hugo

Not unless her mother digs her up.

First, in the 48 states there are no longer enough natural predators to keep the deer population under control. Secondly, it seems to me dying from a clean shot beats being eaten alive. Third point, no one pays landowners to sit in a tree stand with a Nikon, nor do the Nikon users pay state fees and licenses that help pay for wildlife management.

You would be treated better if your presence on this board was not for the sole purpose of pressing your agenda. Of course, this is the spam zone.

She can make more long-term being the next Ann Couter.

?I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is "needed'' before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents "interests,'' I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.? Barry Goldwater We need to dig Barry up and run him in 2012.

Will Carrie Prejean lose her precious Miss California crown Monday? | The Dish Rag | Los Angeles Times Actually, I think she will get a pretty lucrative book deal and/or speaking engagements over this.

He seems like a likeable guy with one minor flaw.

Hope ya had a great one.

I'm bettin' on Oprah.

We have found the enemy--and it is us. The two main parties simply go for 50% of the vote. They have found the easiest way to do that is to promise tax cuts and more government programs. Sucks to be our grandchildren.

Swine flu may be less potent than first feared It ain't nothin' worse than a typical flu virus. Nice scare tactic, Obama. Now go back to global warming fear-mongering.

Let me requote: Once again, moderation is the key.

Studies link marijuana, schizophrenia By Kimberly Read & Marcia Purse, About.com Updated: June 20, 2006 Last year, Netherlands researchers reviewed five studies and concluded that the use of marijuana (cannabis) approximately doubles the risk of developing schizophrenia. Because the studies excluded anyone with a history of psychosis and controlled for the use of other drugs, they were "able to show the specific effects of cannabis." Now a new study from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York has shed light on the reason for the link between marijuana and schizophrenia. With several groups of adolescents as their subjects, they used a special type of MRI called diffusion tensor imaging to compare the brains of those with and without schizophrenia, both users and non-users of marijuana. They found that heavy use of marijuana caused the type of abnormalities in certain areas of the brain as were found in the brains of the subjects with schizophrenia, and these abnormalities were the most pronounced in schizophrenic subjects who regularly smoked marijuana. The abnormalities occur in a brain pathway related to language and auditory functions which is still developing during adolescence. Thus if a young person is genetically at risk for schizophrenia, the research suggests, the use of marijuana can cause the same kind of damage the schizophenia would cause, which could bring on the illness when it might otherwise have not have emerged, cause earlier onset, and/or worsen the condition. Newsday quoted one of the study's authors, Dr. Manzar Ashtari, as saying, ""Don't put yourself at risk, especially if you have a family history of schizophrenia or severe mental illness -- especially when the brain is still growing." Smoked a bit of weed as an adolescent. Never bothered either myself or my other personality, Al.

World Climate Report Recent Temperature Trends in Context About the best explanation of warming trends I have seen. The only thing anyone knows for sure is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I am not willing to pay double my current utility bill to fund otherwise uncompetitive energy solutions. As I stated before high energy costs artificially imposed in the West will lead to exporting of jobs to the developing world. It may even lead to more CO2 emissions worldwide as the regulated manufacturing in the West is exported to the relatively unregulated developing countries. The only solution is clean energy that is CHEAPER than our current energy sources. Either that or work on getting volcanoes to erupt more frequently.

Pandemics are God's way of keeping the human population under control and thus reducing global warming. Let nature take its' course.

Moderation is the key.

I loved this comment concerning the article: Of course, he might have been stupid at thirteen.

There's a video out of me and Bubba fighting over the last Bud longneck.

You bastards will invade us for our oil. This would be a better country if the northeast and west coast fell off.

While waste disposal is a problem with nuclear energy, competitive energy solutions also have their problems. Solar panels take up too much space,hydroelectric dams up rivers, wind turbines are a threat to birds. Currently, nuclear waste is being minimized through reprocessing and currently being stored though long term storage is a problem to be solved. Hydrogen fuel cell technology offers a glimmer of hope. I just do not see a politically or economically feasible way to prevent increased carbon dioxide emissions in the next half century. I do not see the West being able to accomplish much acting unilaterally. Nor do I see the people of the developing world accepting that they cannot also have the "American" dream, an air conditioned home, a refrigerator and a two car garage. I am back to building dikes.

I guess she sucks and kisses huge asses.

The problem I see is that the West cannot reduce the potential of catastophic events without holding India, China and the developing world to higher standards. Currently all proposals I have seen will increase energy costs in the West , energy costs are an input cost to businesses, and consequently feed the already growing exportation of jobs to the developing world while also putting a heavier financial burden on consumers. We would be better off building dikes. Of course, here in the US, unlike in France, our leftists are strongly opposed to the most efficient green energy and that is nuclear power. Of course, there are good reasons why India and China would not be a party to Kyoto. http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/6878/1/335/?PrintableVersion=enabled

What is funny is the one nation we don't trade with (exploit according to leftists) is begging us to do so.

Ask yourself why Belize is doing so well. Why did not America them over too? The reason is it was the colonial governments of Spain and Portugal that discouraged competition and property ownership by selling monopoly rights to sales of commodities and huge land grants. Belize, like the US, was an English colony and created conditions that supported growth of a middle-class. What the left refers to as Yankee imperialism is what rational people call trade and fighting the cold war. Obama was quite comfortable amongst his fellow rabid leftists. Like his wife Obama had no respect for America prior to his election.

26 voted for both of them.