|
Yet another reason to never...
....vote for Republican candidates:
A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans “support establishing Christianity as the national religion” while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure. The irony is rich. Many Republican activists like to describe themselves as “Constitutional Conservatives,” but under the Constitution – at least in this country – the very idea of a national religion is antithetical to the American tradition. Indeed, the opening words of the Bill of Rights explicitly say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There’s nothing “conservative” about a theocratic agenda in which one faith tradition is endorsed by the government above all other belief systems. But this week, it wasn’t just the poll results that highlighted the problem. A county Republican Party in Idaho pushed a resolution that intended to identify Idaho as a “formally and specifically declared a Christian state.” One local activist told reporters, “We’re a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian party.” The resolution was ultimately defeated by the state party, but the fact that it was considered, and enjoyed a fair amount of support, was unsettling for supporters of church-state separation. Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/k4l7fh2 -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/2015 10:16 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
#10. I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd. # 9. I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't. # 8. I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would. # 7. I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it. # 6. I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves. I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion. # 5. I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy. # 4. I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it. # 3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit. # 2. I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters. ....And, the #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries. -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. === Shouldn't you be out buying an imaginary boat or yet another high powered hand gun? |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/15 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:16:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 9:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans “support establishing Christianity as the national religion” while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure. The irony is rich. Many Republican activists like to describe themselves as “Constitutional Conservatives,” but under the Constitution – at least in this country – the very idea of a national religion is antithetical to the American tradition. Indeed, the opening words of the Bill of Rights explicitly say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There’s nothing “conservative” about a theocratic agenda in which one faith tradition is endorsed by the government above all other belief systems. But this week, it wasn’t just the poll results that highlighted the problem. A county Republican Party in Idaho pushed a resolution that intended to identify Idaho as a “formally and specifically declared a Christian state.” One local activist told reporters, “We’re a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian party.” The resolution was ultimately defeated by the state party, but the fact that it was considered, and enjoyed a fair amount of support, was unsettling for supporters of church-state separation. Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/k4l7fh2 Strange as it might seem to you, I agree this was a dumb idea It's not just a dumb idea for Idaho. Establishing christianity as the national religion is an idea the majority of GOPers favor, and it isn't the only bad exclusionary idea Republicans want to push onto everyone. I agree we should not have a national religion but if the citizens of Idaho want one, it is their business. The 1st amendment says "congress" not the local government. I don't see you in Idaho anyway. What difference does it make to you? Creep. Not you. The legislation. If it passes in Idaho, it's going to be on the agenda in Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, et cetera. Republican exclusionism. It sucks. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/2015 10:16 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/28/15 9:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans “support establishing Christianity as the national religion” while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure. The irony is rich. Many Republican activists like to describe themselves as “Constitutional Conservatives,” but under the Constitution – at least in this country – the very idea of a national religion is antithetical to the American tradition. Indeed, the opening words of the Bill of Rights explicitly say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There’s nothing “conservative” about a theocratic agenda in which one faith tradition is endorsed by the government above all other belief systems. But this week, it wasn’t just the poll results that highlighted the problem. A county Republican Party in Idaho pushed a resolution that intended to identify Idaho as a “formally and specifically declared a Christian state.” One local activist told reporters, “We’re a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian party.” The resolution was ultimately defeated by the state party, but the fact that it was considered, and enjoyed a fair amount of support, was unsettling for supporters of church-state separation. Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/k4l7fh2 Strange as it might seem to you, I agree this was a dumb idea It's not just a dumb idea for Idaho. Establishing christianity as the national religion is an idea the majority of GOPers favor, and it isn't the only bad exclusionary idea Republicans want to push onto everyone. I wonder how an equal sampling of Democrats would respond to the same question. The referenced poll doesn't mention that. From a political perspective it may not be such a dumb idea however. 77 percent of Americans identify themselves as being Christian. |
Yet another reason to never...
wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:20:16 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 11:18 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:16:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 9:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans “support establishing Christianity as the national religion” while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure. The irony is rich. Many Republican activists like to describe themselves as “Constitutional Conservatives,” but under the Constitution – at least in this country – the very idea of a national religion is antithetical to the American tradition. Indeed, the opening words of the Bill of Rights explicitly say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There’s nothing “conservative” about a theocratic agenda in which one faith tradition is endorsed by the government above all other belief systems. But this week, it wasn’t just the poll results that highlighted the problem. A county Republican Party in Idaho pushed a resolution that intended to identify Idaho as a “formally and specifically declared a Christian state.” One local activist told reporters, “We’re a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian party.” The resolution was ultimately defeated by the state party, but the fact that it was considered, and enjoyed a fair amount of support, was unsettling for supporters of church-state separation. Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/k4l7fh2 Strange as it might seem to you, I agree this was a dumb idea It's not just a dumb idea for Idaho. Establishing christianity as the national religion is an idea the majority of GOPers favor, and it isn't the only bad exclusionary idea Republicans want to push onto everyone. I agree we should not have a national religion but if the citizens of Idaho want one, it is their business. The 1st amendment says "congress" not the local government. I don't see you in Idaho anyway. What difference does it make to you? Creep. Not you. The legislation. If it passes in Idaho, it's going to be on the agenda in Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, et cetera. Republican exclusionism. It sucks. Those are all places you say you will never go to anyway. What's it to you? I am sure they feel the same way about how Maryland infringes on your 2d amendment rights. That is why we are 50 states and not one monoculture. Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? -- Sent from my iPhone 6+ |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:50:43 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. === Shouldn't you be out buying an imaginary boat or yet another high powered hand gun? No ****. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/15 12:44 PM, wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015 16:51:06 GMT, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:20:16 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 11:18 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:16:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 9:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans “support establishing Christianity as the national religion” while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure. The irony is rich. Many Republican activists like to describe themselves as “Constitutional Conservatives,” but under the Constitution – at least in this country – the very idea of a national religion is antithetical to the American tradition. Indeed, the opening words of the Bill of Rights explicitly say, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” There’s nothing “conservative” about a theocratic agenda in which one faith tradition is endorsed by the government above all other belief systems. But this week, it wasn’t just the poll results that highlighted the problem. A county Republican Party in Idaho pushed a resolution that intended to identify Idaho as a “formally and specifically declared a Christian state.” One local activist told reporters, “We’re a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian party.” The resolution was ultimately defeated by the state party, but the fact that it was considered, and enjoyed a fair amount of support, was unsettling for supporters of church-state separation. Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/k4l7fh2 Strange as it might seem to you, I agree this was a dumb idea It's not just a dumb idea for Idaho. Establishing christianity as the national religion is an idea the majority of GOPers favor, and it isn't the only bad exclusionary idea Republicans want to push onto everyone. I agree we should not have a national religion but if the citizens of Idaho want one, it is their business. The 1st amendment says "congress" not the local government. I don't see you in Idaho anyway. What difference does it make to you? Creep. Not you. The legislation. If it passes in Idaho, it's going to be on the agenda in Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, et cetera. Republican exclusionism. It sucks. Those are all places you say you will never go to anyway. What's it to you? I am sure they feel the same way about how Maryland infringes on your 2d amendment rights. That is why we are 50 states and not one monoculture. Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? Limiting what you can buy and the hoops you have to jump through to buy what you can. How is some legislator in Idaho making a symbolic gesture that reflects the beliefs of his residents, "congress" making a law? I look at things like this to be about as significant as making the bald eagle the american bird. They don't make you buy one and keep it as a pet. Maryland's firearm regulations have never limited what firearms *I* wanted to buy. The Idaho effort, like similar efforts in other states, has very little to do with christianity and everything to do with finding methodologies to discriminate against people whose religions are different or who have no religion. It's the "Christian Identity" movement in a silk scarf. Reminds me of the Tea Party movement, an effort to elect extreme right-wingers, racists, and morons, supported by morons, and funded by the wealthy, who use the Tea Baggers to get what they want. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/15 12:20 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:50:43 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. === Shouldn't you be out buying an imaginary boat or yet another high powered hand gun? No ****. "****" is the perfect descriptor for you, Wayne, and many of the other right-wing bigots on rec.boats. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:44:10 -0500, wrote:
On 28 Feb 2015 16:51:06 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:20:16 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 2/28/15 11:18 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:16:08 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 2/28/15 9:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans support establishing Christianity as the national religion while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure. The irony is rich. Many Republican activists like to describe themselves as Constitutional Conservatives, but under the Constitution at least in this country the very idea of a national religion is antithetical to the American tradition. Indeed, the opening words of the Bill of Rights explicitly say, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Theres nothing conservative about a theocratic agenda in which one faith tradition is endorsed by the government above all other belief systems. But this week, it wasnt just the poll results that highlighted the problem. A county Republican Party in Idaho pushed a resolution that intended to identify Idaho as a formally and specifically declared a Christian state. One local activist told reporters, Were a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian party. The resolution was ultimately defeated by the state party, but the fact that it was considered, and enjoyed a fair amount of support, was unsettling for supporters of church-state separation. Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/k4l7fh2 Strange as it might seem to you, I agree this was a dumb idea It's not just a dumb idea for Idaho. Establishing christianity as the national religion is an idea the majority of GOPers favor, and it isn't the only bad exclusionary idea Republicans want to push onto everyone. I agree we should not have a national religion but if the citizens of Idaho want one, it is their business. The 1st amendment says "congress" not the local government. I don't see you in Idaho anyway. What difference does it make to you? Creep. Not you. The legislation. If it passes in Idaho, it's going to be on the agenda in Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, et cetera. Republican exclusionism. It sucks. Those are all places you say you will never go to anyway. What's it to you? I am sure they feel the same way about how Maryland infringes on your 2d amendment rights. That is why we are 50 states and not one monoculture. Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? Limiting what you can buy and the hoops you have to jump through to buy what you can. How is some legislator in Idaho making a symbolic gesture that reflects the beliefs of his residents, "congress" making a law? I look at things like this to be about as significant as making the bald eagle the american bird. They don't make you buy one and keep it as a pet. Is it a symbolic gesture if a state adopts sharia law, judaic law, hindi law? Are you serious? Have you seen how these lunatics "interpret" the bible? Once a religion is sanctified as "official" you don't think the fundies would have a field day in the state house legislature? Come on, really? |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:46:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/28/2015 10:16 AM, Keyser Sze wrote: On 2/28/15 9:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans support establishing Christianity as the national religion while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure. The irony is rich. Many Republican activists like to describe themselves as Constitutional Conservatives, but under the Constitution at least in this country the very idea of a national religion is antithetical to the American tradition. Indeed, the opening words of the Bill of Rights explicitly say, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Theres nothing conservative about a theocratic agenda in which one faith tradition is endorsed by the government above all other belief systems. But this week, it wasnt just the poll results that highlighted the problem. A county Republican Party in Idaho pushed a resolution that intended to identify Idaho as a formally and specifically declared a Christian state. One local activist told reporters, Were a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian party. The resolution was ultimately defeated by the state party, but the fact that it was considered, and enjoyed a fair amount of support, was unsettling for supporters of church-state separation. Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/k4l7fh2 Strange as it might seem to you, I agree this was a dumb idea It's not just a dumb idea for Idaho. Establishing christianity as the national religion is an idea the majority of GOPers favor, and it isn't the only bad exclusionary idea Republicans want to push onto everyone. I wonder how an equal sampling of Democrats would respond to the same question. The referenced poll doesn't mention that. From a political perspective it may not be such a dumb idea however. 77 percent of Americans identify themselves as being Christian. Doesn't mean they want their religion running things in the state house or in congress. Separation was for good reason and it should stay, according to this Democrat. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0800, jps wrote:
From a political perspective it may not be such a dumb idea however. 77 percent of Americans identify themselves as being Christian. Doesn't mean they want their religion running things in the state house or in congress. === Your dysfunctional friend Harry is convinced of it. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:21:49 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0800, jps wrote: From a political perspective it may not be such a dumb idea however. 77 percent of Americans identify themselves as being Christian. Doesn't mean they want their religion running things in the state house or in congress. === Your dysfunctional friend Harry is convinced of it. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume Christian Democrats are less likely to favor ratifying an official state religion than Christian Republicans. Liberals tend to be a little more circumspect and less dogmatic. But I'm sure you're convinced of the opposite. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:36:54 -0800, jps wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:21:49 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0800, jps wrote: From a political perspective it may not be such a dumb idea however. 77 percent of Americans identify themselves as being Christian. Doesn't mean they want their religion running things in the state house or in congress. === Your dysfunctional friend Harry is convinced of it. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume Christian Democrats are less likely to favor ratifying an official state religion than Christian Republicans. Liberals tend to be a little more circumspect and less dogmatic. But I'm sure you're convinced of the opposite. === You're assuming that all democrats are liberal. I think there's plenty of evidence to the contrary, not that I'm in favor of a state religion. Republicans and democrats come in all stripes and their consensus views do not necessarily reflect those of the national party leadership. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/15 3:36 PM, jps wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 14:21:49 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:17:58 -0800, jps wrote: From a political perspective it may not be such a dumb idea however. 77 percent of Americans identify themselves as being Christian. Doesn't mean they want their religion running things in the state house or in congress. === Your dysfunctional friend Harry is convinced of it. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume Christian Democrats are less likely to favor ratifying an official state religion than Christian Republicans. Liberals tend to be a little more circumspect and less dogmatic. But I'm sure you're convinced of the opposite. Wayne has devolved into one of the rec.boats "feebs" who get their jollies by seeing how far up my butt their can stick their pointy noises. Whatever. I bozo binned him. The fundie christians who promote this sort of "official state religion" are not really any different than the fundie S'hia and Sunni muslims who cannot seem to occupy the same country or state or province without engaging in shooting wars with each other. The same would happen in Idaho or any other state that adopted christianity as a state religion...sooner or later the different christian sects there would start shooting at each other in order to prove their sect was more christian than the other guys' sect. There's plenty of historic precedent for it. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:00:08 -0500, Keyser Sze
wrote: Wayne has devolved into one of the rec.boats "feebs" who get their jollies by seeing how far up my butt their can stick their pointy noises. Whatever. I bozo binned him. === And if you believe that, I've got some land in Arizona that you might be interested in. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:53:20 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:00:08 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: Wayne has devolved into one of the rec.boats "feebs" who get their jollies by seeing how far up my butt their can stick their pointy noises. Whatever. I bozo binned him. === And if you believe that, I've got some land in Arizona that you might be interested in. No ****? Whereabouts? -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/15 4:47 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:23:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 12:44 PM, wrote: Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? Limiting what you can buy and the hoops you have to jump through to buy what you can. How is some legislator in Idaho making a symbolic gesture that reflects the beliefs of his residents, "congress" making a law? I look at things like this to be about as significant as making the bald eagle the american bird. They don't make you buy one and keep it as a pet. Maryland's firearm regulations have never limited what firearms *I* wanted to buy. That is just you and I bet your wife calls that rationalization. AKA sour grapes. You managed to fine the one AR platform that slipped through a loophole in the law and then rationalized that it was what you wanted all the time. Will you turn it in when someone points out the error and they close that loophole? BTW I stumbled into federal legislation that tries to do that the other day when I was researching the DHS funding vote. Actually, I asked around and was advised that an HBAR AR would do the trick and there were side bennies to the HBAR, including greater accuracy than the pencil or grenade launcher AR barrels. I think the sour grapes are on your end. But what's it to you...you haven't bought a firearm in this century. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 4:00:12 PM UTC-5, Keyser Sze wrote:
The fundie christians who promote this sort of "official state religion" are not really any different than the fundie S'hia and Sunni muslims who cannot seem to occupy the same country or state or province without engaging in shooting wars with each other. The same would happen in Idaho or any other state that adopted christianity as a state religion...sooner or later the different christian sects there would start shooting at each other in order to prove their sect was more christian than the other guys' sect. There's plenty of historic precedent for it. Wow. You've been dipping into Kevin's stash, haven't you? |
Yet another reason to never...
|
Yet another reason to never...
|
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/15 8:02 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:06:33 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 4:47 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:23:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 12:44 PM, wrote: Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? Limiting what you can buy and the hoops you have to jump through to buy what you can. How is some legislator in Idaho making a symbolic gesture that reflects the beliefs of his residents, "congress" making a law? I look at things like this to be about as significant as making the bald eagle the american bird. They don't make you buy one and keep it as a pet. Maryland's firearm regulations have never limited what firearms *I* wanted to buy. That is just you and I bet your wife calls that rationalization. AKA sour grapes. You managed to fine the one AR platform that slipped through a loophole in the law and then rationalized that it was what you wanted all the time. Will you turn it in when someone points out the error and they close that loophole? BTW I stumbled into federal legislation that tries to do that the other day when I was researching the DHS funding vote. Actually, I asked around and was advised that an HBAR AR would do the trick and there were side bennies to the HBAR, including greater accuracy than the pencil or grenade launcher AR barrels. I think the sour grapes are on your end. But what's it to you...you haven't bought a firearm in this century. I haven't felt the need. I have all the guns I want. I have a far more wide ranging selection than you since I don't have to sell one to afford a new one. BTW I didn't say I didn't buy any recently, just not a new one. I don't have to sell one to buy a new one, either. I have no need for two .357 MAG pistols, and I wanted to play with a S&W for a while, so I sold the Ruger for a little less than I paid for it. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/15 8:57 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:04:50 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 7:58 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:59:11 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:53:20 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:00:08 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: Wayne has devolved into one of the rec.boats "feebs" who get their jollies by seeing how far up my butt their can stick their pointy noises. Whatever. I bozo binned him. === And if you believe that, I've got some land in Arizona that you might be interested in. No ****? Whereabouts? Right on the beach Had chili for lunch, just to make it more interesting for Wayne, whose nose is stuck up my ass. That might not be his nose. Ever see deliverance? ;-) I wouldn't be surprised to learn both are the same length. :) -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/2015 9:00 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/28/15 8:02 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:06:33 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 4:47 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:23:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 12:44 PM, wrote: Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? Limiting what you can buy and the hoops you have to jump through to buy what you can. How is some legislator in Idaho making a symbolic gesture that reflects the beliefs of his residents, "congress" making a law? I look at things like this to be about as significant as making the bald eagle the american bird. They don't make you buy one and keep it as a pet. Maryland's firearm regulations have never limited what firearms *I* wanted to buy. That is just you and I bet your wife calls that rationalization. AKA sour grapes. You managed to fine the one AR platform that slipped through a loophole in the law and then rationalized that it was what you wanted all the time. Will you turn it in when someone points out the error and they close that loophole? BTW I stumbled into federal legislation that tries to do that the other day when I was researching the DHS funding vote. Actually, I asked around and was advised that an HBAR AR would do the trick and there were side bennies to the HBAR, including greater accuracy than the pencil or grenade launcher AR barrels. I think the sour grapes are on your end. But what's it to you...you haven't bought a firearm in this century. I haven't felt the need. I have all the guns I want. I have a far more wide ranging selection than you since I don't have to sell one to afford a new one. BTW I didn't say I didn't buy any recently, just not a new one. I don't have to sell one to buy a new one, either. I have no need for two .357 MAG pistols, and I wanted to play with a S&W for a while, so I sold the Ruger for a little less than I paid for it. What's your "need" for one 357 mag pistol? -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:39:10 -0500, Justan Olphart
wrote: I don't have to sell one to buy a new one, either. I have no need for two .357 MAG pistols, and I wanted to play with a S&W for a while, so I sold the Ruger for a little less than I paid for it. What's your "need" for one 357 mag pistol? === His enemies list is longer than Richard Nixon's. :-) I honestly believe that Harry is in a state of physical and mental decline. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/15 11:26 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:00:24 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 8:02 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:06:33 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 4:47 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:23:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 12:44 PM, wrote: Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? Limiting what you can buy and the hoops you have to jump through to buy what you can. How is some legislator in Idaho making a symbolic gesture that reflects the beliefs of his residents, "congress" making a law? I look at things like this to be about as significant as making the bald eagle the american bird. They don't make you buy one and keep it as a pet. Maryland's firearm regulations have never limited what firearms *I* wanted to buy. That is just you and I bet your wife calls that rationalization. AKA sour grapes. You managed to fine the one AR platform that slipped through a loophole in the law and then rationalized that it was what you wanted all the time. Will you turn it in when someone points out the error and they close that loophole? BTW I stumbled into federal legislation that tries to do that the other day when I was researching the DHS funding vote. Actually, I asked around and was advised that an HBAR AR would do the trick and there were side bennies to the HBAR, including greater accuracy than the pencil or grenade launcher AR barrels. I think the sour grapes are on your end. But what's it to you...you haven't bought a firearm in this century. I haven't felt the need. I have all the guns I want. I have a far more wide ranging selection than you since I don't have to sell one to afford a new one. BTW I didn't say I didn't buy any recently, just not a new one. I don't have to sell one to buy a new one, either. I have no need for two .357 MAG pistols, and I wanted to play with a S&W for a while, so I sold the Ruger for a little less than I paid for it. I have two .38s and a 357. So what? Granted one of the .38s is a true antique that I don't shoot. So far, I haven't noticed any qualitative differences between the Ruger GP 100 and the S&W 686. They're both nicely finished, smoothly operating revolvers. I haven't shot the Smith yet, but I have dry fired it a few times. The D/A trigger pull seems heavier than on the Ruger. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 23:01:42 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 20:07:00 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 19:58:08 -0500, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:59:11 -0500, John H. wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:53:20 -0500, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:00:08 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: Wayne has devolved into one of the rec.boats "feebs" who get their jollies by seeing how far up my butt their can stick their pointy noises. Whatever. I bozo binned him. === And if you believe that, I've got some land in Arizona that you might be interested in. No ****? Whereabouts? Right on the beach I talked to my brother in Prescott today. He played golf three times this past week. I haven't seen a golf course in about a month. And the weight just keeps piling on. Is this where he plays? Quartzite CC http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Arizona%20golf.jpg My brother in law played it Saturday :-) Don't think so, but it is cute. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:51:13 -0500, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:39:10 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: I don't have to sell one to buy a new one, either. I have no need for two .357 MAG pistols, and I wanted to play with a S&W for a while, so I sold the Ruger for a little less than I paid for it. What's your "need" for one 357 mag pistol? === His enemies list is longer than Richard Nixon's. :-) I honestly believe that Harry is in a state of physical and mental decline. He's just looking for attention. My mother-in-law, for a while before she died at age 88, needed the same thing. -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 2/28/2015 10:51 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 22:39:10 -0500, Justan Olphart wrote: I don't have to sell one to buy a new one, either. I have no need for two .357 MAG pistols, and I wanted to play with a S&W for a while, so I sold the Ruger for a little less than I paid for it. What's your "need" for one 357 mag pistol? === His enemies list is longer than Richard Nixon's. :-) I honestly believe that Harry is in a state of physical and mental decline. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to see that. ;-) -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Yet another reason to never...
On 3/1/2015 7:56 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 2/28/15 11:26 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 21:00:24 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 8:02 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:06:33 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 4:47 PM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 13:23:18 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: On 2/28/15 12:44 PM, wrote: Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? Limiting what you can buy and the hoops you have to jump through to buy what you can. How is some legislator in Idaho making a symbolic gesture that reflects the beliefs of his residents, "congress" making a law? I look at things like this to be about as significant as making the bald eagle the american bird. They don't make you buy one and keep it as a pet. Maryland's firearm regulations have never limited what firearms *I* wanted to buy. That is just you and I bet your wife calls that rationalization. AKA sour grapes. You managed to fine the one AR platform that slipped through a loophole in the law and then rationalized that it was what you wanted all the time. Will you turn it in when someone points out the error and they close that loophole? BTW I stumbled into federal legislation that tries to do that the other day when I was researching the DHS funding vote. Actually, I asked around and was advised that an HBAR AR would do the trick and there were side bennies to the HBAR, including greater accuracy than the pencil or grenade launcher AR barrels. I think the sour grapes are on your end. But what's it to you...you haven't bought a firearm in this century. I haven't felt the need. I have all the guns I want. I have a far more wide ranging selection than you since I don't have to sell one to afford a new one. BTW I didn't say I didn't buy any recently, just not a new one. I don't have to sell one to buy a new one, either. I have no need for two .357 MAG pistols, and I wanted to play with a S&W for a while, so I sold the Ruger for a little less than I paid for it. I have two .38s and a 357. So what? Granted one of the .38s is a true antique that I don't shoot. So far, I haven't noticed any qualitative differences between the Ruger GP 100 and the S&W 686. They're both nicely finished, smoothly operating revolvers. I haven't shot the Smith yet, but I have dry fired it a few times. The D/A trigger pull seems heavier than on the Ruger. So what. You want a 2lb DA pull? -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Yet another reason to never...
|
Yet another reason to never...
On 3/1/2015 11:40 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 3/1/15 10:52 AM, wrote: On Sun, 01 Mar 2015 07:56:43 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote: So far, I haven't noticed any qualitative differences between the Ruger GP 100 and the S&W 686. They're both nicely finished, smoothly operating revolvers. I haven't shot the Smith yet, but I have dry fired it a few times. The D/A trigger pull seems heavier than on the Ruger. My old Trooper is not as nice as the OM match but the speculation was that the OM probably had some trigger work and maybe even a different main spring. In SA it has a very crisp trigger. It has a very light hammer strike in DA tho and I have had a few failures to fire. (that seem to be primer brand dependent) I don't have a trigger gauge/scale, so I'm just guessing based on feel with the Smith. The SA seems fine, I'm guessing maybe three to three and a half pounds, which is good enough for a revolver. I think the DA will feel better after a few hundred rounds. If I still think it is too high, I can have it worked on and also replace the springs. One difference for sure between the Ruger and the Smith...the Ruger has a solid, one piece frame and the trigger assembly drops out the bottom. The Smith has a side plate that is held on with screws. I don't know that one is better than the other, but I am sure Smith knows how to build revolvers that stand up to magnum loads. You don't have the knowledge, mechanical aptitude, or experience to meaningfully compare those two fine weapons. Sorry, that's the way it are, liberal arts boy. ;-) -- Respectfully submitted by Justan Laugh of the day from Krause "I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here. I've been "born again" as a nice guy." |
Yet another reason to never...
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:51:49 -0500, wrote:
On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:16:49 -0800, jps wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 12:44:10 -0500, wrote: On 28 Feb 2015 16:51:06 GMT, Keyser Sze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 11:20:16 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 2/28/15 11:18 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 10:16:08 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: On 2/28/15 9:58 AM, wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 09:54:18 -0500, Keyser Sze wrote: ...vote for Republican candidates: A majority of Republicans nationally support establishing Christianity as the national religion, according to a new Public Policy Polling survey released Tuesday. The poll by the Democratic-leaning firm found that 57 percent of Republicans support establishing Christianity as the national religion while 30 percent are opposed. Another 13 percent said they were not sure. The irony is rich. Many Republican activists like to describe themselves as Constitutional Conservatives, but under the Constitution at least in this country the very idea of a national religion is antithetical to the American tradition. Indeed, the opening words of the Bill of Rights explicitly say, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Theres nothing conservative about a theocratic agenda in which one faith tradition is endorsed by the government above all other belief systems. But this week, it wasnt just the poll results that highlighted the problem. A county Republican Party in Idaho pushed a resolution that intended to identify Idaho as a formally and specifically declared a Christian state. One local activist told reporters, Were a Christian community in a Christian state and the Republican Party is a Christian party. The resolution was ultimately defeated by the state party, but the fact that it was considered, and enjoyed a fair amount of support, was unsettling for supporters of church-state separation. Read more at: http://tinyurl.com/k4l7fh2 Strange as it might seem to you, I agree this was a dumb idea It's not just a dumb idea for Idaho. Establishing christianity as the national religion is an idea the majority of GOPers favor, and it isn't the only bad exclusionary idea Republicans want to push onto everyone. I agree we should not have a national religion but if the citizens of Idaho want one, it is their business. The 1st amendment says "congress" not the local government. I don't see you in Idaho anyway. What difference does it make to you? Creep. Not you. The legislation. If it passes in Idaho, it's going to be on the agenda in Texas, South Carolina, Kansas, et cetera. Republican exclusionism. It sucks. Those are all places you say you will never go to anyway. What's it to you? I am sure they feel the same way about how Maryland infringes on your 2d amendment rights. That is why we are 50 states and not one monoculture. Maryland is infringing on my 2nd Amendment rights? How? Limiting what you can buy and the hoops you have to jump through to buy what you can. How is some legislator in Idaho making a symbolic gesture that reflects the beliefs of his residents, "congress" making a law? I look at things like this to be about as significant as making the bald eagle the american bird. They don't make you buy one and keep it as a pet. Is it a symbolic gesture if a state adopts sharia law, judaic law, hindi law? That is not what they were saying. I didn't see any specific legislation, just a resolution that Idaho wanted to call themselves a christian state. It is better than "famous potatoes" I guess. Are you serious? Have you seen how these lunatics "interpret" the bible? Once a religion is sanctified as "official" you don't think the fundies would have a field day in the state house legislature? Come on, really? I think it is silly but it is ****ing Idaho. Have you ever been to Idaho? I have spent a good deal of time in Idaho but mostly in the civilized parts. Boise is a sweet little city, college town. Ketchum and Sun Valley are lovely in winter and summer. There are both good and bad parts of the state, with some of the nastiest racists concentrated more toward the panhandle. Even in those parts there are good folks who can't stand the racists. Lotta yahoos in Idaho, for sure. |
Yet another reason to never...
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 12:16:28 -0500, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 01:00:10 -0800, jps wrote: On Sat, 28 Feb 2015 16:51:49 -0500, wrote: ? I think it is silly but it is ****ing Idaho. Have you ever been to Idaho? I have spent a good deal of time in Idaho but mostly in the civilized parts. Boise is a sweet little city, college town. Ketchum and Sun Valley are lovely in winter and summer. There are both good and bad parts of the state, with some of the nastiest racists concentrated more toward the panhandle. Even in those parts there are good folks who can't stand the racists. Lotta yahoos in Idaho, for sure. My point exactly and when the United States was established, the intent was that you could have a state full of yahoos. That was the intent of the 9th and 10th amendments. Notice that the 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law". It is silent on what state legislatures do. There's also a very strong statement about separation of church and state in the original document. One would hope states would be wise enough to use that as a guiding principle, eh? |
Yet another reason to never...
On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:51:45 PM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:
I honestly believe that Harry is in a state of physical and mental decline. Exactly. His " desperate " constant postings on here tells me he is severely short of attention. Why...do you dumb****s keep replying to " it " ? |
Yet another reason to never...
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:21:52 -0800, jps wrote:
BTW, did you see this? Woman kills home invading sex offender, KLTV, Tyler, Texas, 02/10/15 A woman was at her Van Zandt County, Texas home when she became aware of a man attempting to gain access to the house through a side door. The woman retrieved a gun and shot and killed the intruder. It was later determined by local media outlet KLTV that the home invader was a suspect in an arson investigation earlier in the week, had an extensive criminal record, and had only recently been released from the county jail on charges of failing to register as a sex offender. Van Zandt County Sheriff Lindsay Ray expressed his support for the armed citizen, stating, Presently, as the result of underfunding and inadequate staffing at the Van Zandt County Sheriff's Office, homeowners need to take appropriate precautions to protect their families. I will continue to support the law abiding citizens of our community when they are forced to take actions to protect their lives, liberty and property. (KLTV, Tyler, Texas, 02/10/15) I immediately thought how great it was the woman had a gun and knew how to use it. I'm sure you felt the same way, no? -- Guns don't cause problems. The behavior of certain gun owners causes problems. |
Yet another reason to never...
On 3/3/15 2:51 PM, John H. wrote:
On Tue, 03 Mar 2015 11:21:52 -0800, jps wrote: BTW, did you see this? Woman kills home invading sex offender, KLTV, Tyler, Texas, 02/10/15 Well, then, you probably should stay away from Tyler, Texas. -- Proud to be a Liberal. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:31 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com