bandbfan

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

As someone who personally doesn't own a gun, I still believe in a right to bear arms. Just as I believe it is one's right to own that knife and daggar collection, that high performance sports car, that plasma HD television, etc.

Part of a right to bear arms is because of protecting one's home and property, but part of it is for sport. Who are we to judge someone for owning an AK-47? How do we know whether someone will use it for protection or to mass murder a group of people? The same way we have no idea whether those expensive knives will be used for hunting or murdering a group of people in a mall or whether that high performance sports car can be used in a hit and run.

How do we know what will cause harm to whom?

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.

Hey B&B...

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.

You know, at this point I don't think he no longer cares. He survived cancer. He can survive his Republican colleagues who seem to only be doing this to obstruct. Now they look pretty foolish with the passage of this bill.

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/10/caf...ouse/index.html

I love this man.

He hit a grand slam with this one.

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.

When is Obama sworn in tomorrow?

Is it at noon Eastern?

Yes, per the Constitution I think.

I agree with Carville. I think a party in power often gets arrogant and tries to get away with smarmy behavior. I also think the Republicans are a divided party right now. I think it will be an interesting fight between the economic conservatives and the social conservatives for control of that party. I personally put my bet -- and my hopes -- on the economic conservatives.

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.

Hillary Rosen said she thinks Obama will fight with House dems because he is a centrist. I think that is interesting because of all his positions on government involvement in rescuing the economy. That is a pretty liberal position IMO.

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.

Anybody noticed on the "film" that her southern accent turns on and off depending on who she talks to? Lol. It's really there when she talks to her dad. But other times it's hardly there.

Ehhh, I don't really see Britney in the Grammy category. She's more of a performer and I've always thought the Grammies are (supposedly) more of an actual singing/vocalist type of award. I think when so much has been done to your voice, it gets hard to tell talent. There are lots of people who could sing a song like Womanizer and do the same kind of job she did with it. How do you compare one person's electronically modified voice to another? I think she got some kind of dance song Grammy with Toxic, but again, that's not as mainstream as most of the awards. I'm not downing her, I'm just saying that's the reality of her style now.

Saw her new video on a link from PerezHilton. It's pretty good.

IMO, her best song in a while.

ther really isnt a big dance in womanizer tho.

Lol I mean, there isn't. But it's not like there couldn't have been.

And even what she did, just didn't...pop..I guess. She looks kind of in slow motion now compared to a few years ago. But like I said, hopefully it'll come back with time.

Saw Womanizer on GMA. It did look like she was back and happy to be back, and she looks good. But I still think there's a way to go especially with her dancing. It's just not what it used to be. It looks like she's just going through the motions. Hopefully it comes back with practice though.

I'm not really sure that I agree that the fire is back in her eyes, at least from when she talked to the interviewer. It may be, but I don't think we saw it. Although I guess we didn't have these interviews when she was having all of these big problems to compare this to. But she seemed so blah and tired throughout the film. That obviously could've been attributed to that specific day of filming....long day, after dance practice, etc. But we didn't really see an upbeat side of her that that dancer seemed to like. I know the tone was supposed to be serious and realistic, but I wish that "fire" had come through more on the side we saw.

Yeah, that's why I prefer her older stuff when there wasn't/minimun electronic stuff to her voice.

I like her older stuff. I think it's fine that she moved away from the real poppy stuff from her first album. But I think there was some really good stuff on her 2nd and 3rd ones. If she could find some way to mix it up and have a few old-er-school sounding songs (Toxic, even Stronger) and the newer sounds (Womanizer, Circus), I think it'd be a winner.

Heard some of the songs on Youtube. The only one that I heard that I instantly liked was Circus. I'm glad it's the next single. Several of the songs sounded similar, and there's so much electronic stuff done to her voice and the music that it's hard to tell it's even her.

Bridge to Terabithea.....not what I expected. (Haven't read/heard anything about the book)

Harry Potter