Dog Brothers Public Forum

It loaded a blank page...I'll try again later.

Yeah, the movie is very effective, and overall a slick package.

And ultimately it should be up to each individual to do their own research on the matter..

For example, I knew when Moore started the 'sign *your* kids up for the war' segment that it was completely bogus.

A little more digging shows Tanner to be a Democrat, and an outspoken critic of the war, who besides being a Navy veteran himself, has only grown kids (not that you can sign your unwilling minor kids up for combat anyway).

So Moore uses the tools of the filmmaker, which are basically those used to create illusions, (including cries of censorship) and gets his point across.

"Michael? Is that you?"

ROTFLMAO!!



Seriously, the comments about giving in to the demands of kidnappers are universal, and transcend partisan agit-prop...the concern should be over the lives of individuals held hostage now and in the future, not about scoring points in a debate over politics.

And I agree with those who suggest that giving into the demands of kidnappers, no matter what their ideology or rationale, is not always such a good idea.

Are you talking about the O'Hara paperback with the green cover?
IIRC there was nothing all that unusual in that text...wasn't it pretty standard Hwarang knife defenses?
And given the number of readily available books on guns, etc. in print, what exactly would qualify as 'too deadly' to print?
 

"Let's take a look at these variables"

Tiny has already used one of the standard tests for variables.
If you remove it, does the situation change significantly?

And in the case of women in warfare, without women in combat were there war crimes, cowardice, etc? When women went into combat, did these things change drastically?

Seems like the answers should allow us to observe that war is what it is, and those involved in warfare are more likely be influenced by war, than to change war itself.

Paul

Sadly enough, far too many police officers get their information on the law from poorly remembered and abbreviated classes, often by word of mouth, and from various other less than useful sources (and yes, there are exceptions, there are officers who do know the latest and best info)...in some cases the LEO's perception of what is legal is based on whether or not their last similar case was bounced out of court.
Also consider that their job is filtered though lenses which favor the government's right to prohibit inbdividuals from doing certain things. In many cases the courts have come along and specifically said that people have the right to do things long held to be illegal by cops and by legislators...

The result is that you just can't count on any given officer to explain what your individual rights are...Advice from an attorney who has won several such cases would be a better bet as to what you can and can't carry, or do, or say.

However, if you don't want to be a test case     I would suggest that any legal encounters with police acting properly should be limited to 'Yes thanks', No thanks', and 'Am I free to go now?'

Paul

I like this board, and can't think of anything I would want changed...the 'Guest' posting might become confusing down the line if several people are using it in the same thread.."I'm the real Guest, all you other Guests are just..."

Paul Nunis