SuperJerk

credit: http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/22/school.shooting/index.html I also noticed that CNN.com has a gallery of school shootings. I guess the play on words was too much for them to resist.

Anyone else think the very title of this series is a pathetic attempt to cash-in on something it has nothing to do with?

How so? Water isn't going to get into her body naturally. So, giving somebody water is now not allowed? That is torture. -=Mike Like I said, she was actually arrested for trespassing.

States are permitted to set up their own waiting periods, despite suits by the NRA. There is no present federal law. -=Mike Have there been decisions handed down on these lawsuits, or are they still pending? Have any gone to the Supreme Court yet?

Congress might also use it as justification to clamp down on the internet, since this kid might have been influenced by that one whacko group's website.

And I thought movie studios were bad with their constant reissuing of DVDs.

They didn't show it as much here like they did in the recent preview Wizard, but I fucking hate it when DC characters call each other by their first names.

How so? Water isn't going to get into her body naturally.

Really? When. I'm not being a smart ass. I'm curious since court cases involving the 2nd Amendment get NO press coverage whatsoever.

Yeah, that damn look of remorse totally vaginafied him.

The real story here is that Bobby Heenan's inducting Mr. Wonderful. Bobby Heenan doing anything is newsworthy, in my book.

Actually, she was arrested for trespassing.

Have waiting periods for guns held up in court?

There's a difference between witholding something and allowing someone to die naturally, and inflicting a fatal wound on them.

(b) Waiting periods have nothing to do with the health of the mother. © Partial birth abortion laws must have a provision safeguarding the health of the mother in order to be in compliance with the Roe decision. You may have a point about parental notification, though. I honestly don't know enough about child privacy rights to argue that they are protected Constitutionally, so I can see how you could think that the right to determine this would be left to the states in accordance witht he 10th Amendment.

I have no faith in ANY restriction being upheld. If parental notification for a minor got shot down, there is NOTHING that won't be. -=Mike I'll take that as a "No". It's that the constant re-drawing of the line makes it IMPOSSIBLE to determine what the restrictions would be --- since they have changed, fairly constantly, for years. -=Mike Its not impossible to determine what the restrictions placed on abortion by the original 1973 Roe v. Wade decision are. That's what I was getting at. In order to determine if they have been changing, you have to first know what they are (or were).

I have no faith in ANY restriction being upheld. If parental notification for a minor got shot down, there is NOTHING that won't be. -=Mike I'll take that as a "No".

Are you familiar with the restrictions that the decision actually did allow to be put on abortion?

Given your tendency to take quotes out of context, I really had no idea. **Applauds your reasoning.** Congrats, Mike, you've finally expressed your rationale in a way convincing enough to force me to concede you might be right about something.

They did away with parental notification laws, waiting periods before abortions, legalized partial birth abortions, outlawed a state's controls over abortion --- You know, you could cease being lazy and actually READ the decisions yourself. You asked for the decision --- I gave them to you. -=Mike I find it humorous that you think I'm lazy for not wanting to prove you're points for you. Need any help painting that fence, Tom Sawyer? But what if I told you I DID read them, but that I still don't see how the restrictions you mentioned (parental notification laws, waiting periods before abortions, legalized partial birth abortions) were protected by the original Roe decision? As far as "outlawed a state's controls over abortion" goes, you need to be more specific about what kind of controls you mean. Roe did protect some state controls, but it also did away with others.

I would have had Orton claim that the reason he can beat the Undertaker is because he is willing to do anything to get the win. Anything. He will sell his soul, there is no depth to which he won't sink. "Let me demonstrate," he says. Stacy eats an RKO. "See? I don't care who I hurt, I don't care what bridges I have to burn, I don't care what lines I have to cross. I will do anything to take Undertaker down." Yes, that'd have been even better!

Please explain how each, or any, of those decisions has done away with the restrictions on abortion that the Roe decision supported. (Although, you didn't just list the decisions, but the dissenting opinions as well, which are irrelevant since they have no legal weight behind them.)

Clearly? No, because having the Congress assume extra-Constitutional powers is not the same as actually changing the Constitution. Also, we're just assuming she wants the changes put into place without a Constitutional Amendment. She never actually says how she wants the goal accomplished, just what the goal is. They're DOING it without an Amendment. Note the whole judicial filibusters that are NOT Constitutional that have been going on for a while. -=Mike First of all, I didn't know she was talking about filibusters. It doesn't mention them by name in your original quote. Secondly, I reject the notion that a filibuster violates the Constitution. Filibusters are a procedural tool of the Senate designed to limit debate, not an actual law or anything. The Senate has the right to set whatever limits on debate, and whatever rules to govern those limits, it wants.

Except I wanted you guys to make the stupid comments for me.

1. Taxi Driver 2. Pulp Fiction 3. A Few Good Men 4. When Harry met Sally 5. Basic Instinct 6. Forrest Gump 7. Braveheart 8. Dirty Harry