Lucky...

so what? some houses in my neighborhood have antlers in their yards. does that make them hill billies? many yards in this area are adorned with elk and deer antlers. are they all hill billies as well? i don't have any in my yard, but i have them on the wall in my garage. i also have 2 bear rugs hanging om my walls. am i a hill billy too? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>so what? some houses in my neighborhood have antlers in their yards. does that make them hill billies? I dunno, do you have to check the pressure on the tires to your house every so often? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>many yards in this area are adorned with elk and deer antlers. are they all hill billies as well? Gosh, it sounds dreamy. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i don't have any in my yard, but i have them on the wall in my garage. When you live there longer you will earn the right to move em to the yard like established folk. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>i also have 2 bear rugs hanging om my walls. am i a hill billy too? Hey, I'm not making judgments on anyone.

Sort of like Teddy Roosevelt's ? Yea, were cars even invented yet? Barely maybe. Now we retired a Mach 3 jet it's so obsolete, I'm thinking true conservatism is regressive.

Doesn't this belong in Bonfire?

But a heaping pile of shit with the 3 neo-con presidents, I think we see that. We've tried giving copr America a run at the gov, let's seewhat happens with a pres that will take some of that back and give it to the gov and to the people.

Maybe they should have to schedule the event and sell tickets.... then they can improve the bridge in whatever way.

you mean widen a 70+ year old bridge (and national icon) from 62ft of road to 84ft (7 x 12ft)? Not even feasible - the main stays for the cable suspection are just outside the lanes - the pedestrian walkways go outside the pillars. Get rid of teh walkways, that way people can't walk on and jump.....2 birds - 1 stone

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081013/ap_on_el_pr/palin_wasilla_heartthrob_2 Johnston is an avid hunter. He's dark haired, tall and muscular, sports a bit of stubble and drives a red Chevy Silverado truck. He'd be the perfect cover for Field & Stream. He's bagged bears, sheep, elk, and caribou. Some of the antlers are scattered about his yard. __________________________________________ If McCain wins, then dies in office, it'll be like the beverly hillbillies; presidential series. Hell, we can even get a Jeb, just have Bush's brother come up, Junior could be played by Jognson, Ellie Amy would be Palin's daughter and granny could be played by Barbara Bush.....good times. And they even have the oil connection there.

And a happy ending... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1u8Dv9CX0Y&NR=1

This one is better IMO. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwpDqyRSyt4

Ironically, I recently found myself on Utube watching a bunch of jumpers before all this stuff was released. Isn't it bizzare to think a 250ft fall could net a living result? They say 98% are successful. Then there was a lady who jumped, survived, nursed to health and then jumped successfully. This guy would have made a good freeflyer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGDOMNiRuDs I read it's about 1 every 2 weeks, but either way, it is a lot of people, astonishing. I do think people who want to commit suicide are drawn here, but that they will anyway, they will just go to the next "romantic" place to do it. Ps. I wonder if the number of jumpers will increase after Obama is elected?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>One proposed funding method was charging pedestrians/bikers to cross, even though the cost of collection will dominate the revenue. That way jumpers pay for their own recovery.

wow. I don't think I'll actually leave. But I will consider a shrug. Why should I do all the work? I should be able to walk out on my responsibilities, go broke and just live off the scabs too.... shouldn't I? Or maybe instead of welfare (cuz we all can't get the hand outs that are promised).... I'll just apply at Hooters. Honestly though - IF he gets elected... I don't think it will be the BRIGHT AND SUNNY CHANGE that some are expecting. Yea, seriously, it took Clinton into his second term to start unfucking the handywork of 12 years of Reagan/Bush, or at least it didn't show until his 4-5th year.

OH, but win or lose, you are leaving teh finest country on earth for a subordinate one?

LOL...... and reminisce about the good ole days back in WWII Germany.... But seriously, where do you go if you're a RW American displaced by Obama's presence in the WH? I mean it's gotta be a place as conservative as here.... no where, that's where, there is no place more conservative, maybe more oppressive, but not more conservative.

Why would you leave the US, the greatest country in the world?

You mean that she won't keep her grandbaby's father from getting into Alaska U when he dumps her daugher after the election? The Secret Svs will keep the shotgun at his head not only during the wedding, but for her entire term if she wins.

Taking your word for that cite, the BOR was about individual rights, but under what scope? An individual right to possess arms within the context of a militia or away from that militia? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state...” That really is ambiguous. Are they referring to a militia to join against the state or against foreign invaders/enemies? As with most / all amendments, there are more questions raised than there are answered. On another note, let's hypothetically say the intent was as you say, to arm all people for whomever, then we would have to follow that writing as we do all other writings, right? I don't hear / see you constitutionalists complaining about the OJ trial where he received an unfair and speedy trial with a jury of at least 5/12 of them, partial. Point is, and you're a law student, the US Const is a joke today that no one in power follows. The leading gun case is from 1937 is Miller I'm sure you know, and it's full of ambiguity as well. Both sides claim victory and they both have justification to do so. I understand your position of want to claim that the 2nd no doubt applies to joe-six pack to own guns in an unabridged fashion, but you know as well as I do that the language in the US Const and the decisions from justices, as written the clerks, is very flexible so they can arbitrarily change their mind down the road. You know as well as I that the justices who represent the gov decide how they want to rule and then build their rationale after that. It happens that way from the certification process to the final rendering. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>That example defines "well regulated militia" as "the body of the people, trained to arms". If well regulated and trained were the same, then why the redundancy? I think the intent was different. Let's find an objective dictioinary from the late 1700's. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>"Well regulated" was a very common term at the time, and would therefore not require any specific definition itself, anymore than we would think to define everyday language we use today. From a lawter wanna be????? Clinton's question of what the definiton of is, is, was ridiculous to most, but as a law school wanna be it was a very legitimate question. Is can be an inquiry, a directive or a simple conjunctive. Well regulated, even tho not hyphenated, is more like an adjective term describing the degree of control. Common or not, EVERY word has a definition. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>It just meant well trained, that the individuals with the weapons would keep them in good repair, know how to use them, and have a basic understanding of tactics. OK, that's your position. Has that ever been the position of any justices? How about many justices?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ALL written and spoken language is wide open to interpretation. Right, not only do interpretation get revised, but meanings of words change over time as well, so the point here is that the US Const was written in a very vague way, perhaps intentionally. The intent and context of the 2nd was written around a time of militias and no standing armies, in fact, the language disavows teh use of standing armies, so the original intent then goes with the way of the use of militias and the entire amendment could be considered aerchaic and moot unless we revert back to militias. Look, we can make this a 10,000 hit thread or just agree that the interpretation could go any of many ways in regard to legal firearm ownership by future SCOTUS justices. If the language were more clear, as in, "The right of every American citizen to own a firearm shall not ever be abridged in any way." Then we could agree that the intent would be to allow for firearm owning rights. But then we have issues like the scope; how big, how many, where can we carry them outside our houses, etc.... I mean, these issues try to answer 1 question and raise 100 more, so enjoy, just don't think for a second that our ability to legally own firearms is bulletproof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>All you're doing is arguing that we don't know what we don't know. After you study law for years, you arrive frimly at the position that there is no answer. You go thru a frustration period for a while, as there is supposed to be a manual, but sorry, it is what it is. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I look forward to the day SCOTUS defines 'well regulated' because only then, no matter how they define it, will we truly have our 2nd Amendment right. Exactly my piont; on that day and the days forward we will have that right, but the defintion of teh 2nd or any/all language within it can be redefined. You just have to realize we will likely never know who killed JFK, Marilyn Monroe, if we went to the moon, if teh US gov was behind 9/11 and if so how much and the ever compelling..... what did the fathers (basically MAdison since he wrote it) mean by the language of the 2nd? And even if it is decided that the language means we have the unabridged right to own guns, might the SCOTUS decide that won't work any longer and have a justification for that? You can't let yourself get tied in these absolutes. America is what it is, you're not going to change it, just enjoy it or get out if it is no longer to your liking. There are no set rules, just the way the people in power want to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>>Although, I have my doubts it will ever happen because it is currently what gives the government the power to disarm us. They love to keep a lot of things wide open. This is how they arbitrarily do what they arbitrarily do. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Anywho, the point of this thread is to point out our founding fathers were paranoid as hell about an oppressive government and it is one of the main reasons the 2nd Amendment exists today. Is it? Or is it so that we could fight off foreign invaders such as the Britts? Remember, we just came out of the Revolutioary War, so it makes more sense that it was to ensure citizens could own guns for the purpose of foreign enemies, fear of foreign takeover was more the order. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>HEll it IS the main reason the Bill of Rights exists today. A greenie argued against this with me not too long ago so I thought he might find this interesting. The BOR adddresses many issues of domestic and foreign issues. And one more time, the US Const has been selectively construed so much anyway, it explains why my teachers would roll their eyes as I brought it up. http://ahp.gatech.edu/bill_of_rights_1789.html In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,... OJ trial. OK, so take it (US Const) as a joke, legislators, judges and our curreent president do.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.I don't see any remark of the well regulated words/term. No definition, which presumably means they left it up to the leaders of whatever time it comes under question. That doesn't even address other issues with teh 2nd. Furthermore, Madison wrote that passage and everyone else signed off on it without further language defining all the questions, eps well regulated. What you're not understanding is that most/all amendments are wide open to interpretation and that these interpretation change sometimes violently throughout time. We can slice and dice what we think they meant, and we night even make a good argument, but until we hear decisions from the SCOTUS it is just rhetoric, perhaps well organized thetoric, but the only binding thing that matters are the rendering of the SCOTUS. Again, post the main issue, that of well regulated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GSRy2p54K8&feature=user

For a campaign that is supposedly the "Straight Talk Express" the American people are certainly being fed a whole bunch of double talk from that campaign. I've got 1 word for you, missy........ MAVERICK

http://news.webshots.com/photo/2456682930037620307VrRYwJ

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>There is a reason that we have due process in this country. Which is why you're adamantly pissed about the OJ conviction. SIXTH AMENDMENT: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,... http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment06/ JURROR QUESTIONAIRES: Jury questionnaires released Saturday revealed five of the jurors in O.J. Simpson's Las Vegas, Nevada, robbery trial said they disagreed with the 1995 verdict where he was found not guilty of two murders. http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/10/04/simpson.jury/index.html See, Mike, when we ignore process for the person involved, we lose everything substantial. IOW's, if we selctively allocate extremely high due process for some people, marginal or strict procedural process rather than substantive due process for all, then the whole argument turns partisan, which is what this is. You can't honestly think Palin got procedurally fucked and think OJ got a fair trial. And teh kicker is that his was US Constitutionally guaranteed, hers was an administrative procedure, not covered by the US Const unless in a distant civil sense.

>>>>>>>>>>>>I also think it was a personal vendetta against Palin that cost the tax payers $100,000 to prove nothing more than what the personnel board will come with. That is in place and the proper venue to handle this issue. Meanwhile you thought the Clinton impeachment that didn't even come close to a conviction and the State of Oklahoma trying Terry Nichols spending 4 milliion dollars leading to more life sentences on top of his several existing was a good idea, right?

No, but you might want to read your source: "But the panel of lawmakers voted to release the report, although not without dissension. There was no immediate vote on whether to endorse its findings." I give you credit for the stamina to hang in here and defend and obviously moot point.