captain_stan

A better question is "Why would an American need to justify that to his own government, much less to foreigners like you and Piers?" Those who are demanding such answers aren't really interested in hearing them, nor do they have the capacity to understand anyway. They would reduce us to a nation of citizens who beg our government to decide for us "what we need."

The truth is liable to result in both political winners and losers. Dems want to give BHO immunity from the truth to prevent him from suffering a political loss. Suppressing the truth is more corrupt than exposing it, and I would argue that it's a worse form of politicization. So do you think the federal government should provide full disclosure to the press of all CIA activities, or just the ones the Republicans lie about? Blues, Dave The answer is: "neither of the above." Nice effort to deflect the blame though. Actually it was the WH that leaked classified info when BHO's subordinates killed OBL, because that made the boss look good. Now that there is overwhelming, unclassified, public information indicating that BHO is either incompetent or lying about the death of 4 Americans, the Dems will make any excuse, including "classified information," to provide cover for him. And what does he say for himself? When asked why his story disagrees with known facts, he won't even answer a direct question but promises the investigation will continue until after the election. Politicizing you say?

The truth is liable to result in both political winners and losers. Dems want to give BHO immunity from the truth to prevent him from suffering a political loss. Suppressing the truth is more corrupt than exposing it, and I would argue that it's a worse form of politicization.

Calling it "stupid" is just as subjective as calling it "fair." Anyway, the majority of Americans don't want a fair econony or fair taxation, and that stupidity is the greatest reason we don't have a sustainable economy or government.

Actually not. The concept of a "Fair Economy" can never be objective. Fair to whom? In the history of industrialized civilization, no economy has ever been "fair." What you're talking about is placating a majority, who have squandered their own affluence, by collectively stealing wealth from others through power of the majority. Asserting that such a system is sustainable is nothing more than another one of your attempts to predict the future.

As a compromise between cost and performance, you could have some "air pockets" added on the front of the legs between the knee and cuff. Folks who use these tell me they work well, and they'd involve much less labor and materials. (I like real booties.)

OK, I found it online here: http://www.precision.aero/Wrap-It/wrap-itv3.pdf

AKA "Wrap-It" links. I can email an image of an instruction sheet printed-out from a download from PA's website years ago. Too big a file to post here, but PM me if you'd like this sent.

Kinda sensitive, aren't ya? This is SC after all--some folks even resort to name-calling here.

Congratulations. BTW, you're proving my point.

Those would include the 99%ers who are too interested in buying cheap imported manufactured goods to figure out why they can't find a well-paying job with benefits. The 1%ers figured out how to get rich from selling-out American labor long ago. There's plenty of blame to go around.

The Chinese economic expansion is more of a threat than their military. Too bad our government hasn't noticed that America is getting our ass kicked in a trade war--you know, the one that all our politicians tell us we must avoid at all costs. The one that has resulted in mass unemployment and loss of income tax revenue.

For one who prefers to make assumptions, there is no reason to try to find real answers. One who is afraid to ask, may never really know.

You can expect whatever you want, but expectation is the leading cause of disappointment.

Leader? I thought you had appointed yourself, Dreamy. Are you now hopin' that somebody will explain this OWS thing for you?

Your glorification of anarchy shows that you're already past that point, Dreamy.

If you can't do that yourself, don't ask me to do it for you. This is your thread, don't you have a point to make?

What do those acts of civil disobedience have to do with anarchy or freedom of speech?

like the lesson of the great war... Which one? The Communist revolution in Russia or China?

It is indeed politically correct in some circles.

What you consider to be "knowledge" qualifies as nothing more than ideology by definition. Your value for what might become "popular" is hardly surprising or thought-provoking.

There's some hatefull rhetoric. Understanding the difference between a labor union and anarchy requires more critical thinking than even you evidently posess. This thread is about freedom of speech vs. anarchy, both of which are mutually exclusive. Nor has it much historic or political significance. Your own "zero knowledge" seems to be the inability to see the contradiction of the term anarchists applied to those who would organize themselves in a democratic manner. For all their attempt to set themselves apart, the 5000 members of IWW constitute "just another labor union." Hardly important enough to command much attention from anyone other than a left-wing zelot

We must have been dreamin.

That's quite a lengthy post to rebut a claim that doesn't even appear in this thread. But while we're on the subject, it's worth pointing out: 1) There are way more gun owners that just deer hunters. Some of us own firearms, but don't hunt deer (I retired from that). 2) Some of the members of our armed forces are also counted as private gun owners--they probably won't shoot themselves. 3) The people who lately seem to be the most likely to act, those OWSies who have broken the law, don't fit the profile of gun ownership, responsible citizens that is. Edit to add: 4) There's no reason to think that America's founders had any other intention than an armed populace that could stand up to their government.

So the protestors enshrined the constitution.