yourmomma

Really? An oppion piece is what you offer? How about a conservative who does not regurgitate a party line? ttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOaCemmsnNk

Constitution to be views as a living evolving document Yes it is,thats why we have amendments. Article I Section 2 was pretty clear that natives didn't count and slaves were 3/5th. 14 amendments later and GASP...... it evolved.

Thats even better. "regulate" and "regulated" now have the same veracity as "is". God damd are lawyers good at blurring the meaning of the left and right when people face each other at opposing sides of a line.

That's funny stuff. Guess what, the federalists didn't get their way. It is even funnier that you want to construe the constitution by standards which were not adopted and have no context in the 21st century. If I am to be protected from my government, I need far more than H&K 40 on my hip and the Barret 50 in the safe. Do the federalist papers address removing arms from felons? Is there something in the 2nd that allows the state to determine who gets to carry? So what does "a well regulated militia" mean?

Not directed just at you Billvon, but what exactly does" a well regulated militia" mean? I understand th D.C v. Heller case, but know for certain the rabidly pro 2nd amendment people would be howling mad about "activist judges" had they concluded that "a well regulated militia" has a meaning.

" religion being used as a basis for making law or for running the country." Read Article 11 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. ARTICLE 1. There is a firm and perpetual Peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, made by the free consent of both parties, and guaranteed by the most potent Bey & regency of Algiers. ARTICLE 2. If any goods belonging to any nation with which either of the parties is at war shall be loaded on board of vessels belonging to the other party they shall pass free, and no attempt shall be made to take or detain them. ARTICLE 3. If any citizens, subjects or effects belonging to either party shall be found on board a prize vessel taken from an enemy by the other party, such citizens or subjects shall be set at liberty, and the effects restored to the owners. ARTICLE 4. Proper passports are to be given to all vessels of both parties, by which they are to be known. And, considering the distance between the two countries, eighteen months from the date of this treaty shall be allowed for procuring such passports. During this interval the other papers belonging to such vessels shall be sufficient for their protection. ARTICLE 5. A citizen or subject of either party having bought a prize vessel condemned by the other party or by any other nation, the certificate of condemnation and bill of sale shall be a sufficient passport for such vessel for one year; this being a reasonable time for her to procure a proper passport. ARTICLE 6. Vessels of either party putting into the ports of the other and having need of provisions or other supplies, they shall be furnished at the market price. And if any such vessel shall so put in from a disaster at sea and have occasion to repair, she shall be at liberty to land and reembark her cargo without paying any duties. But in no case shall she be compelled to land her cargo. ARTICLE 7. Should a vessel of either party be cast on the shore of the other, all proper assistance shall be given to her and her people; no pillage shall be allowed; the property shall remain at the disposition of the owners, and the crew protected and succoured till they can be sent to their country. ARTICLE 8. If a vessel of either party should be attacked by an enemy within gun-shot of the forts of the other she shall be defended as much as possible. If she be in port she shall not be seized or attacked when it is in the power of the other party to protect her. And when she proceeds to sea no enemy shall be allowed to pursue her from the same port within twenty four hours after her departure. ARTICLE 9. The commerce between the United States and Tripoli, the protection to be given to merchants, masters of vessels and seamen,- the reciprocal right of establishing consuls in each country, and the privileges, immunities and jurisdictions to be enjoyed by such consuls, are declared to be on the same footing with those of the most favoured nations respectively. ARTICLE 10. The money and presents demanded by the Bey of Tripoli as a full and satisfactory consideration on his part and on the part of his subjects for this treaty of perpetual peace and friendship are acknowledged to have been recieved by him previous to his signing the same, according to a reciept which is hereto annexed, except such part as is promised on the part of the United States to be delivered and paid by them on the arrival of their Consul in Tripoly, of which part a note is likewise hereto annexed. And no presence of any periodical tribute or farther payment is ever to be made by either party. ARTICLE 11. As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. ARTICLE 12. In case of any dispute arising from a notation of any of the articles of this treaty no appeal shall be made to arms, nor shall war be declared on any pretext whatever. But if the (consul residing at the place where the dispute shall happen shall not be able to settle the same, an amicable reference shall be made to the mutual friend of the parties, the Bey of Algiers, the parties hereby engaging to abide by his decision. And he by virtue of his signature to this treaty engages for himself and successors to declare the justice of the case according to the true interpretation of the treaty, and to use all the means in his power to enforce the observance of the same. Signed and sealed at Tripoli of Barbary the 3d day of Jumad in the year of the Higera 1211-corresponding with the 4th day of Novr 1796 by

However, for someone to then claim that CO2 concentration was the driving force in global temperature - to the exclusion of all others - more than is quorum is necessary to establish such a principle. I don't believe that's what most credible scientists say. They do say it is a variable which we can mitigate, and with the conclusive science we do have; better safe....

I have no idea, but it seems that this system should have a ram air APU for just such an instance. Seems silly that they wouldn't have had triple redundancy(at least) on a system that is, other than thrust, purely electrical. As a side note, my friend and I have built autonomous kit planes which in case of gps disruption used ; Accelerometers(not the way to go) and simple RLG's to return to point A. One would think similar systems exist on mutli-million dollar, top secret kit planes. Tho I have no idea.

P.S.None of the peir reviweded articals can prove the queen has nothing to do with our countries heroin problems

Lyndon LaRouche

Never voted for obama. Hopefully the guy i voted for in "08" gets the nod this go around.

Sorry, I used grammar and punctuation. Hope this helps. Only teens, or people whom cannot effectively communicate use emoteicons.

Only teens, or people whom cannot effectively communicate use emoteicons.

That you are a whoffo, looking from the outside and claiming we are full of shit when we say skydiving is safe. Neither of us know the consequences of these actions but as sure as we type they exist. As i type this I think it far more prudent to ask"what if" before we have to ask "why".

Just did.

We are not wired to deal with the world as it is. That will evolve or fail.

No , just proves a point.

You're argument is equivalent to...I have a total; do i cut away or just dump my reserve. A whoffo will rightfully say these guys have no idea what they are doing. The people that know look at your skepticism the same way.

It's funny that you double space. Most children do.

You seem to be a pretty tuned in guy. I don't believe in the "Day after tomorrow" shit. I do believe that we have no solid ability to predict the outcome of our use of natural resources. The one thing I can say with certainty is we can and do affect our environment on both the microscopic and macroscopic level. A bit of foresight and what if's, is in my estimation, far better than pushing thru with an" it'll be fine" attitude. The fact is when the Saudi oil fields are bled dry. We have no idea what happens to the space it occupied or the consequences of changing the state of that matter. I agree there is no need to scream fire in the theater, but a bit of ciphering could go a along way in mitigating the consequences.

I understand a lot of the time the civilian is instigating. I have on several occasions delt with officers who treated me in an aggressive manner where I yes ociffer, no ocifferd and was presumed guilty of something other than my offense(speeding-not more than 15 over and always on the highway- and once overdue inspection.) If a person on the street would have delt with me in a similar manner the outcome would have been different. Many cops enjoy the authority we have given them, and wield it with an air of superiority they should not poses.

I disagree. While water can and is used as a weapon, like you said the context is not there. Cyanide occurs naturally, are you quick to say its not a chemical weapon when used by an aggressor.

If a dick walks up to me and mouths off and I give him his come uppins it's assault. That shouldn't change because I'm a cop.

First thing saying capsaicin is not a chemical is just fucking stupid. Secondly using a chemical (or anything in a aggressive manner) makes it a weapon. I.E a hammer is just a hammer till you smash someone's skull with it. On to the next bit. Law enforcement persons are nothing but average citizens we as a society have given a distinct responsibility. When I encounter a dick in my day to day I have no right to inflict harm in anyway upon them. Cops are no different. Saying people who are dicks to cops are then responsible for the harm inflicted on them by cops is utter bullshit. When you decided to take the job you should have known the shit it would entail. I don't care how hard it is to go tell a family their kid is dead or how dangerous it is to pull over a gangbanger. That's the shit you signed up for. In your own words don't be such a pussy. Cops have the responsibility to "Protect and Serve" and should be compensated as such. A cop who abuses his power in any way should be treated like the criminals they are. More so they should be held to a higher level of conduct and larger and stiffer penalties for any breech of that conduct.

Would you like some cheesy poofs Cartman?