|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
|
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/2013 10:58 AM, F.O.A.D. wrote:
On 3/30/13 10:51 AM, Eisboch wrote: "BAR" wrote in message . .. In article , says... "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. Your wife does own a gun or did you get divorced? -------------------------------------------------- If your question was directed at me, I am not divorced. Married happily for 43 years. My wife has absolutely no interest in firearms. She's shot my .22LR pistol a couple of times out at the informal range, and I showed her how to fire our "Anti Home Invader 12 Gauge," in case PsychoSnotty breaks in for an illegal home invasion and I'm outa town. Told her to aim lower than usual if it is PsychoSnotty. Our first line of defense, though, is the alarm system. It's loud enough to wake brain dead zombies. You took mama out to man camp? Did you introduce her to Stumpy |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... "Urin Asshole" wrote in message ... On Thu, 28 Mar 2013 00:57:48 -0400, wrote: On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 10:20:41 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: Well you come across as a ****ing stupid ****, but I try not to bring it up. I own four. No, I'm not going to list them. One's a handgun, one's a 20 gauge. Figure it out from there. Hmmm, I seem to remember Plume bragging about a 20 ga. Are you thinking about buying a sail boat too? Who the **** is Plume? A fantasy woman of yours? ------------------------------------- Hmmmmmm. How did you know "Plume" is a woman? How easily they give themselves away. Like that you're a mental case. Yeah I agree. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:55:00 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:08:41 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:45:44 -0400, wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 17:24:07 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: The 14th amendment has NOTHING to do with federal laws. Try to keep up. Holy Christ! It has everything to do with federal AND state laws. Try not to be particularly stupid. You cited it All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Where does it say anything about federal laws. It says "No State..." The FEDERAL law says "no state". Did you get through fourth grade? Cause it's not obvious. DOMA is not a state law. it is a federal law. No state wrote DOMA Nice try. That's not the subject of your recent bull****. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:18 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... 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. The liberals and progressives have shown thier true goal. They are all control freaks and they can't stand individualism or liberty. Stupid ****s like you have shown their true goal. Being stupid ****s. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 01:54:03 -0400, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 22:07:36 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: On Fri, 29 Mar 2013 21:42:39 -0400, wrote: You don't need a lawyer for marriage or divorce. Unless we have it your way. We won't. I guess you have never been through a divorce. You pretty much need a lawyer familiar with the laws in the state you are divorcing in, just to figure out who gets the "stuff" and how to legally convey it. If kids are involved it gets way more complicated than that. You don't need one. Sometimes its a good idea. Sometimes its unnecessary. I suppose if there are no assets no kids and you live in a state with a very simple divorce procedure, you can get way with Kinkos blank divorce petition but if there is any confusion at all about the divorce, you will wish you had a lawyer. Wishing and needing are two different ****ing things. You're really being particularly stupid today. There's +1100 gov laws that take marital status into consideration. At a certain point, why would anyone enter into a contract that involves 1100+ different laws without legal advice? If Edie Winter had better legal advice, she would not have been slammed with that huge tax bill. So, blame the grieving widow. You're claiming what exactly? She should just write off her dying wife? I guess so. If she really had a million dollar inheritance coming (as indicated by the $360,000 tax bill), she really should have sought legal advice and engaged in some tax planning. It is simple logic. Sure. So, it's her fault or her dead spouses. What a lame brain. I hate lawyers but I also understand they are necessary if you want to protect yourself from other lawyers or, in this case, the government. What advice would the lawyer have given them Mr. I'm-an-expert? There are a number of very simple ways to hold property jointly, even if you are not married. Go for it. We're waiting... 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. As long as special interests still control congress, we will never have a flat tax. I suppose you will be defending the carried interest deduction next. Nor should we. It's very regressive. It hurts those who can least afford it. The rich do fine though. It is all part of our 10,000 page tax code. 99% of it has nothing to do with anyone who isn't a millionaire. All of those "loopholes" were put in there to placate some special interest, usually a very rich special interest. So, when making things simpler and fair comes around, you're all for it. Good. Just don't mention flat tax, as that is simple but it aint fair. For virtually everyone making less than about $150,000 a year, a flat tax would be better. No it wouldn't. It's class warfare.. http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articl...-class-warfare Guys like Buffett and Romney would be paying a lot more. Stupid like you don't get it. We come full circle back to the idea that marriage is a simple contract between anyone who wants to enter into it at that point don't we? That's fine with me. Good deal. That is as it should be Tell your right-wing buddies. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likes this
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote:
In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. |
Wonder how the narrow minded faction of the right wing likesthis
On 3/30/13 12:38 PM, Urin Asshole wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 10:23:16 -0400, BAR wrote: In article , says... On Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:49:57 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote: "Wayne B" wrote in message ... On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 21:32:20 -0700, Urin Asshole wrote: I don't see multiple sides to the position of reducing gun violence. Study after study has shown and country after country has demonstrated that fewer guns means fewer deaths. ==== Carried to its logical end point, your view leads to the inescapable conclusion that eliminating all guns would eliminate all gun deaths. Since there are way too many people who would be all too happy to press for eliminating all guns, the NRA serves as an effective counterpoint to that line of reasoning. I think that if you actually knew any rural gun owners, you'd find that they are almost universally opposed to *any* increased gun control measures, mostly because they don't trust you city/suburban folks or the type of government that you advocate. ---------------------------------------- Yup. Sorta like imposing your religion onto others. Not even close. Sounds like a democracy to me. Nice try though. Read some DeToqueville You have no idea what legislative power is or the obligation of the population has to support those less fortunately. So, next time you pull **** out of your ass, kindly do it in private. Or even what the guy's name was. It ain't DeToqueville. It is de Tocqueville, Alexis de Tocqueville, and in usual discussion, the reference is Tocqueville, as in "Tocqueville said, among other things, that democracy in the United States had a fair balance of liberty and equality, and concern for the individual as well as the community which he lived." If Tocqueville visited these days, he'd have a far different opinion, thanks to the radicalization of the right. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com