go to the yahoo!
homepage.
It is only half-sized, I was reading about it in the papers.
It has a cinema and models of some of the animals.
In one leap this guy has taken believers in the Noachilan Flood from obscurity to ridicule, good job!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6604879.stm
Catch the comment by the out-to-lunch American tourist...
last night on the news a woman was told by a store manager that she could not in public breastfeed her child.
she and her husband were quite offended and complained to the company's main offices.
they are now looking into this situation.. what's your opinion?
I want the right to breastfeed in public. And I am a man...
I think what some people are losing sight of here is the right to look the other way.
To put their own foibles over the needs of every nursing mother and child they ever see is petty. Why should the mother and child scurry into a corner or a special room because you think turning your head and showing some tolerence is too much to do? It's almost like you're looking to take offence. It's a mother - possibly a new mother, probably a tired mother, and a #ucking BABY. Give them a break.
As for freaks intruding into other's space, all you have to do is look the other way and shut up and you won't be intruding into a nursing mother's space anymore. Simple, eh?
Considering the 'suffer the little children' scream that went up over Janet Jackson's nipple from parents whose kids see multiple acts of violence on TV everyday, it's obviously a cultural attitude towards nudity Europe just laughs at. As breast-feeding is non-sexual (well freaks might think it is sexual) it's good to see the vast majority of Americans don't have a problem with that.
pbrs (precariously balanced rocks),accoring to an article innew scientist,studies suggest some have been in their present position for 10,500 years.. a worlwide flood would have dislodged them ron their positions..
"whisked away by God's Miraculous Hand?"
Oh yeah baby, don't stop, don't stop... oh yeah... oh god oh god oh god!!!!!!
the v tech shooter bought his guns legally.
gun control laws don't stop this kind of determined killer anywhere in the world.
the defenseless victims couldn't carry a gun legally on campus if they had one.
Bother Apostate
Yes, of course, and the primary purpose of a knife is killing,
Depending on variety. I'd be quite happy to agree a single shot low calibre pistol was not primarily intended for killing. There is a difference bwteeen a butter knife and a Fairburn-Sykes
and the primary purpose of a bow and arrow is killing,
Yes, we really need to cut down on those ride-by arrowings...
and the primary purpose of a ball is killing, and the primary purpose of a vehicle is killing,
Does being silly have a point?
and the primary purpose of a an axe is killing,
Historically no. A unsharp impact weapon does this well enough in a pre-armour era. Axes were undoubtedly primarily designed for cutting wood.
Just be honest; guns were invented to kill and most are still designed to kill. Your... I think you like the phrase 'weasel words'... don't change facts.
TD
With respect, Abaddon, I think you could probably make a more plausible argument that the 2nd amendment is outdated and archaic today. The path you have taken here strikes me as problematic.
LOL. You are quite right. But it is impossible to reach semantic closure on the 2nd A either way, as it is phrased so badly. Please realise I have had this argument many times since abou '97 and I now am well aware that amendment won't happen and the primary cause of so many deaths is not gun availability, although that does not help.
I think amendment on grounds of the damage to society now caused by liberal gun laws is the real grounds though, but one that won't happen before 2050 if ever.
The US are trapped in the current situation as regards availablity of guns. Only social reform can change the violence in American society.
the v tech shooter bought his guns legally.
gun control laws don't stop this kind of determined killer anywhere in the world.
the defenseless victims couldn't carry a gun legally on campus if they had one.
Good point IP; I'm gonna start this as another thread with a clearer development of the thought; http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/15/133292/1.ash
the v tech shooter bought his guns legally.
gun control laws don't stop this kind of determined killer anywhere in the world.
the defenseless victims couldn't carry a gun legally on campus if they had one.
brother apostate
Well, as an arch user of bad stats, being wrong is what you'd know about, but in this case you are right as I muddled father and son.
Pity you'll never admit to the distortion of facts those stats you posted make. I wonder what form of high five you'll give yourself in your signature this time?
Your attempt to mirror the phrasing of the 2nd Ammendement with another topic fails as you fail to take into accuont the persistent connection bewteen millitas and the second ammendment. A better example would be;
"A well-educated electorate being necessary to the preservation of a free society, the right of the people to access books in a public library without charge shall not be infringed."
This states a goal (education and a free society) and gies a means (free public libraries), but does not mean peope should have all books for free, just as the 2nd ammendment gives a goal (security of the state) and gves a means (milita and access to arms), but does not mean people whould have free access to arms.
5go
I'm glad your humour is similar to mine in some respects :-)
Which begs the question. What is the point to fighting a depot, if he has regulated your miltia against any possiblity of doing it ?
No, I find why Americans need guns to overthrow tyrants when Eastern Europe did it without a far more interesting question, but no takers yet.
No one is going to give me examples of when gun-owners HAVE actually 'protected freedoms' by using guns against the government... so 30,000 die a year as a result of a freedom that no one has used, nor is ever likely to. Not very pragmatic is it? Oh, there was Waco, but he was a Whako...
Still no one interested in actually discussing the root cause of American violence?
Still no one going to accept IF there was a majority of Americans in favour of reform of gun control, the 2nd Amendment could be struck down if the politicians acted in line with itheir constituent's desires?
No one gonna talk about the lingusitic differentiation between 'the People' and terms refering to individuals?
Don't worry, it's human nature to avoid the topics that show up how weak one's argument is... ;-)
And as far as I knew pool were not designed with the primary purpose of killing, so your apples and elephnats comparison lets you down.
the v tech shooter bought his guns legally.
gun control laws don't stop this kind of determined killer anywhere in the world.
the defenseless victims couldn't carry a gun legally on campus if they had one.
heathen
If you're not going to bother replying why bother PM'ing me? Seems you want to blame me for your inability to express yourself without sounding like a bigot.
5go
Thanks for a well-researched reply.
But... describing "St. George Tucker" as a "Revolutionary War militia officer" does kind of spoil the first 'Ooo, look, lots of data' reaction. I was unaware that one-year-old infants commanded militia in the Revolutionary War.
So what he wrote isn't nearly as important or pertinent as you'd (or who ever this comes from originally) have us believe. Such are the problems with cut and paste, eh?
Justice Story more or less proves the intent behind the ammendment;
How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.
This is talking about "the People's" right to bear arms in an organised fashion NOT willy-nilly at citizen level regardless of the impact this has on society. Rawle refers to again to 'the People', not to individual citizens, and I suggest the differentiation between the two is worthy of research.
Hamilton again shows the differentiation between 'the people' and an organised militia and indivdual disorganised ownership;
Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
So, where do gun owners go and assemble them once or twice in the course of a year? Hmmm? Seems they hold guns outside the provisions of the 2nd Ammendment if they do not.
Madison's entire quote revolves around 'the people' and 'the militia'. Not any mention of citizens having an unalienable right to play with guns no matter what the societal damage is.
But the whole point about AMMENDMENTS is that they are AMMENDMENTS and thus show that AMMENDMENT is possible. ALthough it is reasonably clear (the 2nd ammendment is widely regarded as being the most obscurely orded of a badly worded bunch of Consititutiuonal documents), if women fight to get to vote, they can get an ammedndment. If black people fight for the right to vote, they can get an ammendment. Only with the 2nd Ammendment do people suggest it is unammendable even if enough people fight it.
And the guff about freedom is lovely; your 'freedom' to bear arms is paid for by gun companies and gun hobbiests. The only reason you still have it is that this lobby group pays better than the anti-gun group. Wow, freedom is dollar's whore. Again.
Of course, now we get to the interesting point in the discussion (as we all know the gun laws will not change, and that the situation is beyond recovery without truely heroic measures), and start talking about how in the land of the free civil inequality is what drives the violence in American society, everyone goes quiet.
Seems some people think freedom is the freedom for other people to be disadvantaged and downtrodden on a generational and largely chromatic basis.
But hang on, if it's in the Bill of Rights that people can fight governmental despotism by armed force, that means people who are disadvantaged and downtrodden on a generational and largely chromatic basis have a legal basis for armed insurrection! Provided they form militas, that is...
been going through my head lately....if you try to prevent them from doing what they want...they see you as the enemy...but are you?.
if you take away their freedom to do so.....are they no longer free?
will they hate you...or thank you when they come to their senses?.
Surely one can argue that most suicidal or self destructive people do not have free will, but are, in the vast majority of cases, subject to a mental issue and therefore not in their normal mind. If they cannot give 'informed consent' to their own actions, how can they have free will?
the v tech shooter bought his guns legally.
gun control laws don't stop this kind of determined killer anywhere in the world.
the defenseless victims couldn't carry a gun legally on campus if they had one.
The US are basically obsessed with guns and illusory freedoms that actually mean many people live their lives in fear. Some freedom.
As the gun lobby fund politicians nine times as much as the gun control lobby, this will not change, regardless of the rights or the wrongs.
No one will stop criminals getting guns. But crazies are not criminals, they are crazies. The Virgina killer would have probably been ripped off, even killed by a criminal gun supplier, or been too afraid to contact one.
As for arguments concerning the Constitution, it's all dumb.
I love the 'facts' presented, which;
I congratulate the complier of the table and/or those who have cluelessly spread such statistical tripe for such a manifest disregard of facts and such determination to compare apples to elephants.
Sadly, you're (the US) &ucked. There is no way short of a door-to-door army search to reduce gun ownership to levels seen in most civilised countries, and if you did that the gun-nuts would die with a self-rightous cry of "I told you so".
There is one truth; as a society, America is disproportionately violent. There are countries with similarly slack gun laws and comparable GDP/capita and far fewer gun deaths, but they have far far lower levels of social inequality than the USA, and thus far less disadvantaged people who might turn to violence to redress things. As social inequality is getting worse (the US is moving away from European norms and towards, say, Brazil, as far as social inequality goes), the violence is unlikely to get better. If you create a social model where dog eats dog, this is what happens.
It is this inequality, and desensitisitaion to gun violence after decades of it that ensures the 32 students are far from the last who die like this, and those who die at the hands of the disenfranchised underclass will continue to die, and the deaths will change nothing due to politicians being in the pockets of the NRA.
heathen
The koreans in general have a bad attitude about the US
Racist.
what is it about a person's believing they are "right" that leads them to being arrogant?
you've surely noticed that the more sure a person is that he's right, the more likely he is to treat those that disagree with him with disrespect.
it's hard to see how a person can disagree with something that you know is right.
Almost atheist
You feel like saying, "Dude, get educated, THEN come talk to me!"
Feel like? I DO say that!! And boy does it go down like a pork saucege at a Bahmitspha (sp?). I have tried everything from direct ("you are wrong, try reading up on the subject") to nicey-nicey ("that's an interesting opinion and I thought something along those lines too but then I found out that xyz"), and it makes little difference; people don't like being told they are wrong no matter what sauce you serve with it.
But in his own way, the other guy has probably done some research too.
He may be feeling exactly like you, wondering -- bewildered, even -- how you can possibly sit there with a straight face and claim you don't "get it".
I like to think this but this belief is frequently shattered when I find the 'research' is mainstream journalism or lobby groups with the resultent superficial, sensationalised, or biased results. And when you point this out, do people pause and check stuff? Not nearly often enough. Normally they make any 'arrogance' on the part of the well-informed insignificant in comparion to their own; complacent ignorance is a postition as liable to arrogance as 'intellectualism'.
I also think that the confidence of someone who has gone around the block on an issue where factual polarity is possible can be mistaken for arrogance by people who haven't done the ground work.
jgnat
That arrogance thing also might be related to testosterone. I notice in a fight, though I am feisty, I am no match to a bulldog male brain on the offence. He just won't stop chewing on that old bone.
Don't bring balls into this. I know women, hell, I am marrying a woman who can go toe-to-toe with 'bulldog male brains'.
cog dis
Some people have a deathly fear of being "wrong".
Yup. Contarywise, I LIKE being wrong. If I hadn't been stupendously wrong at one point in my life and embraced it and done something about it I would still be a Dubbie - and that i true for many here. Being wrong means I can learn something. I do however have high standards of proof and someone has to really prove they are right; but when they do, fine. I don't invest my ego in ignoring facts.
