bandbfan

I love the switch she makes in that video, and she still sings in the 50s outfit.

But I think once you start talking about the kind of level that such a gun is on, you wonder where the line is with other "dangerous" items. I'm wondering what would actually be done with such a gun. Would somebody really buy one to protect thier house? Seems extreme but I suppose it could happen. It's like, who is the United States to judge other countries right to bear nuclear weapons and other dangerous items? I can understand the countries who have made threats against us. But I wonder how the US would react if some random other country decided to build nuclear weapons. It seems just more of ego thing to me. And the sports car you mentioned, logically, speed limits in the US prevent most people from actually taking advantage of high speeds, but people want them for show and the idea of it anyway. Kind of relates to high-powered and automatic weapons to me.

I agree that taxes should be lowered now and that the government could get more innovative in ways to make money. I'm just generally against the anti-tax rhetoric that has an extremely short memory and that doesn't really look at things in the right perspective.

Something else to add...I think I brought this up in the election thread. This whole tax increase thing...a lot of is BS. If we lowered taxes by 1% for 10 years straight and then somebody came along and maybe them rise by 1% (knowing that they still dropped by 9), people would still freak out about it. And I hate a lot of the language being thrown around, increaseing the tax "burden." I'm not for high taxes, but come on, a lot of the coverage is just scare tactics.

I have a question on gun "control." I don't want someone to defend the constitution to me. I just want a logical use for an automatic weapon in domestic life, especially in sparsly populated areas with low crime rates, or even highly populated areas with lower crimes rate. (I suppose I can understand the crime argument a little, so I'm taking that element out.). Are you really going to blow those deers to pieces with an AK-47? Is there an actual reason why people want automatic weapons other than just because the consitution is supposed to allow it? I'm not trying to be hippie-ish and say everyone should get rid of their weapons. I just sometimes have a very logical view on the world and wonder what people would actually do.

He just has to make sure the people of Pennsylvania are happy with him. Even though he was the incumbent, he only won the Republican primary in 04 by 1 or 2% points. That seems pretty crazy to me that they even had a primary, and then to have the challenger get that close.

Lol, today he said John "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" McCain when he was talking about something JMc said.

Arlen Specter has pretty much staked his political future on this package. Pretty brave. He didn't have to vote for this to pass as long as Snowe and Collins did, and they're not up next year. I don't know if it's good to think about every vote in terms of your future, but that's how it may play out.

Well we may get a Supreme Court pick sometime this year or next since Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer. It'll HAVE to be a woman, as she's the only one left. Wasn't she a little old when Clinton picked her? The Bushes picked younger people who will be on the court for decades.

How is Blagojevich missing his own trial not illegal? Do we let everybody cry about the process?

I'm just as excited about Hilary being SOS. And really, with a 94-2 vote, pretty much everybody in D.C. likes her.

I personally wonder how many of these newly "political" people will actually last. For example, mid-term elections have pretty low turnout, yet the course of the country can be changed just as easily during the years when the president is not elected. Do people really think they're going to vote in 2010? If they didn't like Bush, why didn't they vote in 2006? And take the Georgia senate seat. During the re-vote, Chambliss won by what, 15%? Yet senators control a lot of what our country does and especially if democrats would've had 60. There is somethingcalled checks and balances and some don't realize that the president isn't the end all/be all.

Yes, per the Constitution I think.

IMO, it'll be a while before Republicans have lots of majorities again if they go more socially conservative. Their main demo, older white men, is not really growing. I honestly don't keep up with the House as much partially because of how many people are in it. Are the Dems really liberal? Reps really conservative? I would imagine there would be more opportunity for that to happen as their public would be much more localized.

I saw a map of the election by counties across the country. I think it pretty much shows that using the maps to show the strength of Republicans is complete BS. The map is still overwhemingly red, yet Obama won by 9.5 million votes.