Killing civilians in war means one thing to me: COLLATERAL DAMAGES. If we had fought WWI or II like you lefties want to fight wars today, we'd all be speaking Deutsch instead of Spanglish. People die in a war... Sucks, but true. Deal with it. If it is a war, then people are going to die, there's no way around it. If it's not, then go back to your little world of make believe and serve Osama with a summons to show up for his day in court.

Why is it that we always have to worry about how our actions might inflame the Muslims, but they never seem to worry about how they might enrage America when they danced in the streets after the Towers fell? Why do we always worry about upsetting Kim Jong Ill, yet we don't dare get upset when he torpedoes our allies ships? PC crap, all of it. I DON'T CARE how the "Muslim community" thinks of us. I'm sure Carthage didn't like Rome either, but when Rome was done with them, it didn't really matter what they thought, eh?

Actually back then America actually made some good beer... Like Samuel Adams! Wasn't until the Prohibition that we lost that and ended up with that really crap canoe beer.

Silly workers... Pennsylvania is a must issue state, and if you've got $25 cash american, they'll give that little piece of paper that lets you fight back. I'll put my 9mm against their Louisville slugger's any day of the week.

Of course, you also didn't mention about his prolonging the financial crises to get more people on the gov't dole, in the process causing many illegal immigrants to head back over the border. That right there lowers crime rates by quite a bit all by itself.

Perhaps for now Tina. The problem is if the other backbone providers decide that at the entry point into their systems, we're not going to block all VoIP and Email services from Linkline. Right now, they can. So you can use Linkline, and you can call other Linkline customers, but you can't get outside of California unless Sprint, Verizon, AT&T and the like decide to let you do so. That's why net neutrality is actually a valid technical issue. They're trying to enforce the spirit by which the internet was founded by not allowing people to pick and choose which packets they carry. Otherwise, there is no protection for the smaller guys to avoid them being picked off by the big guys. (Oh, I can't use Linkline to access FTP servers in Japan, but if I switch to Verizon I can! So Linkline loses the customer because Verizon won't carry their traffic.)

Sorry, but I tend to agree with the net neutrality thing, although I really wish the suppliers would just do it on their own. Really don't want government stepping in. However, I purchase the bandwidth. They should not be able to tell me what I can and cannot do with my purchased bandwidth. If I purchase gasoline, the gas supplier doesn't get to tell me that I can only use that on a highway, not a city street. If I buy a gallon of milk, the store has no right to tell me I can't put chocolate in it. If I buy bandwidth, they really should have no right to tell me how I use it. It's mine, I paid for it.

I used to run a (properly secured) home mail server. Now due to changes by my ISP I cannot do that any longer. And since they own the major backbone that the "independent" ISPs use, the only other option is cable... Which does the same thing. The problem is that this filtering can be done so far upstream that the people actually paying for the service have no other competition that they can go to in order to get the service that they want or need. If someone chooses to run an unsecured server that eats up significant network resources and becomes a problem, shut them down. Don't penalize all the players because one person is a moron.

I can't send an .EXE file through gmail anymore because of some morons that can't run a virus checker. That's why I had my own mail server at home. Now that's out of the equation too. How long before they decide I can't run an FTP server, or an Instant Messenger chat program because it's too "network intensive."

I'm sorry, but the Catholic church has lost it's way. It used to be that the church was devoted to helping improve the lot of their fellow man. We created schools, hospitals, orphanages, clinics, soup kitchens, and shelters. Then something changed. Now all of a sudden, the church believes that it is gov'ts role to look after the well being of their flock. As shepherds they have now turned to the tax collectors and said, "Here, choose which of my sheep you wish to slaughter and offer them up to the rest as food." They have stopped being the faithful shepherd that cares for their flock and instead have been infected with the same humanist ideas that the politicians have succumbed to.

Why do we suddenly need government to do all these things? Are things that much worse than 100 years ago? Or even 80? Or is it because the people that did these things and should STILL be doing them have decided to leave the responsibility to someone else? Someone (I want to say the Pope, but I think it might have been a bishop or cardinal instead) said that it was the role of government to take care of the people. They are wrong. It is the role of the church to do that, it's the role of the government to prevent anyone else from HARMING the people.

Since the dawn of time, the ruler of the tribe protected the people from outside threats and led them in their attempts to have productive endeavors in material things. The Shaman or Priest took care of both the physical and spiritual health of the tribe. It has changed because the church has been shoved from it's place by the secular humanists. It no longer has to worry about the earthly shell, just the spiritual. And very little of that by how they keep changing the rules. Not just the Catholic church, but all churches. When faith is restored to it's proper role in society, many of not most of the ills we see around us today will disappear like a dandelion's puff.

Hey, if I "volunteer" for ACORN being a "health care activist" will they pay for my insurance? Or is this another case of the Dems "Do as I say, not as I do?"