Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunthr on January 28, 2008, 09:11:29 AM
-
How come both Obama and Hillary said that they "respect" that Chivas Regal-soaked, waitress groping, fat prettythang college test cheating, olympic swimming party boy Theodore Kennedy?
Obviously they look up to him as the spiritual leader of the democrat party. AFAIC, Oswald shot the wrong Kennedy. Obama and Hillary should be ashamed of themselves for bowing to such a corrupt, spineless and morally dissolute public figure, who has never had a real job in his entire life, instead choosing to make a career out of misappropriating public money to stay in power.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
who has never had a real job in his entire life, instead choosing to make a career out of misappropriating public money to stay in power.
Doesn't this describe most of Congress?
-
He's not my senator, so I don't much care.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Doesn't this describe most of Congress?
I'll answer that! YES!!!
-
His people keep electing him, the public in his home state must support him, and the 2 leading nominees for the Dems want their votes.
Hard to blame the politicians, the people keep electing them.
-
I am delighted with the kennedy endoresment of barack hussein obama.
-
An unfortunate middle name in our climate.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
-
Doesn't this describe most of Congress? - Chair
yes, to varying degrees... but I would never say I "respect" someone who is such an icon of cowardly, sleazy conduct, both in his personal life and public life. Kennedy is pure politician. So why would the democrat front runners say that?
-
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Still cant find anything on his 2nd amendmant position. Anyone got info on that?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
Still cant find anything on his 2nd amendmant position. Anyone got info on that?
http://www.2decide.com/table.htm
-
Where kennedy goes the state of massachusetts will follow. They are obviously too damn stupid to think for themselves after continuing to elect that bag of fecal matter. For that matter ny is hardly any better after supporting hillary.
-
To quote someone from this board a few years ago.
My guns have killed less people then Ted Kennedy's car.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
How come both Obama and Hillary said that they "respect" that Chivas Regal-soaked, waitress groping, fat prettythang college test cheating, olympic swimming party boy Theodore Kennedy?
LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!:lol :aok :rofl :rofl
-
pe: misread the column. McCain is against a Assault Weapon ban and for background checks.
obama is for a AW ban and for background check. Cant support anyone who would sign into law a ban on any semi auto.
-
Semi-auto ban? You might want to review the legislation, its another one of those amorphous "assault weapon" bans. Don't muddy the waters by confusing the issue, it only ends up helping the antigun folks. "See?" they say, they don't even understand what we're proposing!"
-
Obama is for total gun ban , at least he was before he decided to run for president.
look it up yourself.
-
sorry to confuse you chairboy. any semi auto weapon s what they are really after.
Here is a brief on the current gun ban:
H.R. 1022 would reinstitute and expand the ban on assault weapons. It reduces the number of requirements for a firearm to be classified as an assault weapon from two to one. It additionally includes, in H.R. 1022 Section L, the expansion of the legal term assault weapon to any
"... semiautomatic rifle or shotgun originally designed for military or law enforcement use, or a firearm based on the design of such a firearm, that is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, as determined by the Attorney General. In making the determination, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that a firearm procured for use by the United States military or any Federal law enforcement agency is not particularly suitable for sporting purposes, and a firearm shall not be determined to be particularly suitable for sporting purposes solely because the firearm is suitable for use in a sporting event."
-
Where does it say it bans all semi-automatics? Of that part is simply missing, you should have no problem finding it to paste in. Kthxbai
-
Where does it say that after this bill is signed into law there will never ever be another gun ban, ever? Just use your brains on this one.
-
Here is what Obama is for Teddy and company:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51CE6H28SDL._AA280_.jpg)
-
I find the dumbarsecrat infighting great entertainment
LOL
-
Osama is all for Universal Healthcare. Free Healthcare for every American. Sounds good to me. While we are at it lets provide a job with free housing, free transportation, and free food clothing and energy since we appear to need that to survive.
-
People who think the Second Amendment is, or ever was, about hunting are idiots.
P.S. We already have free health care, just ask any illegal.
-
Exactly. The 2nd is the only one that matters, because it's the one that gives the Constitution teeth.
-
The Second is there to protect the First.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
How come both Obama and Hillary said that they "respect" that Chivas Regal-soaked, waitress groping, fat prettythang college test cheating, olympic swimming party boy Theodore Kennedy?
Obviously they look up to him as the spiritual leader of the democrat party. AFAIC, Oswald shot the wrong Kennedy. Obama and Hillary should be ashamed of themselves for bowing to such a corrupt, spineless and morally dissolute public figure, who has never had a real job in his entire life, instead choosing to make a career out of misappropriating public money to stay in power.
Are we having a rather bad day? Bleak outlook for the future? I'm sure that made it better. :D
-
Just read that the Kennedy clan just endorced Obama over Clinton.
which is supposed to be quite a matter of significance. and did so with a few slaps at the Clintons.
I for one love it.
ANY time that biotch gets biotch slapped I love it..
I wanna see her cry in defeat.
ANYONE but Hillary
even if it means Obama.
-
Right wingers are just so full of hate...
-
keep spreading the love MT :D
-
Are we having a rather bad day? Bleak outlook for the future? I'm sure that made it better. - Arlo
I feel pretty doggone good after that Arlo :D
... and nothing is set in stone for 2008.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
(extremist) Right wingers are just so full of hate...
And frustration ...
Eh ... *ShruG*
Looking good for Obama, it seems. Quite a few Republicans are talking about voting for him and quite a few are saying they won't vote McCain ... no matter.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
I feel pretty doggone good after that Arlo :D
... and nothing is set in stone for 2008.
Self-reaffirmation. Secondary coping tool of the day after one publically throws a hissy. :D
-
I just hope Hillary doesnt get the noimination so I dont feel like Im being blackmailed into voting republican.
The problem with the election is that anyone worth voting for barring the entire country growing a brain I would agree with Laz probably doesnt stand much of a chance.
And the ones who stand a chance arent worth voting for.
Get Hillary out of the race and I see myself as being completely free to vote the way I choose as any of the ramaining feild is only going ot produce more of the same.
Hillary I beleive would be TERRIBLE for the country. If for no other reason then she like Bush is too divicive a personality.
the two most hated people in politics right now are Bush, and Hillary
We just had 8 years of devicive leadership.
You dont think that if Hillary gets elected the Republicans arent going to play the same titfortat games the democrats did.
Willingtot compromise on next to nothing just so the president doesnt gain a political victory?
While I dont see any gems on either side of the isle barring Ron Paul.
I dont see anyone who would drive a further wedge in the nation as she would either.
-
So then as celebration Teddy should drive Osama somewhere for dinner.
edit: Spelling I meant Osama
-
Originally posted by Arlo
snippet..... Quite a few Republicans are talking about voting for him and quite a few are saying they won't vote McCain ... no matter.
<--falls into this bunch I'm afraid.
<--Conservative...and between Hillary or McCain....= no vote for pres.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
So why would the democrat front runners say that?
They'll need a favor sometime.....Political felatio
-
Originally posted by RedTop
They'll need a favor sometime.....Political felatio
Well put!
:aok :aok
-
Do you really want to compromise on what you believe?
No?
Then stop talking about bipartisanship.
-
If Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination, I will write him in during the general election. If you don't vote for the person you think should be President, then YOU sold out.
-
Originally posted by Pooh21
So then as celebration Teddy should drive Osama somewhere for dinner.
edit: Spelling I meant Osama
Pretty obvious what you mean. Edit: By obvious I mean tranparent. Edit squared: By transparent I mean mud. Edit cubed: By mud I mean slinging.
:D
-
Originally posted by Xargos
If Ron Paul does not get the Republican nomination, I will write him in during the general election. If you don't vote for the person you think should be President, then YOU sold out.
I work elections in South Carolina, you cannot write-in a vote for president or vice president.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
I work elections in South Carolina, you cannot write-in a vote for president or vice president.
Something seems very wrong with that to me. You should be able to vote for whoever you want, regardless of them being on the ballot. Thats just MHO.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
People who think the Second Amendment is, or ever was, about hunting are idiots.
P.S. We already have free health care, just ask any illegal.
I saw an very interesting episode of Penn & Teller regarding the 2nd amendment, the reasoning behind it and why the politicians are so scared of it.
Keep the bastards honest I say! I only wish the Australian public had the balls to stand up to king johnny when he took ours away.
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
I work elections in South Carolina, you cannot write-in a vote for president or vice president.
and why not?
are they violating the rights of the people to vote for whoever they choose?
whether the person voted in meets the requirements to serve is a different matter.
(more than a few have been voted into an office after the fact of their death)
is it an attempt by a handful of people to control who gets voted into a political office?
are they, in fact, breaking federal laws and this one as well, Title 18 USC Section 242?
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
I work elections in South Carolina, you cannot write-in a vote for president or vice president.
I would like to know why the State is preventing me from being able to vote.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I would like to know why the State is preventing me from being able to vote.
don't ask us, ask the Governor of SC, if you don't like the law work to change it, organize, gather support, have your local state rep propose a change in the law.
-
SECTION 7-13-360. Place on ballot for write-in names.
The ballots shall also contain a place for voters to write in the name of any other person for whom they wish to vote except on ballots for the election of the President and Vice President.
It doesn't bother you that a state is preventing people from being able to vote?
P.S. Doesn't Cuba have a similar system, but with only one name on the ballot?
-
Xargos, I have wanted the option myself in EVERY election since 1992 election!
-
This is the first time I have ever wanted that option. My anger was not pointed at you. I never knew that was the case.
P.S. I am very angry.
-
I didn't take it that way man! I agree with ya!
-
I'm serious. I feel like someone died for me in vain.
-
stop crying about it and go do something about it, and you know writing "ron paul" on the ballot will have zero effect on the election.
-
Having "Zero" effects on the election is not the point.
I have, almost, always agreed with you on everything, why do you want to be an A hole on this?
-
I'm feeling feisty tonight. :D
-
I'm not sure if you understand how mad I am, but...:D
-
Originally posted by john9001
stop crying about it and go do something about it, and you know writing "ron paul" on the ballot will have zero effect on the election.
Not neccesarily. If enough people do then it may work, or at the very least atke votes from the lesser canidates.
IIRC in the 1970's there was a movement to write-in Mickey Mouse on the ballots because the canidates were all perceived to be bad. IIRC he received 70,000 votes. thats 70,000 fewer for whoever actually ran.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Do you really want to compromise on what you believe?
No?
Then stop talking about bipartisanship.
And if the founding fathers went by this credo. We wouldnt have a USA to argue about.
I recon some of us would be under the English flag. Some the Spanish, and some the French.
and we'd all be F$%^ked
I remember hearing a story about somethign Benjamin Franklin once did.
I dont remember it word for word but it went something like this.
Congress was arguing some issue or another, and nobody could or was willing ot come to an agreement on the issue.
Franklin stood up and began speaking. Apealing to all with a story that went something like this.
"some time ago I ordered a table to be built for my house. When the carpenter had only the top left to do he had two lengths of wood. Each on their own were both too long to fit the room and too narrow to make a suitable table top. so rather then try to make a table that wouldnt fit the room. he trimmed a little off of each peice of lumber and joined them together side by side. so that when he was done. He had built a table that was just the right size."
I beleive it was reported that less then a day later Congress managed to compromise and reach an agreement
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
Xargos, I have wanted the option myself in EVERY election since 1992 election!
I think I'd rather have the option: "None of the above"
-
Originally posted by Yeager
pe: misread the column. McCain is against a Assault Weapon ban and for background checks.
obama is for a AW ban and for background check. Cant support anyone who would sign into law a ban on any semi auto.
Guns are so important right now. Forget the economy, the war, the environment, the poor, immigration....as long as I can buy an Ak47 that's all that matters :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I think I'd rather have the option: "None of the above"
I hear Congress is considering raising the Presidental salary so as to attract better applicants.
-
Amazingly, history has proven that the US voter DOES pick the better, more experienced candidate over the other.
68ROX
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
Guns are so important right now. Forget the economy, the war, the environment, the poor, immigration....as long as I can buy an Ak47 that's all that matters :rofl :rofl :rofl
what is the first thing dictators do upon obtaining the reins of a government?
-
ban private ownership of guns!! all guns!
-
xargos... so you will be voting for osamabama or billary then?
A vote for ron paul in the general election is not a wasted vote.. it is a vote for the socialists. It is not wasted to them.
It is blue against red and it is coming down to the wire. the blue loafer wearing taxi riders want to run the whole middle of the country and make everyone as misserable as the most misserable craphole city dweller.
socialists won't be writing in ron paul.. only so called "conservatives" and some hard core and deluded libertarians will... this is no shock to anyone. it is factored in. They already know you are going to do it before you do it and... the socialists are wringing their hands in glee over it.
the reality is that we can only slow down the power grab of the blue coasts. Probly have to gag and vote for the half socialist mc cain rather than the full blown commie gun grabbers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by captain1ma
ban private ownership of guns!! all guns!
Go away TROLL.:noid
-
I think he was responding to the post above his...
-
twenty fo.. tell you what.. stop your, and your parties sick obsession with other peoples firearms and we can then talk about the other things.
you guys just can't let it go tho.. no matter how much it hurts you.. guns mean individuality and freedom and utopia has no place for individuality and freedom.
lazs
-
God it hurts to say this, but I agree with the point lazs is making:cry
-
Originally posted by heythere
what is the first thing dictators do upon obtaining the reins of a government?
So we are headed towards a dictatorship? Dangit...maybe I do need an assault rifle. Instead of getting an economic stimulus package, Americans should get their own M16 Assault Rifle with 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
twenty fo.. tell you what.. stop your, and your parties sick obsession with other peoples firearms and we can then talk about the other things.
you guys just can't let it go tho.. no matter how much it hurts you.. guns mean individuality and freedom and utopia has no place for individuality and freedom.
lazs
Obsession? I am so obsessed with firearms. I am such an individual with all the guns I have. It's so cool. People come into my house all the time and look at my gun collection and say, "Wow...you are such an individual and you are so free!!".
Is having tons of firearms a blessing or a curse? I would say both. Guns are a blessing because it what makes me an individual and free. Guns are a curse because I could never have too many. Also, according to a few posts above we are headed towards a dictatorship.
So if you haven't purchased a gun, please do so. Looks like we are going to need them with a dictator right around the corner.:aok
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
And if the founding fathers went by this credo. We wouldnt have a USA to argue about.
The founding fathers DID go by this credo.
Do you think this country was founded on Rainbows, Unicorns, Puppy Dogs and Sugar Cookies? THERE WAS STRIFE FROM THE GET-GO!
-
Maybe we could buy American made guns with our "Stimulus Plan" money? :D
-
Originally posted by acfireguy26
Go away TROLL.:noid
I would like to retract above statement. I would delete it but it is over time limit.
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
So we are headed towards a dictatorship? Dangit...maybe I do need an assault rifle. Instead of getting an economic stimulus package, Americans should get their own M16 Assault Rifle with 1,000 rounds of ammunition.
I have my AR15 and 2000 rnds and an AK47 with 2500 rnds. I thought everybody had that.
-
yeah.. most people have a few thousand rounds except those who don't have any at all and they.. are constantly trying to figure out a way to take away the guns and ammo of those who have em.
It doesn't matter how much it hurts them politically... taking away guns is soooooo important to them that they can't help themselves.
Why would I listen to anyone as sick as that?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
yeah.. most people have a few thousand rounds except those who don't have any at all and they.. are constantly trying to figure out a way to take away the guns and ammo of those who have em.
It doesn't matter how much it hurts them politically... taking away guns is soooooo important to them that they can't help themselves.
Why would I listen to anyone as sick as that?
lazs
Exactly, people who want gun control are sick and twisted. Since when has a firearm ever hurt anyone? I can't think of one. What we need is people control. The people are the problem. Get rid of the people and there will be nobody to use the guns. Problem solved :aok
-
the liberals are fighting among themselves, half want a women president and half want a black president.
they should have supported Cynthia McKinney for president.
-
twnenty...I don't think you quite get the point..
get rid of the bad people... change human nature and no one will need guns... not even.. or especially.... the government.
You prove my point... guns are so important to you that you can't allow them. Nothing else matters.. if allowing people the right to defend themselves is on the table then you can't get past it.
I am no different.. so long as you are trying to take away my right to defend myself.. there is no point in listening to anything else you have to say.
Which of us is right? well.. I am about choice and you are about control of what should be peoples rights.
I have no problem with laws that make it illegal to use firearms for immoral purposes. Once you catch someone doing so you can punish them. You want to punish people for something they haven't done... will most likely never do..
but not all.. you want to allow the government and bodyguards of the elite and such to stay armed cause... well.. they are too important to not need to defend themselves and.. they are just superior beings in any case right? movie stars and rich people and politicians and cops all need protection but it is just dangerous folly for the rest of us.
lazs
-
Originally posted by 68ROX
Amazingly, history has proven that the US voter DOES pick the better, more experienced candidate over the other.
What history book is that out of?
-
with arlo on that.. I wouldn't mind knowing what history book that is out of.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
twenty fo.. tell you what.. stop your, and your parties sick obsession with other peoples firearms and we can then talk about the other things.
you guys just can't let it go tho.. no matter how much it hurts you.. guns mean individuality and freedom and utopia has no place for individuality and freedom.
lazs
Says Laz, the "independent" paranoid GOP-hugger that half heartedly supports McCain out of delusional fear of the Democrats taking away his toys (cause they "all" fear and hate them). :D
-
Originally posted by john9001
the liberals are fighting among themselves, half want a women president and half want a black president.
they should have supported Cynthia McKinney for president.
Seems you have a problem with race or gender fixation. Actually, it appears America (liberal or otherwise - many a Republican included) wants a better president. Extremists of the far right persuasion just want a "Republican" in office (any Republican not extreme enough being branded a "RINO"). They could care less about quality, from what I've seen of the trend, as of late.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
twnenty...I don't think you quite get the point..
get rid of the bad people... change human nature and no one will need guns... not even.. or especially.... the government.
You prove my point... guns are so important to you that you can't allow them. Nothing else matters.. if allowing people the right to defend themselves is on the table then you can't get past it.
I am no different.. so long as you are trying to take away my right to defend myself.. there is no point in listening to anything else you have to say.
Which of us is right? well.. I am about choice and you are about control of what should be peoples rights.
I have no problem with laws that make it illegal to use firearms for immoral purposes. Once you catch someone doing so you can punish them. You want to punish people for something they haven't done... will most likely never do..
but not all.. you want to allow the government and bodyguards of the elite and such to stay armed cause... well.. they are too important to not need to defend themselves and.. they are just superior beings in any case right? movie stars and rich people and politicians and cops all need protection but it is just dangerous folly for the rest of us.
lazs
Who said I want to take away guns? I know plenty of people who own firearms and have a license to conceal them. The problem is when those guns fall into the wrong hands, i.e. kids or a criminals.
The past few months in Omaha have been pretty rough. In December, as you know, a kid went into the Westroads Mall and killed 9 (including himself). Just this last week a girl was sitting in the drive-thru and was randomly killed by a teenage gunman. Also last week 2 people were shot when a kid decided to bring his assault rifle to his friends house to "show it off". Finally, a few weeks ago a worker at a shooting range was disassembling a gun and accidentally shot a customer. This all happened in Omaha, NE.
I have no problems with guns. However, I would like to see more gun safety/education for those who buy them. I have no problem with people defending themselves. Basically, all I want to see is responsible gun ownership and harsher punishment for those who cannot follow the rules.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
You prove my point... guns are so important to you that you can't allow them. Nothing else matters.. if allowing people the right to defend themselves is on the table then you can't get past it.
If your point is proving his assertion that you have a rather unhealthy fixation over guns, he is. He hasn't whined about them, for the most part. He's just teased you for doing such, Laz. :D
-
Originally posted by acfireguy26
I have my AR15 and 2000 rnds and an AK47 with 2500 rnds. I thought everybody had that.
And what are you going to do with that?
I get a kick out of all the keyboard warriors here that seem to have this Red Dawn mentality.
Most of them don't have the technology, training or most importantly heart, to execute the grandiose dreams bouncing around in their heads about how they are going to overcome the evil government agents when they finally get fed up by killing them all.
The 2nd amendment is the last hope, and while so many of you guys trumpet the assault on the 4th,5th and 6th amendments as good for law enforcement/terrorist control , you don't seem to realize that as those are watered down it makes it far easier to preemptively neuter the gun owners who are deemed potential trouble makers.
Any of you remember the militia movement of the 90's?, Michigan was a hot bed, and a lot of the folks who did no more than state their rights, were or are doing time in prison.
If you get targeted, don't think that you will get the martyr opportunity of Randy Weaver or David Korresh, law enforcement is far more adept in this day and age.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
And what are you going to do with that?
I get a kick out of all the keyboard warriors here that seem to have this Red Dawn mentality.
Most of them don't have the technology, training or most importantly heart, to execute the grandiose dreams bouncing around in their heads about how they are going to overcome the evil government agents when they finally get fed up by killing them all.
Exactly.....totally agree.
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
Exactly.....totally agree.
You forgot what I thought was the most important part :)
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
You forgot what I thought was the most important part :)
shamus
Selective agreeing. ;)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Selective agreeing. ;)
Selective agreeing? In the O'club? say it aint so...
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Selective agreeing? In the O'club? say it aint so...
It ain't so! :D
-
arlo, guns are not "toys", but a librul like you would not know that.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
People who think the Second Amendment is, or ever was, about hunting are idiots.
That's right! It's about keeping the King of England out of your living room!
-
I was proud to cast my vote in the Florida primary this evening. The process was very smooth where I voted... you give them your driver's license, they swipe it through a machine, you sign your name electronicallly with a stylus and it prints out a receipt with your sig on it. You go over to another old duffer sitting at a table, show him your d/l, and he has you sign some kind of a voter's log with an ink pen. Then you vote in a booth with a very clear and easily read touch screen. Continue to the last screen, review and hit the CAST VOTE button.
For me, it was between Romney and Guliani. There are things I don't care for about each. But there are multiple things I can't abide with McCain. I would not think of throwing my vote away on a candidate who can't win. I wanted my vote to count. I voted for Romney, given that the race is so close with McCain.
Arlo said ...Actually, it appears America (liberal or otherwise - many a Republican included) wants a better president. Extremists of the far right persuasion just want a "Republican" in office (any Republican not extreme enough being branded a "RINO"). They could care less about quality, from what I've seen of the trend, as of late. - Arlo
I'm not an extremist, just a conservative. As I see it, this is a simple tug of war in the country - capitalism versus socialism. Its that simple. It just so happens that this ideological struggle is split along party lines at the moment. (If I could choose between John F. Kennedy or McCain for example, I would vote for Kennedy because in my opinion he had more conservative values. what counts to me is conservative values, not the name of lthe party.)
-
Kennedy was a young fool, his daddy bought the election and Kennedy almost got us into WW3 when he and McNamara botched up the bay of pigs invasion.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
That's right! It's about keeping the King of England out of your living room!
It was also designed as a protection to keep your own government out of your livingroom
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
& what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that his people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Col. William S. Smith, 1787
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."
-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms...
-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789
The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the *government*, not to *society*; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage.
-- Joel Barlow, "Advice to the Privileged Orders", 1792-93
-- Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788
"This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember it or overthrow it."
-- Abraham Lincoln, 4 April 1861
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
It was also designed as a protection to keep your own government out of your livingroom
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"
-- Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
How do you know that he isn't talking about wearing short sleave shirts? I personally always bear my arms. J/K:rofl
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
How do you know that he isn't talking about wearing short sleave shirts? I personally always bear my arms. J/K:rofl
because Jefferson wasn't talking to fools, he was talking to men. Free men that had just fought a seven year war against England.
-
Who? :huh Teddy where's my pants, car keys, lawyer to cover-up mishaps w/ someone other then my wife Kennedy?? :huh
Is that the one?
-
Get rid of the people and there will be nobody to use the guns. Problem solved
====
As long as we continue to protect the human rights of child murderers, rapist and the bottom most scum in the human gene pool we will all need to be able to defend ourselves, because the state aint doing it.
Below find the link to the most recent local animal scum of the week. This guy simply needs to be put down, once and for all and tomorrow morning would suit me just fine.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004151790_webwilliams29m.html
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
That's right! It's about keeping the King of England out of your living room!
Hillary and Obama are far worse then any King of England ever was.
P.S. And the only difference between Ted Kennedy and McCain is Mary Jo Kopechne.
-
Very few people know much history about the revolution. Not counting any struggles caused by war, but we were living better under the King of England then we were under the Confederacy. And even under the constitution was cutting about even.
-
I have personal term limit voting now. From now on , no matter the job they SAY they have done , they get voted out.
I'll never (hopefully) ever vote for anyone for more than 1 term in ANY election.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Hillary and Obama are far worse then any King of England ever was.
[/i].
And the award for overstatement of the year goes to....
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, guns are not "toys", but a librul like you would not know that.
Actually, to many survivalist gun-nutjobs they are. They just like throwing around "serious" fear/liberty arguments to protect the collection. They throw little hissy fits when they perceive the government may get in the way of their fun. They make up all sorts of straw boogymen like "der evul Demo-crat dat hates me havin' guns" or the "socialist commie infiltrator that wants this country to collapse from within by takin' away my guns" or "the criminal who wants to have an unfair advantage by making me have a legal gun when has an illegal one" or ..... whatever.
I like guns. Always have. Toy ones. Real ones. The real ones were more fun. But I don't slide off into paranoia/rationalizationville when I feel my toy collection is being threatened. Probably because I actually do know they're not just toys. Go figure.
Guess it takes an extreme survivalist gun-nutjob to confuse that. :D
-
Originally posted by john9001
Kennedy was a young fool, his daddy bought the election and Kennedy almost got us into WW3 when he and McNamara botched up the bay of pigs invasion.
Too late to try to compare Kennedy to Bush and claim you hold a pair of Jacks. ;)
-
Originally posted by Xargos
Hillary and Obama are far worse then any King of England ever was.
Hellooooo extremist hyperbole. :D
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Very few people know much history about the revolution. Not counting any struggles caused by war, but we were living better under the King of England then we were under the Confederacy. And even under the constitution was cutting about even.
Obviously the founding fathers were in complee agreement with you LOL
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Very few people know much history about the revolution. Not counting any struggles caused by war, but we were living better under the King of England then we were under the Confederacy. And even under the constitution was cutting about even.
Whoops .... I forgot that since you're working on your undergrad requirements for engineering you suddenly became a history expert ... or at least a rubber of elbows of such. Is History 101 teaching the comparitive liberty regarding slavery during the revolution versus slavery during the American civil war now? Is it selling the U.S. Constitution short regarding amendments afterward? Tell me more about the "better we" living standards for all Americans (or people owned by them) according to a true historical scholar. :)
-
I dont know what you some of you guys are drinking/smoking/eating but some of you are starting to make Arlo look like a Moderate...
Hillary and Obama are far worse then any King of England ever was. ?
Kennedy was a young fool, his daddy bought the election and Kennedy almost got us into WW3 when he and McNamara botched up the bay of pigs invasion. ??
arlo, guns are not "toys", but a librul like you would not know that. ???
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I dont know what you some of you guys are drinking/smoking/eating but some of you are starting to make Arlo look like a Moderate...
Hillary and Obama are far worse then any King of England ever was. ?
Kennedy was a young fool, his daddy bought the election and Kennedy almost got us into WW3 when he and McNamara botched up the bay of pigs invasion. ??
arlo, guns are not "toys", but a librul like you would not know that. ???
Arlo's always been one. No "starting" about it. ;)
Perspective of the paranoiac. Everyone else that doesn't look, sound, smell, feel and taste exactly like me is a threat. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
They make up all sorts of straw boogymen like "der evul Demo-crat dat hates me havin' guns" or the "socialist commie infiltrator that wants this country to collapse from within by takin' away my guns"
arlo, you really need to research obama and his voting record. He is supported by anti gun groups and he favors strong gun control laws. Yes he wants to take the guns away from law abiding citizens.
-
I went out for a cigarette and considered the word "moderate" and figured that probably was already true, but it was the first thing that popped in my head...
Its really getting ridiculous throwing all these labels around
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, you really need to research obama and his voting record. He is supported by anti gun groups and he favors strong gun control laws. Yes he wants to take the guns away from law abiding citizens.
You guys seem to forget we are voting for a President, Not a King... Obama, or Clinton, or McCain, or Rommey or anybody else is not going to have absolute power to take away anybodies guns, knifes, or whatever else... They only do what we allow them to do... We have control...We just need to remember how to use it...
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Obviously the founding fathers were in complee agreement with you LOL
It was a power grab. You think the founding fathers honestly cared about freedom? No politician in the history of the world EVER has cared about freedom.
Point in case, the taxes applied after the signing of the constitution were HIGHER then before the revolution.
-
obama and a democratic congress, i wonder what gun laws they will pass?
-
Originally posted by john9001
obama and a democratic congress, i wonder what gun laws they will pass?
only the ones we let them get away with...
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Point in case, the taxes applied after the signing of the constitution were HIGHER then before the revolution.
Well how else where they gonna pay for the Revolution? They knew that when they started. Nobody said it was going to be cheap...
The revolution wasnt about taxes, it was about representation, it was about making decisions for the good and the welfare of the people not the King...
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
Well how else where they gonna pay for the Revolution? They knew that when they started. Nobody said it was going to be cheap...
The revolution wasnt about taxes, it was about representation, it was about making decisions for the good and the welfare of the people not the King...
You forget that we fought a war before the Revolution. The British King was taxing England more for OUR WAR than he was taxing us.
Sure, we didn't have any representation, but to gripe about the "Taxes" is really just a front. We had a lot more freedom then after the revolution, but this may be attributed to the freedom that being on a frontier affords.
The founding fathers were in it to gain power for themselves.
-
one of the first things the new govt of the US did was put a tax on whiskey to pay for the war that was fought because of taxes, (irony), result was the whiskey rebellion that Washington had to put down with the militia.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Hellooooo extremist hyperbole. :D
How am I extreme? I am only stating the truth. Obama is a Black Supremacist and Hillary is a...well...Clinton.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
You forget that we fought a war before the Revolution. The British King was taxing England more for OUR WAR than he was taxing us.
Sure, we didn't have any representation, but to gripe about the "Taxes" is really just a front. We had a lot more freedom then after the revolution, but this may be attributed to the freedom that being on a frontier affords.
The founding fathers were in it to gain power for themselves.
I didnt forget about the French-Indian war, it wasnt brought up as part of the discussion...
The British King was taxing England more for OUR WAR than he was taxing us.
you might need to explain this...
We had a lot more freedom then after the revolution
please tell me how we had more freedom under England's rule...
The founding fathers were in it to gain power for themselves.
I'm sure you meant, In My Opinion... but maybe you can explain how you came to this conculsion...
-
Originally posted by john9001
one of the first things the new govt of the US did was put a tax on whiskey to pay for the war that was fought because of taxes, (irony), result was the whiskey rebellion that Washington had to put down with the militia.
Yes, and Washington hated to do it and tried to avoid it. After Washington's second term he was so hated that he was booed out of the capital... Later when he dies, all of a sudden he's a saint and the Father of our country and the bestest president everer...
they only thing thats changed in the last 230 some odd years is stuff costs more and there are more challenging ways to screw it up...
-
The Whiskey Tax was overturned if I recall correctly and was not re-initiated until the American Civil War, to pay for the Norths aggression.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
I didnt forget about the French-Indian war, it wasnt brought up as part of the discussion...
you might need to explain this...
please tell me how we had more freedom under England's rule...
I'm sure you meant, In My Opinion... but maybe you can explain how you came to this conculsion...
For the French and Indian war, Britain spent a lot of money on defending us. We did fight ourselves, but the manpower and resources expended by britain were unmatched by the Americans. They taxed us for this, but just by itself, the amount taxed was very paltry. Then you consider how much the King taxed his own people on the UK, and it comes in several times higher than ours.
We did have more freedom. England really didn't control what we did. At least, not any more so then the controls set under the Constitution.
To really understand how the founding fathers cared little for freedom, you need to follow the process we took to start the revolution.
Like the taxes I explained. Or even the "Boston Massacre." By the name alone, you'd think a roving band of British Troops were killing everyone in sight. But in reality, it was a roving band of Boston thugs that attacked a squad of British Troops. After having attacked the british soldiers, a few soldiers (possibly accidentally) shot into the crowd of attackers. Two bostonians died.
Every single reason listed for going to war was a twisted sack of propaganda that ultimately led to the war, and our independence from the king. Of course, we then set up a dependence on our representatives almost immediately.
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, you really need to research obama and his voting record. He is supported by anti gun groups and he favors strong gun control laws. Yes he wants to take the guns away from law abiding citizens.
Maybe you don't understand. Gun control isn't (all) gun elimination. A registered gun will defend you as well as a non-registered one. I have nothing to fear from a background check. I'm not a felon and I'm not nor have I ever been a mental patient.
Assault weapons? Neccessity or .... gotta have for the collection? I got nothing against them but I'm not having a cow because I have a divine right to one.
*ShruG*
So .... vote Obama. :D
-
Originally posted by Xargos
How am I extreme? I am only stating the truth. Obama is a Black Supremacist and Hillary is a...well...Clinton.
And you are a twit. Just the truth. :D
-
Originally posted by Xargos
The Whiskey Tax was overturned if I recall correctly and was not re-initiated until the American Civil War, to pay for the Norths aggression.
You do not recall correctly. It was actually instituted twice.
The first time was during the confederacy. Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts had to be put down by hired thugs because the militia refused to do it themselves. This time there wasn't a central government that had the power to do anything.
The Whiskey Rebellion was the same thing, except that it happened during the Constitutional Era, and that the central government DID have the power to put it down.
Each time it wasn't the mass producing farmers that were hit. It was the farmers who barely subsisted. The farmers who had acres upon acres to be reaped by slaves barely paid any taxes.
The farmers who had a tiny field and barely enough food to live, much less ANY money at all, were taxed into near non-existence.
When they rebelled against a REAL tax, as opposed to a fake tax from before the war, they were crushed by government troops.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
And you are a twit. Just the truth. :D
So...You're willing to support a Black Supremacist?
-
Originally posted by Xargos
So...You're willing to support a Black Supremacist?
For those of us who unfamiliar with this, could you provide some evidence that he's a 'black supremacist'? It's news to me.
-
registration, the first step to confiscation. Before they can confiscate the guns they have to know who has what.
reference, Germany in the 1930's.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
We did have more freedom. England really didn't control what we did. At least, not any more so then the controls set under the Constitution.
So it was ok for England to sieze colonial ships and take sailors and press them in to Royal Navy service.
It was ok for English soldiers to seize homes and properties to use for their army.
It was ok for English Colonial Govenours to tax people whatever they could.
It was ok for England to deny the colonials right to self govern themselves and hold offices and make determinations what was best for themselves rather than a King and a parliment thousands of miles away.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
You guys seem to forget we are voting for a President, Not a King... Obama, or Clinton, or McCain, or Rommey or anybody else is not going to have absolute power to take away anybodies guns, knifes, or whatever else... They only do what we allow them to do... We have control...We just need to remember how to use it...
This is one of the most rational positions on this I've seen here.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
For those of us who unfamiliar with this, could you provide some evidence that he's a 'black supremacist'? It's news to me.
This (http://www.tucc.org/about.htm) is the church that Obama belongs to. And it's preacher has stated that White People CAN NOT go to Heaven.
-
Originally posted by john9001
registration, the first step to confiscation. Before they can confiscate the guns they have to know who has what.
reference, Germany in the 1930's.
Proof that a little history with wreckless perspective does not a history scholar make.
Is your car registered? ;)
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
So it was ok for England to sieze colonial ships and take sailors and press them in to Royal Navy service.
It was ok for English soldiers to seize homes and properties to use for their army.
It was ok for English Colonial Govenours to tax people whatever they could.
It was ok for England to deny the colonials right to self govern themselves and hold offices and make determinations what was best for themselves rather than a King and a parliment thousands of miles away.
The pressing of American sailors into British service happened later.
Again, the use of american homes wasn't done willy nilly. When it was done, it was used as a temporary shelter as the troops were on to somewhere else.
But the colonial governors didn't go ape**** with the taxes. Our taxes were very low, without even considering what everyone else in the modern world was taxed.
We didn't have the power to govern ourselves, but we pretty much did what we wanted anyway. But, this may be attributed to having a wild frontier to discover and travel to.
It's a lot like that quote, "Would we rather give up a single Tyrant 5000 miles away for 5000 Tyrants one mile away?"
-
Originally posted by Xargos
So...You're willing to support a Black Supremacist?
Well ... let's just say I'm hesitant to take a twit as seriously as he wants over that, at present. Get back to me when rationality resumes. :)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Again, the use of american homes wasn't done willy nilly. When it was done, it was used as a temporary shelter as the troops were on to somewhere else.
So you'd be ok if the 7th Cav showed up at your house tonight with about 150 soliders and said sorry you're sleeping outside, we need your house and oh feed my men and gas our humvees... and sorry dont ask for any reimbersment either, do it for your king...errr country...
Sorry Laser its late and I'm buggin out... but I think some of your history books were missing a few pages, maybe even a couple of chapters....
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Well ... let's just say I'm hesitant to take a twit as seriously as he wants over that, at present. Get back to me when rationality resumes. :)
You need to check your facts.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
You need to check your facts.
You need to get a grip. :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
You need to get a grip. :D
I have a grip on my Johnnie Walker Black.
I'm still angry that I won't be able to write-in who I want to in the General election. My anger is not at you.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I have a grip on my Johnnie Walker Black.
I'm still angry that I won't be able to write-in who I want to in the General election. My anger is not at you.
Both of those we can agree on. With you there. :)
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I have a grip on my Johnnie Walker Black.
I'm still angry that I won't be able to write-in who I want to in the General election. My anger is not at you.
Bring a sharpie with you and write the name regardless, if they have issues tell them they are violating your rights.
-
Originally posted by C(Sea)Bass
Bring a sharpie with you and write the name regardless, if they have issues tell them they are violating your rights.
I wish it where that easy. I think this is the one election that will matter for the future of the United States, and the rest of the World.
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I wish it where that easy. I think this is the one election that will matter for the future of the United States, and the rest of the World.
Indeed!
-
This is too weird. I'm agreeing with Laser's recitation of the facts.
I'm comforting myself that there's no common ground for shared conclusions.
:cool:
Someone double-check for me. I'm aghast. There's either a type-o by Real Clear Politics on Mc Cain's speech text after winning Florida, or their speech writers do not know the difference between "abrogate" and "arrogate."
I'm hoping for the type-o.
Anyhow, I did dash off an email to Mc Cain's HQ and offered myself as a speech writer. Maybe the English degrees will come in handy after all.
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
So you'd be ok if the 7th Cav showed up at your house tonight with about 150 soliders and said sorry you're sleeping outside, we need your house and oh feed my men and gas our humvees... and sorry dont ask for any reimbersment either, do it for your king...errr country...
Sorry Laser its late and I'm buggin out... but I think some of your history books were missing a few pages, maybe even a couple of chapters....
First off, I am not agreeing with it. I am merely telling you that it wasn't as bad as most people think it was. All these reasons for the war DID happen, however they weren't nearly as bad as severity as presented.
It wasn't like a battalion would show up one day and take your house. If a group of soldiers like a company were passing through and weren't able to set up camp for some reason or other you'd be asked (ordered) to house 4-5 soldiers, while the rest of the company was split up over the other houses in the neighborhood.
All of this isn't to say that it was bad we fought the revolution. It's to convince you that the founding fathers really didn't care about freedom. They only cared about gaining power for themselves. It's also to convince you that the divisive partisanship we experience today has occurred since before the formation of the Declaration of Independence.
-
arlo.. don't they always register guns first.. before they take em away?
Talking to brit and aussie guys on gun boards and such they all say the same thing.. "don't let em register your firearms"
I would say that they have a better idea of what can happen than you do.
As for semi auto versions of military arms? it matters not if we need em or not.. not really a matter of "need" in my opinion.. what is telling about that tho is that they have caused little or no problems in society.. if they are banned then why not ban other guns that are used ten times as often in crime and shootings?
It is worriesome that some of the candidates (who know nothing of firearms) seem so fixated on these and other guns. That is all.. when they take such an unreasonable and dishonest (pretending to not hate firearms) position you can't help but wonder what form of logic they use to make other decisions and how little they think of individual rights and... how honest they will be in their other positions.
People who know and like guns see only that these guys are being ignorant and dishonest.. we might not know about the hows and whys of their other positions but we can't help but assume that they will be just as ignorant and dishonest.
lazs
-
As for the "rational position" pointed out earlier... the "king" thing.
No.. they are not king.. but they appoint supreme court and federal judges... they veto bills.
osama bama and billary would put in left wing radical judges (like bill did) and encourage hundreds of gun grab bills to come across her desk.
There is a sc ruling pending on the second. does anyone here have any doubt how it would go if a democrat had put the last two supreme court judges on?
that is how our kings work.. they appoint the judges and veto bills.
Every bad thing that is America today is a result of radical lefty judges on the nations courts.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Xargos
I have a grip on my Johnnie Walker Black.
JW is more overrated than McCain.
(http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/5025.jpg)
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, you really need to research obama and his voting record. He is supported by anti gun groups and he favors strong gun control laws. Yes he wants to take the guns away from law abiding citizens.
Quit freaking out!! No one is going to take away your guns. Geesh, out of all the things going on in this world all you're worried about is your guns.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
JW is more overrated than McCain.
(http://www.northernsun.com/images/thumb/5025.jpg)
That once wonderful picture is now horribly tainted for life. Awful, just awful! It's pathetic that so many folks will vote for that ***** just because she's a woman
-
Originally posted by texasmom
That once wonderful picture is now horribly tainted for life. Awful, just awful! It's pathetic that so many folks will vote for that ***** just because she's a woman
Or Obama just because he is black?
But I have to admit that I would vote for Condi or Powell though because they are black AND capable.
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Or Obama just because he is black?
But I have to admit that I would vote for Condi or Powell though because they are black AND capable.
ditto on everything you just said. I actually like Obama far more than I like Hillary...
I'd vote for Condi or Powell in a heartbeat over any of the other candidates (from all parties).
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Or Obama just because he is black?
But I have to admit that I would vote for Condi or Powell though because they are black AND capable.
I agree :aok
-
obama is about as black as any of us here
to think he can relate to the average black guy is as ridiculous as thinking ted kennedy can relate to the average white guy
just wonder who silenced the "Uncle Tom" cat calls ... you know if Powell was running, it would be different
-
good point eagler.
-
Ted Kennedy story:
During his 1st political campaign, he was shaking hands with longshoremen.
One of them asked "Is it true you haven't worked a day in your life?"
Kennedy answered, "Yes."
Longshoreman replied, "You haven't missed much."
Regarding the Obama, Rice, Powell thing. Of you who do, why prefer you Rice or Powell more?
I wouldn't know how to begin to assess the three of them apart from the jobs they have done and what they have said. I can see Powell's accomplishments dwarfing the other two. Rice's accomplishments I'm less aware of.
They've done much to be admired: military service, cabinet service, and service in the senate. That said, I know ahead of time than some if not several or many will find those accomplishment unimpressive. Such as, "Senator! Phooey. They're all crooks!!" "Cabinet service! Big deal!! They have to be tools and crooks to get that far!!" Powell, I imagine would garner the most support. You don't see folks disparaging military service in the same way we see political service mocked.
-
Hap.. I will pick a conservative or individualist of any color or gender over a socialist of any gender anytime.
Thatcher is a good example... if I were in england I would have rejoyced at being able to vote for her.
osamabama and billiary have all the worst traits of women and negros.. they are total socialists.
there color or gender is just.. what's the word? stereotypical. they are stereotypes... not real people at all..
lazs
-
I agree that stereotypes begin with a grain of truth. Maybe a shovel full. Then its a case by case evaluation. "Individualism" is a slippery adjective.
I don't know much about Thatcher. What about her do you admire?
-
Originally posted by texasmom
That once wonderful picture is now horribly tainted for life. Awful, just awful! It's pathetic that so many folks will vote for that ***** just because she's a woman
She also happens to be the most intelligent candidate running, and possibly the best politician in the bunch. This will prove to be invaluable in repairing our damaged reputation in the World community.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
She also happens to be the most intelligent candidate running, and possibly the best politician in the bunch. This will prove to be invaluable in repairing our damaged reputation in the World community.
bwaaahahahaha! Please. I've seen some of your other posts which indicate that you're a smart/together guy MT. You're kidding on this one, or are you serious?:lol
-
Originally posted by Hap
Of you who do, why prefer you Rice or Powell more?
I wouldn't know how to begin to assess the three of them apart from the jobs they have done and what they have said. I can see Powell's accomplishments dwarfing the other two. Rice's accomplishments I'm less aware of.
Well, first of all, Dr. Rice is SEKSI !!!
-
Originally posted by Eagler
Tom" cat calls
(http://i164.photobucket.com/albums/u7/rattfink31/ArnoldWhatchaTalkinBout.jpg)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
arlo.. don't they always register guns first.. before they take em away?
Covered this already. No Nazis in power here .... as of yet. Have "they" come to take you car away? How many guns of yours have been confiscated to date? Not seein' the threat remotely close ... but keep a vigilant eye. You can be the canary for the rest of us. :)
-
Originally posted by TwentyFo
Quit freaking out!! No one is going to take away your guns. Geesh, out of all the things going on in this world all you're worried about is your guns.
No. Laz is also worried too much attention is being given to addressing climate change. :D
-
Originally posted by Yknurd
Or Obama just because he is black?
But I have to admit that I would vote for Condi or Powell though because they are black AND capable.
You need to get over your gender/race issues. Try posting something about capability or lack of without the word black or woman in it. :D
-
Originally posted by Yeager
good point eagler.
Only if it was really all about race and Obama was only running for president of black America.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hap.. I will pick a conservative or individualist of any color or gender over a socialist of any gender anytime.
Litmus test: Did you vote for Bush? Twice? Do you really possess the skills to identify either a conservative or an individualist?
-
Well,...
I feel left out...
:rofl
-
Originally posted by RATTFINK
Well,...
I feel left out...
:rofl
Whatchootawkinbout? :D
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Only if it was really all about race and Obama was only running for president of black America.
you don't think it is?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
She also happens to be the most intelligent candidate running, and possibly the best politician in the bunch. This will prove to be invaluable in repairing our damaged reputation in the World community.
with that mindset, I hope you are in the minority when Nov comes around as it would be painful to the country when you and the other snowed fools are proven wrong
-
Originally posted by Eagler
you don't think it is?
No, I don't. I believe he's running for president of the entire nation. Gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, philosophy ... not a factor. Why do you think otherwise? Pigment fixation? You, yourself, (as redundant as that is) implied he's an "Uncle Tom." So if you're gonna get this wrong, at least keep the story straight. Do you think he's running for president of the blacks or president of the whites? Either way, I'm not seeing you right on that. :cool:
-
Originally posted by Eagler
with that mindset, I hope you are in the minority when Nov comes around as it would be painful to the country when you and the other snowed fools are proven wrong
Republicans were the minority in 2000 when Bush won office.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
. Have "they" come to take you car away?
not my car, but they can take your car and charge you towing and storage to get it back, and in some cases they can keep and use or sell "your" car.
-
Originally posted by john9001
not my car, but they can take your car and charge you towing and storage to get it back, and in some cases they can keep and use or sell "your" car.
Only if a broken law is involved. Same for the gun. You're reaching way to far to rationalize your fear, imo. :)
-
Here's a site a came across a few years back that covers Teddy's little driving misadventure. I find the detail pretty compelling and find it disturbing that the good people of Massachusetts can repetedly overlook his actions on that night in 1969.
Detective Bernie Flynn eventually put together a scenario for the accident :
"I figure,we've got a drunk driver, Ted Kennedy. He's with this girl, and he has it in his mind to go down to the beach and make love to her. He's probably driving too fast and he misses the curve and goes into Cemetery Road. He's backing up when he sees this guy in uniform coming toward him. That's panic for the average driver who's been drinking; but here's a United States Senator about to get tagged for driving under. He doesn't want to get caught with a girl in his car, on a deserted road late at night, with no license and driving drunk on top of it. In his mind, the most important thing is to get away from the situation.
- He doesn't wait around. He takes off down the road. He's probably looking in the rear-view mirror to see if the cop is following him. He doesn't even see the f---ing bridge and bingo! He goes off. He gets out of the car; she doesn't. The poor son of a ***** doesn't know what to do. He's thinking: "I want to get back to my house, to my friends" - which is a common reaction.
- There are houses on Dike Road he could have gone to report the accident, but he doesn't want to. Because it's the same situation he was trying to get away from at the corner - which turned out to be minor compared to what happened later. Now there's been an accident; and the girl's probably dead. All the more reason not to go banging on somebody's door in the middle of the night and admit what he was doing. He doesn't want to reveal himself."
"And the funny part about it was, 'Huck' was only trying to give his directions."
http://www.ytedk.com/
Charon
-
Teddy? who's Teddy?....oh that's right, the original subject of this thread...
:D Thanks for getting us back on track, 8 pages later...
Good story though...
-
arlo, you said cars are registered and they can't take your car, i proved they can.
you lose.
-
Originally posted by john9001
arlo, you said cars are registered and they can't take your car, i proved they can.
you lose.
You may wanna hold off with your effort to rush to embarrass yourself publically by such a claim.
You said registration is the first step in elimination and infer that such is an inevitability.
Have they come to take your car away because you registered it?
No?
Try less "twit" in your arguments.
:D
-
Don't be silly, Arlo, nobody is saying they take X away because you register it. They take X away for any number of reasons, but they KNOW where the registered Xs are and can get them. Registered guns were confiscated immedietely before Kristallnacht in germany, for instance, 'bout 70 years ago. Do you recall the aftermath?
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Covered this already. No Nazis in power here .... as of yet. Have "they" come to take you car away? How many guns of yours have been confiscated to date? Not seein' the threat remotely close ... but keep a vigilant eye. You can be the canary for the rest of us. :)
Nazis not in power in England... took guns away there.
Nazis not in power in Australia.... took them away there also.
I'm not saying it will happen here but to say nazis are needed for such to happen....
I think not.
-
This ain't Germany. The Nazis aren't in power. Nothing's been passed to outlaw possession of guns (in general). Sky still appears firmly in place. I'm all for diligence, skepticism (even a degree of fear). Just seein' some overblow here. :D
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Nazis not in power in England... took guns away there.
Nazis not in power in Australia.... took them away there also.
Not saying it will happen here but saying nazis are needed for such to happen....
I think not.
Sure. But casting Democrats (in general) in the role? Hyperbolic blow. ;)
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Nazis not in power in Australia.... took them away there also.
That's a matter of opinion.:aok
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Osama is all for Universal Healthcare. Free Healthcare for every American. Sounds good to me. While we are at it lets provide a job with free housing, free transportation, and free food clothing and energy since we appear to need that to survive.
healthcare is not free, someone must pay the doctors, the hospital, the drug company's! who will pay? and why should some pay if others get it for free?the rich? why would i want too be rich and have to work too pay for everyone else if i could stop working and get it all for free? are you gonna make me work too pay for your healthcare?
doesn't sound like a very good deal too me!
-
Originally posted by SD67
That's a matter of opinion.:aok
I know you're being sarcastic, but the term "Nazi" is used all to lightly IMHO.
-
i agree, the term nazi is over used, we should use the proper term, fascist socialism.
-
I say again, the only thing keeping the King of England out of my living room is my gun!
*looks left, looks right*
See, ain't no King of England here!
-
I don't need no smoke detector, my house ain't on fire.
-
Originally posted by john9001
i agree, the term nazi is over used, we should use the proper term, fascist socialism.
You're arguing semantics and critisizing the use of one version describing the same historical group when it was basically your correlation to start with? Well that's neat. ;) :aok