Neo

EXHIBIT A: PI on Clay.

Dear NFL .... I still watch my Bills. You get that revenue. I no longer watch any other games featuring your unwatchable product. This has been coming for several seasons and reflects a great change in my life. I have little interest in watching 8 kick offs to nowhere, and 20 flags per game. Dear Rex ..... Your aggressive attitude is refreshing. Your team's inability to line up correctly or control itself isn't. No one likes a stupid bully.

Unintended irony: The NRA would ask the same question using the same words.

i don't know much about the shooter. I know the Christianity of the victims played a role. I am grateful I've read nothing that says it was one religious belief shooting at another. As sad as any shooting is, I feel an added layer of sadness when it's Christian vs Jew vs. Muslim ... or black vs white. There's crazy, and there's crazy and hateful. Lastly, my humanity moves me as much, and that means totally, when I feel for the broken human being that did the shooting and his friends and family. I've always wondered if victims and their families would accept and understand my feelings. Would I accept it from someone else if my daughter'd been a victim? I suspect some would and some would not. Godspeed, and peace, for all ....

I generally view campuses the same way I view shopping malls and theaters. I'll think about how they're different. Location can be different. My state limits location in the context of where alcohol is served, for instance. While I don't believe gun free zones accomplish anything, I do believe separating guns from alcohol does. It's not the zone that makes someplace safe, but it could be the alcohol in a tavern that makes someone crazy. Defect - you can liquor up at the bar and walk to your trunk. You introduced age to our common ground of restrictions. It "feels" like there's something to evaluate there.

Our ideas on candidates are different, Mr East, but I greatly admire your belief in big ideas and your commitment to those who have them. Washington was unelectable and the Revolutionary Army had no chance, as well .... at one point in time.

Thought you meant someone here, in the back and forth. Missed the Lt Col, but I'm sure you saw what you did. NRA may very well lobby for easier access. It's their sole issue. I think any special interest group argues for easier access to its "interest", whatever that may be. My thoughts, and you know I'm a 2nd Amendment guy, is that it's way too easy to get carry permits. I'd be on the side of demonstrating competence much more rigorously, meaningful background checks and waiting periods. All three could be more stringent than those in place in my state, now. I am not for arming the general populace as a deterrent. Who'd do that? It's quite a different thing to say the general populace has a right to choose, person by person. It's also a different thing to say that if victims had chooseen to arm, outcomes would be different. I don't think you said this, XB. You referenced "access", but I've seen "right to choose" mischaracterized as "so you'd arm everybody" and "I guess we all need more guns" deliberately and often. For emphasis and clarity, I don't think you did this in your post. All we "need" is choice, one by one. Recent events have caused me to think about screening and the mentally ill. I'm not close to how I'd balance privacy, confidential relationships with physicians, and the State's desire for knowledge. Mental illness and the violence associated with hate, crime, the urban poor, gangs and economic desperation are the real human issues our society faces when we're talking about guns. Band aids and cures. No doubt that I see "crazy" as the issue, and not the gun. That's where you and I may step to different pages. I'll join you, though, in tightening up access!

I *snipped* a lot. I've carried a reply around in my head for a few days. I am going to agree with something you said, about me, better than I said it. We were talking about whether or not I was a Republican. I think I sliced some distinctions too thinly, especially for a message board. To your point, for any general board conversation, you can consider me a Republican. My philosophical differences are specific and many, but that can be said for any of us. Your shorthand generality is more board accurate than my parsed specifics, as true as they are. You also make a point, probably snipped, that I share. Republicans and balanced budgets aren't regular bedfellows.

You couldn't have picked a better victim. Who's arguing for easier or broader ACCESS to guns? I truly haven't seen anyone say relax gun regulations. I've seen arguments for retaining access, some based on law, others on the Constitution, and some on plain ol' preference. I ask sincerely. The "cure" for crazy people with anything is addressing the "crazy" and not playing whack-a-mole with the anythings. This is true even when one of the anythings is as loud, obvious and dangerous as a gun.

I've missed more than MY share. I just thought it was an awesome word!

"Depelted" is an awesome typo, not to take one thing away from the earnestness of your post.

The Continental! 1981 to 1983 ish, for me.

I found what I consider an informative article on Libertarianism and its status as a philosophy that exists to a large extent but fails to transfer to governing to an even larger extent. If you're interested, try to get past any Fox News reservations you have and click. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/10/02/collapse-rand-paul-and-libertarian-moment-that-never-was.html?intcmp=ob_article_footer_text&intcmp=obinsite#

I agree, Smeller.

Is it relatively universal that Bennett's ahead of Reinhart at this early juncture? I've asked you about Sam, before. This post is not a suggestion of regret! Edit: Hockey's Future has Bennett at 8/C and Reinhart at 8/B. Looks like the reports have been updated fairly recently. Sometimes that board gets dated. I find it helpful.

pA and D4rk - two "regular" guys.

Insight ....

I hope you're not frustrated. You made a point with me.

I posted earlier that I view Libertarians/Socialists as more philosophers with ideas that inform than as individuals that govern. Do you share any of this? Also, an impression from NeoVille: I'd call both optimists. Paul recognizes the power of the individual, and Sanders the power of the collective. What makes me smile is the different delivery styles. Paul's message of optimism is delivered with a dour "we can't and shouldn't" slant while Sanders' message is delivered with a smiling "we can and should" slant. It takes thought and effort, some might say booze and medication, to see both as optimistic.

Never said "grateful" for your reply!

JJ ... insight

The Democratic Socialist distinction is something I've always been aware of as Bernie's discussed. I believe you're correct and it's an important distinction when listening to, or talking about, Bernie. Here's an interesting thought starter you inspired, although one I'd not be prepared to write about with any insight until I've studied and pondered. That is, you said "something you can see working in Europe". I'll think about that. One, I'm not sure I want to be Europe. I do take some joy in America not being Europe. Two, there are a lot of things not working in Europe, and I'll consider how much of it stems from Democratic Socialism as a way of life and governing. No conclusion, here. I think you're ahead of me with a conclusion that "it works". Greece is Europe. France is Europe. Spain is Europe. There's more homogeneity in Europe, country by country, than there is in the US. Different, interesting, thoughtful.

I'm not really a Republican. I call myself a Republican the same way I call many of the posters here Democrats. It's a tool, an accommodation, a methodology, a necessary step to communicate broadly. It allows me to vote in primaries and identify common groups. The party means little to me. I don't advocate for it. I don't fund it. I don't work or volunteer for it. If a Republican expands government, generally, I'm against it. I say generally because I'd have to discuss case by case by case to be wholly accurate with regard to me. I'd have to discuss shrinking case by case, too. For instance, you mentioned widening the deficit. Really, from me? Do you think I'm comfortable with widening or growing deficits for any governmental objective? Folly, foolishness, smoke and mirrors and disastrous ... today and tomorrow. Cognitive consistency. I've mentioned this time and time again. To your question: I cannot name a single Republican for or against the death penalty. I don't know where most (any?) stand on the issue. I know where I stand, only. I believe more Republicans than Democrats support the death penalty. I know my view on the death penalty evolved over time, from generally supportive to whole heartedly against. My posts represent the view of ..... me. That's true when I'm offering my view, my view of their view, and my view of your view. That's all that my posts are. Now, the views of the Republican party are consistent with my views more often than are the views of the Democratic party. That is true. There's plenty of room between "more often" and "often, usually, typically, almost always and always". I'm trying to guess how "Republican" I am, in light of your post. "Half-ish" comes to mind immediately. How Democratic am I? Hmmmm ... a bit-ish. I'd move beyond half-isn to most-ish if you took social issues out of the Republican party. I'd move beyond a bit-ish to half-ish if you took nanny cures and identity politics out of the Democratic party. I don't see either happening in my lifetime. The cognitive dissonance is linking me to parties. If your evidence for my linkage to the Republican party is my low ranking of Paul, I'll explain with this. I don't think Libertarians are necessarily good at running government. I view Libertarians as thoughtful philosophers with ideas that elected officials can and should take into consideration. I view socialists similarly. My leanings are closer to the Libertarians'.

Agree, agree, agree - with all of your post. I wasn't trying to make a point about Sanders, in particular. My broad point, instead, was on general cause and effect ... does somebody "not look good" because of lack of support, or does somebody "lack support" because they do not look good? Which came first, the not looking good or the lack of support? That's for the Dem establishment and Dem primary voters to decide, not me. I await the decision. If I ran for President, I would not look good to either Dem or Repub establishments. Their lack of support would not be the reason I wouldn't look good.

I'm beginning to see some of the Democratic debate I look forward to. I'll bet none of us was happy with "anointed" or "inevitable".