SuperJerk

Since worldwide nuclear armageddon is within human ability, then your first claim is invalidated. Which I'm sure you already knew, since you included it. That seems to indicate that we can do enough damage to the environment to seriously damage the health of humans and animals within a given area (or farther if wind currents take the pollutants to other areas). While it is true that volcanoes release enourmous amounts of pollution, they can not be blamed for many of the health problems people acquire because of certain types of pollution. I think one of the ways that the environmental movement has failed is that it has emphasized long-term theoretical catestrophic effects of pollution, instead of the everyday health risks that common man-made sources of pollution pose. In short, while the long term effects of pollution to the Earth's overall ecosystem is debatable, immediate health risks from exposure to man made pollutants is not. The government must enforce pollution regulations as part of its duty to protect the public.

No, you're not wrong , because you DID add the part about the 14th Amendment. My mistake. While Gitlow's conviction was not overturned, the Court did establish that the 1st Amendment's protection of speech and press could not be impaired by the states, because of the 14th Amendment's due process clause. The Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Rights to state governments by holding that most of its protections apply against the states as part of the meaning of the 14th Amendment's Due Process clause. As you noted, the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Tenth Amendments have been covered in other cases. The Second Amendment deals specifically with states' right to have a militia, so it is already applied to th states by design. To my knowledge, the 3rd Amendment has never been subjected to judicial review at the state or federal level, so your argument that it does not apply to the states is possibly accurate. However, the Amendment itself does not specify what level of government it is applying itself to. And I'm not touching the 7th Amendment with a ten foot poll.

Yes, but do they visit as much as we did, and more importantly spend as much money, before the embargo? For some reason I'm thinking they don't. Of course, I realize that the fact that they have a communist dictatorship hurts tourism probably just as much or worse as the embargo does. My point isn't that the embargo is hurting them, but that their biggest industry can't sustain their economy.

Robot, if a party finds winning majorities nearly impossible for over 40 years --- even with a politician everybody seems to think is the best ever (yet who could never churn out 50% of the vote) --- the problem they have with issues is the only explanation. It defies logic to assume that a party that only managed to gain a majority due to WaterGate since 1964 has just been besieged by horrible candidates that they happily CHOSE (I was saying Kerry was a horrid candidate way back in April). 1) I've revised my original statement to state what I really meant. 2) Clinton would have gotten over 50% if it hadn't been a 3-way race. Polls at the time showed Perot cut into both candidate's support. I honestly don't think he would have. I don't even think he would have won in 1992 without Perot cutting into Bush. Throughout that campaign, Perot slammed Bush incessantly, not really going after Clinton until the final weeks. And Perot was a decided non-entity in 1996, and Clinton still couldn't pull 50%. The DNC might need to face that there is a chance that they can't hit 50% in a popular vote without some major problem benefitting them. Let me explain why I think that, and then you can tell me why you still think I'm wrong. There was a period during the 1992 election cycle when Perot had dropped out, between the Democratic Convention and October. Clinton's numbers shot WAY up. When Perot reentered the race in October, he went after both candidates' plans in televised informericals. Bush job approval rating was also hovering around 40% at this time, a sure fire sign he wasn't going to be reelected under any circumstances. There were also exit polls that asked people who'd they have voted for if Perot hadn't been running which Clinton won. In 1996, Clinton got more votes than Perot and Dole combined. He was going to win no matter what. Even if every Perot voter cast their ballot for Dole, Clinton still would have won. I'm trying to go issue-by-issue. I don't really think the Dems have any traction with economic issues. National security is not a winner. Social issues they might --- but even then, I think Republicans are more capable of explaining their position than Dems are capable of doing. Economic issues is anyone's game, as people tend to like whichever party is in power during the good times. Bush's only edge is that he can blame a slow economy on 9/11. If you start talking about stuff like the deficit or trade, he's more vulnerable. He's very vulnerable on taxes, although many are still grateful for their break, if if they don't really think should be getting it. When the national security debate isn't decided on a careful cross-examination of people's positions, but who looks like less of a pussy, then it ceases to be a real issue and becomes a question of character. Why did Bush beat Kerry on the issue of national security? Because Kerry didn't seem to actually have an idea what to do. All he could say he'd do was "bring in our allies", while many people recognized that our allies wouldn't join regardless. The Dems wished to portray Bush going into Iraq "alone" as being caused by his personality, and that is not a terribly solid idea right there. Kerry's indecisiveness was made the issue, not the actual policy. In a close election, and this election WAS close, that's enough to give one guy the edge. Goldwater got slaughter by a 20-point spread. That's a little different than 3. And, let me point out, if you look at the more recent past, Democrats did get more votes than the Republicans in 3 of the last 4 elections. Here's my case for Frist: -Won't be a sitting Senator after January of 2007, giving him the freedom to campaign that sitting Senators won't. -Senate Democrats won't be able to set legislative landmines for him since he'll be out of office when he starts campaigning. -Close ties to Bush, who is still going to be popular within the party in 3 years. -As a former medical doctor, seems trustworthy. -As the Senate leader, he can justly argue he has the most experience to do the job. -Telegenic as hell. -Hasn't alienated the religious voters the way Pataki and Guiliani have. -I doubt Rice even wants the job, but its hard to argue that 4 years as Secretary of State makes you qualified to be president when you look at all of the domestic issues she's never had to deal with professionally (but she's a sure-shot as V.P. if they can talk her into it).

I'd say that a chemical factory poisoning a water supply by dumpng waste in it is not only provable, but would also constitute a "change in the environment". Air pollution is also very real, and very man made. It cannot be proved that the damage is terribly long-lived. When you put it THAT way, I can't argue. We haven't been keeping records long enough to kno for sure.

The US embargo killed their tourism industry dead. But why? OTHER countries go there regularly. In fact, WE are just about the only country that doesn't deal with Cuba. While I don't doubt that we're huge --- if I'm supposed to take other economies seriously, then I can't sit there and assume that a country's tourism would be dead if only we refused to visit. -=Mike The wealtiest country in the world, which is less than 100 miles away, forbids its citizens from visiting your island. I'd say that's enough to kill a tourism industry.

Stacy? She's been around for a while. How awesome would it be to be married to a former stripper? The only thing better than a lap dance is a lap dance followed by actual sex.

I think Saddam just wanted people to think he had them.

I'd say that a chemical factory poisoning a water supply by dumpng waste in it is not only provable, but would also constitute a "change in the environment". Air pollution is also very real, and very man made.

All of which can be produced more efficiently by other countires, evidently. The US embargo killed their tourism industry dead.

Robot, if a party finds winning majorities nearly impossible for over 40 years --- even with a politician everybody seems to think is the best ever (yet who could never churn out 50% of the vote) --- the problem they have with issues is the only explanation. It defies logic to assume that a party that only managed to gain a majority due to WaterGate since 1964 has just been besieged by horrible candidates that they happily CHOSE (I was saying Kerry was a horrid candidate way back in April). 1) I've revised my original statement to state what I really meant. 2) Clinton would have gotten over 50% if it hadn't been a 3-way race. Polls at the time showed Perot cut into both candidate's support. 3) If you did an issue by issue poll, the Democrat's would have a better average than the Republicans when it comes to being in the mainstream. Although, I'll admit, the gap is probably narrowing. When the national security debate isn't decided on a careful cross-examination of people's positions, but who looks like less of a pussy, then it ceases to be a real issue and becomes a question of character. I believe that elections are decided not on ideology, but on who looks the most decisive. Enough people vote for personality, rather than policy, to make it the deciding factor in elections. Frist has it in the bag. I'd almost put money on him being the nominee.

I think they're lucky to get me to watch 4/2.

Which sounds about as good as being a doctor from a Mexican University. This is an incredibly ignorant statement to make. Cuba's known to have a fantastic educational system, and the University of Havana is the pinnacle of that. Umm, according to whom? I've not seen ANY figures backing that up in years. If you can find something clever Castro said, feel free. I've not heard anything profound from him ---- ever. What sort of figures are you looking for? I'll be more than happy to research it. I'd actually like to see an independent survey of Cuban education. I have not seen one. Well, it obviously isn't exactly what you're looking for but this may be close. That shows it's by far not even close to what the level of education usually is in a 3rd world country, so saying it'd be comparable to a doctorate from a university in Mexico is untrue. Well, the study seems solid, so I have no complaints. The question I have is --- why is th economy so utterly in the shitter? The only country who doesn't deal with them is the US. There is no way us ALONE can keep an economy in the toilet. Why are Castro's policies so horrendously underutilizing what seems to be a benefit of the country's? -=Mike Cuba has nothing to offer but mostly nice weather. You can't exactly export that.

I think you're all operating under the false premise that ideology decides elections.

Fucking prick.

I was wrong. She wasn't a reporter. --from It's True! It's True! Doesn't say she was a stripper, though. edit: There's at least 3 or 4 other fan sites that report that she was former stripper. All I know is that she wasn't one when they met.

She was a reporter when they first met, which was shortly after he won the Olympics. I don't no where this "stripper" nonsense got started, but she is fine as hell. If you want to see what she looks like, there's three good sources: -pictures in Angle's book. -interviewed in "The Mania of Wrestlemania". -putting her middle finger in Steve Austin's face at "Unforgiven" 2001 and yelling "Fuck you" during the main event. edit: I'm wrong. She wasn't a reporter.

You're wrong. edit: No, you're not, because you DID add the part about the 14th Amendment. My mistake.

Well, it's official.

Do they still do that stupid casting call feature? Sometimes it was good, like when they recommended Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor (this was a few years back), but mostly it as stupid. Of course, they were usually going more for resemblance than acting ability. Sometimes it was so bad I thought it was a joke. The worst is when they said Steve Austin should play Captain America, or Robert DeNiro as Wolverine.

Yes, but according to Triple H, Rob Van Dam isn't a main-event player because he is missing that piece of the puzzle that allows wrestling fans to connect with him. edit: If anyone has a link to the entire interview from late last month, I'd appreciate it.

Seems like too big of a gamble to me. Especially when the war was sold as being as an issue of national security. Iraq could end up being an even bigger threat than before.

I've actually read Chomsky. Impossible to get through poli. sci without being subjected to him. Mike, you'd have loved the college I went to. I took a ton of Poli. Sci. classes for my major, and we only had to read/read about folks like Machiavelli, Plato, Socrates, Keynes, Locke, Hobbes, etc. (i.e. people who actually mattered)...but no Chomsky.

Well, I can understand the wanting to mostly cover Marvel and DC, but do they have to completely kiss their butts all the time? They used to run negative articles/reviews about both companies that, but the last few issues I read it seemed more like a PR book for the two. Wizard totally stepped over the line a few years back by willingly participating the the "Sentry" conspiracy. Anyone else know for sure if they still feature a price guide?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_Chomsky