|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:58:51 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:
"J Herring" wrote in message .. . On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and having a uniform, national code, eh? ===== So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights?? It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things are. Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear? --------------------------------------- Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the ammo. The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. --------------------------------------------- I have no desire to get into a ****ing contest with Scott. He has a habit of going into damage control mode following some post he makes that people take exception to. In this case, the thread was about the current ammunition shortage. He responds with, "Why do you think DHS is buying up *all* the ammo, some 1.6 billion" ..... insinuating that *that* is the reason for the shortage. He then provides a link to an article that doesn't support his statement at all. Yes, the DHS is buying up to 1.6 billion rounds over the next 4 to 5 years, but that is *not* what has caused the current shortage, as the article points out. But now he's focusing on the 1.6 billion purchase as being the subject of the thread. Whew. OK. ok. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote:
On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and having a uniform, national code, eh? ===== So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights?? It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things are. Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear? --------------------------------------- Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the ammo. The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 18:31:55 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote: In article , says... On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:03:44 -0500, Boating All Out wrote: Why? You think marriages should be conducted by lawyers? Divorces are conducted by lawyers, why shouldn't marriages be? It is the 2 sides of the same coin and represents about half of all marriages. You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your way. We won't. There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration. You want that all changed, as Greg appears to want? That's just radical libertarianism. The question is why there are that many discrimitory laws benefiting married people? It sounds like those evil churches influencing the government. Since there is very little uniformity among the states about who, how and what marriage even means, it is silly that we have that many laws about it. Those are federal laws, relating to taxation and fed benefits. Ever see the tax code? States generally follow federal law as to taxes/benefits related to marital status. Churches have nothing to do with it, except as they influence society. It's society's desires, forwarded via elected representatives, and the weight of the public sense on the SC that determines what's "discriminatory." Not you. Let me know when the SC deems the marriage exemption unconstitutional. So you can just forget about a simple flat tax and other wacko ideas. The country has never worked that way and never will. Just concentrate on waste and corruption. The only question at hand now in DOMA is whether it violates equal protection. Of course it does. It was discriminatory and unconstitutional from the getgo. Nothing new either. Laws and actions denying equal protection to blacks, women, Japanese-Americans come to mind. Those were also corrected. I agree DOMA is a violation of states rights and disrespecting the will of the people in those states who have decided that gay marriage is legal. Marriage is a state issue and has always been. The word is not even mentioned in the constitution. The federal government never had any business passing DOMA. Nobody cares about DOMA in relation to state rights except airheads. That's all bull****, no matter how the SC rules this time around. The real question is what happens when DOMA is struck down as I think it will be and the SCOTUS simply punts on Prop 8, letting the appeals court decision to strike it down, stand. That would leave such similar laws in other states in limbo. We may not be done with this. Of course not. The SC will eventually be forced to step up and declare discriminating against gay marriage unconstitutional under equal protection. Because that's what society will demand. The states will just fall into line, every single one of them. Gretwell needs to read the 14th again. Perhaps he'd like to tell us how the specific sections do or don't affect both fed and states? |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/29/13 8:21 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote:
On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and having a uniform, national code, eh? ===== So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights?? It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things are. Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear? --------------------------------------- Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the ammo. The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. Rachel Maddow has a Ph.D in political science from Oxford University. *You* were socially promoted out of high school. Your lunatic fringe sources of information are more than just questionable. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 20:27:33 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote:
On 3/29/13 8:21 PM, JustWaitAFrekinMinute wrote: On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and having a uniform, national code, eh? ===== So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights?? It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things are. Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear? --------------------------------------- Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the ammo. The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. Rachel Maddow has a Ph.D in political science from Oxford University. *You* were socially promoted out of high school. Your lunatic fringe sources of information are more than just questionable. Yeah, but she's a lesbian, so that's the end of that. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
"J Herring" wrote in message ... BTW, has your wife taken the course which teaches all the items you covered? =============================================== My wife has no desire to even hold or look at a gun, let alone shoot one. If she did, and wanted to get a permit to own one, I'd recommend she take the course that my son and his wife took that was far more extensive. In anticipation of your next question, all my guns are kept in a safe in my house and the only other person other than me who has the combination is my son in South Carolina (in case something should happen to us.) My point in my original post was that I found the simple, 5 hour course required to get a LTC in MA is marginally worthwhile, especially for people who are not familiar with firearms or have little or no experience with using them. I think that is a little ironic for a state that otherwise has some very strict gun ownership laws. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and having a uniform, national code, eh? ===== So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights?? It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things are. Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear? --------------------------------------- Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the ammo. The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability? Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage already caused by private citizen purchases? What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need? |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/29/2013 11:23 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/29/2013 5:07 PM, J Herring wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:48:05 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "JustWaitAFrekinMinute" wrote in message ... On 3/28/2013 7:17 PM, Wayne B wrote: On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 16:53:59 -0400, "F.O.A.D." wrote: Many good reasons there for finally getting rid of "state's rights," and having a uniform, national code, eh? ===== So you would like to overturn the constitution and Bill of Rights?? It's important to remember that there is a reason for the way things are. Why do you think DHS is buying up all of the ammo, some 1.6 billion with a B rounds as well as armored vehicles, drones, and other hardware until now thought of as military gear, not "peace officer" gear? --------------------------------------- Where did you hear that Scott? The DHS is *not* buying up "all" the ammo. The bulk of the ammo is being bought by private citizens in an unrealistic belief and panic that the "government" is going to outlaw it or make it unavailable. It's a bunch of BS. Plug 'ammo shortage' into Google and read some of the articles. It's not all BS. Salmonbait -- 'Name-calling'...the liberals' last resort. Shhhhh, he and harry are having too much fun... Let them wallow in their lack of information. We already know many here don't care to get the facts, they just want to, well.. Either way, it is what it is. I saw the interview with the Congressman and a couple clips of the questioning and the time line for release of information to his questions. The "five year" stock and buying plan not only came late in the investigation, but although it sounds great, is far from any usual buying pattern the agency has, and... beyond the typical budget for the term... kevin, harry and Dick will of course run with the DHS explanation, simply because it suits their agenda. Fine, they have their opinion but they need to remember, probably 48.8% of the population stands with the Congressman who simply isn't buying it.... But you have to go beyond Jon Stewart and Rachael Madcow to get this stuff, you have to want to know. ----------------------------------------------------------------- So, now you are back to your original purpose .... to educate us all to a government conspiracy to limit ammunition availability? Didn't you just get your nose out of joint when it was pointed out to you that the article you referenced indicated no such thing other than to suggest that the future DHS purchase may exasperate a shortage already caused by private citizen purchases? What has caused the current shortage Scott, the government (via the DHS intended purchase over the next 4 or 5 years) or by some members of the public buying and hoarding more ammo than they normally need? I don't know for sure Dick, but I am not writing anything off simply because it doesn't fit my own opinion and I certainly am not going to sit here and say, I am right, you are wrong... That would be stupid. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com