Free Republic

Oopsl second sentence should be:

My wife and I took a vacation to Rome about 10 years.

Thanks for this. Would love to see it. My wife and took a 10 vacation To Rome about 10 years ago. Fascinating place.

Thanks, I’ll take a look.

Out for tonight, as dinner is almost ready.

Thanks all !

Anyone have advice about the two outfits secret Agent man suggested ?

Association of Mature American Citizens
http://www.amac.us/

American Seniors Association
http://www.americanseniors.org/

Hi SAM,

Thanks for the links, I’ll take a look. Thanks to all who commented. You confirmed what I thought was the case. Thanks to everyone else who responded

It didn’t cause major problems because a lot of IT folks spent a lot of time to make sure everything was patched up and tested.

Where I worked, every PC, (mostly W95), had the BIOS tested and fixed, if needed. Older OSen, like Netware 3.11, 4.10, and 4.11 were updated and tested. Remember synthetic time on Netware when you rolled the date into the future, and then rolled it back, (NDS) ?

Accounting software had to be tested also, dates are pretty important in that regard.

It was a big deal.

You got that right

The problem is that the word "Federalism", or one who supports it, "Federalist", has been used to mean somewhat different things.

In the late 1780's a federalist was a person who preferred the proposed constitution, (the one we have now, minus all amendments), and an anti-federalist was a person who wished to retain the existing constitution, the Articles of Confederation, possibly with some changes.

In this meaning both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were federalists, whilst Patrick Henry and Geo. Mason were anti-federalists.

To further complicate matters, some anti-federalists were open to ratifying the new constitution, if they had guarantees that a bill of rights would be passed by the new congress and offered to the states for approval.

Edmund Randolph is a case in point: A delegate to the constitutional convention, he declined to sign the document because of the lack of a bill of rights. At the Virginia ratifying convention, he supported ratification after receiving assurances from Madison that a bill of rights would be in the offing.

In the early 1790's, during Washington's first administration, federalists divided into two factions, political parties, the Federalists and the Republicans, (AKA Democratic-Republicans). The Federalists, (e.g., Washington, Hamilton, John Adams, etc.) did indeed believe that the constitution + bill of rights granted more power to the federal gov't. than what the Republican's, (e.g., Jefferson, Madison, Randolph, etc.), believed it did.

It is a common convention, (but not universal), to refer to 1780's federalists using a a lower case "f", and to refer to members of the later political party of the same name with a capital "F". Thus Madison was a federalist, but not a Federalist; Hamilton was both; others were neither.

The differences between these two parties would seem small to us today, the socialism advocated by the modern Democratic party was something unimagined by any of those guys.

Jefferson and Madison were classical liberals, essentially a sort of libertarianism. Nowadays such people are considered to be conservatives. The Federalist party died out with the retirement and deaths of Washington, Adams, and Hamilton in the early 19th century. It is harder to characterize the Federalists in terms of modern politics, so I won't attempt to, other than to say that the pre-Civil War Whig party and the Republican party of Lincoln and Theo. Roosevelt were the true heirs of the Federalist party.

The usage of the name "Anti-Federalist Party" seems to me to mean support of the constitution in the sense of Madison: He supported the constitution, but favored a more limited interpretation than did Hamilton, although by today's liberal standard, Hamilton's interpretation would be considered pretty conservative.

Sorry to go on for so long. Hank's posts in this thread are fairly good, although I do think he does make a more black and white argument than the history can support

Nice how our elected overlords wish to subvert the Bill of Rights by contractual arrangements with gun manufacturers.

Maybe they could do the same thing with the press ? Oops, my bad, not necessary.

Good thing the thug is dead, too bad that the good guy took some bullets.

These thugs have to be morons. Risking one’s life to rob a BK ? Dumb.

There was a bank robber from 80-100 years ago who was asked why he robbed banks: Reply, “Because that’s where the money’s at.” It at least makes sense. The money isn’t at the local BK.

Good that the guy was able to defend himself and all turned out pretty well. Too bad that the perps were still alive after four shots. Still a happy ending.

Probably best not to phone or fax, as you would be using their resources. Overwhelming their phone line or fax line is probably not the best way.

Aside from religous ideas, the mere distance would suggest we would never come into contact.

Preliminary evidence suggests not guilty, but more evidence would be needed for a hard verdict. At this point the jury is semi- well hung.

Additional evidence in favor: Apparently the alleged 16 year old victim found her not guilty. Not expert testimony of course, he probably only recently got his driver's license.

Nice opinion, but got anything to back it up ?

I call Bravo Sierra on this.

You get a pass on the Holocaust, but you might be liable for the Franco-Prussian War ;)

Nice bed.

If Bush can do it, Obama can undo it. He will, count on it. Change you can believe in !

Agreed. No one needs to attend the function, but Obama will be the CiC and the office should be respected. A bad relationship between the CiC and the military is not a good thing.