Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Socialist entitlements have broke the country, it’s past the point of no returnCongress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.It Certainly is not the federal governments money…The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessarynothing but diversion? there is no power to provide for the common offense or the general warfare.
There is a power to provide for the general welfare.
Any more problems, right wingers?
Do we have any problems, or not.
Na, sociallist entitlement programs are all about overspending that is why we are in the hole we are in..Socialist entitlements have broke the country, it’s past the point of no returnCongress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.It Certainly is not the federal governments money…The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary
Any more problems, right wingers?
Do we have any problems, or not.
Low taxes on the wealthy combined with the failure of the wealthy to live up to the promises of supply-side and trickle down economics has the government near broke.
Oh, excuse me - the wealthy surely did invest in China! I'm sure that's what working Americans wanted when they elected Reagan.
Na, sociallist entitlement programs are all about overspending that is why we are in the hole we are in..Socialist entitlements have broke the country, it’s past the point of no returnCongress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.It Certainly is not the federal governments money…The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.
Any more problems, right wingers?
Do we have any problems, or not.
Low taxes on the wealthy combined with the failure of the wealthy to live up to the promises of supply-side and trickle down economics has the government near broke.
Oh, excuse me - the wealthy surely did invest in China! I'm sure that's what working Americans wanted when they elected Reagan.
LolNa, sociallist entitlement programs are all about overspending that is why we are in the hole we are in..Socialist entitlements have broke the country, it’s past the point of no returnCongress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.It Certainly is not the federal governments money…
Do we have any problems, or not.
Low taxes on the wealthy combined with the failure of the wealthy to live up to the promises of supply-side and trickle down economics has the government near broke.
Oh, excuse me - the wealthy surely did invest in China! I'm sure that's what working Americans wanted when they elected Reagan.
We are in the hole we are in now because our taxes aren't paying for our spending. Simple as that. And with the latest Tax structure (Republicans own this one) we just went deeper in the hole. You can't tax cut your way out of this. You either lower spending or raise taxes. What we need to do is do both. Reagan understood that as Governor of California but completely forgot that as President. Most Presidents don't have a friggin clue on that and neither does any Congress Critters. The last President we had that really understood that was Clinton along with his 8 years of Congress Critters. That was squandered since then. Even Nixon had 2 years of balanced budget. But since Nixon, it's been spend, spend, spend, lower taxes, go deeper in the hole until Clinton and then it was go back to spend, spend, lower taxes and go deeper in the hole by every President and Congress. This can't be blamed on Socialists. It's more a greedy Capitalist problem where they get theirs first and the rest of us have to pay for their life styles. It's been reported (recently) that unemployment has gone down yet it's also been reported that more Americans are having trouble paying for a decent living level and medical. This is Capitalism run amuck. Teddy R. and the Congress of his time put it in check and the Country Flourished. And there were Milloinaires and a couple of Billionaires created during that time so I know it works. What grew out of it was the Industrial Revolution. We need another Industrial Revolution. But first, the Ultra Greedy Rich need to be forced to learn a little Patriotism. You claim to be one. Now act like one. Bring back the fair wage jobs and put America back to work in a healthy way. The CEOs know how to do it but won't unless forced to. And the only way to force them to is to tax the living hell out of those that won't and give those that will a generous tax break.
Leave it alone and institute sensible gun regulations
The government wasting trillions of dollars has nothing to do with it, huh?Socialist entitlements have broke the country, it’s past the point of no returnCongress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.It Certainly is not the federal governments money…The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary
Any more problems, right wingers?
Do we have any problems, or not.
Low taxes on the wealthy combined with the failure of the wealthy to live up to the promises of supply-side and trickle down economics has the government near broke.
Oh, excuse me - the wealthy surely did invest in China! I'm sure that's what working Americans wanted when they elected Reagan.
Dumbass...Socialist entitlements have broke the country, it’s past the point of no returnCongress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.It Certainly is not the federal governments money…The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary
Any more problems, right wingers?
Do we have any problems, or not.
Low taxes on the wealthy combined with the failure of the wealthy to live up to the promises of supply-side and trickle down economics has the government near broke.
Oh, excuse me - the wealthy surely did invest in China! I'm sure that's what working Americans wanted when they elected Reagan.
My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.
One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.
Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.
He has no credibility.
He is a fucking commie.
Carry on.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Americans have more weapons than any nation on earth, and they also top the chart in homicide, crimes, gun violence, rape, robberies. So much for having weapons huh?My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.
One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.
Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.
He has no credibility.
He is a fucking commie.
Carry on.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
Why do you think it is that those on the side of evil are so determined to remove the right of good people to have the means to protect themselves from them?
Socialist entitlements have broke the country, it’s past the point of no returnCongress is delegated the Power to Tax, to solve the problems of our Republic, right wingers.It Certainly is not the federal governments money…The right wing keeps whining about taxes. It is not their money if we have Any problems in our Republic.OK, let’s get rid of both of them… They obviously are not necessary
Any more problems, right wingers?
Do we have any problems, or not.
Low taxes on the wealthy
My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.One big problem with your cite. It's an op ed piece with no supporting documentation. It says that it does have but has no links back to the source. And then it asks for money. Usually I ding the rightwingers sources. This time I am dinging a leftwingers source. The Guardian is a sister to the Observer which is a British Sensational Rag. Both are owned by the same people. And both often use the same tactics. The only difference is, the Guardian is sometimes more right than the Observer. But when you see an op ed piece on the net that doesn't link back then there is a very good chance it's mostly made up. And this is one of them.
Now, where is the Australian Proof. You presented the English Rag version which means absolutely nothing. Now where is the Australian.
He has no credibility.
He is a fucking commie.
Carry on.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.
He has no credibility.
He is a fucking commie.
Carry on.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.
My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.
Not familiar with the Parkland shooting are you, Daryl?
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.
Not familiar with the Parkland shooting are you, Daryl?
Why don't you tell me how that happened?
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.
Not familiar with the Parkland shooting are you, Daryl?
Why don't you tell me how that happened?
Sure, government took away the guns from teachers and administrators with CC permits then the police sat outside while they got shot.
You, who said "The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives," said government has to make even more sure they can't defend themselves in the future to make them safer.
You're not the sharpest nob in the drawer
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.
Not familiar with the Parkland shooting are you, Daryl?
Why don't you tell me how that happened?
Sure, government took away the guns from teachers and administrators with CC permits then the police sat outside while they got shot.
You, who said "The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives," said government has to make even more sure they can't defend themselves in the future to make them safer.
You're not the sharpest nob in the drawer
There have been more firearm "Accidents" on school grounds by the"Staff" carrying than the mass shooters have caused. Not a good idea to arm the "Staff" unless that staff is well trained Security types whose sole job is security. You must like to see more school shooting whether it be by design or by accident. I don't want to see either.
My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.For the record (again), Daryl would repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all guns, per his vote.
He has no credibility.
He is a fucking commie.
Carry on.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.
My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.
This ruling showed they did not.
So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...
There are many things to make it safer. But even weapons are not completely foolproof for the really dedicated murderer. But keeping on your weapons scheme, the weapons do not necessarily have to be in each persons hands. They can also be in the hands of a professional like the Police or Armed Security which actually is much safer and does bring more security and safety. Only some people have the ability to act appropriately in the situation we are alluding to. It's against the common natural human instincts. But it can be gotten around with constant training. I read in here about how the gun crazies say they would handle it. Experience says otherwise. There will be so many errant rounds going off, all Civilians would have to be issued Bullet Proof Vests instead of guns to survive it.
Yes, we need weapons but in the right hands in the public. In the wrong hands and it becomes Dodge City just before they outlawed the open carry of Weapons right around 1871. And for the same reasons.
Incorrect. The police do not have a duty to protect you per a Supreme Court case back in 2005. And facts have shown that when gun laws are loosened, the Wild West does not occur. However places where gun laws are strict have higher amounts of gun violence.
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
The Suit had to do with Property, not human lives. You are reading into the ruling pretty hard. The Police DO have an obligation to protect lives.
This ruling showed they did not.
I read the whole thing. What was supposed to be presented to the Supreme Court was not what was presented. It ended up being about protecting property, not lives. With what was presented to the Supreme Court, they had no choice but to rule that way. They may know what you mean but they can only rule on the law you are presenting to them. I suggest it be readdressed and presented by a much smarter bunch of lawyers. This last bunch are nothing but fee grabbers.
