DaVinci

You could just use facts and stop insulting people.

I thought you supported Federally provided HC? I have to use the VA (Like Nick)... and my experiences have been less than great. Just last year they started billing my INS for my service connected issues.

How do you rationalize disarming people that are willing to go through the requirements to get a CHL, but not doing anything about people who illegally carry? So just because you alone don't like something it should be illegal? How about all of those that think skydiving should be illegal?

Well, it proves that pretty much the people who want the job are not the ones we want having the job. But I find this just as funny as Senator Jay Rockefeller saying that the Govt should, "shut down Fox News and MSNBC".

Not my fault you are unable to discuss anything based on logic and go to insults. It is my fault that I find it funny that you insult others and rant without facts and like to comment on your fact less views and that it opens me up to your hostility. Yes, but those childish remarks came from you... Not anyone else. Me pointing that out is not making a childish remark. It is just pointing out your inability to have a conversation without them. And the evidence is in pretty much every single post you make... A quick read of those posts will show that to anyone who cares to read them.

Party at your place!!!!! I'll bring the title II stuff.

Worth mentioning again. Most of the gun crime is criminal on criminal violence. Next comes criminal on innocent. Then normally innocent on innocent. So, a gun ban will not stop criminals and will only have a very small impact on normally innocent on innocent since guns already exist (and that is a much smaller part of gun crime). I have guns for two reasons: 1. I like shooting. I compare it to accuracy with a canopy. 2. Criminal on innocent crime.

Criminals already carry even without the "right".

No, she wants to ban driving *on campus* since she was hit by a drunk driver in the woods. Her logic is weak. There are already laws forbidding the carry of weapons while intoxicated... no one argues that. She is arguing against campus carry since she was shot by a drunk in the woods.

Yet you want to ban sober college students form self protection. Your argument is weak. [sarcasm] Well, then we should make that illegal[/sarcasm]. Hint: It is already illegal. No, I have never been shot... Unlike you. So you must have been top of your class.

A book called Capitalism Hits The Fan does a pretty good job of explaining how the US economy was in trouble in the 70's. A very brief explanation of the reasons given in one of his lectures from my notes: 1. Computers/automation reduced the need for people. Accounting software took accounting jobs and robots took manual labor jobs. 2. Outsorcing 3. Women entered the workplace. 4. Immigration both legal and illegal. 5. Population increase 1970 - 203,392,031. 2010 - 308,400,408 All of this meant that the number of workers increased and due to automation, the number of jobs decreased. Superpower status ended with Europe, Japan and China competing with the US. So we had more workers competing for less jobs and with the price being controlled by more competition. This led to lower growth wages and people using debt to try and maintain the same growth in lifestyle. In addition wage fixing by unions raised wages artificially, and to control costs US manufacturing cut costs in materials and design... this allowed the competitors to gain more market share. http://www.capitalismhitsthefan.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZU3wfjtIJY

Oh look lame childish insults.... Seems the best/only you can do.

And as the typical liberal you blame everything on others and ignore the rest of the information. You were shot out in the woods... Yet you want to prevent guns on a campus. Logically, you should want to ban alcohol or firearms in the woods.... Yet you went a different route, not supported by any evidence. You were shot by a drunk in the woods who thought you were a deer, yet you make the insane leap that your incident applies to a campus. Typically, you don't have anything but emotion to support your rhetoric.

That's why it is illegal. True, but just because you were unsafe does not mean others are unsafe. That's bad.... Just as bad as as the police not showing up fast enough to stop a massacre.

I don't mind Obama being protected. I don't mind Biden or even the Speaker..... But the Speaker (no matter what party) does not need a big ass plane.

I think the same thing when I see people post things like, "your own Right Wing Private Army"and "Right Wing propagandists and tea bagging Neocons" Too funny!!!!

Back when I was in the 6th grade we were required to attend a training program that included a bunch of cool things like shooting a bow, shooting an air rifle, conservation, plant identification.... etc. My parents had already taught me about firearm safety long before the class, but I still found it fun and good. Regrettably, the anti gun crowd went nuts and demanded that they remove the shooting portion.

If you can't see the difference between going hunting and shooting an animal that is fenced in..... Well I don't know what to tell you. These areas pretty much guaranty that you will score an animal. To call this "hunting" would be like buying a fish from the pet store and calling it "fishing"

Yeah, never mind the 7-2 vote that said the FLSC had done everything according to the rules. And once again.... The Son could not have appointed anyone to the SC to confirm him. People running for office can't do that. And Bush Sr. didn't appoint people as VP either. But hey.... Don't let the facts get into the way of your strongly held beliefs. Even if they show you to be 100% wrong (OK, maybe 90% since Bush Sr. did appoint one to the SC)

Does CA have a "Public Option" for car insurance (yes, I know the actual bill does not have it in it, but many wanted it)? Does CA force you to buy car insurance or pay a penalty on your State Taxes? Even if you don't have a car? Lets not forget that the consequences of the HC bill have yet to be seen. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101024/ap_on_bi_ge/us_employer_health_plans And some costs have already gone up: And some places are waiting to see if they can drop the coverage and survive the image backlash: And some company's have already gotten waivers. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703431604575522413101063070.html Of course they got a waiver.... But don't think other company's are not thinking the same thing. http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2010-10-07-healthlaw07_ST_N.htm

It seems you should as well So it seems they did have them. Most of us know that the US gave/sold them to him. The fact is that there was a UN resolution that he was supposed to show what he had done with his WMD's and he never complied with it. Also, on more than one occasion, Saddam did his best to hide what he had. Lets us also not forget: "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country" --Gore, September 23,2003 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."--Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998. "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime...now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued decit and his consistant grasp for weapons of mass destruction...So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" --John F. Kerry, Jan 23, 2003. Daschle, D-South Dakota, said the threat of Iraq's weapons programs "may not be imminent. But it is real. It is growing. And it cannot be ignored." So you can try to blame it all on Bush.... But Gore and Kerry both thought Saddam had them as well.

To the OT.... It most likely has to do with employment numbers. Yes. If you are looking to go into the Military. The marketing branding that the Marines have done may influence a persons choice. An organization? No, but you can suddenly start using it as a marketing tool. As an individual? Yes. A freshly minted Marine Recruit has now joined a very large family with strong feelings of belonging. It is very common for me to run into a former Army guy and it would be a long time before we even knew each other severed in the Army. Marines tend to be much more vocal about their service. Again, an organization can start playing it up. But an individual that has joined an organization now has that as a part of themselves. So yes, they can now display esprit de corps now that they didn't have last year.

A much more honest question would be "If you're a Christian...." I like the stance of the tea party. But since it has no real national organization (it is more like a movement) there is no real defined party platform. A Lawyer in TX came up with 10 basic positions that is about as close to a national position as anything else. http://www.contractfromamerica.com/ 1. Protect the Constitution 2. Reject Cap & Trade 3. Demand a Balanced Budget 4. Enact Fundamental Tax Reform 5. Restore Fiscal Responsibility & Constitutionally Limited Government 6. End Runaway Government Spending 7. Defund, Repeal, & Replace Government-run Health Care 8. Pass an ‘All-of-the-Above” Energy Policy 9. Stop the Pork 10. Stop the Tax Hikes In those 10 I see nothing about religion. Those 10 issues I agree with. While some people who also agree with those issues also support religion... That does not mean all do. And your link has nothing to do with the tea party. It has to do with religion.

I don't hunt.... But I don't have a problem with hunting. I do have an issue with this. It is not really hunting, more like killing.

No they are not. You need to read the Constitution again if you think that. The intent may be there... but just like the 2nds "Shall not be infringed" seems pretty cut and dry people tend to disagree with that. In your mind who knows what it says. But there is a difference between not knowing that "covet" is adultery and claiming that there are words in a document that are not there. You are grasping at straws to try and make yourself feel better. How do you feel about Obama and the 57 States and him saying "Corpse" men? Will your bias let you acknowledge them or will you try to explain them away while continuing to bash O'Donnell?