|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1021
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
bill wrote in
: .... Bush would like to mess with the constitution, not on guns, but other things, so why not bitch about 'junk' amendments? Ever since 9/11 I have found excessive police presence. When I turned 55 I went to the local Social Security office just to see if I was eligible for anything, since I have paid a ton of income tax and SS tax, and I was met at the door by a retired cop with a metal detector wand. I said "What the F..k is this?" and he said he was hired after 9/11 to prevent a possible terrorist occurrence in the office. A Social Security office? Get real, there are 3 employees and no money and there were 4 gray haired people all over 70 just sitting there. Bush is getting ridiculous with the over policing of the country. As people on r.b.misc know, I was detained just for riding my bicycle on a public road too close to an Air Force base and looking suspicious. I am a totally white third generation American and no way do I look the least bit arabic, yet I was held until a county sheriff could come and load me and my bike for a quick ride back home. Bush may not be anti-gun but he sure as hell wants to take our freedoms away. I am more worried about being hassled by the Homeland Security people than being killed by a terrorist these days. Bill Baka This is the evidence of another of the myriad of Duh-Byah's idiocies. Just dish/print out money without asking where or when it will come from because 'we all know terrorists run from money'. But those 'security contractors' have to pay for those $5000-a-plate Duh-Byah/Bozo-the-Clown Meals somehow. It's working in Iraq, too. What is it today? Over $half-a-trillion served and half-a-million killed? D'OH!! |
Ads |
#1022
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
In article ,
Dave Head wrote: Yeah, what good is it to live in a country where you can't shoot the people (or government) with whom you disagree? Disagreement is one thing, abridging constitutional rights is something else entirely. I'd only shoot the latter group. You're going to shoot the Republicans? |
#1023
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
Dave Head wrote:
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 09:07:54 GMT, bill wrote: old stuff snipped I agree with you on the gun thing since I have a purchased legally and now illegal semi-automatic and if they think I am just going to walk in and give them my gun they are nuts. Anybody who demands MY gun is likely to be looking down the barrel. Yeah, they want my deer rifle, they're going to get it 220 grains at a time, very fast. They want my shotgun, they're going to get it 1 1/4 oz at a time, also very fast. I think that is what the Constitution meant, to defend yourself against a bad government, but I don't think they could have foreseen a government with such a modern technical advantage to be abused. It just gets more interesting with time. I'm with you and the NRA on the gun thing, but just like the stupid abortion arguments, I can't base an election on only one issue. I can. I figure there's enough other people like you that balance things in order to make up for my tunnel vision. My tunnel vision, combined with other's like-targeted tunnel vision helps protect my gun right. Others, if they're of a mind to, can tunnel-vision on some other issue. If they can muster 4 million members in any one organization, like the NRA did, maybe they'll get what they want, too. I can't agree or disagree here, since the election of a politician on one issue may get you one thing you want and ten things you don't. Right now it seems to be that the parties are going to Hell, both of them, at the top. I'm pro-choice and pro-gun but anti Bush and most of the current administration. If we had some 'better' Republicans to choose from I would vote for them. I am voting for Arnold for a second term as California's governor, both because I like him and because his Democrat opponent looks kind of sleazy. On the rest it is a split ticket, basically voting for the younger blood and the least stupid as I have mentioned before. Voting a straight ticket to me is the dumbest thing a voter can do, by not checking out each candidate. Like the Democrats, for instance, sometimes you get a Kennedy, and sometimes you get a Gore and a Kerry. Sometimes the Republicans get a Nixon. It's all a game of chance, but I do think there should be an age limit of about 75 for anybody. We have Senators and Congressmen who can barely remember where they work, yet they keep getting elected. And there should definitely be a minimum I.Q. standard for anyone who wants to be president, about 120 to cull the chaff. Bill Baka I wouldn't be for an age limit, and an IQ limit I figure could be abused, faked, or otherwise subverted. I once went to a Mensa meeting and won the scrabble tournament, but it was time limited, and I don't think that it was really a great way to determine much. I've never actually taken the Mensa test, probably never will, but IQ ain't everything, I think. Dave Head Mensa is actually kind of an ego trip organization. I had some members for friends and they were always trying to 'one up' each other, both at work and at Wednesday night Pizza and beer. They both worked for me, so try to imagine what happened to the unwary who walked into that snake pit. Those guys are why I didn't join. I also don't want to spend an entire day taking the full battery of tests. Other topic, age! We had a senator in Arizona who served until he was 99 or 100 and decided to retire rather than run. He died soon after that. I think the correct name was Strom Thurmond, and he set the all time age record for an elected official. He probably would have gotten re-elected had he run, even at that age since he was popular, kind of like a state treasure that they did not want to vote out. Age or I.Q.??? I like Robin Williams statement about politicians being like diapers. Change them often and for the same reason. Bill Baka |
#1024
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
Tim McNamara wrote:
In article , Dave Head wrote: Yeah, what good is it to live in a country where you can't shoot the people (or government) with whom you disagree? Disagreement is one thing, abridging constitutional rights is something else entirely. I'd only shoot the latter group. You're going to shoot the Republicans? Sounds good to me. Bill Baka |
#1025
|
|||
|
|||
THE GOLDEN RULE
On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 10:25:48 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
In article , Dave Head wrote: Yeah, what good is it to live in a country where you can't shoot the people (or government) with whom you disagree? Disagreement is one thing, abridging constitutional rights is something else entirely. I'd only shoot the latter group. You're going to shoot the Republicans? Shoot any low-life son-of-a-bitch that is trying to damage the Constitution. Dave Head |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|