In the US, the bus puts on flashing red lights to stop traffic going both ways. Children would be instructed to cross in front of the bus while traffic was stopped. That seems a lot more safe... thanks for the articles and insight!

Horrible, horrible, horrible practice! Yes, he's wearing a kevlar glove, but man... one slip and it's not going to be a good time.

Is this Kenny from Axis of Awesome?

I seem to have something in my eye...

This Acorn bill stops funding in retaliation for past actions, no matter what changes they may make. That's the very definition of a bill of attainder.


Not even close -- according to Cummings v. Missouri (the controlling decision) a bill of attainder is defined as, "...a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."

So some things need to be established here:

- A trial is not needed to cut funding for a federally funded program run by a private entity, the federal government simply needs to follow existing procedures (usually legislation) to discontinue the funding.

- ACORN does not have a right or claim to these federal dollars by any other means. It's not as if you or I could walk into Congress and say, "I'm starting a public service to do 'X', I demand federal dollars to fund it."

- The government isn't taking away life, liberty or property. ACORN maintains all of its existing assets, they're simply not being given any further taxpayer dollars. There is no entitlement there if Congress decides to cut funding, that is purely their decision.

Except when the public option is government controlled the "public" generally has very few options. Seriously, how can a private entity compete against the amount of money the government is willing to throw at an issue to maintain a monopoly if it came down to it?

So, he spends all of his time trying to establish that a Bill of Attainder is bad, but absolutely no time proving that the legislation actually falls under the category of being a Bill of Attainder? Honestly, it just seems very immature -- he didn't "school" the Georgia Representative in the Constitution... He answered both questions on what constituted a Bill of Attainder and what the Constitution said about them. He's just playing politics.

This arrangement was adapted by Chanticleer -- a mens choral ensemble. This is a great version, although some of the mispronunciations make some parts disconcerting.

Political speech is held as the highest form of speech to which the solution should not be censorship, but rather, more speech. That is what happened here.

*Fail

Considering his daughter just got arrested the other day for obstructing a police officer, we'll see if this is *really* true.

Do you have any evidence supporting this? I mean ANY envidence?
Look at other countries with tougher gun-control laws. Look at Japan for crying out loud. About the toughest gun control laws around, and - Surprise! - one of the lowest murder rates in the world. (There are, of course, other sociological reasons besides gun control for that.)
Do you know why the London Metropolitan Police (the "Bobbys") only wear Truncheons (Night-Sticks, Clubs, whatever you call them) and no guns? Because the expect most criminals to be unarmed.

The U.S. government “found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes” and also concluded in one study that none of the attackers interviewed was "hindered by any law--federal, state or local--that has ever been established to prevent gun ownership. They just laughed at gun laws."

Violent crime appears to be encouraged by gun control. Most gun control laws in the United States have been written since 1968, yet the murder rate rose during the 70s, 80s and early 90s.

In 1976, Washington, D.C. enacted one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. The city's murder rate rose 134 percent through 1996 while the national murder rate dropped 2 percent.

Among the 15 states with the highest homicide rates, 10 have restrictive or very restrictive gun laws.

Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the nation and ranks #1 in robberies and #4 in both violent crime and murder. The robbery rate is 70% more than the national average. These numbers are likely low because one of their more violent cities, Baltimore, failed to report their crime levels.

In Japan, the murder rate is almost 1 per 100,000. In the U.S., there are about 3.2 murders per 100,000 people each year by weapons other than firearms. This means that even if firearms in the U.S. could be eliminated, we would still have three times the murder rate of the Japanese. Japan’s murder rate may be low, but its suicide rate is over 20 per 100,000 people. Japanese are being murdered and committing suicide at a rate of about 21 per 100,000. In the U.S., our combined murder and suicide rate is about 21 also.

Since gun banning has escalated in the UK, the rate of crime – especially violent crime – has risen. Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade since handguns were banned. Street robberies soared 28% in 2001. Violent crime was up 11%, murders up 4%, and rapes are up 14%. This trend continues in 2004 with a 10% increase in street crime, 8% increase in muggings, and a 22% increase in robberies.

All of the above facts are taken from http://www.gunfacts.info and each one of them is cited by an independent academic, scientific or government study.

You cant have discourse with the people who still think that this administration is right.

Without people of differing opinions, there is no discourse.

Sure, some of the things in here are taken out of context, but let's just focus on two of them, hm?
1. Love everyone.
2. Hate everyone.
Those seem rather clear -- any takers?


If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Firstly, he's not talking here about going to heaven. Secondly, the guy left off the last sentence which puts it into a bit of context:

"And anyone who does not carry his cross and follow me cannot be my disciple."

He's talking about people coming to him, to worship him believing that they are not in need of guidance or help. The passage is saying that you cannot be a disciple of god if you are not willing to admit your fallacies and your hatreds -- if you cannot bear your soul and put your heart and mind forth with the understanding that, as much as you strive to live your life as god intends that you still sin, you'll never truly understand Jesus.

Again, I'm agnostic and haven't been to a church service in close to a decade and, with a little research, even *I* can interpret this after realizing that the video poster is omitting text to twist it into his own meaning.

He has zero credibility of any kind after that.

Devout agnostic here, and it's my believe that this video belongs in the toilet -- from my half-paying attention viewing, I did happen to catch that, in one reading, the passage said something to the effect of, "Do this and only then will you be my disciple."

Now, being a disciple and being granted entrance into heaven are two completely different things. If the man is trying to distort the meaning of plainly written text that he puts right in front of my face, the video as a whole has no credibility to me.