51. The Return of Religion

Comment #213752 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 9:16 pm

Long live the King. Hilarious. Everyone where I grew up drank miller lite (beer flavored water imo) so it became sort of a dividing line like cubs v sox. I still to this day make fun of my friends who drink that piss and when they raise their eyebrows at my bud, I point to the label and say, umm it says king of beers right here, how can you argue with that?

52. The Return of Religion

Comment #213745 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 8:59 pm

Don't think I've seen anything from that brewery but I'll give it another look. And as far as domestics go, I've always been a sucker for plain old budweiser. Guess that went with being a cub fan. Oh well. I know what the other poster (Laurie?) was trying to say about Page and Angus being somewhat "confined," but there's nothing quite like a badass jam from either of those guys.

53. The Return of Religion

Comment #213739 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 8:50 pm

Pearl & Radesq, I thought patron meant tequila!

54. The Return of Religion

Comment #213733 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Waiting to go out but still here, sorta. Stevie Ray Vaughan was the best guitarist that ever lived. There, that's the music part. And after Guinness and Bass, the beers in the US for me are Rouge Dead Guy ale DogFishHead ipa and anything from Bells in Kalamazoo, MI. Takes care of the beer (as I take care of a beer).

55. The Return of Religion

Comment #213623 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 5:03 pm

TWP: Have you heard/seen Ugly Americans? Really good band out of Austin.

56. The Return of Religion

Comment #213618 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 4:57 pm

Bernard Baptiste: Pity he had to soil King Billy's - who is also an avowed atheist - second greatest love song by associating it absurdedly with his fairy godfather.

Is he really? I had no idea. Always enjoyed his music (52nd St. is outstanding) Total respect, now.

57. Texas State Board of Education approves Bible course for high schools

Comment #213596 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2008 at 4:19 pm

MorituriMax: Prince should remake his song then at the meeting where they set the final guidelines for the courses, he can belt out..

"We're gonna PARTY like it's 1399!"

That's hilarious.

Ascaphus: But I just had a brainstorm! Bush has been pushing his "faith-based" initiative to have churches accept federal money for programs, and Obama is threatening to keep it up.

From what I've read, Obama has been promising to Expand them.

Mark Smith: The Bible is just a collection of words. If there is a danger in having lessons about it, then it is surely a fault of the American education system, not a fault of the proposed subject. Can't you trust American teachers to teach properly?

Ummmm, no. Are you really that naive?
At least the students wouldn't have to study for the tests, just pray for a good grade.

58. The Return of Religion

Comment #212855 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 6:50 pm

Richard Morgan:
"I dont want clever conversation
I never want to work that hard
I just want someone that I can talk to
I want you just the way you are.


And to any nostalgic atheists here - God loves you just the way you are today. But His love is a transforming love.

(In my best R. Lee Ermey voice): You gotta be fuckin shittin me, Richard! Billy Joel is god?!

59. Let's Get Rid of Darwinism

Comment #212785 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 4:15 pm

hungarianelephant: I think this concept of earth-time is beyond the (current) imagination of most people.

I couldn't agree more. One of the biggest roadblocks to the faith heads' critically analyzing their beliefs (especially the ones who think humans hunted dinosaurs!) is that they have no conception of how long everything has been around. I've been recommending to anyone that will listen to watch the four-part series on The Science Channel called "Time," hosted by Michio Kaku. Good stuff.

60. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212714 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 3:12 pm

hungarianelephant: I've also never understood the general argument that "it's the law, therefore it's good". Precedent does serve a useful purpose, as even liberals like Dworkin concede. That's probably a discussion for another day. I'm taking issue with Broshiesq's assertion that "this is the law" - even the premiss of the argument is false.

No it's not. I am familiar with the purpose of the 14th Amendment, what I'm asserting is that it's fairly obvious that any state (none that I know of) or municipality (like Chicago) that has an absolute ban on handgun possession, just like DC and its(former) law, will get sued (Chicago was sued immediately) and will LOSE. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, these laws, as they currently stand, are lame duck laws, destined for the garbage heap of bad judgment. And please quit completely distorting what I have been saying. I Never said or used the argument: What is Law = What is Good. I agree that would be an asinine contention for anyone to make. There have just been too many people on this thread talking about what laws should be enacted, as if it would have (ultimately) the desired legal effect. Not in this case. The Constitution can be amended, yes, but no one is acknowledging how extremely difficult that would be to do, compared with simply enacting new legislation. And anyone out there thinking that the second amendment might someday be repealed, you'd have better luck finding a three-legged ballerina.

61. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212553 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 10:29 am

al-rawandi: 32,439 (prior year for rough estimate's sake) suicides. You claim at most 2% are firearm related.

32,439 x .02= 648.78

So your stats leave 16,401 firearm suicides unaccounted for.

No. I'm not wrong. Read my post again, carefully. Attempts v. success. There were 816,000 suicide ATTEMPTS in 2005.

al-rawandi: The right to bear arms must be regulated (I am sure you don't agree that we should have ICBM's and Apache helicopters), so we must agree that weapons should be regulated, it is simply a question of how much.

Well, of course. No doubt. There exist reasonable restrictions on Every right we have, that's really not news. The thing I can't stand is when people don't acknowledge the state of affairs as it presently exists in the US. Only two states prohibit carrying concealed, and the Court has just said it is a constitutional right to possess a handgun in the home, and have it Unlocked, ready for Immediate personal defense. Say you disagree with this, if you like. Just acknowledge that this is the law.

62. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212282 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2008 at 1:07 am

al-rawandi: As I said for the suicides before, this is the best case against gun ownership.

Dude. That's really, really weak. You are obviously Not a supporter of the Second Amendment.

decius: Broshieq,

I often disagree with al-rawandi, as in this issue, but he can bury you under geological layers of scholarship and rationality.
Your emotional outbursts are pathetic, really.

I rather doubt that save for sheer pomposity, al-rawandi could bury me under anything remotely resembling sophisticated argument, as far as this thread goes, anyway. For all you people talking suicide, firearm suicides comprise 52% of the total in the US (2005). People often use this statistic erroneously in claiming that guns are the most common method of choice. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Guns account for only 1 to 2 percent of all suicide attempts. The reason they make up 52% of suicides is because when someone chooses to shoot himself (yeah, it's a male thing - females make up 75% of attempts, but only 20% of success stories) he gets the job done 85% - 92% of the time. Now try to follow: If you are So concerned with suicide, should it not follow that you are actually concerned with addressing the causes of a person's attempting it, instead of trying to eliminate the method that proves the most lethal yet the least used??? Or is it something the anti-gun crowd would foist upon me in an (attempt to) appeal to my emotions? Nice try, I guess I have my scholarship and rationality to thank for the ability to dismiss such a non-sequitur of an anti-gun argument.
Oh, and by the way, I hope al-rawandi is as embarrassed as you should be. As if with all the pandering to his supposed intellectual heroics I saw on this thread before he joined in, he should long for decius to come to his aid. Dipshit. Oh, pardon me, was that an emotional outburst?
And let me point something out to all who talk about what kinds of new "laws" and/or "restrictions" they would like or think might work regarding handguns in the US. The trend has been a steady Increase in the number of states that allow the concealed carry of firearms. Only Two states completely prohibit this. The people in this country have spoken and this is what WE want. And I know there are stories all the time about how a decision by the Supreme Court has upset many people and legislators to the point where the cry is to Change the Law. That's perfectly fine when the Supremes were interpreting a Statute as the basis for their holding, but Not when they are interpreting the Constitution, which is what they did. The legislature cannot pass a law to overrule this.

63. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212256 by Broshiesq on July 16, 2008 at 11:16 pm

al-rawandi: I AGREE. I am willing to ban concealed weapons, in fact I am willing to have much stricter regulations on hand guns altogether. That doesn't bother me so much, because hand guns are designed for use against people, for the most part.

I am really throwing my hands up now. You are dangerously misguided, as well as narrow minded, and selfish. But don't take my word for it, ask around. Misguided: 40 states think you're Wrong. Wow, you want to Ban concealed weapons AND have stricter regulations, really? Both? Together? At the same time? And carrying a concealed weapon makes a woman over 5x less likely to be a violent crime victim. So much for your being a feminist. Narrow Minded: How can you not see that it would never stop there? Selfish: Are you so fascinated with the right to own a rifle, apparently, that you would seemingly gladly give up the right to possess what the Constitution now protects? And how could you ever imply that hunting is more worthy of legal protection than personal defense? Jesus, you're strange. The best part, of course, is how everyone's post yesterday was like: oooh, al's gonna be here to teach everyone about guns. Watch out gun haters, better get outta here before al logs on and kicks your ass. I was really anticipating your comments. And then you just shit on the track. Pity.

64. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212252 by Broshiesq on July 16, 2008 at 10:50 pm

Gregg Townsend: No. Yet, you might be surprised if you included drug users in treatment planning. If drugs were legal and controlled and abusers were consulted on how best to get them off the drugs Americans may be able to cancel the war on drugs.

Amen, but as long as religion's still around, it'll never happen.

65. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212251 by Broshiesq on July 16, 2008 at 10:47 pm

MPhil: So, should drug policy only be made by people who have taken Cocaine, Heroin, Crack and a few eightballs perhaps?

That was hilarious.

66. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #212249 by Broshiesq on July 16, 2008 at 10:41 pm

al-rawandi: But what I would rather see is people keep their guns locked up (some countries have a home inspection as a prerequisite). This would help a great deal.

That is really as bad as the opinions you are attacking. Did You read the "Heller" decision? Part of the Holding was that you can't order people to lock up all their weapons. Unconstitutional. You are hardly a great spokesman for gun rights. Anyway, moving on from your ignorance of one of the most important s.c. decisions of the last century, your opinion makes no sense. How would forcing people to keep their guns locked up "help a great deal?" Help home invaders to not get shot? You bet. You don't mean all the time, right? I mean you have to be allowed to carry your rifle into the woods to hunt, not to mention that 80% of the states demand no or limited restrictions on the right to concealed carry. A vast majority of the nation has said people can carry handguns around in public. You're in the minority, stop being on "our" side. You're not helping.

al-rawandi: Also they don't demarcate between guns. Most gun crime is with handguns, but yet they want to ban ALL guns. That would like seeing pick up trucks being responsible for 95% of traffic accidents and then saying "Well we better ban all cars". It is retarded. If you want to ban guns, ban the ones used in crime.

Um, actually you (I know you meant the legislature) Can't ban handguns, says Scalia, it is now every American's right. Quit being on our side.

67. MnIndy interview: Unrepentant science-heathen PZ Myers still intends to prove 'this cracker is nothing'

Comment #211320 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 6:44 pm

Brian English: I'm can imagine one reply. you have to have faith....sigh...

Good stuff. I usually get, "you're just not open minded." And then I say, yeah, to bullshit I guess not."

Peter McKellar: sitting around the rectory's open fire at night, wine and wafers in one hand, a winning hand of "sin-card" strip poker with a few favourite alter boys......

That's hilarious.

68. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210787 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 4:20 am

Gilks, check your math, the extra 0's you added are like the holes in your arguments.

69. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210782 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 4:14 am

Brian English, I don't believe I have bashed anyone's use of statistics in this thread (correct me if I'm wrong), because no one has used any in response to me! Just bald, unsupported conclusions. You can't compare countries side by side either because there are way too many variables. You talk about Aus's low murders and low number of guns, but I could give you Switzerland, Finland, New Zealand and Israel as examples of other countries with high gun-ownership rates and low crime rates. It makes more sense to take one country at a time, look at it's history, it's evolution of gun laws, and how crime rates were affected, if you can account for the other variables.

70. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210768 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 3:59 am

Decius: Trust me, if the criminal spots a gun on you, most likely he will panic and shoot you before you can utter "bah".

Uhh, no, I am not going to trust you, but thanks anyway. This is such an painfully inane thing to have to read. Allow me to repeat a stat: Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law, 1995). Other studies consistently show that murder rates decline when more people carry concealed handguns. Should I repeat it? I argue emotionally, but not From emotion, and I will back up my stance/opinions with evidence. You are wrong, you are blatantly throwing out guesses without the slightest reason to believe them.

71. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210750 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 3:36 am

Steve Zara:

You certainly have a dizzying intellect.

If you are talking about Bonzai, then I have always thought so. I have disagreed with him about much, but there is no question about his intellect.

That was Cary Elwes from Princess Bride, so the sarcasm is implied, but notwithstanding your vouching for the status of Bonzai's intellect, his conclusory pronouncements are boring me. Although, maybe he is just following his own business/efficiency model that he tried to adapt to the criminal mindset. After all, when you smugly speak of your premise like it's a foregone conclusion, it removes the burden of having to worry that facts, evidence, or logic might get in the way.

72. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210734 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 3:10 am

Bonzai: Where did the killer get his guns in the first place? Did he create them in his basement?

This is what is referred to as "irrelevant."

You didn't address my point. This kind of shootings are rare events, unless you live in a war zone.

You are all alike. You will play up shootings like these as evidence that More gun control and tighter restrictions are needed (without ever offering any evidence that it would actually reduce crime of course). But then when someone like myself points to this sort of a tragedy to support my contention that places like these schools should Not be gun-free zones (like VA Tech was) you downplay them as "rare events" that don't warrant even More Guns!! People who can contradict themselves so shamelessly, yet apparently so cluelessly are know in my neighborhood as "assholes."
Why you keep asking the same, tired question about where the guns come from is beyond me. You seem to be implying that All guns can ultimately be traced back to a retailer or dealer who originally sold it, ergo, outlaw the sale of ALL guns. You certainly have a dizzying intellect. Luckily, we don't have to worry about your opinion because the law of the land has been made clear.

73. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210721 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 2:42 am

Bonzai: Criminals get their guns often through legal sources, either through legal purchases or stealing from lawful gun owners,-including guns on sale in the black market.

This is simply not true. How in the shit can you call stealing or a "black market" deal, getting a gun from a legal source??

The criminal probably wouldn't need to find a gun to commit a robbery if he knows his intended victim isn't armed.

This is absolutely not true. In statistics compiled from interviews with prison inmates, time and again, they admit they targeted victims who seemed the most vulnerable and this included targeting areas that they knew were so-called "gun-free" zones, for example. You really should read Something on criminology. Go online and try to educate yourself regarding criminal behavior, personal protection, and the law, before you keep getting things so wrong.

I have no reason to expect a criminal would behave differently than any business person in his preference for lower operating costs.

Yes, the business major by day, criminal by night, duly applying the principles learned in the classroom. As Christopher Walken put it: You're a cantaloupe.

Looking at it this way, owning a gun may actually make you less safe. If I intend to rob you and expecting that you have a gun, I will probably shoot you first. Otherwise I may just take your cash and run.

You would do nothing of the sort. If you intended to rob me, I would stick a non-sequitur up your ass and beat you about the head with your own poorly constructed attempts at logic, but that wouldn't prevent me from also putting one between your eyes, and then I could say, "Gee, that's funny, I don't Feel less safe."

74. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210709 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 2:13 am

Bonzai: Va Tech is an extremely rare event,--in the sense of statistics and common sense-- you are basically suggesting that we should massively increase the risk of being shot in order to only marginally increase the chance of survival in a very unlikely event, I must question the soundness of that kind of thinking. Moreover, as Brian pointed out, you may not stand a better chance of survival even if you get a gun in the Va Tech scenario because someone or the police, for that matter, may shoot you by mistake when there is a massive confusion and everyone kind of looks like the shooter.

Try this, don't use the words "statistics" or "common sense" when your post contains neither, ok? You are another one who has not the slightest grasp on the realities of guns or crime or statistics in America, so just give up. Why do you idiot anti-gunners always use the same math: right to possess guns = every man, woman, and child has a gun. Or this one: more guns = more chance of being shot. I don't know any other way to put it. You are dead wrong. Check out the shooting that happened in 2002 at Appalachian School of Law in Virginia and the role that guns in the hands of lawful citizens played in stopping the killer, and then get back to me. Once again, the risk of an accident does Not trump my right to defend myself when facing some crazed, likely suicidal, killer. Accidents happen all the time, they are a fact of life. And no, sadly you won't ever have to worry about the police accidentally shooting you in a Va Tech scenario because the police will (when they end up responding in the first place) be huddled around waiting for the swat team, and then they will all spend the next hour or so "assessing" the situation while unarmed innocents are being slaughtered. I'm not Just appealing to emotion. This is exactly what happens. Look it up. And what's wrong with being emotional. I happen to love my life a lot, thank you very much, and so when I think of facing death in a situation where I could have, if I'd been allowed to, helped myself or others survive, you're damn right I get emotional. If you don't, you have not one ounce of understanding what it's like to live in urban America, and/or you stopped breathing some time ago.

75. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210684 by Broshiesq on July 15, 2008 at 1:27 am

Crap, you two are such clowns. When did logic go out the window and people start crapping analogies out of their arses? Brian English, you are misrepresenting your own post, you're so full of shit. You said, "why would I care" if you don't know the risk. That implies that you CHOOSE not to care. Then after my post you spun it into: "I can't care about what I don't know," implying now that it's about your lack of Ability to care. Bullshit. I agree with Christopher Davis, you should not be armed. It's nice to be well-read and insightful and brimming with interesting concepts as a free-thinking atheist, but if that's all you got initially, when facing an armed intruder (a situation it seems apparent you cannot even conceptualize let alone discuss from experience), the best you can hope to add to that is some dirty shorts, the worst being that you don't get a chance to do laundry later. And your analogy fuckin sucks by the way, did I happen to mention that? No shit driving is the most dangerous thing most people will do in their lives, and no shit the most economical way to lower the risks is not to eschew driving, but to do the things that have measurable effect like not drinking, holding your phone to your ear or going through the rain without headlights on. Likewise, you CAN lower the risk of someone injuring or murdering you in your own house, by possessing a handgun If You So Choose. And that right is NOT outweighed by the chance of an accidental shooting! Fuck! You don't have a Clue about the most basic statistics! In the US you are 4x more likely to die from medical/surgical care complications than an accidental shooting, 5x more likely to drown and 16x more likely to be poisoned! And there are well over 200 million guns in the US? B.E., you said one thing, and only one thing, correctly: having a gun seems more of a risk than not having a gun. Yeah, to the bad guy. And Gilks, nice try at "tweaking" B.E.'s analogy; you turned it into a clusterfuck:

"Imagine a statistic that said that in a collision, the vehicle moving the fastest's driver, takes the least damage."

You're shittin me, right? Imagine a person sitting at his desk, and his brain is not in his head, no it's actually in a jar on the desk, and no one can figure out how he can be typing. Here's some more beauty:

Mitchell Gilks: Making guns easily accessable so that you can protect yourself if confronted by an armed man only increases the probability that you will arrive at a situation where you are confronted by an armed man. Clearly.

In the same way that possessing a bottle of aspirin in your medicine chest increases your chances of a headache, I suppose. At least if you had put "one-" in front of each "armed" we might have had a line from "The Fugitive." Clearly, concerning this topic, you are intellectually unarmed and defenseless. Better call the police. I bet Brian will let you use his phone. Going from Brian to Gilkie is like when Gregory Hines is hiding from the roman soldiers in the vestal virgins chamber with the eunuchs in History of the World: Part I : "That man is a eunuch. That man is Dead! And speaking of the police, there is case law here which holds that the police do not have any specific obligation to protect any citizen. It makes sense, if you think about it. Yet it is one of the most widespread and least acknowledged delusions and propaganda rackets in the US. The fallacy that the police have either the obligation Or the ability to protect citizens and (this one I love) Prevent Crime! There Is a reason they're called law Enforcement officers, not crime prevention officers. They Can't prevent crime. They enforce the laws, period. That means from every murder down to every fucking parking ticket, their job is to attempt to hold people responsible AFTER the law has already been broken. The reason people in this country are so ridiculously naïve about the role and responsibilities of the police is that their brains have become dulled from so many taxes, they have been imagining for years that they are "paying" for the protection they simply assume exists.

Did you know that there are only two states (out of fifty by the way) in the US that completely prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons by civilians in public? So I'm amused every time I hear someone pop off about how the NRA and the gun nuts want to turn America into the old Wild West, and that without new gun restrictions, there will be daily shootouts on every street corner. With the number of guns possessed and the number of citizens who can legally walk around in public right now with handguns, it SHOULD be that way right now according to you, but it's Not.

76. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210593 by Broshiesq on July 14, 2008 at 9:35 pm

Christopher Davis and flistr8, I agree. Guns are here, they will Never be eliminated from the US, and even "if firearms had never been invented," (yet), they eventually would be at some point, due to the inevitability of man's innate ingenuity and aggressive nature, our instinct to survive. And what I dislike is the stereotype (even though it's accurate) of the conservative faith heads who are so pro-gun. I'm pro-gun (pro second amendment really), but the irony is that I became Really really pro-gun when I finally realized that I was an atheist, because my time here suddenly seemed a lot more important; and therefore I also developed a better perspective on the importance of all the things in life that this "right" helped to protect; and I sort of cultivated a motto of: Yeah, none of these things in life matter, if you're Dead!" And so it's a shame that that connection exists, and when someone finds out that I hunt and am a huge supporter of 2 Amend., they most often also assume that I believe in the sky fairy. So I must, as Hitchens might say, quickly disabuse them of that notion. It just seems pretty damn obvious (and real, when you see the stories of shitheads lining innocent people up and shooting them) that it just isn't going to matter about what I spend my time learning, or what is my opinion on global warming, if tomorrow, someone accosts me or breaks into my house and kills me, because I wasn't able to legally defend myself with a handgun. Brian English, I feel sorry for you, that you wouldn't care if someone threatened your life, but instead would prepare to "cop-out," thinking that it's just a "risk I can't control." One Can control it if one is given the right, and that right will soon be granted to me here in chicago because of the smart (understatement) decision of our Supreme Court.

77. Church Cancels Teen Gun Giveaway

Comment #210567 by Broshiesq on July 14, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Mordacious1: Yes, concealed handguns are definitely a major problem.

How so?

Enlightenme.. : …but this obsession with the absolute primacy of individual's rights is a mistake, in my opinion.

Yeah, I know, just like those other pesky individual rights like freedom of speech, press, assembly

Enlightenme.. : And the recent insane decision of Antonin Scalia…

Did you Read his "Heller" decision? If not, shut the fuck up.

Enlightenme.. : Surely what should matter is the pragmatic and reasonable drawing up of what should apply to the weapons technology, and the sociological conditions of the 21st century.

Exactly. That's why Scalia stated that since the weapon of choice for personal protection is the handgun, citizens have the right to possess handguns. Certainly a 21st century application of the 2nd Amendment. I knew you didn't read the decision.

Laurie Fraser: …the fact is (and this has been shown time and time again) that there is an undeniable correlation between gun ownership frequency and gun murders.

That's terrible. Guns being murdered. You know there's also an undeniable correlation between the number of murders and sales of ice cream. Gun ownership frequency? What's the inverse of that, wavelength? In the US it has been shown over and over and over again, an inversely proportional relationship between murders (and violent crime in general) and the number of right-to-carry-concealed-weapons permits issued.

Laurie Fraser: Problem with the "responsibility" argument is this: most gun-related homicides are committed by people who have "responsibly" obtained firearms.

You cannot possibly be that clueless. Well… According to the 1997 Survey of State Prison Inmates, among those possessing a gun, the source of the gun was from - a flea market or gun show for fewer than 2%; a retail store or pawnshop for about 12%; family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source for 80% (US DOJ Bureau of Justice Statistics)

Laurie Fraser: I've often been amused by the notion that because the 2nd Amendment talks about the "right" of people to bear arms, people think it is some sort of constitutional "duty" to do so.

Honestly, where do you come up with this shit? You just made a horseshit generalization of the entire American populace? You say you're "amused." I think "brain dead" is slightly more apt.

Laurie Fraser: All of this guff about protecting one's family is just that - nonsense.

How disgusting. What are you calling nonsense? That we have the RIGHT in the States to do just that â€" protect our family by keeping a gun in the house? Or some people's stated REASON for owning a gun â€" to protect our family? Or the IDEA that guns are ever used to protect oneself or one's family? Let me educate you: In the United States during 1997, there were 15,289 murders. Of these, 10,369 were committed with firearms. ("1997 Uniform Crime Reports." Federal Bureau of Investigation.) Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals between 1,900,000 and 2,500,000 times per year. ("Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun." By Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (Northwestern University School of Law, 1995) I would absolutely Love to see you tell a person to his/her face whose wife/husband has been murdered, "I'm glad you didn't have the right to own a handgun cause that protecting-your-family thing, that's all just GUFF!!"

Laurie Fraser: (BTW - BJ's statement about a "very high" percentage of gun homicides being criminals shooting other criminals is just plain wrong, sorry.)

Uhh, actually, BJ is right. What's the citation for your conclusion, your instinct? Pathetic. Try this on: In both 2004 and 2005 in Chicago, over 75% of murder victims had a prior arrest history, and the percentage for the murderers themselves goes slightly higher (99% in 2001; 95% in 2002). (2005 Chicago Police Murder Analysis Report)

78. Dalai Lama defends Islam as peaceful religion

Comment #210494 by Broshiesq on July 14, 2008 at 5:14 pm

Anyone know if he squeezed in a round of 18 while here? Big hitter, the Lama.

79. PLEASE WRITE IN SUPPORT OF PZ MYERS

Comment #208338 by Broshiesq on July 10, 2008 at 9:01 pm

Dear President Bruininks:

I pray that, in spite of the deluge of notes under which you surely must be suffering regarding the whole PZ affair, you may find a moment to consider the case of US v. Fishbine, in which a man subjected to potential incineration while wearing another man's suit was entitled to $300 worth of airline tickets. An obscure case, I know, and quite possibly not altogether spot on, however, given the immediate backlash PZ's recent blog has inspired among the religiously insane (pardon the redundancy), I do think it rather important to bear in mind that we remain a nation governed by the rule of law, and as such, must strive to remain resilient when encountering those who would have our lives dictated by their faith. If a well respected academician can find his job in jeopardy due to his suggestion of cracker battery, I daresay, I shudder at what fate awaits me after so often pissing in the holy water.

Yours truly,
Broshiesq
Chicago

80. Flatfish Fossils Fill In Evolutionary Missing Link

Comment #208294 by Broshiesq on July 10, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Let's hear it for the Univ. of Chicago! The Chicago Tribune (my paper, unfortunately) carried this story on the first page, of the Second section. What a disaster. Someone turns up transitional fossils and it doesn't even make the front page in the city where it happened. Sad.

81. When too much Rapture is barely enough

Comment #204830 by Broshiesq on July 5, 2008 at 9:47 pm

Um, yeah, not quite convinced JC is gonna make an encore appearance, but in any event, I highly recommend The Rapture. 1991. Mimi Rogers. Wow.

82. Obama Wants to Expand Role of Religious Groups

Comment #203351 by Broshiesq on July 2, 2008 at 5:03 pm

RationalFreeThinker, nicely done with the STD analogy. I always thought the voting in the US went something like: there's a 50% chance that a registered voter will vote. But there's only a 10% chance of that happening.

83. Hitchens V. Boteach

Comment #122231 by Broshiesq on February 5, 2008 at 12:41 am

al-rawandi: So killing more people than Saddam had ever killed and was likely to ever kill was worth overthrowing Saddam?

You're one of those morons who also equates the killing of civilians in the course of Israel's targeted strikes on militants with the killing of civilians by suicide bombers, aren't you? Still, you could predict how many more people Saddam was likely to kill? Impressive. Why didn't you offer your services to the US intelligence community before the war started?

The United States could easily have killed Saddam and both his sons with a cruise missile or a precision air strike from carrier based fixed wing aircraft.

Yeah? Why didn't you offer your services to the US military before the war started?

Saddam would have found himself under increasing pressure from the world community had he remained in power. It would not have been hard to topple him without an invasion.

Really? Well shit, are you saying, as an alternative to invasion, the US should have Killed him? Or Toppled him? Make up your mind, smart guy.

Why we should not have gone in:
7) It has cost a lot of money.
10) It will suck my tax dollars for years to come.
11) It diverts funding from legitimate domestic programs.
13) It has diverted funds and resources from dealing with a potential situation in Pakistan.
14) It has diverted resources from dealing with disasters like Katrina.

Um, these 5 are all really the same point, just whining about how tax dollars are spent. Individual citizens have NO RIGHT to decide how their tax revenue is spent. How childish. You could say the same damn things about any spending with which you didn't agree. So, no, I guess these, at least, are not good reasons. Does that mean I'm beyond hope? Pity.

Let me explain wars to you...

Once again, wouldn't your superior knowledge and understanding be put to better use in a more lofty arena than, say, this thread, educating us dullards on, like, war and stuff?

What exactly is the wider benefit of showing the Muslim world that we don't really value their lives? Except to show people that al-Qaeda is at least part right in their assessments of western powers.

Oh, come on, why stop there. Go ahead, blame us for 9/11. Go ahead, do it. I want you to. Say al-qaeda was at least "part" justified in what it did. GO ON. You pretentious, self-righteous prick.

MaxD: I swear into the Army National Guard this week.

MaxD, don't you mean "solemnly affirm?" Just jokin. All the best, wherever you may end up.

84. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #121683 by Broshiesq on February 4, 2008 at 1:24 am

stephenray: Speaking as someone with two degrees, one in law, and called to the Bar in 2002, I find it absolutely astonishing how many trained lawyers in the US apparently cannot think properly.

Objection. Non sequitur. As an (assumedly trained) lawyer yourself, shouldn't you recognize this? If someone doesn't agree with you, he therefore cannot think properly?

You know, the process by which you consider a hypothesis and look at the evidence one way or another and formulate a response to the hypothesis.

Objection. Relevance. Your definition of "thinking properly" is simply a sort of incomplete description of the scientific method, and it certainly is NOT what is taught in law school. Being an adept lawyer or learning to think like a lawyer has nothing whatsoever to do with adhering to the scientific method. Lawyering is not about trying to explain a phenomenon.

You have all the lawyers in the White House and environs who apparently cannot tell the difference between interrogation and torture

Objection. Conclusion. It's all about how things are defined and the exact words that are used. You should know this.

you have Ben Stein who appears to know next to nothing about a subject on which he is quite prepared to pontificate on for lengthy periods of time whilst never actually breaking the surface of the sea of idiocy in which he is drowning

At least I've never heard lawyers in the US use words like "whilst."

85. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58698 by Broshiesq on July 25, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Don't waste your time with this one, people. Many of the exact same phrases and sentences were repeated by Hedges in his TruthDig debate with Sam Harris. (video posted here 18 June) In my opinion, it is much more enjoyable (is that the right word?) watching and listening to Hedges nonsense than reading it.

86. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #57423 by Broshiesq on July 19, 2007 at 9:41 am

maton100: If there ever was an oxymoron, it would be theistic evolution.

No doubt. I don't think I heard that one before. How about Tim Winter with his "...atheistic fundamentalism" That's a good one, too. But my all time favorite, which, unfortunately I don't think was uttered on this show: Religious Truth!

87. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57410 by Broshiesq on July 19, 2007 at 8:54 am

ungodlystheist, Post 207:
Well Broshiesq, going by this post, you cannot say very much.

Trust me, my brevity was due not to inability but rather my confidence that anyone reading with half a brain would see the irony of your post in which you both lambaste Ayaan's use of the tired "american rags to riches" cliche as well as use your own (worse) cliche, the insipid "two wrongs don't make a right."

ungodlystheist: In one post I said that America is not the only country woith rags to richers stories, and that it is not true that hard work always leads to great wealth - in fact it is very rare!

No shit America is not the only country with rags to riches stories. Ayaan never said it was. No shit hard work doesn't always lead to great wealth. Ayaan never said it did. As for your contention that it is "very rare," you wouldn't mind terribly explaining how you come up with that conclusory bucket of crap, now would you? Your keystrokes may outnumber mine on this thread but understand that does not evidence your having more to say.

88. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57289 by Broshiesq on July 18, 2007 at 7:01 pm

ungodlystheist, Post 124. :
To make it sound that Anerica is paved with Gold, so long as your not scared of hard work, is indeed a 'cliche', a tired, boring and totally untrue cliche.

ungodlystheist, Post 147. :
Two wrongs do not make a right...

Well, what can I say?

USA_Limey, ease up on PeterK, it's not very sporting to match wits with an unarmed man, and prescribing anything to him may exacerbate things, as I fear he may very well be under the influence already...
PeterK, I highly doubt you would have ripped Ayaan's face off, what with the men she has had to survive in her life, I find it likely she'd have been feeding you your own testicles. And yes, to answer your (follow up) question, you would have asked for more.

89. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56944 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2007 at 11:38 pm

When Ayaan is relating one of the reasons she likes America (you can come here without a penny in your pocket, and if you work hard...) and Avi retorts with: "Is there a school where they teach you these American cliches?", in the tone of voice he uses, implying that she is merely parroting something she heard in order to defend the US as opposed to actually Feeling that way, he is neither probing nor challenging (or playing devil's advocate for that matter), he is being CONDESCENDING. That is not preposterous, it's a fact. It is my opinion he would not have said that same thing to a man, that is just the feeling I had.

90. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56930 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2007 at 9:41 pm

Morrow: right
dudeinthemood: wrong

Although I understand one's reluctance to characterize someone's performance in an interview as a "thrashing", as it's not meant to be a debate, I also (think I) understand what Morrow was saying and it was certainly appropriate. Lewis was thrashed and beaten by this thoughtful, obviously knowledgeable and experienced woman. Sorry, he doesn't get to hide behind the fact that he was acting (acting indeed!) as an "interviewer" and not as a debater to protect him from the observation that he got his smarmy, ignorant, douchebag ass kicked. Ayaan had "bearing". She was pointed and poised even in the face of that dickhead's totally uninformed, condescending stupidity. Was I the only one struck with the sense (Irony) that Lewis never would have acted the way he did had he been interviewing a man? He completely patronized her with his "oh, come on," and "you know they shoot abortion doctors over there?" And his stupid f'ing smiling at her? Are you kidding me? I mean, be an asshole if you want, but if you're gonna interview someone whose views you basically oppose and bring an agenda to the (interview) table, at least have the courtesy to be informed, and try your best to not so plainly illustrate that you're an idiot. I love Ayaan educating him to not confuse the slander of one's beliefs with that of his ethnicity, race, etc. She really shut his dumb ass up with that one.

91. Islamic Creationist and a Book Sent Round the World

Comment #56917 by Broshiesq on July 17, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Quick, tell the publisher to keep pumping these out and sending them west. I think I just solved the US-dependence-on-foreign-oil problem. Next.

92. The Republican War on Science Rages On

Comment #56068 by Broshiesq on July 13, 2007 at 3:14 pm

All those who believe that religious lunacy and the stupid decisions that follow from it is strictly within the domain of the political right, please, spare me. The politicians that remain the most steadfastly true to their religious beliefs are the ones that I probably disagree with the most regarding those particularly religion-infused issues, but at least they don't piss me off for being hypocrites. But when Hillary Clinton says it was her faith that saved her marriage, pandering to the religious, I have to about vomit. She is pro abortion and pro same-sex unions. Those are against the teachings of her faith. She is a hypocrite. Certainly I think a religious wingnut politician, while being true to his faith, is more dangerous to me and the society in which I live, but sorry, I have more respect for that than for a total hypocrite.

93. The US map of faith

Comment #56021 by Broshiesq on July 13, 2007 at 10:23 am

THorsman, the lack of red in Ohio? You've never been to an OSU game I take it. Or the GAB in Cinci?

94. The US map of faith

Comment #56020 by Broshiesq on July 13, 2007 at 10:19 am

rokort, no sweat. Thanks for your reply. I of course would never think that a country's position on these four issues necessarily defines the (most important)activities of such a country, or that their legality is without careful regulation. On the contrary, I simply have a tremendous amount of respect for any entity that is (imo, of course) so clear thinking on these issues of basic personal liberty. I'm afraid I got off the subject of this thread, though. The only reason I even used the Netherland as a comparison (example) is because of the statistic I found stating the 41% non-belief rate of the country, and if true, it makes for a coincidence that's hard to ignore, no? Any idea if this percentage is accurate? I can't even (unfortunately) fathom how different it might be in the US were we to have such a number of non-believers (that weren't still in the closet, that is).

95. The US map of faith

Comment #56018 by Broshiesq on July 13, 2007 at 10:01 am

krogercomplete, got it. It's cool. I'll be rooting for OR and any other state that makes an attempt to get out of the damn stone age where these social issues are concerned.

96. The US map of faith

Comment #55870 by Broshiesq on July 12, 2007 at 5:29 pm

krogercomplete, I was not referring to Oregon regarding the four issues I mentioned, but the Netherlands.

97. The US map of faith

Comment #55791 by Broshiesq on July 12, 2007 at 10:17 am

rokort, feel free to call my view of your country simplistic, but it doesn't change the fact that I am right. I mentioned 4 activities that are legal in the Netherlands, and they are. My comment to bruce about Portland becoming like Amsterdam was only half serious. And in case it weren't apparent, YES, I think it is a good thing. Look at the four issues: euthanasia, same-sex marriage, marijuana use and prostitution. There are tens of millions of people in America who deem these activities "wrong" (read "immoral"). I think that's bull shit. None of these activities hurts anyone. To the extent that they remain crimes in the states that they do, they are victimless crimes. But the bigger problem is the federal govt's attempting to legislate when the states should be left alone to decide these issues. Raise your hand if you think it's within the Federal govt's purview to say you can't: smoke pot in your home; pay someone for sex; legally commit to a same-sex partner or; receive help from a doctor to kill yourself if you so desire. The ONLY reason people have to be against these activities is that it offends their morality (read "religion"). And the only reason politicians have to be anti is to coddle to the religious vote.

98. The US map of faith

Comment #55658 by Broshiesq on July 11, 2007 at 10:31 pm

I don't know about the gas and the taxes in OR, but, jshuey, where the hell is the "People's Republic of Oregon" thing coming from? No personal rights? Allowing medicinal marijuana, right to die (uh, "right" is right in that one, there), and (if they pass) same sex marriage, not to mention porn-o-plenty, is sort of defining the laws of a state as personal-rights rich. And as for the 2nd Amendment (the single most important "personal right" in the Constitution if you ask me), Oregon is one of the 36 states that has adopted "shall issue" laws (http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18) for the concealed carrying of handguns by its citizens. That's liberty. I unfortunately live in Chicago, not even arguably the most prohibitive city in the most prohibitive state of the Union regarding the right to personal defense. Outstanding. I'm still not rooting for the Ducks, though.

99. The US map of faith

Comment #55619 by Broshiesq on July 11, 2007 at 5:54 pm

Holy shit, bruce, so if you guys legalize prostitution, then Portland will be, like, Amsterdam?

No shit. Look at the Netherlands:
Legal: Euthanasia; Pot; Whoring; Same sex marriage

Religion: None(41%)

Connection? Hmmm

100. Is Christianity Good for the World? A discussion between Christopher Hitchens and Douglas Wilson

Comment #55547 by Broshiesq on July 11, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Aaron, you have the best comment so far. Way to sum up.