Viagra - Life Saver!

Viagra STOPS heart attacks: Sex drug could soon be used to treat hundreds of thousands

Just in the prick of time!

DEAD MAN

cinema à la carte

DEAD MAN The film was entered into the 1995 Cannes Film Festival.[12] In its theatrical release, Dead Man earned $1,037,847[3] on a budget of $9 million.[2] Then, it was the most expensive of Jarmusch's films, due, in part, to the costs of ensuring accurate period detail. The film contains conversations in the Cree and Blackfoot languages, which were intentionally not translated or subtitled, for the exclusive understanding of members of those nations, including several in-jokes aimed at Native American viewers.[10] The Native character was also played by an Indigenous American actor, Gary Farmer, who is a Cayuga. Critical responses were mixed to positive. Roger Ebert gave the film one-and-a-half stars (out of four stars maximum), noting "Jim Jarmusch is trying to get at something here, and I don't have a clue what it is".[13] Desson Howe and Rita Kempley, both writing for theWashington Post, offered largely negative appraisals.[14] Greil Marcus, however, mounted a spirited defense of the film, titling his review "Dead Again: Here are 10 reasons why 'Dead Man' is the best movie of the end of the 20th century."[15] Film critic Jonathan Rosenbaum dubbed the film an acid western, calling it "as exciting and as important as any new American movie I've seen in the 90s"[16] and went on to write a book on the film, entitled Dead Man (ISBN 0-85170-806-4) published by the British Film Institute. The film scored a 'Fresh' 71% rating on website Rotten Tomatoes. [Wiki] In July 2010, New York Times chief film critic A. O. Scott capped a laudatory "Critics' Picks" video review of the film by calling it "One of the very best movies of the 1990s."[17] If you're old enough to have seen DEAD MAN, you've forgotten that you did.  So there's that. The opening sequences in this film are so ... so outre as to be, well, outre.  "10 reasons why 'Dead Man' is the best movie of the end of the 20th century" is overstating it, but it is unique, and has a lot of righteous killings. Hell, I'll give it 5 Stars for style alone.

Today's obamanation

Why it's time to repeal the 2nd Amendment by DAVID S COHEN I teach the Constitution for a living. I revere the document when it is used to further social justice and make our country a more inclusive one. I admire the Founders for establishing a representative democracy that has survived for over two centuries. Translation: I don't revere the Constitution at all when it doesn't agree with me ... The Second Amendment must be repealed. As much as we have a culture of reverence for the founding generation, it's important to understand that they got it wrong — Weasel words, "culture of reverence." Much more profoundly, the Framers and the Constitution were wildly wrong on race. They enshrined slavery into the Constitution A then necessary compromise, without which there would be no Constitution at all, but you knew that.  The Second Amendment needs to be repealed because it is outdated, a threat to liberty and a suicide pact. When the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791, there were no weapons remotely like the AR-15 assault rifle and many of the advances of modern weaponry were long from being invented or popularized. First of all, it wasn't an AR-15 (which, without an auto seer is not even an assault rifle, but a semi auto rifle.)  further demonstrating  your utter ignorance of the issues, let alone the Constitution. Additionally, the Second Amendment was clearly focused on protecting the citizenry from their own government (from you, actually) , which means nothing is off the table if you can afford it. Further more, the Ten Bill of Rights—all of them—focused on protecting us citizenry from the sort of government you are now espousing.  That you and leftist ilk are allowed to "teach the Constitution," is a the real obamanation here.  But you will outlive we who are capable of critical thinking, alas, and your cancer,  that's killing us now will  ...

London elects a Muzzy Mayor, and ...

Strontium 90

Police can’t defend every gathering, so ...

REASON MAG Comes Right And Says It

Police can’t defend every gathering, so the people in attendance must take that task on themselves, with or without legal sanction. "Everything You Need to Know About the AR-15 Used in Orlando," trumpeted Rolling Stone, getting yet another story wrong. More carefully, and generically, the Washington Post announced, "The gun used in the Orlando shooting is becoming mass shooters' weapon of choice." [ [...] But tools can be used for good as well as evil—if they're available. The patrons at Pulse would have had the potential to defend themselves against Mateen had they been carrying firearms as is permitted in much of the United States. But carrying guns in bars is illegal in Florida, and well-intentioned people are more easily constrained by rules than are terrorists—a fact on which Mateen may have relied. Bizarrely, the Sun-Sentinel's Michael Mayo insists that the massacre disproved the value of guns, because one armed guard failed to deter Mateen. He's joined by a chorus insisting that letting people defend themselves is no answer. But not everybody agrees. "It is difficult, if not impossible, to foresee such an event," notes Gwendolyn Patton, First Speaker of Pink Pistols, a GLBTQ self-defense advocacy organization. "But if they cannot be prevented, then they must be stopped as fast as someone tries to start them." Patton worries that further legal restrictions will affect only the law-abiding, leaving them yet more defenseless against future Omar Mateens. "Ask yourself: If that was Denver, Col., if that was Texas, would those guys have been able to spend hours, days, shooting people randomly? What I'm saying is it makes police around the world question their views on gun control. It makes citizens question their views on gun control. You have to ask yourself, 'Is an armed citizenry more necessary now than it was in the past with an evolving threat of terrorism?' Tom Palmer, a gay libertarian and one of the original plaintiffs in the groundbreaking Heller Supreme Court gun rights case, agrees. "Let's get one thing very clear. Gun control advocates disarmed the victims at that night club," he wrote in the New York Daily News. "Legally designated gun-free zones are invitations to killers." When good people were not rendered defenseless by law, they have stopped mass murderers. Eugene Volokh rounded up a good selection for the Washington Post, but here are two from just the last few months: In April, a Chicago Uber driver shot a gunman who had opened fire on a crowd. Weeks before that, Philadelphia police say a good samaritan "saved a lot of people" when he shot and killed a man who opened up on customers and staff in a barber shop. [Full Article] It's manifestly clear that  we've been invaded, and have a Vichy government to boot.

Consumed from within

A fine metaphor for Obama's America