shaitan

Remember, in that universe magic is a very dangerous thing to mess with, and it rarely only does as appeared... as such the essence of assigning "magic" to a certain field would be to think about it very carefully.

Rooting, i.e. the complex, inborn behavior of making mouth movements specific to the acquisition of milk? It's a reflex? A spinal cord activity?

I didn't say people don't own guns there now, I said they won't if rudy wins and goes nuts . The mere fact that he'll have sponsored a mechanism whereby people can be prevented from buying guns will establish a greater difficulty in getting guns if we have to resort to that check on his power. If a revolution due to expansion of government crap is called for, the "criminals" (i.e. whoever disagrees with the expansion of crap) will be precisely the ones we want having guns, and Rudy will have made sure (assuming he's competent) that the people we need to revolt won't have guns. Hillary Clinton read Atlas Shrugged, and said she "grew up" after initially agreeing with it, without raising any rational objection to any of its content. Translation: she agrees with Objectivism and still rejects it. I don't think Ivy Starnes was quite so sophisticated in her evil, but Ellsworth Toohey definitely is, which is why I compare her with Ellsworth Toohey. Joseph Stalin might be a good comparison too, if ya read some of the stuff he said

If we nuked Tehran, it would be radioactive and become useless land. If we bomb it conventionally, there is no radiation, we still kill the bad guys, and the good guys can build shit there .

Frankly, I'm not sure there's a better viable candidate than Mccain in the field. Not because I agree with him on much, but because he doesn't have what it takes politically to enact the disastrous domestic policies he supports, and does have what it takes to at least keep a decent foreign policy. And if he does go completely nuts, at least we'll still have our guns unlike with Rudy . Never give up your guns, they are the most important part of "checks and balances." Hillary Clinton is just Ellsworth Toohey with more testosterone, and she's the only Democrat with any real chance other than John Edwards (A populist of the sort that's plagued Latin America this past century or so.) Ron Paul, however much he mouths the freedom rhetoric, has declared he wishes to abolish the IRS without telling us what funding mechanism he'll replace it with. That way lies not freedom but anarchy, and the inevitable backlash of dictatorship. Besides, he's polling at 2% and so it's a moot point.