Lucky...

>>>>>>>>>>>you gotta ask yourself "Do you feel lucky..." I do

A tip is economic redistribution. A tip is a gratuity, not a required payment....your point, with all its plagiarism, is moot.

http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html

WHOLE STORY MADE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!! http://kdka.com/local/attack.McCain.Bloomfield.2.847628.html

Did he ever get bail? What are the charges?

Well that whole thing is 1 word, so it kinda blends in; the "//" is silent

What about that other secret? Think she might find out of she catches him buying dresses and shoes in his own size? Wait, is the guy we're talking about, Larry Craig, Republican Senator from Idaho?

You're no Democrat...... Evil Nazi. I'm the cupcake Nazi

Last time I read that some guy out of Africa wanted me to sponsor his huge inheritance in my bank account that he couldn't safely transfer out. He was gonna give me 10%.

Can you say: http://www.unoriginal.co.uk/nuvideos1234/--UNORIGINAL.CO.UK%20-%20japan_landslide.wmv

Beat me to it http://news.aol.com/elections/article/does-gop-ad-presume-obama-victory/224325?icid=100214839x1211614659x1200752524 Did you or someone just say this in another thread?

Forget roadmap, does anyone have a talking GPS?

No (soup) cupcakes for you! [whisper] pssst. Mine was sarcastic too [/whisper] Now share a cupcake before I call you a Hoarder.

Or give it to the handicapped kids too lazy to go trick or treating. Pure compassion.

Ah right, yes. Cuz that statement answers ALL the questions. Republicans are murders. Got it now. Question though.... ummmm..... ALL Republicans or just the murdering Republicans? And if ALL Republicans are murders, are ALL murders Republicans? I'm just trying to get the logic. Is this an "if and only if" statement or just some other law that is observed in x number of Republicans? (and finally .... I'm glad I'm not a Republican. Us Libertarians don't have time for all that murdering stuffs) This just started out as sarcasm, so I just want to say one thing: I like cupcakes.

I'm kinda with you. I don't see how this is a "Republicans murder"?! Really. How do you suggest we classify all the Republican murders then? I actually hadn't seen the thread to which this was a satire for. I just saw this one and thought WTF? Cuz without the other thread, this one makes NO sense at all. It's not that I don't have a sense of humor.... rather, to understand satire, you have to know what the satire is in reference to. Everyone THINKS they have a sense of humor. INSERT ROADMAP HERE: That was my way of saying that Republicans are murderers, sarcatically. END ROADMAP HERE.

You don't have to. An unorganized resistance consisting of less than 1 in 1500 out of an otherwise non-combatant population is enough to prevent a military victory. Nah, they would just "cleanse" an area at a time until all resistance was gone. Ever see Logan's Run? Just like that you runner! (joke). The last time the gov got tyrannical was probably during WWII with Japanese-American Internment, and I didn't read about any resistance. Of course that was 1 sector of US society, but I just don't see the US gov operating that way. The only way an uprising or overthrowing of the US gov could work would be to have 100 or so well-trained commando types that could also blend in. They would have to have a command central, non-interceptable communications, massive C-40 and other high tech stuff, millions in backing, etc... It would have to be that insane, other that that, never happen. 911 was pathetic, fortunately, and it was a one-time shot, won't happen again with our now security. It's possible a plant could be bought inside the airline with a ramp service worker and sneak someone or something on, but I just don;t see it.

Yea, those Chinese really showed their government, huh? Not saying they were wrong with that, as teh Chinese gov is oppressive. Of course we did have a version of that here, called Kent State. The Guard soldiers did shoot on college kids protesting, I guess the diff was that everyone stoped and asked, "WTF did we just do?" I doubt that would be the case now tho, I think Uncle Sam's trained killers would take of 'bidness.' >>>>>>>>>If that happened here you'd see a lot of civilian guns come out and a lot of deserters. You have more faith than I do. I think teh soldiers would not deset or turn. It would take a lot before people would uprise, I think people would think, 'ok, civility will onset any time now.' Unless the gov was litterally yanking people out into the streets would the people uprise and the gov would not operate like that, even if theyt wanted to register/enslave us all, they would be more tactical. Basically, if you don't liek it or fear the US gov, just leave. I say that not in vex, just as a matter of fact. I don't see a physically tyrannical government, just a fiscal one..... that is, unless that terrorist Obama is elected, then it's Marshall Law January 21st.

Well, McCain almost exclusively agreed with Bush right before he virtually totally disagreed with him. Flippage-floppage.

>>>>>>>>I'm asking this because I am a constant streaker and flasher at my dz,... This thread is worthless w/o pics

I like cupcakes.

Interesting. Come on, post the entire passage or none at all . My GF is the guy that says, "We'll never make it." I petition the greenies change this thread title to: WHEN WE MUST SPELL OUT EVERY THOUGHT. ...as in, she (my GF) has the same traits as the pessimist.

Isn't there a fine line between sarcasm and trolling? I'm a cynical and sarcastic asshole quite often. And I often decide not to post things because I reckon, "This may be trolling." How do we know the difference? While I don't think it was trolling, bill's post certainly had some of the characteristics, i.e., reasonably expected to be inflammatory and provoke an inflammatory response. I say we ban him..... now if I could just find that button..... Come on, let's not be hypersensitive.

Perhaps at one point, but if you think about it realistically, that could never happen today. As armed as the US populace is (and it is clearly the most well armed populace on the planet), as long as the government has the military on its side, the populace could never successfully rise up against it through use of force. I don't know about that quade. Looking back at 9/11, the terrorists didn't need bombs or guns to cause massive destruction. The government could not possibly quell an armed public uprising. If it were organized and sponateous, you can't get 10 people on the same page with an RW jump sometimes, think you can organize several hundred thousand? Now if the gov became so tyrannical that they were pulling people into the streets and executing them, and word got out, then people would fall into concert with that alone. But to organize even 100 people? Never happen and it would take far more than that to do anything. Nah, there will never be an uprising from within and there should not be, we will just uprise politically and vote .

>>>>>>>>>Wait.....you just said the heller decision is wrong. I wrote: I just think the original writing of the 2nd and first ever interpretation of the same by the Heller decision are a HUUUUUUUUUUUUGE stretch. Intelectually = Heller dec is wrong Personally = Heller dec is perfect In short, I wrote it was wrong, more correctly I wrote that it is a stretch. SCOTUS decisions are opinions, and like opinions, they aren't really right or wrong, just opinions of that day which can and do flip-flop thru time. >>>>>>>>>>>>Which means you think the 2nd Amendment only applies to militias....correct? Forget your objectivity or lack there of....show us some data that supports your position. OK, let me finish the WORD doc and I will post in the other thread. Also, data really isn't used in regard to SCOTUS decisions, which is why they call it an opinion. But I will illustrate why I think it is a stretch of interpretation of the 2nd, on ethat hasn't been made for the first 220 some years. And one that go the way of the Edsel as quickly. I don;t care what language you use, but most decisions I've read don't get into that postion, they use language like, "the lower court erred when..." Or, "the legislative intent was...." Becuase you've probably always had the opinion that teh 2nd bestows the right to persoanlly own a pistol, so if we use right/wrong then you've been wrong all your life until a month ago when Heller came out, and you now you're right, then you'll go back to being wrong if Obama appoints a few libs and Heller is tested and rejected in another subsequent case, now you're back to being wrong. It's an interpretation of a 200+ year old document that was vagely written, there really is no right/wrong. >>>>>>>>>>>>>And if you noticed in the other thread I said you were right about the term 'well regulated' based on findings going back to the time the Bill of Rights was ratified. And you want to say you don't know anyone objective....pfft. I don't recall you agreeing with me on that. If you did then you agree that well regulated means well controlled in the sense of registration, tracking, etc. As well, I did say that I am the only objective person I know, I really don't know anyine in here, so I wasn't including people in here. W/o meeting people and 'knowing' them for a while, you can't really know anyone. Let me get to that other thread and we'll keep it consolidated there. Cheers