bullets13

Just reread your post for the third time. If I missed it, you didn't make it. ;)

I'm no genius, but i'm willing to bet this is for whatever armed guards that work in their offices. All government buildings have armed security. This is nothing new. Although this is a pretty good representation of how some political propaganda sites give you some "facts", while effectively leaving out pertinent information in way to misrepresent the facts and rile up their readers. My dad just got reassigned at his job, which does government contract type work. He's moving back into security, and they will provide him with a Glock 19. There are several dozen security guards. So it would be easy for someone to take a requisition and ask "why would (unnamed company) need 40 Glock 19s and 20,000 rounds of ammunition?", when in fact it's a quite reasonable order. but hey, maybe someone can find a source with some actual information that proves me wrong??? i'd love to get outraged with you guys.

    I'd suggest you go click the link that westend provided a little ways back in this thread. It debunks the ENTIRE "Obama didn't acknowledge Tebow" argument as far as i'm concerned, and it certainly takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that Obama somehow has more respect for being gay than he did for Tebow being Christian.

    I didn't miss your point. I'm just telling you that Christians may hold themselves up to whatever standards they want, but they can't hold other groups to those standards, and if they decide to, it's foolish to be upset or surprised when those other groups fall short of what Christians would have them do. you asked me "Should the media be held to the same standard", and i'm telling you NO, they should not.

    it would be safer to assume that i feel we treat criminals way too easily in our system. I guess in our current system, i don't care much one way or another about the condoms. might as well sell them at the commisary. But i'd much rather see prisoners go to prison and hate it so much that they'd never risk going back. I think we give them too many liberties. I'm not talking about letting guards abuse them, but allowing prisoners to have creature comforts, time to play games, work out, etc... it just doesn't seem like near the deterent it could be.

I watched a special on some Russian prisons, and if we really want to deter crime, we should treat or prisoners like that. They can only move around the prison bent at the waste, with their hands handcuffed and shoved up around their head. Outside time is actually in an empty room, and other than that they do not leave the cell. Except for the jail in Siberia, where they do calistinics at 6 AM in sub-zero temps.

    Should the media be held to the same standards as Christians? I would hardly think so, unless we're going to require members of the media to all be Christians, or have a religion-run media.

I read PAMs post after I wrote mine, and obviously I agree with it

While I don't agree with Obama singling out a player to congratulate him, I do not take this as Obama not calling tebow because of religious reasons. I'd guess that probably 75% of NFL players profess to be Christians, and while few if any are as outspoken about it as Tebow (there are likely as some as serious about it as him who just don't get the exposure tebow does), to call him for that reason would not make sense. Whether you agree with it or not, Sam is a pioneer in the sport. I clearly believe this is a publicity gimmick by Obama, but I don't see it as anything more malicious than that.

I do feel that if the banning ever starts, it will be difficult to enforce. What with the majority of military and law enforcement sharing your and my views on the subject and all...

I agreed with you until the last line. I feel that Tebow was much more the media darling. Regardless of how you feel about Sam, what's happening with him IS big news, whether you support him or disagree with him. Tebow got lots of coverage when he wasn't doing anything, when he was, when he lost, when he won. Sam was brief news when he said he was gay, and will be brief news now. There will be coverage about him, but nothing to the magnitude that tebow got. I also believe that if Sam sucks, but if he still gets playing time, he'll have the same detractors that Tebow did. Part of what made tebow so polarizing was that he sucked, but still had a large core group of supporters who insisted he could do no wrong. While Sam will also get a similar support, albeit from a very different group, if he doesn't perform the pundits will criticise him, just like they did tebow.

Not since one innocent person was accidently hit with the "high capacity" can. That one poor guy is proof we need cans capable of holding no more than 10 ounces.

    I'll be happy to own that. I'll also point out that Tebow was a major news story for like 8 months. Sam was major for about a week when he came out of the closet, and has pretty much been an afterthought since, and now has been back in the spotlight for a couple of days... if he's still the lead on EVERY episode of Sportscenter in 6 months, I'll agree that his amount of unwarranted attention will have matched Tebow's. It's also worth noting that Sam was the SEC (you know the defense capital of the world) Defensive MVP this past season. So I'm curious about something... Tebow clearly got drafted earlier than he should've because of his squeakly clean image. Did Michael Sam fall because of his issues? In your reply that I quoted here, you mention that some said Tebow got too much attention for being a Christian (which I agree that this happened, and i also agree it was true). But Aledo said that Tebow was "constantly bashed for being a Christian", which is a total laugher, considering had he not had the image he had he never would've been a story (or a starter) to begin with, and while being the least talented QB in the league, was the most popular and most reported-upon. You replied "Good point" to Aledo's post, which is why i quoted your reply when disputing the accusation that Tebow was "constantly bashed for being a Christian". There were some apologists for Tebow, who, when the Bronco's defense was going nuts against an amazingly fortuitous schedule of backup after backup QB and RB, would give him all the credit for completing 7-17 passes for 89 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT, and rushing 25 times for 60 yards, in what would somehow end up a 10-7 win for the Broncos. Name any other player in the league that has gotten that sort of leeway. To compare Sam to Tebow is not fair at all, at least until he attains the status of being a player who can underperform incredibly and still get all the credit for his team's success and be the lead on sportcenter every evening.

    I'm not shocked at all that this is how you remember that whole issue going. It's completely inaccurate, but it fits the fairy tale better than the truth. Tebow was bashed on here by a few of us because of his play. Then others would claim we were doing so because he was a Christian. Then he'd have another 72-yard passing day, and we'd bash him again. Then more accusations would come out about us bashing him for being a Christian. what a crock.

    i think it's funny that people are still pretending that Tebow got bashed for being Christian. Obviously there were a few nutters, but nothing like what his biggest supporters pretend happened ever even came close to actually happening. The criticism Sam has gotten from many people is what Tebow's fans pretend that he got. Tebow got criticized as a QB, and his fans blamed it on his Christianity, not his 150 yards a game of total offense. Let Tebow go. There's a reason he's not on a roster right now, and it's not his Christian views. He was terrible. Great guy, awful quarterback.

I just keep wasp spray by the bed. the chain email i read said it was definitely effective against attackers... ;) but i hear they're banning the spray that travels 20 ft. Too dangerous. Obama is pushing through legislation that will limit us to only purchasing wasp spray that will shoot out ten feet.

    having read through this thread, I'm SHOCKED you and Big Girl weren't called by the prosecution with all of the facts you apparently know in this case.

Damning numbers. Hopefully the republicans can find someone to beat Hillary or it will keep going in the same direction.

I'll say this, I agree that it should not be sensationalized. But it's also important to remember that Michael Sam is not being filmed on hundreds of different occasions kissing his boyfriend. He did so once, in what was probably the happiest moment of his life, just as hundreds if not thousands of young men have done before in the exact same situation. The media, and not the young man, have chosen to plaster this all over the news. This is not an "in your face" act by Sam. He did something we all do with our significant others when we get great news. The media has chosen to show it over and over, not Michael Sam.

    I always thought race played a big part of his initial suspicion. which still doesn't change the fact that there is ZERO evidence of him attacking Martin, and quite a bit of circumstantial evidence showing that Martin may have attacked Zimmerman. So if you have ZERO evidence contradicting what Zimmerman said, plus circumstantial evidence that appears to coincide with what Zimmerman said, you cannot find him guilty.

   i guess he wanted 15 more...

    on top of that, many more rifle murders are committed with rifles made for hunting than the rifles that some people claim are made "only for killing".

You still haven't given a realistic reason to ban them. Stats have been given as to why banning them will have no effect. You also have not addressed those stats.

A semi-auto pistol and a semi-auto rifle both fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger. Theoretically, you should be able to pull the trigger at the same speed on either. That being said, it is much easier to rapidly and accurately fire a pistol at close range than a rifle. Yes, a rifle magazine holds more rounds, but I'm no expert marksman and I can change a pistol magazine in under 3 seconds and it's much easier to reaquire a target with a pistol than a rifle when your target is close. The whole "assault rifle" argument is completely off the mark, with tvc's stats on murders with semi-auto high capacity rifles being all any sane person should need to see to understand this. There are MILLIONS of them in the US, but they kill an average of less than 50 people a year. 99.6% of gun murders occur from other types of guns. I'm still having trouble understanding what you think an "assault rifle" (made up term, by the way) ban will actually accomplish.

I'm not a big fan of his on any particular issues with the exception of a couple of social issues. But I prefer to see factual articles, especially from legitimate news sources. This story was full of holes and misdirection.