Actually, I think Heston's words ring somewhat true, especially when one remembers he was a public supporter of the Civil Rights movement here. Not that I think it's anywhere at all the primary cause.

Japan's low crime rate probably has as much to do with their culture of self-repression as with their gun laws (which is largely a reflection of both that and post-WW2 stuffs). I really doubt changing to their gun laws would have any such an effect here where we have an ingrained culture of individualism and rebelliousness.

In spite of Moore's casual handling of the facts, I think his general message that we have a violent culture is very much correct. Stuff like racial tensions are just fuel for the fires (and Japan remains one of the most ethnically pure national populations in the world -- they would probably have exponentially more racial tensions if they had as much variety of intermixing ethnic minorities throughout their history).

Of course...

Japan is one of the most peaceful countries in the world now.

(Iceland is still #1 and they didn't even have to go through imperialism and getting nuked)

On the other hand, while their crime rates are all pretty low, their violent crimes are pretty wildly and disturbingly violent when they happen.

Heston was actually a cool guy and shot. Not at all racist(Unless he just kept his mouth shut).

geez

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmart...ll_in_race.html

"Jesus came back after 3 days, and that's why I'm still in this campaign. Oh, and to fukc up any chance of our party actually winning, too."

I think she's encouraging self-destructive tendencies in me too... I want Obama to kick her to the curb HARD even if all the Hillary supporters vote McCain in ghey protest.

OPERATION: CHAOS'D

I read a stat the other day about polling Hillary supporters. It asked folks that had supported Hillary all the way thus far would actually vote for Hillaryuu if it came down to a McCain vs. Clinton election. 36% said "NO", they would still vote for McCain because "they really just wanted a woman to be taken seriously as a candidate, not really as president."

WTF!!!!

SO they ham-boned the entire democratic party just to see if a woman could go as far as the nomination.

AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

*Slams head into wall 17 times*

Do you really want to start comparing who has the most disturbingly violent crimes between the US and Japan?

The term "disturbing" is Point of View and not defined by law.

Uh... thanks?

So is the term "marriage"! (okay, I'm actually kidding it's defined as a contract)

This is the other point. IMO, marriage shoudn't be determined or approved by government in the casual sense. To date, marriage has always been a sacrement relating to a religion. The only reason why the government has been involved is because they have imposed a "status" about it, meaning that married couples who agree to being taxed get certain rights as opposed to those that agree and are not married. Gay marriage as it is involved with either Federal or State governments are always in regards to the status, and not actually with the belief that such is moral or right. The government has no right to determine anything based on marriage except for that because it is a religious affair. The only reason why state governed marriages came into being was to allow those of non-Christian religions to be recognized as lawful marriages and be applicable under tax laws.

I don't think it's possible to remove the legal significance from the function of marriage. It has too many repercussions. And since it must have legal significance, the government can't not be involved.

On the other hand, since it's pretty much a contract, I don't see why it can't be governed under contract law..

You've got it backwards.

Historically, marriage has always been about passing on lands and titles and such. About business contracts, essentially. The only reason religion got involved is because the governments were mostly theocracies.

http://www.americablog.com/2008/05/keith-o...ment-about.html

A very well spoken Fuck You to Hillary.

I actually do think everyone's making a little too big a deal out of this one...

she's gonna end up in a looney bin somewhere.

Keith Olberman is what I'd sound like if I wasn't always drunk.

I'm not speaking of history, but of present day.

I'm confused

You said "to date," meaning "up until now" or "so far," meaning "in the past."

Marriage is an ancient concept that has always been more about law and land than love and God - it is a contract situation that the government absolutely should be involved in and always has been involved in.

Marriage without the government is just "going steady."

It's good to know that marriage isn't about love and revolves around politics. Thank goodness.

Olberman's a eunich. I agree that she's a hysterical maniac but I just hate Olberman. when he talks sports good on him, but the rest...bah.

The marriage contract is about half of everything you own now, what you will own someday, and the future of your children, amongst other very important things. You have to love and trust whoever you enter into the contract with for it to work out properly, but the unromantic truth is it is a business contract, and not just an expression of love.

Maybe if more people understood that before getting married we'd have a divorce rate lower than "half of them."

HAY CAN WE KEEP IT TO ONE THREAD ABOUT MARRIAGE GEEZ

so anyway, there's a big dustup about these Hillary comments...

Peggy Noonan has the most devastating critique I've yet seen:

http://online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html

I think that would do quite the opposite....but we can discuss in another thread for that. Straight Marriage Thread, anyone?


Ooh! And beat up by a girl, too!

Peggy Noonan = GILF <_<

There is a perverse part of me that'd like hammering a former Reagan speechwriter....

Turns out that, legally speaking, the DNC can't seat more than 50% of the FL and MI delegation...

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080528/D90UKLMO0.html

Lee-GAL-ee?

The worst, pandering, sh!tty thing about this is the fact that if roles were reversed (Hillary with a large delegate lead, and Obama demanding every vote count), Hillary would be all, "Nope. I won. You need to concede, end of story."

I really liked the Clintons before this election, now I really kind of just...don't anymore.

*never did*

I started off this election cycle thinking "no way in hell will I vote for Hillary Clinton" and now that feeling has been magnified times a million billion gazillijillion.

And I think Hillary's most recent desperation ploys have been motivated by the fact that she totally blew her chances of getting the VP nod over the weekend. whah whah whahhh

Ok, I'll rephrase that last statement:

I really liked what the Clinton administration did for the country in the 90's. Flourishing economy, strong U.S. dollar, small business boom, budget balanced, cash surplus, healthcare STARTED going in the right direction.

Did he screw some stuffs up? Sure, show me one president who HASN'T made mistakes (except GWBush, he's too much of a moron, he's not a "mistakerater").

Hillary on the other hand has always repulsed me. SHe seems so sneaky and entitled, I just never knew what people saw in her.

That Socks Clinton though...there was a straight-shooter, 100%.

I think that people are overly nostalgic about the Clinton years and too prone to credit him with stuff that he wasn't really responsible for.

Actually, you could say that the tech boom was more due to Al Gore's influence (as a Senator) than Clinton's, lol.

I didn't say Clinton, I said The Clinton Administration. And it's not over-nostalgia, it's a fact that our deficit was down and our economy was doing AWSUM in those years. ESPECIALLY compared to coming out of AND heading into the Bush years.

I think that Obama would actually take a lot of the same tactics that Clinton did in the way that he surrounded himself with smart mo-fos in his cabinet that make him look good. Clinton himself didn't do all that great stuff I'm talking about, but his staff sure did.

Either way, I think if we get a dem in office I think we're gonna be in a lot better straits

this is based on the good/bad sine wave I see depending on which party is in power.

Though frankly I wouldn't be unhappy if McCain got in office, cut spending, ended the war in Iraq yada yada things they will never ever do.

Rupert Murdoch says Obama will take the General Election...and seems kinda happy about.

I'll be impressed if he gets Fox News to say something positive about Obama.

That would make your Fox and Friends experiences more palatable...

and my workouts would be less effective

8...9... *grunt* FOX AND FRIENDS 10...

FOX News is already palatable for me.

I totally want to have Ainsley Earhardt's baby.

Well, and just about every other female that appears on FN.

The female news anchor on Fox in the morning is hot in a "my vagina is a demon that will bite off your penis" kind of way.

*is unaware of any other kind of HOT*

Teeth'D