TheLeviathan

It's still my favorite Marvel show and this looks to up the ante even more. Awesome trailer.

You can't whine about what the other side MAY do when the side you're backing is actually doing it.

I don't know, in that scenario does he come back out in January and announce he still has awful migraines? I mean, most of this stems from Joe himself coming out and saying he is still experiencing side effects. To me, the issue is completely separate from his production. Like Robert Smith saving his knees or Chris Borland saving his brain, not so much about his batting average. As I said first, I think this is premature, but every time Mauer announces he still has problems is reason to consider it.

What's funny to me is that we sometimes sit on our high horse about how bad it is to be cheering for people to abuse their bodies to the point of no return, but when we suggest that maybe it's ok to let someone we appreciate go early...we get lambasted for telling them what to do. I appreciate what doc was trying to say, which was basically - do what's right for you the rest of your life Joe. Don't bleed out a few more risky years that might hurt your ability to play with your grandchildren. At the same time, Joe has to balance that risk with the reward of continuing to try and overcome those lasting side effects. I think we all know that it's Joe's decision ultimately, but as fans it's sort of natural to lean towards one side or the other of what we think he should do if we were in his situation. I think a lot of the reaction is overblowing what is really being said.

Well, you should probably fact check something you found on WorldNetDaily and not start tossing conspiracies out. Nobody, his family included, think there was any foul play. So I think the investigation efforts end there. What isn't ending is the despicable manner in which Republicans are handling this. Give Kasich credit, he at least admitted he'd do what Obama is now if the situation was reversed. And when the situation was reversed (towards the end of the Bush years) the Republicans DID exactly that with other appointees. Frankly, if the Republicans push hard on this, it may be the end of my consideration for voting for them for a long time. As of now, I still keep that option open for good candidates.

While I think this is premature, I would argue that if the glasses thing doesn't help and the side effects continue to bother him...then this should be seriously considered in the very near future.

2) Freedoms are not unlimited. If it makes me happy to have a tiger as a pet, I don't get that. I don't get to drive 120 mph in a school zone. I don't get to yell "fire" in a theater or "bomb" on an airplane. I don't get to go around punching people for fun. If your idea of "infringing" is what you state here, essentially: if I don't get what I want then you're infringing on me. Well, then I'd suggest what's broken is your definition of freedom. Guns present a real danger to others merely by being everywhere and accessible to most anyone. Most of the atrocities committed in this country were done by someone basically borrowing someone else's arsenal to slaughter people. So you are literally endangering the rest of society by making your home into a Punisher safe house. The threat that poses infringes on our most fundamental right - to live. 2b) The background checks are so onerous you don't go get one? Does a background check and a license stop you from fishing? Or hunting? Or driving a freaking car? I hate this argument because it's so silly. The idea that subjecting yourself to a check to make sure you are a safe and competent person to purchase a gun makes it so unbearable to purchase one sounds like something my toddler would say if I ask him to put away his toys. I have to imagine you have the same pouty lip and sprawl out on the floor in faux frustration over it. It's a freaking background check. Most people go through them to get a job, you can do that to get a killing device and if you whine that you can't - you've left the "reasonable" camp. 3) We solve everything with guns because they are EVERYWHERE and they are highly effective at solving problems. At least that's what we've learned culturally from pretty much the dawn of America. Perhaps we wouldn't run to go solve our problems with guns if we didn't have a storage locker full of them.

ISIS and Al-queda are more well armed than our populace ever could be, do we expect them to win? Those guys in Oregon aren't standing up the government because they are an equal match, it's because our government doesn't want them dead. If they did...they'd be dead. So, yeah, it's a fantasy that a militia or an anti-government weapon is necessary. We left those days behind a long time ago and technology only makes that claim more comical by the day.

Well, sadly, the same people that believe in the second amendment actually did limit it after 9-11. I mean, the Patriot Act actually does this and it was Republicans largely behind it. Do you believe speech is unlimited? That you can say whatever you want, whenever you want? Do you believe people can assemble in the middle of the road and block traffic?

I wouldn't compare Scalia to Osama bin Laden...that probably is overstating any contempt you may have for his ideology on the court.

We shouldn't be totally surprised that there are a mix of emotions on something this huge at such a critical time. The Onoin and many others are having some fun poking at his stances in a provocative way, it's sort of natural given the stakes and the passionate ideology of the man. In most places he is either bring reviled or revered. It can be hard to temper those emotions even to faithfully acknowledge the good and bad he achieved. What we can all acknowledge is he may be one of the most influential judges of our time. I really hope another moderate is nominated by Obama before we risk a Republican making the nomination.

Yeah, I think you have to announce you respect gun ownership. Encourage people to own any gun they want for protection. Add two to three guns to that as designated forms of hunting rifle as an additional license. But let's end the arsenals. That alone would be a major step while we fight the culture of gun sexiness.

This debate is an entertaining *#$% show.

They'd build a wall for different reasons from Wisconsin. The proximity to Chicago is the issue with Indiana, which is a valid complaint.

Yeah, now we might amend the Constitution or other such craziness. Imagine if we had the audacity to change it! We might even do it like 30 times or something!

He might not, but I'm hoping he picks a really sensible moderate.

I regularly disagreed with his politics, but it being a Supreme Court Justice is an amazing feat. His death does, however, pretty much guarantee the court shifts to the left to some degree. Here's hoping the nominee is of the Roberts/Kennedy mold.

Right, but when something that is too ambitious is stated, then you call it "unrealistic". I know where I want to get to (lower the proliferation of guns) is pretty unrealistic today, but let's not kid ourselves that co-opting language or moving the goalposts will help. A classroom full of 6 year olds got slaughtered and even the mere suggestion that maybe we might possibly pass some legislation to help curb gun violence and the NRA and it's lackeys were out in full force. No, they've won the narrative for a long time. They have people actually believing the 2nd amendment allows you to be the Punisher. That (as Chi points out) it's the only freedom we have an unadulterated right to. They have people foaming at the mouth to attack even the most trivial or meaningless legislation against guns for fear that it will be a slippery slope from there. No, it continues to be my belief that we need to aggressively mock, ridicule, and systematically undercut that culture in the same way we did cigarettes so that in a generation or so we can flip the tables on them. But right now we have people here that are basically saying "you can't make an omelet without a few broken eggs", where in this case those broken eggs are bullet-ridden 6 year olds. And reject, out of hand, the idea of a background check for a gun equivalent to the one required to drive a car or work with the elderly. In other words, what we're dealing with is nothing short of lunacy and obsession and it's going to take awhile to convince the next generation the other way.

I think we have to keep in mind that many of the things thought achievable now, are rather inconsequential. They may, however, be necessary on the way towards meaningful solutions. As I said in the other thread, let's not fool ourselves that what we can do is all that impactful. We won't start making a true impact until we defeat the gun culture, but to do that it may require putting a few chinks in the armor first.

You're right to be looking for real solutions. But there is only one side, on this issue, stopping that. They are preventing anything meaningful from happening.

Yes the solutions are underwhelming because meaningful solutions aren't possible. You're at one point complaining of unrealistic solutions and another complaining of too many non-meaningful ones. The problem is that even rational solutions (like yours or waiting periods or intense background checks) are shot down instantly by one side. We have to beat the gun culture until rationality wins out. It is despicable and irrational to believe first graders should die so you can own an arsenal.

So, after boo-hoping for pages about a lack of solutions.... The answer offered is to do nothing but enforce murder laws?

If altering the constitution is akin to lighting it ablaze, then 2nd amendment itself lit it up years ago. Not to mention treating black people like people. You didn't even manage one solution slappy...cmon. If you think your hand gun is going defend you against the govt. then you're just being silly. Now...solutions, let's hear them.

Good god. First, I've yet to hear one damn solution out of your side. So lay some on me. And they better be really freaking good. Second, the second amendment says you can form a militia, not be the Punisher. As someone else said, you can only really use one gun at a time, so that's all you need. You want to have another one or two for hunting? Sure. Anything more is indefensible. Third, you skipped over licensing and background checks, we do them for cars and being freaking social workers, why not for handling instruments of death?

Go to a range and use their guns. Why do you need to have a Punisher room in your house? That's how these happen primarily - over proliferation and the mindset that this is ok when it is comically unnecessary. Law abiding citizens are going to have to wake up, like they did with cigarettes, and drop their destructive habit. Guns don't prevent crime, if they did the invention of it and distribution of it yo the police would have ended crime. So, no, I don't want to have to take people's guns. I'd rather they care enough about their fellow citizen to turn them in on their own.