Free Republic

It takes 22 people to provide 24 hour per day coverage 7 days per week. That provides 1 officer per each 8 hour shift.

Setting aside for a moment why a town of 14K needs 24/7 police coverage, there are three 8 hour shifts per day, seven days per week, equals 21 shifts per week. Each officer works one shift per week? Why not one shift per month? One per year? What's going on in that town, besides expenditures of inordinate amounts of tax dollars, that requires 22 police officers? If MN is looking for $5 billion, the public sector payrolls are a good place to start.

Hutchinson, pop. 14,178, requires a 22 officer police department? Whatever for?

Actually the program is private, all they want is an inspection by state people so they can open.

Cancel all state regulations, then the place can open, no problem.

-- Or --

Charge those who want the service the value of it.

You're so right. We should embrace politicians who pick up strange gay men in restrooms. We ARE too priggish. That IS the problem. We Need More Porn, More Gay Pride Parades, More Abortion cuz THAT'S what Freedom's all about.

You couldn't have made the case for socialism any better on a bet (n-n-not that I c-c-condone g-g-g-gambling...th-th-that's not f-f-f-freedom either).

The House of Representatives is in socialist hands. The United States Senate is in socialist hands. On January 20, 2009, Hillary Clinton will occupy the Oval Office. But you won't care. You'll still have your gonads or whatever in tact, head held high because you won't compromise on anything.

We should embrace politicians who pick up strange gay men in restrooms.

You've placed so many conditions on the behavior, I'm not sure what exactly is the kick outable offense in that sentence. Is it the fact that he is a politician? Is that what gets him kicked out of the party? Or is it that he wanted to pick up someone? Is it all right if two queers talk in a men's room as long as they're not trying to pick each other up? Or is it the fact that the other guy was a stranger that's so offensive? If he'd been a acquaintance's, would he still be on the crap list? Is it that it was done in a rest room? Would it be OK if he'd tried to pick him up in the snack area? Most likely it's that the guy was a homo, right? Why clutter up your political death sentence with those other red herring? If your gay, you can't hold office in the Republican party. Period.

We Need More Porn...cuz THAT'S what Freedom's all about..

The difference between a tyrant and someone who believes in liberty is that the tyrant grants everyone the freedom to do exactly those things he approves of and nothing more. You don't approve of people looking at dirty pictures, ergo, no porn. How utterly tyrannous of you.

the GOP has got to put their house in order.

There is no house to be put into order, Hal. So few can meet the myriad standards the "social conservatives" have set, they are destined to destroy the Republican party.

I used to think it was the Democrats that were hell bent on their own destruction but I now realize they have only half the priggish self importance of those who are willing throw every man, woman, and child with half a toenail over whichever fundamentalist line-in-the-sand is deemed "uncrossable" they'd prefer socialist rule to Republican imperfection. Good luck with that.

When reprobate degenerates turn our country into a "cesspool" we have no choice but to wallow in it.

Don't be ridiculous.

I prefer not to let the place get a level of total depravity because sexual psychotics have to keep lowering the bar to achieve satisfaction when the excitement of the last perverted fad falls out of fashion.

In my entire life, to the best of my knowledge, I've never met or been adversely affected by "sexual psychotics." Nor has anyone I know. I'm not saying they don't exist or that they do not cause some level of harm, but there is no extensive danger. They are not running wild in my state casuing folks to quiver behind locked doors. You really do have an obsession. You might want to get that checked.

My, aren't we self absorbed. The last time I looked, this thread wasn't about you personally.

You were the one who told me to go to hell. I guess I took that personally.

Congratulations on having a perfectly fine and decent life.

Does that mean I don't have to go to hell anymore? ;)

Just be honest, it'll save you a lot of trouble. You want it because you like it...

Actually you aren't being honest. If you were, you wouldn't make assertions you can't back up.

On the other hand, I will be honest. I'm not offended by our sexuality but there is a great deal of "pornography" that I don't care for in the least -- not all of it I would guess, but if you produced a list of pornographic themes, I would find the majority distasteful.

What I detest more are the tendencies some so-called conservatives have toward tyranny. If you check my posting history, you will see that I often join smoking threads to condemn no smoking laws even though I have never smoked. So don't assume I take positions to rationalize my own activities. I do have a dog in this fight, and that dog is liberty. If you can ban one thing, you can ban everything.

You believe pornography is wrong or evil or whatever. You believe prohibiting it produces good. You do not account for all the problems that generates. After all, those who prohibited alcohol weren't to blame for any murder, any destruction of property, any corruption of officials - that was all fault of those whose "miserable desires [for demon rum] festering in the darkness of [their] mind[s] held them in such abject slavery they would do all those things just for a sip of beer.

No, prohibitionists have no responsibility to examine what harmful effects might come from telling others what they can and cannot do in their living rooms. All wars have been fought because someone sought to restrict the liberty of someone else. That's a helluva a lot of harm, and it all rests at the feet of those who restrict.

My apologies, I mixed up the owl with li'l jerry.

Oh I see your logic now...

Incorrect yet again, but logic isn't your strong point. The owl wanted to question my fidelity to the founders of the nation. I wanted to know the same about the owl. I wanted to know if the owl would pick and choose what parts of the founding document were good and which were bad, while attempting to impugn me as unAmerican.

You don't realize (because your mind is covered with illusion) that what you call "freedom" is really abject slavery.

You are the one who is delusional. What people think of as their freedom to consume french fries and burgers when and where they please is really abject slavery to their dangerous and harmful food addictions -- or so the nutrition nazis would have us believe.

Your pornography phobia is as irrational as theirs. But like all good liberals you are only looking out for what is best for me. Screw what I think; what do I know compared to you and the other busybodies. It's only my life. What could I have to do with it that is as important as what you want me to do?

It's you and your pals the pornography producers and the ACLU who want to turn our country into a cesspool.

The difference between you and me is that I don't demand you jump into the "cesspool." I have more respect for you and our fellow citizens than you do for us.

No, the difference is that he appreciates and follows the vision of the orginal Founders of this country

Do you own any Negroes?

You can just go to hell.

That's the spirit! My life hasn't been ruined by porn so I deserve to spend eternity in damnation.

You lose the debate when you cannot respond to the post and launch an ad hominem attack against the poster.

Debate? There is no debate with you on this topic. Does your wife know you're here posting links to sites with descriptions of debauchery? Would you read what's on those sites in Sunday school?

My post was no ad hominem, it was merely an example, exaggerated to drive home the point, of what you did. I'm not surprised that you failed to comprehend that as you are unable to understand the concept of liberty which is what this is all about.

The anti-porn gestapo have absolutely no problem with the concept of barging into my living room to determine if I have any unapproved reading materials. Yet those same "decent folk" would shout tyranny if the nutrition nazis ever get what they want which is to come into my kitchen to certify what I'm serving for dinner.

And here's the connection for all of you dimwits who think this is about pornography: They both claim the right to circumscribe my behavior, i.e., take my liberty, because its for my own good.

The difference between you and me Harry (vis a vis this debate) is that you are a tyrant and I'm not.

Or telling a preacher "You are way too into sin"

DHY2K: Thou shalt not fornicate.

Husband: Preacher, what do you mean, fornicate?

DHY2K: Where's your wife> I'll show you.

Tyrant: One who identifies those activities that constitute liberty, a.k.a., you.

How exactly do you differ from the Taliban?

I never knew about it until yesterday when I read this post #24.

I couldn't care less where you picked it up. I just find it interesting how eager you appear to be to spread that which you condemn. You are way too into porn. For me, it's not about pornography, it's about liberty but you wouldn't understand that.

Are you serious? How friggin lame are you? Seriously.

My arguments are shallow and you are going to dismantle them by saying, in effect, "Well, if you can't see the difference between X and Y, I'm certainly not going to tell you." Good one. You sure got me there.

There is such a thing as right and wrong, evil and good, virtue and vice. Really.

There sure is, but you haven't a clue as to which is which. People who think as you do are the ones who burnt colonists at the stake in Massachusetts. Tell me, were those people good or evil? Were those whose lives were taken good or evil?

What should be done with those who view pornography? Would you burn them at the stake?

If not, you're not even as committed to your position as they were. They were so convinced that society needed to be protected from witches they burned their neighbors to death.

There are true problems in the world but pornography isn't one of them. Your sticking your nose into my reading matter is.

My bf and I have first hand experience on the negative affects of porn addiction in a married relationship. We won't tolerate it.

Sorry to hear that your friends and acquaintenances are irresponsible reprobates. Many of us are not and resent busybodies like you.

I have no idea who these "decent" British folk you mention were, but from the looks of things over there now they must have gone extinct. The Brits are going at it like dogs in the streets. Seems to be all the rage there now.

Why am I not surprised that someone who condemns others the loudest is the first one off sniffing that which they find so offensive? And spreading links here as well. A most decent folk are you.