DaVinci

Wow, the irony factor here is off the chart. You do know that this thread was started by a guy that is not a conservative?

Only if they choose to label themselves. But in truth, most that claim to be "Pro-Gun" are not really. A good example is Romney. He claims to be 'pro gun' "We have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them. … I won't chip away at them." - 2002. But then he signed an AWB in 2004. "I do support the Second Amendment. I would have signed the assault weapon ban that came to his desk. I said I would have supported that and signed a similar bill in our state" - Jan 24, 2008 "Let’s get the record straight. First of all, there’s no question that I support 2nd Amendment rights, but I also support an assault weapon ban" - May 15, 2007 So he CLAIMS to support the 2nd, then he acts 180*. Also look at Feinstein she has time after time voted against gun rights. Feinstein voted against the Vitter Amendment to prohibit Federal funds being used for the confiscation of lawfully owned firearms during a disaster... Yet, she used to carry a handgun. "And, I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that's what I did. I was trained in firearms. I'd walk to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon. I made the determination that if somebody was going to try to take me out, I was going to take them with me." -- 27 April 1995 So you can't really take a politicians word on where they stand... you have to look at their voting record.

Source?

Ah, can't debate the topic, so you go after the speaker? ad hominem sound familiar to you?

BTW just for you: France. Independence in 1792, Constitution in 1958 (Constitution of the Fifth Republic). US Constitution 1787 US Govt is older by either 5 years or 171 years depending on how you want to look at it. Germany 1945. US Constitution 1787 US Govt is older by 158 years Finland December 1917 (from Russia) US Constitution 1787 US Govt is older by 130 years Netherlands 1815 Constitution US Constitution 1787 US Govt is older by 28 years Sweden 1975 Constitution US Constitution 1787 US Govt is older by 188 years Switzerland A constitution of 1848 modified 1874. Approved by the Federal Parliament 18 December 1998, adopted by referendum 18 April 1999, officially entered into force 1 January 2000 US Constitution 1787 US Govt is older by 61 or 213 years depending on how you want to look at it. Spain Constitution approved by legislature 31 October 1978; passed by referendum 6 December 1978; signed by the king 27 December 1978 US Constitution 1787 US Govt is older 191 years Canada became a self-governing dominion in 1867 and the Constitution Act of 17 April 1982, which transferred formal control over the constitution from Britain to Canada. US Constitution 1787 US Govt is older 80 years or 195 depending on how you look at it. UK (this is a difficult one since they have no 'official' Constitution) (Royal and Parliamentary Titles Act establishes current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in April 1927. Acts of Union 1800 1 January 1801 So even if I gave you the UK Govt being older (and ignoring the Acts of Union 1800 and Parliamentary Titles Act...) that would be ONE. Care to try and find a few others?

It seems you just continue to ignore things you can't answer.... Like the Acts of Union 1800. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1801... 1801 < 1787

The coach should decide if he wants to play the 2nd string. It would be a smart move, but it should not be mandated by someone else.

Ah, so you would support an abortion in the 8th mth.

Once again you ignore the facts and try to change reality. You claimed abortion should not be an issue since nature kills the unborn all the time. Then tried to claim that the same standard could not be applied in other areas.

Well, most firearm deaths are from people who were not allowed BY LAW to own a firearm.....

If that is all they have.... And we may never find out what acts he might have been a part of.... Then it seems that he did not get due process. Not a big fan of killing without some form of due process.

So you just discounted your own argument.

I have already explained it to you once.... Go read back a few posts and then actually do something instead fo dodging the question. I have answered it, you refuse to see it. I already have provided them. SEE, you DO get it.... BUT: Formation - Acts of Union 1707 1 May 1707 - Acts of Union 1800 1 January 1801 So while the Maga Carta was sealed in 1215.. It did NOT provide the current system of Govt. In fact it was only actually active for about three mths. (Holt, J.C. Magna Carta Cambridge University Press 2nd Edition (1992) p1_ You should maybe read up on the Petition of Right of 1628 where Charles I said he could basically ignore the MC. And maybe you should read up on the people raising up in arms in 1642 and 1689 (English Civil War). The Parliament of Great Britain was formed in 1707. And you should REALLY look in the Acts of Union 1800. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was created in 1801... 1801 < 1787 Care to try again?

City Council Member Susan Guidry: "'We have to determine that there is a zoning law that prohibits perhaps the size of the sign, perhaps the way that it's erected, that it is leaning over onto public property. Whatever we can use, we will, but of course, we do have to balance that with First Amendment rights.' They are LOOKING for a reason to take it down.

People die of natural causes every year.... Does that mean you should be allowed to kill someone walking down the street?

Just like we sorted out that Capital punishment was legal. Just like we sorted out that marijuana is illegal. Still think that we should just ignore the issues?

So if a woman who was one week away from giving birth wanted the fetus terminated.... You think that is is fine for her to do it?

Its funny how those who dislike capital punishment are so willing to kill an unborn baby.

Yes or no Doc... Would you support an abortion up to the point the baby pops out? Simple question and I am asking for a Yes or No answer.

You also know that SkyDekker posted the information first right? So, is SkyDekker a Republican American? Or are you just getting a shot in and now just realizing that maybe you put your foot in your mouth?

No, just someone who sees you ignoring FACTS just so you can go on a personal vendetta. And SkyDekker posted the information FIRST. What is disgusting is you ignoring the facts again just so you can try to twist things against someone else. Yes, that bit was disgusting.... But it was SkyDekker not JR that brought it up.

The tech boom (read: industry) was growing at such a rate that it created wealth. You must admit that the bust happened under Clinton as well... To include Bush inheriting a recession from Clinton. * The NASDAQ peaked on March 10, 2000; * The S&P 500 peaked on March 24, 2000; * The Dow Jones peaked on January 14, 2000; * Manufacturing employment started falling in August 2000; * Industrial production started falling in July 2000; and * Manufacturing trade and sales started falling in April 2000. Well the military budget has been looked at as well.... That does not mean it should never be done again. If spending was controlled we wouldn't have a deficit either. Anyone that reads your posts. 40k a year is not 'destitute'. So you NEVER talk about ANYTHING else in class?

Instead of your bashing of anyone that does not agree lock step wit YOU.... How about you try to have an a adult discussion?

Wow, this is the best you can do.... He tried to explain who the AOPA is to me.... I was a member. Then he tried to explain how some people afford to fly. Saying I have a license is showing I know about it, and the best you can do is act like this? Lame.... bu I am beginning to expect it from you as opposed to mature debate. Ah, see.... AOPA = Good. NRA = Stupid. You just proved my point about your inability to actually use data and instead just stick with your bias.

Yes, but you can quit blaming JR, SkyDekker posted the information