Ya, you're a regular Benny Hill ...

On BP - short of it being proven a North Korean mini-sub on a suicide mission attacked the rig, yes BP is responsible. But even before Titus listed the Valdez court proceedings (and especially after) I sorely doubt whether the local victims of the accident will find any real relief any time soon. Their one "out" (local industry that is) is if in a PR maneuver BP moves to publicly offer say 2/3rds of the estimated cost to business. If so, the fishing etc industries should jump on it, BP has as much time & money as Exxon does.

Titus, perhaps you should endevour to include a laugh track audio with your posts. In our last discussions (arguments really) on illegals you took many of these opinions to heart, not to jest. This was before your 2nd Amendment and states rights conversion I'll admit, but I wasn't sure you were being sarcastic until I read such in the comments section, and then the post was near completetion (so I added my "Reponse 6", but post publish).

I support the gun initiative you spoke of. But you know as well as I that La Rasa and other groups will scream just as loudly that "wild militia's" are exacting vigilante justice the first time an illegal is shot, even on a rancher's own property. Hell, they screamed "vigilante" about the Minute Men and they were a bunch of chubby guys in lawn chairs with bologna sandwhiches in a cooler and binoculars around their neck. The point here is whether we are discussing preventing acts of terror or dealing with illegals there are no "perfect" solutions, and I'm not being trite, I mean this sincerely. There is always a danger that when ensuring security we risk a slippery slope of infringing individual rights. The best we can do is constantly ask ourselves that question. It seems to me the SCOTUS standard on pornographpy applies here - "I'll know it when I see it." And when someone "sees" a violation of civil liberties I feel there are enough safe guards in place and groups willing to take the case that any indivudual violations will be sufficiently dealt with.

That being said, it would seem we agree that Arizona is attempting to come up with "a" solution in an imperfect situation, and we both applaud that effort.

(ps> when I speak of no perfect solutions for dealing with illegals, I mean in terms of what the border states can do. The feds are a different story. You remember in City Slickers when Jack Palance's character "Curly" explained to Billy Crystal that the secret to life is "just this one thing", and held up his finger? Crystal asked what that "one thing" was and Curly answered, "That's what you have to figure out." Well that one thing in terms of the feds is simply securing the Southern border. Were they to do that it would alleviate the scores of associated problems Arizona and her sister states are dealing with - from Albuquerque to Albany.)