It will be nice to see another liberal view to replace my mentor Hayes, who was unjustly banned, considering that there were many more than Republicans debating(?) or just insuling poor Hayes.
I thought that it would only the somewhat civil NL?

I am going to have to reject your premise that "Only discussion and appealing to the rational mind can convince anyone of anything." Do you have children? If so how do you get them to behave? Children's minds are rarely rational...as time goes by they learn to be more and more rational as they age and gain wisdom. Sometimes for some children a swat (or threat of one) is the only thing that gets through to them(I have a child like this) . As much as I hate to use the threat of a swat, sometimes that is the only way I can get my child to comply--fortunately it doesn't happen very often. Now, I understand that other countries or terrorist groups are not children but, some countries refuse to cooperate (which is irrational) and terrorists cannot be considered or relied upon to be rational either. So where does that leave us? It leaves us with either doing nothing and letting them get away with advancing their ideologies or, we can speak the language they understand...violence. We should hope to avoid violence but, if we avoid violence at all costs thinking we can solve everything through sanctions and diplomacy we weaken our stand and send a message to our enemies that we don't have the will to lay down the law (so to speak). Prime example: Saddam violating 17 U.N. resolutions and his constant violation of the No-Fly Zones and firing upon our pilots patrolling the No-Fly Zones...the slightest violation of any of those resolutions or the No-Fly Zones was our justification for war. Sadly, it took us 12 years to finally take him to the wood shed over it. Violence was the only language Saddam understood. Violence was the only language Saddam spoke. Sometimes violence is the only remaining solution.

Perhaps you meant Taiwan rather than Singapore? Taiwan has remained independent mainly because of the U.S. support for Taiwan and the threat of U.S. (nuclear) intervention if China decided to "reclaim" the island nation...but that's Cold War stuff. Regardless, Taiwan's independence is still a U.S. concern therfore, China is held at bay. Singapore gained it's independence from Britian in 1965...I don't know how you're connecting them with any conflict with China, and what current struggles re you talking about between Vietnam and China? Since around 1999 they have had relative peace. My point is that China has never been so concerned about humanitarian rights or playing by the rules of the Geneva Conventions. As for Tianamen Square, that was a great student demonstration for freedom, but sadly it was brutally crushed by the government over the couple of months it lasted. And that is my point. You mess with China and they will crush you.

I object to the MFCFRB because it is in violation of the 1st Amendment to the Constituion of the United States of America. It stifles political speech. McCain and Feingold sponsored it to protect themselves and other political buddies from political mudslinging. Ever hear of the Keating Five? Probably one tiny reason McCain wanted this legislation.

I object to seatbelt and helmet laws because I don't need the government to protect me from myself. Is it good sense to wear a seatbelt or a helmet? Yes it s, and that's why I do (and always have even before it was mandatory). These types of laws allow the government to grab more and more control over our lives one "tiny" law at a time.

I object to mandatory insurance laws. These laws allowed insurance companies to charge even higher premiums because everyone that wishes to drive within the law became a "captive audience." Again, is it good sense to have insurance? Yes. "Uninsured motorist" coverage was already there to protect ourselves from those that don't have insurance. Those motorists that choose to drive without insurance are still in the same predicament as before the mandate to have insurance...they are still uninsured and still can't pay damages/expenses/medical bills. We don't need the government to mandate whether we purchase insurance or not...like anything else the government has it's hands in, it makes goods and services more expensive. Has the mandate for having auto insurance made our country a better place? I suspect that the insurance companies lobbied for mandatory insurance knowing they would generate more revenue as most people strive to be obedient to our laws. The idiots that chose not to insure themselves before are likely to be the same people that are uninsured today.

I oppose speed limits (namely on highways and interstates) outside of commercial and residential areas. High speed limits in Europe work. I also believe there are far more important and productive things our law enforcement officers could be doing rather than sitting on the side of the road waiting for people to break the speed limit. I don't enjoy paying taxes and seeing cops sitting around. Our law enforcement officers could help bring crime down by patrolling troubled neighborhoods and commercial areas. Their presence in certain areas could be an effective deterrent to many crimes.

I oppose restrictions on firearms. I should be able to own whatever type and however many weapons I can pay for. I shouldn't have to wait for any amount of time before I can take possession of a gun. It is none of the government's business what guns I own. All adult (non-felons) should be able to carry a gun if they choose without having to be licensed by the government. Every citizen should be able to defend their person, family, possessions, and home and not have to rely on ineffecient and unreliable law enforcement agencies. One of the main reasons why we have the 2nd Amendment is to ensure "We the people" are able to protect ourselves from an oppressive government. The only way we can truly keep our government accountable to "We the people" is to have an armed citizenry. Once the 2nd amendment is gone, the rest will quickly follow.

I believe it is my duty (as well as every citizen's duty) to pay taxes. I think everyone should pay the same low rate like with a flat tax or the fair tax (similar to other countries VAT). I don't think that it is right that something like 95% of the taxes are payed by 2% of the population. I don't like the idea that if I make over $350,000 a year I have to hand over more than 1/3 of my income to the government to give to people that the government/IRS decides can put it to better use than I can.

So let me ask you, do you support these laws to which I object? If so what are your reasons?

Look at my comment again about Halliburton. I said the type and scale of operations. Halliburton has much deeper pockets and expertise (how many of those fifty engineering firms specialize in putting out oil well fires?) than the majority (if not all) of those other companies for the type of contract they were awarded. Regardless of that, considering the short notice/urgency of the operations, Halliburton may have been the only company that could deploy with little or no notice. There are so many rules with government spending it makes one dizzy. Things like is it an American owned company, is the owner a woman, a vet, disabled, or a minority? Minimum and maximum costs. Paperwork...there's always paperwork. Even I don't understand it all, but I do have experience in that realm and I know that it isn't as easy as Cheney or the DoD picking up the phone and awarding Halliburton a No-Bid contract. You may be interested to read this about Halliburton and their government contracts. Have a little faith and trust in our government.

Gun Safety Tip #8: No matter how responsible he seems, never give your gun to a monkey. (www.imao.us)