Home Forums Miscellaneous Topics Second Amendment More lies....shame on you Mr. Bush

Bush lov'in bunkerheads................LOL <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> what will it take for people to see the light? a miracle. there is no hope, the republican party as it once was is dead. but somepeople can't really wake up, at this rate the republicans will be pro gay marriage and the like etc very soon, then what? heck were almost there now. LOL <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

Well, first of all I don't believe that Bush betrayed me because I never really expected too much out of him in the first place. He was the party's candidate, not mine. Unfortunately he won the primaries, not the man I would have prefered. As far as dignity goes, I can't eat it, I can't spend it, and I sure as hell won't stand on it if it gets in the way of what I percieve as my best interests. Are third parties viable? Maybe, but the way to build up a third party is from the bottom up, not from the top down. The Liberatarians finally realized this a while back and are running a lot of candidates for local and state offices now instead of just having a perennial losing candidate for president. As for staying above the fray, that's just fine if you don't have a stake in the outcome. Otherwise you've got to get dirty wrestling with the pigs 'cause that's sure as hell what politics is all about. If you want to stand on your honor and stay out of it that's fine but just by staying out of it you lose.

Where in the act did you read what you're refering to. I don't mean who told you about it, I mean where did you read it. I've read it briefly and don't recall seeing reference to such actions. I've heard of a lot of things the Patriot Act does that I couldn't find in the actual text of the bill. Could it be something you've heard taken out of context? Tell me where you saw it so I can look at it too. Something to remember though, as I've mentioned before, is that the Patriot Act was a compromise between Bush and the Democratic controlled senate. Bush didn't ask for everything in the act and didn't get everything he asked for. He was doing something else I've mentioned before; making the best of a bad deal. After that east coast republican senator turned coat and handed the senate to the Democrats they did their damnedest to give Bush a rough row to hoe and were very successful at getting their way until the Republicans regained control of the senate after 9/11. Yes, I would call Bill Clinton a traitor. Bush I would just call a man who isn't quite big enough to fill the office.

Let me ask you something. In all the hoopla that was going on in the Senate after 9/11 do you think that a liberal Democrat appointed Attorney General would have refused the Democrat call to hand over the results of the approved Brady transactions because it would violate the law? Records that shouldn't even have existed at all but did because of the way the last liberal Democrat appointed Attorney General chose to interpert the law. I certainly don't think so.

So here we are. You've got John Kerry, who looks like the Democrat front runner since Dean imploded, who stated in Iowa that the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right, and you've got the Bush administration who says it is an individual right and that it means what it says. Some choice huh? For the first time in generations we've got an administration who's official policy is that the 2nd Amendment means what it says, no matter how much they may waffle on the details, and you want to sell it down the river. Doesn't make much sense to me.

I don't see how you misunderstood me, but apparently you did. The slow boat to socialist tyranny is the Republican Party. If you say otherwise, has our national government been getting less intrusive or more intrusive under GWB? The fast boat that you fear so much is the Democratic party. I am for some other option. I don't want to be heading that direction at all, and will not settle even for the slow boat.

I didn't misunderstand you at all. I prefer to die of old age. You apparently prefer to die of a bullet to the brain.

I guess I don't see things as darkly as you do. My glass is half full while it appears that yours is half empty. I think that by winning, given enough wins and enough time, we can turn back the tide and regain some of what we've lost. You appear to have decided that the only question is a protracted illness or a quick one. You seem to have decided that the patient is terminal and seem to be looking for another means of immortality rather than trying to cure the patient. I understand you. I just don't agree with you. You seem to think that to waste your vote on an unelectable third party candidate to send a message to one party at the cost of giving the election to the other party is somehow a worthy and noble gesture. I don't.

As far as the government being more intrusive, do you have a bank account; a library card, a drivers license, a social security number, do you own a vehicle, property, have you purchased a firearm since November of 1998, are you registered to vote, do you hold a job, do you have insurance, or any number of other things I could list? Voting for a third party candidate won't make the fact that you can be tracked through any of those examples and many more besides go away. You can't fix what's wrong by saying "I don't like what your doing so I'm not going to play anymore." All the little 60s student radicals learned that the way to really change things is to hold the positions of power in whatever institution you want to change. They learned it so well that they have infiltrated every institution in the country and are well on the way toward achiving their agenda. You're not going to beat them by conceding them the field. We're back to where we were on another thread. Only power matters. If you don't have your hands on the levers of power you can't make changes. If you win often enough eventually you get your hands on the levers of power and can make the changes you want made. You don't get that opportunity by opting out.



If you stand on your pride, dignity, and noble purpose and make your noble and worthy gesture and send you message of disapproval you'll be heading straight in the direction you say you don't want to be heading in at all. But that's your choice. Don't be supprised at being run over by a steamroller while you're standing on your principle

Thanks, but I don't consider myself intellectually very strong <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> . I don't believe in the RNC rising from the ashes, I believe they will go the way of the Whigs they replaced and the new party will return to the ideals of Jefferson the Republicans who first met in Racine WI admired so much.

As for my thoughts on Hillary... First, who will the next RNC candidate be? After 8 years of the Patriot Act, massive government growth, a return to billion dollar annual deficits, and constant preaching that the government should give tax money to faith based groups that some may not support is there truly a chance that the RNC can win in 2008? Next question is who will the DNC candidate be? Hillary is out of this race specifically because they have to put up a candidate but today she carries too much bad baggage. Watch the cycle, assuming the Dems lose this year Hillary's platform for election will be identical to the losing Dem candidate, plus she will have all her normal supporters to push her over the edge.

I'm willing to lose a fight today, with a Republican Congress, to avoid losing the war by having her elected. This is not a military action, but I'm looking at it like one, sometimes you have to force the enemy to commit, and in doing so give up a platoon, so the Rgt can concentrate and win elsewhere. It's part of Economy of Force.

Regarding Heinlein, your mistake is a common one. Read this and then tell me that Starship Troopers espoused veteran only franchise. Heinlein Discussed

Perhaps the movie did, but the movie was crap with a capital "C".

BTW, how's that old Weaver K3 working for you?

Bob

No, it is you that insists there are only two choices (the fast boat or the slow boat to socialist tyranny). I am looking for choice number three, which is a long term strategy to turn the country around.

Coss;



Interesting dynamic you touched on with taking a Democrat now, to avert Hillary in 2008. that very same topic was discussed on a talk radio show out of Boston just yesterday. (96.9 fm WTKK)



Its going to be a hard lesson learned I fear, as too many of those who consider themselves to be "in the right" so to speak, are REALLY lost, left of center, and are akin to the "boiling frog".



Unfortunately, from either fear or ignorance, many times those that think outside the box are greeted with a "shoot the messenger" attitude from the people we try to discss topics with. Take this from someone who's been "shot at" more than once <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />



History is in the making NOW. We can all take an active part in forming it. Or, we can just sit here F,D, & H because "A REPUBLICAN" is in the White House and continue to be victimized into Socialism.



The choice is up to us, and the man in the mirror.

Haven't sent it in for a rebuild yet. I get them all reconditioned before I start using them. It's in line behind a couple of K2.5s and a K10. Used the last K2.5 I had rebuilt to kill three deer up near Rhinelander last season.



If we could be sure of maintaining a Republican majority in congress I might agree with you. As it is I can't because the label "Republican" doesn't mean anything any more. The present day meanings of "Liberal" and "Conservative" are more meaning full than "Republican" and "Democrat" since these days eastern Republicans are hard to tell from most Democrats and some southern Democrats are hard to tell from most Republicans. Even "Liberal" and "Conservative" have regional flavors. The only thing that you can take to the bank about any polititician of any flavor is that you can't trust them, you can only try to control them if they win. If they lose it doesn't matter what you do with them because they aren't in a position to do anything to or for you.



You can't always pick and choose your battles. Sometimes they come to you and you have to work with what you have the best way you can. Unlike Hawkeye, I don't think we have the time to wait for the perfect candidate with the perfect platform etc. or whatever he may think is the third option. I think that if we don't start working with what we have we won't have anything to work with. The reason we keep losing ground is because, unlike the opposition, we value our independence more than winning. We believe in what was and don't see that what is still has the makings. Our opponents believe in their goals and themselves and will do whatever it takes to achieve their end results. We won't. We are the Athenians who value our rights and principles above all else. That's why, in the end, we'll be beaten by our opponents who are like the Spartans in that they are willing to sacrifice everything in the pursuit of their goal. Alcibiades was the greatest, most brilliant Athenian of his era and as a General was never defeated in battle, but he was beaten by Athens and during his era Athens fell to Sparta. We are like warring Greeks or Irish Chieftains and in our failure to unite will be overcome by those who would unite against us.



"It is certainly the case that making some form of military service mandatory to become a public official will mean that all public officials will be experienced military men. This isn't an argument -- it's a tautology. There is no reason to think, though, that the situation presented to the vast majority of the citizens in the book -- two years of peacetime service -- is any more likely to make them militarists than the it did the World War II generation in America. (Or presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, or Bush.) Indeed, I would argue that military experience should be a requirement in civilian leaders; experience is the best way to understand both the abilities and limitations of the military, and any civilian who is going to take a roll in deciding where and when and why to commit combat forces better damn well understand those limitations. [As a side note, am I the only one who finds it ironic that some people who don't trust the military suggest that the best way to prevent the military from running rampant is by ignorance on the part of civilian leaders? If only military leaders have military experience, how are the civilians expected to know when to believe them?] Anyone who thinks the military can successfully brainwash thinking people into mindless supporters hasn't talked to enough people with military experience." Your own petard. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />

I never said that, and you know it. If you are going to address my argument, please don't distort it. I voted for Reagan twice, and don't regret it. Far from a perfect candidate. I only insist on an acceptable candidate, i.e., one who will at least not take us further down the road to socialist statism/tyranny/totalitarianism, and preferably take us back from this direction a bit.

Congrats, I did my hunting in Waupaca County this past year and came home with 2 does.





Here you're more right than most folks I've met. The issue isn't Repub vs. Dem, it's traditional conservative vs. modern liberal. Read Compassionate Conservatism by Marvin Olasky and then tell who the current Repubs are.





Let's look at your argument... If I state the goal should be a return to a government of the 1890's in size and scope vice what we have today and am willing to sacrifice everything for that goal then I may well beat the liberals? Hello, welcome to the Libertarian Party! Perhaps instead of uniting behind the "lesser of two evils" we should unite behind what we really want. That is exactly what the Republicans of 1848 did and they had a President in office less than 2 decades later. Similarly, although I am hoping for Bush not to be reelected for the reason stated above I will not be voting for a Democrat candidate either. I failed to vote my conscience once, in 2000 I voted for the "lesser of two evils" and am kicking myself for it, I will always vote my conscience in the future, regardless of the chances of winning.



In the end what is it you want? What goal are you willing to sacrifice everything for? Unlimited gun rights? Removal of the 1968 GCA, the Brady Bill, the Bush 41 Presidential Order banning importation of certain "Assault Weapons" and magazines (a ban only another Presidential Order can rescind, not the Congress, and his own son hasn't chosen to rescind even though we gun owners got him elected)? None of this has yet been done by Bush 43, nor will any of it.





From the same webpage:

"Myth #2: "Robert Heinlein was advocating the society in Starship Troopers; the characters are expressing his opinions."

Tough call. Starship Troopers was written in response to real-world situations, and Heinlein certainly argued in defense of the book that the current method of awarding the franchise -- accidental birth in the country in question, followed by surviving long enough to reach the age of majority -- is, by itself, a somewhat haphazard way of guaranteeing that the enfranchised are prepared to exercise their privilege in a responsible manner.



On the other hand, he has also specifically stated (in private correspondence submitted to the Quotable Heinlein page) that his "fictional characters speak for themselves, not [Heinlein]."



Heinlein was against conscription, as he stated in the Guest of Honor speech at the XIXth World Science Fiction Convention:





I also think there are prices too high to pay to save the United States. Conscription is one of them. Conscription is slavery, and I don't think that any people or nation has a right to save itself at the price of slavery for anyone, no matter what name it is called. We have had the draft for twenty years now; I think this is shameful. If a country can't save itself through the volunteer service of its own free people, then I say: Let the damned thing go down the drain! [Heinlein 1961:245]



My belief is that Heinlein was interested in exploring the faults of current society rather than necessary proposing workable solutions; as such, I believe that the book is more about the rights and duties of citizenship than about how to set up a workable government. This is just my belief, however -- if someone has a solid quote from Heinlein on the subject, I would love to hear about it."



We can pull supporting quotes from this page all day and it won't answer the question of whether Heinlein himself thought it was a great idea. I think if you read the entirety of the discussion and the book itself you will see that although there is noted issues with universal suffrage nowhere is it stated that the system used in the book is perfect, only that it is satisfactory. Read Chapter 12 of the book where Juan and his OCS classmates have to defend the reasoning for adopting such a system to their Instructor, not just lap it up like a catechism lesson like in High School.



Lastly, my own petard nothing <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" /> . It was your contention that Heinlein epoused veteran only suffrage. It is the contention of the webpage author that perhaps only veterans are qualified to serve in positions that could use the military (and any civilian who is going to take a roll in deciding where and when and why to commit combat forces better damn well understand those limitations) due to their understanding of the military. Nowhere does the author say only veterans should be allowed to vote, you are putting words in his mouth. There are many layers of government that non-veterans could still serve in provided they are enfranchised.



Bob

Kindly don't distort what I said. If you'll read the sentence again you'll see that I acknowledged in the latter portion of the sentence the possiblity that I hadn't accurately described your "choice number three" in the former portion of the sentence and left it open for further clarification in the event you chose to grant us futher enlightenment. Any candidate who opposes the candidate of my opponents is acceptable to me. I'll concern myself with winning first and worry about bludgeoning the candidate that I support in to subbmission later. Any victory achieved by those that I support is a loss to those that I oppose. You can't turn back the tide until you can stem it. You seem to want to do it all in one fell swoop. I think its too late for that already. You seem to feel that its important to stand on principle while I prefer to fight for the principles that I believe in.

You believe and will act on your beliefs in the manner that you chose and I'll do the same. Neither of us will convince each other to work together toward a common goal. In the end both of us will lose because those whom we oppose aren't nearly as concerned as we are about how they accomplish their victory as long as they accomplish it. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Which K3 did I get from you? I've picked up quite a few K3s and K2.5s in the last couple years as I find them to be an excellent match for the rifles that I prefer to use and the area that I use them in. Haven't been to Stevens Point in over 30 years.





Try Concience of a Conservative by Barry Goldwater. Campaigned for him in '64. Haven't learned much since.







I want the government of the United States of America to officially recognize that the 2nd Amendment is part of the Constitution, means what it says, and protect the right recognized by the 2nd Amendment with out reservation. Show me the Constitutional authority for the Bush 41 Executive Order relating to "Assault Weapons." For that matter, show me the Constitutional authority for any "Executive Order." As far as Congress not being able to resind an "Executive Order", the way its supposed to work is that Congress proposes, debates and approves the laws and the President either agrees and signs them or disagrees and vetoes them. Where does the President's authority to make law come from?



As far as Libertarian Party goes, for years I was a dues paying card carrying member. They're not all they're cracked up to be either. More like an exercise in futility.



I'll grant you the point on Heinlein. You're the first one who's ever argued the point on its merits. Everyone else I've ever hit with it has simply accepted it and tried to discredit the thesis, not its basis. Extra credit for original thinking.



Bye the bye, we had a Marine Staff Sergeant as one of our Gunnery instructors when I went through the Advanced Course at Knox. When he introduced himself he went to great lengths to explain to us that he was a Marine Staff Sergeant and was not to be addressed as "Sarge." After that, I made a point of addressing him as "Sarge" and when he objected I explained to him that as long as I outranked him I'd address him in any manner that I damn well pleased, just as he was free to address me as a "horse's ass" or in any manner that he damn well pleased as soon as he was out of my hearing, but that in the meantime that he should quit quibbling about matters of address and answer my question. After classes we got along fine and drank a good deal of each others adult beverages. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

There were other times when I was on the other end of the stick.



Just for the record: I prefer Adams to Jefferson.

How many old Weavers have you bought from Stevens Point in the last 3 or so years? I sold it on eBay, I was surprised to see you used the same username there as here. Mine is also very similar, this Geek Box (computer) has me confused a lot so I keep it simple.

There's some folks out there who will tell you that Goldwater was the first real Neocon. I don't believe them, but will look for the book. Thanks, don't often go that far back in my political reading, but I can start, the library is drying up in these parts. I'll concede that the LP has it's issues as well, but I would rather give others more "rights" or "liberties", even if I don't agree with them, than have others walk on mine. If that means voting 3rd Party I;m all for it, like I said, the Repubs started that way.

Most who throw out that assertation of Starship Troopers have only seen the movie. There's nothing necessarily wrong with the thesis, I just don't agree with it. I like my Presidents to have real military experience so they think twice about some adventures. If the only other option is someone who thinks he's still a general I'll take someone with zero military experience any day, it's the job of the Service Chiefs to advise him, not just nod like fluffers on a porn set. I'm rereading Stranger in a Strange Land now and I find it rather amusing.

Yeah, we Marines are sticklers on the rank thing. I can accept being called "Sergeant" by soldiers, they don't know any better. I was once called "Staff" by a soldier (when I was a Staff Sergeant) who thought he was dong the right thing, I asked him if I looked like a disease. That was worth a good laugh.

Good Luck,
Bob

Actually I've picked up a couple dozen or more over the last few years. I'll have to dig back in my files. El Paso Weavers are a poor man's Leupolds. You can pick them up for little or nothing (relatively speaking), get them refurbished back to factory specs for around $50 including shipping and you've just about got to run over them with a tank to hurt them. Sure, Leupold has that forever warranty but the initial investment even for a used one is at least 4 times that of an old Weaver.

I don't have a problem with newly discovered rights or liberties either, its just that most of those who keep dreaming them up are also those who have no respect for mine and firmly believe that only their rights count because they're special. They seem to think that there isn't enough room in this country for theirs and mine so some of mine have to go. I DON'T THINK SO!

The military experience part I find interesting. Kerry served in the Naval Service and Bush in the National Guard. Kerry served in VN and as soon as he was separated from service realized that he was really anti-war and anti-military and that all the time he had spent in Naval Service was a mistake. Bush served his time in the Guard (I know, there is controversy about that too. What ever) and then went about his business. Now Kerry finds it convenient to beat his chest and remind every one that before he was a dove he was a hawk. Somewhat reminiscent of AL GORE's TDY tour as a military journalist. Oh I won't try to deny Kerry his decorations, but we both know that oft times those are the result of being in the wrong place at the wrong time conspicuously and that in most cases you're so concerned with completing the task at hand that you don't even realize that you might be in danger. Bottom line is that none of the above had military experience commensureate with the position of Commander in Chief. That didn't stop either of the more, shall we say sensitive or perhaps caring ones from touting themselves as junior Field Marshalls. Given the position each held what they should have learned is to surround themselves with knowedgeable people and listen to them. I don't have a problem with someone who served in the National Guard, although others have and have cast aspersions on Bush's service. To date I haven't seen them prove any of them. I do have a problem with Kerry turning his back on the military for over 30 years and now when its convenient playing up his service and expecting to be able to trade on that to gain currency with veterans after distaining them for all that time. But the sad truth is that he'll probably get away with it. Weaslely Clark ain't even in the running. Can't imagine how someone who was relieved by Bill Clinton of all people can try to run on his military record.

As far as the movie goes, never seen it. I've enjoyed reading the book many times over the years. I would say that the words and actions of the charactors support my thesis but as I said, I'll grant you that one since I'll admit that I was in fact trying to put the words of his charactors in his mouth.

Worked a lot of joint actions during the last 7 years of my apprenticeship. When dealing with other services, especially over the phone, I sometimes found it simpler to refer to myself with their terms rather than to try to explain what I held. Everyone for the most part seems to have a somewhat nebulous idea of what other service's rank structures are but they damn sure know their own. Also rather interesting is that while almost everybody knows when the Marine Corps birthday is practically no one knows the birthday of the country's senior service; to include most of us who served in it. I did have a company commander once who always addressed every one by their complete rank. I found it somewhat tedious but then being a cavalryman I often found formality for the sake of formality tedious. Formality for the sake of respect or tradition is another thing entirely.

I'd give you a Semper Fi but its not mine to give so instead, Allons.

It's an easy choice for me. I'll gladly vote for Dubya again. The sky is not falling.

I am amazed at all of the anti-Bush sentiment expressed here. Consider:

1. The two greatest threats in the mid-East--Iraq and Afghanistan--have been neutralized.

2. 75% of the senior al-Queda leaders are dead.

3. Libya has given up its nuclear program. Iran is allowing inspectors in. Pakistan is stopping proliferation.

4. North Korea is begging--pleading--for the US to talk with them.

5. The Saudis are cracking down on militant Moslems, and slowly rewriting the textbooks feeding the Madrasa hate schools.

6. The US Arttorney General is an NRA Member and the official position of the Justice Department is that the Second Amendment is an individual right. This is the first time such a position has been taken.

7. A family of four earning $50,000 has had a $2000 tax cut per year.

8. The economy is growing at 8% per year (last quarter), which most economists ascribe to the Bush tax cuts.

9. The value of stocks and houses has recovered to the pre-9/11 and pre-telecom bust highs of 2000.

10. By reducing the dollar value 25% on international markets, a move long sought by the National Assn. of Manufacturers, Bush has made US goods much more competitive with foreign imports, helping us export.

Sounds like one helluva lot of progress since Clinton. For this you want to vote for Kerry, whose record is more liberal than Kennedy? For this you want to throw away your vote on some third party that's not even competent to get a city councilman elected?

Yeah, I don't like talk about illegal aliens either, but talk is cheap. Look at the results.

Anything has to slow down and stop before it can reverse. If you think a protest vote will acomplish anything except get a Democrat elected, you are sadly mistaken. That is mostly what got Bill Clinton in the first time. People voted for an unelectable Ross Perot and most of them were Republicans. miles

You people from New Hampsuire always did have a liberal lean, so your position is not new, I doubt you voted for him the first time. I will vote for him, that way, RaM, I cancel you out.

I have taken the time to read this whole post with great interest, and each of your points are well taken and I am sure each of you feels that your point is most valid.
I have come to the conclusion, as many of you have, that politics has simply gotten way out of control.
What we have is taxation with representation, which IMHO, is as bad or worse than taxation without representation.
The government has gone from "by the people and for the people" to something akin of "what's in it for me ?"
As long as the two party system has no real competition, does it really matter who wins the election ?
It is my opinion that the only policy makers are the ones who put money in the campaign kittys. They all "donate" to both parties on a greater or lesser basis, to cover their @$$es no matter who wins.
It is not rocket science and doesn't take long to figure out who really runs the show in America. I am convinced that our country is run by big business and the wealthy.
That is why all the fuss about disarming Americans, because they enjoy the status quo and have a sneaky suspicion that we as mere citizens will eventually take up arms to bring about change for the better of this country and ourselves, and they want no part of that.
Call me what you will, say my cup is half empty, but I consider myself a realist.
I don't know about you, but I have had it up to my ears with so called "American" corporations that have no qualms about pink slipping our citizens by the thousands only to send that labor overseas, and still have the nerve to pay the top execs in the MILLIONS. I have had it up to my ears with the slow but steady erosion of our constitution, and just because a justice declares the second an individual right, nothing has really changed, has it ?
I won't be satisfied until the Federal Government insists on the States of the Union allowing full, unencumbered, and unregistered firearms ownership for all citizens. Screw the bans, if a United States Citizen wants a full auto anything, state politicians should have no right to override the constitution. Yeah, I know what you are thinking, excons on the streets with guns, well here's what I think: There should be no excons. We as taxpayers waste billions on taking good care of the scum in prisons. Those convicted of murder or rape should be executed NOW. No ifs ands or buts. Everyone else should truly pay their debt to society before being let out on the streets. Gun rights are for everybody.
There are many laws, in fact ALL of the firearms laws, that are unconsitutional, but yet, we sit by and let it ride. Unconstitutional laws are illegal, as per the constitution, but try and convince the state trooper or BATF that you decided that it was so. Hi ho, Hi ho, its of to jail you go.
And how convenient that our government immunized itself against the very redress that we are supposedly guaranteed.
I could go on, buy my throat is getting sore.
Off rant.
Ranger

Well, how about a compromise? You make sure the democratic party stops it's quest for gun control, and I will stop supporting the president with his patriat act?????Deal?

Millerman, that was some good stuff you posted.