits have not been aggressive, he said 10 people have joined the Michigan chapter. Lowe plans to step up his efforts to build membership by visiting gay-friendly events and businesses, and by using the Internet. "If I expose more people to the sport and they learn the kind of fun they can have with guns, using them responsibly, then maybe there won't be so many people dead set against them," he said. SEE Even really left thinkers want the right to protect themselves:lol: </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Jack is the Master:biggthump

you see there that's why I love Jack he makes so damn much sense:lol: :lol: I couldn't have said it better myself Jack;) Unfortunately that doesn't mean anyone else out there GETS it:smashfrea

You realize ,tex ,that we do it just to watch you wind up right:eplus2:

I feel like that old dried up cowboy sitting in front of the saloon watching the sage brush roll down the street and listening to the broken door swinging in the wind. I have got to find a summer hobby:freak3:

you should read John Lotts book that's what he thought to. It just isn't true! with all the new concealed carry laws in the states in the last ten years there is a goldmine of data coming in on the subject and it comes down to less crime across the board less violent crime by an even bigger margin and statistically zero increase in accidental deaths etc. safety isn't much of a problem among licensed law abiding citizens. There are several documented cases of concealed carry people never even revealing they were carrying during a "fight" or "problem situation" until the police arrived. prompting law enforcement to commend them for handling the situation in a clearheaded manner. There is a greater level of personal responsibility brought out in people when the tool in question can have such serious consequences. 200 million + legal gun owners in this country and everyone assumes we are hicks or gangbangers:smashfrea :smashfrea

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Hilarious!!! although I doubt that we are laughing at the same things. Talk about stereotyping.

yeah what he said!!! who's worse depends on how close to one end or the other you happen to be. Obviously COulter has really pissed some people off lately with her Remarks referencing certain preferences however we are bending over backwards to appease muslims of late (ie taking pork out of school lunch programs???!!) because its offensive to their religion. whats the difference if Coulter is outspoken against what she finds religiously offensive? I am personally just sick of the double standard that's all. We have had jewish people in this country for years and we haven't removed the pork for them. They haven't been offended either I don't think? maybe! anyway this is a FREE country the reason you get to have the freedom to think the way you want stems from your basic rights. one person can love who they want and another can feel disgusted by it. ANd oh yeah they can both talk about their respective feelings without fear of government intervention. IF you can find a better place to hang your hat go for it. AS for me I will put up with the moore's and the coulter's and be thankful that somewhere there is a young man or woman willing to stand up and fight for my right to think and say whatever I please!

Or is he choosing to chat elsewhere?

:lol: :lol: :lol: I have never gotten the full details but family lore holds that my dad and uncle held a bright light on a deer at night in their orchard and one of them tackled it. No one seems to know who got the privelidge of holding the light since they both came home half dead. :lol: :lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: That's what LIBS call everyone who doesn't think the way they do. Of course they are the same !!!! not only are they both on oppsite ends of the spectrum but they both make their living off of sensationalist media. These aren't political powerhouses we are talking about here just talking heads that have found a way to make millions getting a reaction out of the rest of us!

dagoba 74% cocao dark with nibs:1luvu: green and blacks has one in the 80% range heavenly. I won't eat the stuff they are talking about anyway. not only am I a chocolate snob but hersheys sucks big time to start with.

Agreed you must have missed the part where I prefaced the post with the fact that it was an email forward going around. I didn't author it! I just threw it out for comment. The truth always lies in the middle somewhere and we only hear from the 10% on either extreme of a given subject.

much of canada's west is to far from the "crown" to follow the rules that closely. I have been on many ranches out in BC where the lack of a handgun would be suicidal. Places where you might kill several predators in the course of a days work protecting cattle. The guns both handgun and otherwise are necessary parts of that culture whether they are legal or not. They don't carry them to town mind you but they are there. The simple fact that a gun is a piece of metal and a tool no different than a knife or a rake for that matter should suffice in proving the point. Guns are tools, people kill people not guns. I am comfortable with the assumption that the complete erradication of guns would only lead to a knife problem or a baseball bat problem. Blaming cultural problems on innanimate objects is silly. I could kill someone just as easily with a COILER:lol:

"More Guns Less Crime" IF for no other reason than that an objectively thinking individual set out to write a book on how bad guns were and yet the data did not prove that to be true, so he wrote the book anyway and you have raw facts proving that freedom works and oppressive laws don't written by a gun control advocate. Interesting read!

<TABLE id=table3 width="100%" border=0><!-- MSTableType="nolayout" --><TBODY><TR><TD><!-- #BeginEditable "Main" --> This article was originally published in the Boulder Weekly, and is posted here by permission. Oct. 15, 1999 A principal and his gun by Wayne Laugesen Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy's head. Last week, he told me what it was like. "I said 'why are you shooting my kids?' He said it was because nobody liked him and everything seemed hopeless," Myrick said. "Then I asked him his name. He said 'you know me, Mr. Myrick. Remember? I gave you a discount on your pizza delivery last week." The shooter was Luke Woodham. On that day in 1997, Woodham slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss. The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss. Woodham knew cops would arrive before too long, so he was all business, no play. No talk of Jesus, just shooting and reloading, shooting and reloading. He shot until he heard sirens, and then ran to his car. His plan, authorities subsequently learned, was to drive to nearby Pearl Junior High School and shoot more kids before police could show up. But Myrick foiled that plan. He saw the killer fleeing the campus and positioned himself to point a gun at the windshield. Woodham, seeing the gun pointed at his head, crashed the car. Myrick approached the killer and confronted him. "Here was this monster killing kids in my school, and the minute I put a gun to his head he was a kid again," Myrick said. True humanitarian I've been intrigued by Myrick ever since that day. Most have never heard his name, because the mainstream press barely reported how the massacre was stopped. I've become more interested in Myrick's story with every subsequent mass murder. If only someone like Myrick had been at Columbine, I've pondered. A few months ago, Soldier of Fortune Publisher Bob Brown asked me if I had any suggestions as to whom should receive his magazine's Humanitarian Award of 1999. In the wake of Columbine, the answer seemed clear: Joel Myrick. Brown talked it over with his staff, gave it some thought and went with my choice. Brown and I will present Myrick with his award Friday in Las Vegas, at the annual Soldier of Fortune Convention and Expo. Myrick and his gun, no matter how one looks at it, saved lives. His actions saved the lives of waiting victims at a nearby junior high. He may have kept Woodham from shooting police, who would have arrived at the scene disoriented, without Myrick's home turf frame of reference. Arguably, Myrick and his gun even saved the life of the killer, who likely would have killed himself or been shot by SWAT cops after spilling more blood. Although Myrick saved lives, beyond question, some treat him as a leper. After the shootings, and the relatively peaceful ending to something that could have made Columbine pale in comparison, Myrick was in exile. He'd held a gun to a student's head, and his colleagues simply couldn't accept that. "Nobody wanted to dog me, but nobody wanted to side with me, either," Myrick says. "I felt like I was being betrayed by everybody." And that was Mississippi. This summer he studied at Harvard, where he'd been awarded a prestigious education fellowship. That's when uppity intolerance and mass stupidity took on new meaning for Myrick. "Once people found out my story, I got a lot of dirty looks and strange stares," Myrick said. "A few people confronted me." Myrick shouldn't feel bad. Only goofy losers gave Myrick funny looks, and such people never learn. Myrick's gun, and his ability and willingness to use it, saved lives plain and simple. Yet somehow, in the minds of the anti-intellectual gun control crowd, he's a bad man who did an immoral deed. By any sane, rational view, Myrick is a life-saving humanitarian. Even in my view, however, his heroic act will be marred by an asterisk in the annals of history. Despite the presence of this brave man, two students still died. Therefore, the footnote of far off history books will read something like this: *The late 20th Century was an era of crude polemics, in which some people believed hardware items, such as handguns, caused mass murders. Therefore, ineffective laws that reflected this view made it illegal for this legendary hero to have his gun on campus. The gun was in a truck, giving the killer valuable time as Myrick ran to retrieve it. In modern society, of course, responsible adults have better access to hardware than killers do. Arguing with a moron Myrick is as much of a hero as the law would allow. He was only seconds away from the shootings, yet the law had him far away from his gun. Federal law precludes anyone but a cop from having a weapon in or near a school. The modern spree of school shootings began sometime shortly after this law was enacted. In most places, state and local laws needlessly duplicate the federal law, serving only to accommodate political grandstanding. In Pearl, federal, state and local laws helped Luke Woodham shoot nine students. The deer rifle had to be reloaded after every shot. To hit nine students, Woodham needed time. The moments it took Myrick to reach his gun are what allowed Woodham to continue shooting and almost escape. Gun laws, and nothing else, gave Woodham that time. But talking to gun control advocates is like talking to five year-olds. Tell a five-year-old it's time for bed, and he'll say "No." Ask why not, and he'll say "because." Likewise, I've told a few gun control advocates about Myrick-telling them how he would have saved more kids had it not been for gun laws-and they've said "guns kill." Or, "we have too many guns." Or, "Woodham killed his victims with a gun." At which point I say, "Woodham violated several gun laws by having his gun on campus. The law did nothing to deter him, but plenty to deter the man who set out to stop the killings." To which a gun controller replied: "But guns kill." Sucked in and trapped by this bizarre logic, I attempted to address it. I said: "But Joel Myrick's gun didn't kill. Rather, it allowed children, including the deranged killer, to live." "Yeah, but all of these school shootings are done by guns," he told me. So I pounded my head against a wall. Politics and sociology are complex. But if any socio-political issue should be a simple, exact science, it's gun control. All honest modern studies show that gun control, in this culture, benefits criminals while leaving law-abiding victims defenseless. In his book More Guns Less Crime, Yale law professor John Lott ran the numbers every which way possible. He set out to write a book about guns being bad, and found that every gun law ever enacted in this country has resulted in more violent crime. I saw him on TV recently, debating a gun control advocate. Lott cited numbers and anecdotes. His opponent, in essence, said "but guns kill." Politics of nothing Right here in Boulder, a city of self-proclaimed enlightenment, city council members are hard at it trying to enact more gun control in the light of Columbine. Weird. Today in Boulder, it is absolutely illegal in every way, shape and form for a student to walk onto, or anywhere near a public school with a gun of any kind. Remove all state and local gun laws, and you still have a federal law that clearly forbids firearms of any kind within 100 yards of public schools. Anyone who shoots up any school, anywhere, is violating gun laws. So what does the Boulder City Council think up to address the very real concern of school massacres? Hey, let's pass some gun laws. Duh. "If we can save one life," it would be worth it, Councilman Dan Corson told the Daily Camera. If the city council manages to craft a gun law that isn't redundant to the Nth degree, it will serve only to make victims of future massacres more defenseless-guaranteed. Some politicians know this, but they don't care. What matters is how the public perceives the headlines their words garner. Guns kill. Duhhh. "Let's outlaw guns." Gun control was essential to Hitler and slave owners in the Old South. Proven fact: Gun control oppresses and kills. Proven fact #2: Responsible adults, such as Joel Myrick, save lives. When unencumbered by bizarre gun laws, they can save even more lives. So let's appeal to the Boulder City Council and the Boulder Valley School Board to explore ways of empowering law abiding adults. Perhaps it's time for the school district, with the full support of city hall, to establish a voluntary defensive weapons training course for teachers and administrators. Politicians who find a way to balance the firepower between forces of good and evil, by arming some teachers and administrators, might not get re-elected. But they might preclude a future disaster like Columbine, where SWAT teams sat helplessly in a parking lot while a teacher in the building prepared to fire at the shooters with a fire extinguisher. Have a good laugh at this idea, on me. Then ask yourself whether it's more important to be re-elected, or to cut short a future school massacre. We will never rid society of guns unless we eliminate the natural phenomenon of internal combustion. A gun is a crude instrument and nothing more than a controlled explosion. America is home to about 250 million of them, and they're with us to stay regardless of law. If you want to save lives, the answer is simple. Stop keeping guns from the hands of would-be heroes-the only people who obey gun laws. Joel Myrick had a gun, legally in his truck. Myrick and his gun saved lives, but they could have saved more. The lesson: Some guns save lives. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

You are Magneto <TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE><TBODY><TR><TD>Magneto</TD><TD><HR align=left width=64 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>64%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Apocalypse</TD><TD><HR align=left width=63 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>63%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Lex Luthor</TD><TD><HR align=left width=60 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>60%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Green Goblin</TD><TD><HR align=left width=60 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>60%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Venom</TD><TD><HR align=left width=51 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>51%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Dr. Doom</TD><TD><HR align=left width=50 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>50%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Kingpin</TD><TD><HR align=left width=50 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>50%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Catwoman</TD><TD><HR align=left width=45 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>45%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Mystique</TD><TD><HR align=left width=44 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>44%</TD></TR><TR><TD>The Joker</TD><TD><HR align=left width=43 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>43%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Mr. Freeze</TD><TD><HR align=left width=42 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>42%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Dark Phoenix</TD><TD><HR align=left width=34 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>34%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Juggernaut</TD><TD><HR align=left width=32 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>32%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Riddler</TD><TD><HR align=left width=28 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>28%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Poison Ivy</TD><TD><HR align=left width=20 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>20%</TD></TR><TR><TD>Two-Face</TD><TD><HR align=left width=20 noShade SIZE=4></TD><TD>20%</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>gotta read more comic books:biggthump

Sunday, April 22, 2007 <HR SIZE=1><!-- writer and photo option --><HR noShade SIZE=1><!-- end option -->VIRGINIA TECH MASSACRE Death toll limited before campus gun ban 5 years ago, shooter subdued by armed students <HR SIZE=1>Posted: April 22, 2007 1:00 a.m. Eastern <!-- end deck --> <HR SIZE=1><!-- © 2000 WorldNetDaily.com--><!-- copyright -->© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com <!-- end copyright --> A deeply troubled and disgruntled foreign student runs afoul of college authorities. He comes to the Virginia campus armed and starts shooting in one building. But, unlike the massacre at Virginia Tech last week, the damage was contained in this incident that occurred five years ago, before the state legislature banned guns on college campuses. (Story continues below) <TABLE align=right><TBODY><TR><TD width=210> Peter Odighizuwa</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, a 43-year-old student from Nigeria, walked into the Appalachian School of Law offices of Dean Anthony Sutin, 42, a former acting assistant U.S. attorney, and professor Thomas Blackwell, 41, and opened fire with a .380 ACP semi-automatic handgun – shooting them at close range. Also killed in the same building was student Angela Denise Dales, 33. Three others were wounded. As soon as the gunfire erupted, two students acting independently of one another, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, ran to their vehicles to retrieve firearms. Gross, an off-duty police officer in his home state of North Carolina, got his 9mm pistol and body armor. Bridges got out his .357 Magnum. Bridges and Gross went back to the building where the shots were heard and as Odighizuwa exited, they approached from different angles. Bridges yelled for him to drop his weapon and the shooter was subdued by several unarmed students. Gross went back to his car and got handcuffs to detain the shooter until police arrived. Most news reports of the incident failed to mention the presence of two armed students and their role in subduing the shooter, saying only that he was tackled by bystanders. Odighizuwa was tried for the murders and sentenced to multiple life terms in prison. Virginia Tech, like many of the nation's schools and college campuses, is a so-called "gun-free zone," which Second Amendment supporters say invites gun violence – especially from disturbed individuals seeking to kill as many victims as possible. Foreign-born student Cho Seung-Hui murdered 32 and wounded another 15 before turning his gun on himself. A year earlier, the Virginia legislature banned all guns on campus in the interest of safety.

holy crap that illicited a heated response!!!! ITs just the usual email forward forward forward stuff going around. If that gets you riled up you better not check your email:lol: there are more than two sides to every argument! if there were only one or two they'd be easier to sort out. And as always the truth lies somewhere in the muddied up middle.

they are really easy to overtighten and its obviously disastrous. I keep my snopros about two finger tight. If it takes more than two fingers to close the bail they aren't right. ITs not like my TD2 where the boot folds in half if they are to tight. they gotta give somewhere.

Dear God: Why didn't you save the school children at ?. Bath , Michigan 1927 Houston, TX 1959 Moses Lake , Washington 2/2/96 Bethel , Alaska 2/19/97 Pearl , Mississippi 10/1/97 West Paducah , Kentucky 12/1/97 Stamp, Arkansas 12/15/97 Jonesboro , Arkansas 3/24/98 Edinboro , Pennsylvania 4/24/98 Fayetteville , Tennessee 5/19/98 Springfield , Oregon 5/21/98 Richmond , Virginia 6/15/98 Littleton , Colorado 4/20/99 Taber , Alberta , Canada 5/28/99 Conyers , Georgia 5/20/99 Deming , New Mexico 11/19/99 Fort Gibson , Oklahoma 12/6/99 Santee , California 3/ 5/01 El Cajon , California 3/22/01 and Blacksburg, Virginia 4/16/07 Sincerely, Concerned Student ----------------------------------------------------- Reply: Dear Concerned Student: I am not allowed in schools. Sincerely, God ---------------------------------------------------------- How did this get started?... ----------------- Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools. And we said, OK.. ------------------ Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbors as yourself," And we said, OK... ----------------- Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehaved because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem. And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore.. ------------------ Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued. And we accepted their reasoning... ------------------ Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school. And we said, that's another great idea... ------------------ Then some of our top elected officials said it doesn't matter what we do in private as long as we do our jobs. And we said, it doesn't matter what anybody, including the President, does in private as long as we have jobs and the economy is good.... ------------------ And someone else took that appreciation a step further and published pictures of nude children and then stepped further still by making them available on the Internet. And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech.... ------------------ And the entertainment industry said, let's make TV shows and movies that promote profanity, violence and illicit sex... And let's record music that encourages rape, drugs, murder, suicide, and satanic themes... And we said, it's just entertainment and it has no adverse effect and nobody takes it seriously anyway, so go right ahead. ------------------ Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates or even themselves. ------------------ Undoubtedly, if we thought about it long and hard enough, we could figure it out. I'm sure it has a great deal to do with... "WE REAP WHAT WE SOW," ------------------ Pass it on if you think it has merit! If not then just discard it... but if you discard this thought process, then don't you dare sit back and complain about what bad shape this country is in In God We Trust

easy on the hard stuff now your liver and kidneys will thank you later:biggthump

here in the Flathead I encourage my patients who are expecting to go to whitefish to have the baby simply because the "state of the ART" hospital in kalispell has the opinion that the baby is theirs until it leaves the premises. Whitefish is a plaintree hospital with a strong patient rights philosophy and is very agreeable to alternative treatment options. I have had two experiences with kalispell and heart patients where they find nothing wrong and continue to order more and more increasingly expensive tests simply because they are confused and can't admit being wrong in the first place. One patient in particular has finally got to the point where he refused further invasive testing. In my opinion he had a reaction to Celebrex. It has been under an intense amount of controversy and the hospital still has not even considered that as a possible cause. Anyone with a list of his meds and the internet could have dx'd it with out the implant the ultrasound the angiogram the camera up the rear or the little startrek camera pill. but hey that's what insurance is for right??

trouble with the socialized version is the lack of choice. here you can choose your Dr. Unless you like long waiting lists you get whoever's up next in socialized medicine.