porcy62

Not necessarly, if it's so revolutionary it might well reduce solid things and their transport, in this sense we could even spare energy.

I was looking for this, but... http://cgi.ebay.it/JOHN-COLTRANE-CRESCENT-...1QQcmdZViewItem BTW if someone has a spare decent mono original pressing PM me. Greedyness not allowed.

Good wine suites as well.

Dick Cheney isn't that good with gun, I wouldn't worry about that, unless you're a Cheney's friend. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cheney_hunting_incident

The culture in those countries is completely different than ours to start with though. I think gun control there is just a symptom of a society that accept and obeys the rules it has in place, moreso than here in the U.S. Northern European countries are generally more homogeneous populations than in the U.S. I think U.S. culture, individual means, lifestyles, and just society in general are much more diverse than in the places you're comparing the U.S. to. Not to mention those are generally socialist countries, comparatively. Not sure if that is part of the difference or just a coincidence. Correct. I was talking with my wife about the differences of Constitutions, law systems, etc. I would say that U.S. were born as the most democratic country in world at times, compared to european kingdoms. In Europe democracy was a long and hard fighting against old heritage, so we are meticolously ruled by democratic governments, we accept this as our natural and historic development and progress in order to be safe from dictatorships and old flawness. In U.S. you probably have the opposite problem: even the smallest law is saw as a menace of your personal freedom. I think that things changed in Europe since King George and Napoleon, and things changed in U.S. since Thomas Jefferson. The greatness of a country relies on his ability to evolve. I don't see any valid arguments against a strict gun control, if guns are a serious social problem. You preserves natural parks or animals as public good, you banned smoking in public places because of public health, why don't preserve teenagerhood with a strict gun control? I always found odd that taking drugs is forbidden, and it's a personal choice that, theorically, harms only the one who take the choice, and buying assalt weapons is legal.

Maybe you missed the point: government already controls the real weapons, though it leaves the boys playing in the street or at school with small and deadly toys. Actually most of your taxes go into weapons (aka National Security aka Rand aka Pentagon), instead of NHS, social welfare, etc.. On the other hand nobody at Tombstone would ask the money back to the fastest gun in town, even if he has the biggest national debt on the earth (and I know what I am talking about, over here we have a serious national debt). So, history, strategical issues and Constitution a part, the federal government already got you, and left to you the right of carrying small toys and the illusion of freedom. Meanwhile NSA and the other Intelligence Agencies got your CC reports, read your email and build a big file with your name on it. BTW if you really think that carrying firearms would prevent the government of doing BS, well, nobody shooted to GWB or Cheney or Rove, on the contrary JFK, Bob Kennedy, Malcom and M.L. King were the targets, so... My modest and partisan view, obviously.

There are those who would make the case that those are not contradictory positions, but are in fact complimentary. I'm not one of them, at least not absolutely, but... Yep, they aren't "intrisecally" contradictory positions, thought IMHO NRA has more to deal with an economic lobby rather then civil rights or Constitution, my opinion of course. I haven't got prejudices against Heston, I never knew him personally nor I followed close his extra-movies' life, he wasn't such a great actor, (Jimmy Stewart was, just to name another conservative), just a good actor with a few memorable roles, The Omega Man or Planet of Apes.

If you surf around a bit, you can see that the photo is credited Courtesy of National Archives & Records Administration. Here's another taken at the same event: Yep, all italian newspapers obits remark that Heston supported civil liberties back then and later turned into a strong rep supporter up to NRA presidency.

BTW not a bad actor at all.

Yeah, great cover, though the video is definetely cheap stuff.

Auguri Allen!

Well, I owe to the Man at least a couple of true love stories of mine, including my wife, just taped "Blue Valentine" for the ladies...and add something of mine...girls with refined taste.

Ah, nothing like a bit of the old "Ludwig Van" before heading out to meet up with the droigs. Viddy well, little brother. Viddy well.

Ludwig Van Beethoven - String Quartet Op. 131 - Quartetto Italiano, Philips.

Calm down Dude, "our" Chewy is better.

BTW Did you watch "Best Babe on Greek TV" on related videos? May you please make a brief description of the stuff? I am too busy to set up the VTA of my Hattori Hanzo's cartdrige.

Nice systems. BTW Mine is better.

Not really, we both failed.

Naw, man, he's that great tenor player from Albany, right? Naw, he was the great money maker from Hartford, Connecticut.

Or Swiss UBS investments ! Exactly! LEE Morgan rules, J.P. Morgan sucks! edit: WSJ agreed.

Overall, for me this thread is comforting compared to stock exchanges indexes, considering that I got many of the records named here and no JP Morgan or Merril Lynch funds!

Auguri! :party:

I always considered Anderson a pop/rock musician, and part of the New Wave like Talking Heads. A fresh new thing at times in the mainstream rock/pop landscapes, not really Avant Garde. Never heard her later works, after "Home of The Brave". Big Science is a good record IMHO, and I can listen to it even today, without being bored.

Sounds like an extremely complex process. I can see trucking in the potatoes, but after that I don't understand the need for the rest of what you described. I can't imagine this being profitable at all. That's exactly the point, YOU, and I, can't imagine, the MARKET does. Let's say that a food big corporate bought the small company. The cheapest potatoes come from Germany, until now maybe tomorrow they will come from Poland, the big corporate get money from EU developping funds for poor areas, like Sicily, or maybe they have some lower taxation, or the job is cheaper, or the laws aginst pollution are looser. So they move the drying process of all their potato chips brands over there. Let's make the same reasoning for every places I named. Maybe in Switzerland they have the best, modern and economic frying plants of the whole europe, maybe they want that the italian chips remain italian, so they packed them in Italy and wrote down on the packet "Made in Italy", and charged you 50 cents more at the supermarket for it. Add the fact that most of the companies has lower transportation costs because they don't own their trucks anymore, they rent them. Then you can do some calculations: for a small company all these would be crazy, but for a big corporate with dozens of potato chips brands? This is the concept of delocalization, if you consider more complex products like cars or DVD players, you'll discover that inside a Cadillac, proudly U.S. made, or in a Fiat FWIW, there are hundreds of parts coming from all over the world, the same plants does brakes for both Cadillac and Fiat, perhaps in Taiwan. We moved from a small world with industrial areas where all the third parts were produced to a global world. The point is that in order to move all this stuff we need way too much oil for trains, trucks, ships, and the long term social cost could be unbareable for us: global warming, desertification, pollutions, etc.

Paraphrasing Samuel Johnson: "Market forces is the last refuge of the scoundrel.”