Free Republic

Not to mention that Thune will probably lose South Dakota Senate seat by a smaller margin that the Libertarian in that race got... (D) Johnson 167,481 C+ *(R) Thune 166,954 A (L) Evans 3,071 So basically Libertarians brought 2 anti-gun governors, and possibly kept Daschle's clone in power. My question is why Libertarians run against good pro-gun candidates? I realize that there are other issues besides guns. Meanwhile people of Wisconsin have to wait another 4 years for gun licenses... Food for thought.

Here's some food for thought: Some 337,000+ voted in this race. Assuming 40% participation (just going with an average here) that leaves 500,000+ registered voters that chose not to vote at all. Before blaming a loss on 3000+ that actually made it to the polls, but chose not to vote for your candidate, maybe you should first look at those in the 500,000+ that would have voted for your candidate, but didn't even make the effort.

These people are pond scum!

I beg to differ! Pond scum has no power to confiscate my hard earned dollars or means of self-defense. Pond scum won't make my property or business worthless because of unreasonable regulation. When pond scum becomes a problem, I can scoop it up and recycle it into compost (see how 'green' I am ;} ). All in all, I'd take pond scum over some of these 'leaders' of our nation anyday.

2)The Wellstone Fune-rally - Yucking it up at a memorial service is too much for any normal person to take.

The straw that broke the voters back.

Inspector: Then we have number four. Number four: Crunchy Frog.

Operation Black Knight?
"Look, you stupid b@astard. You've got no arms left."

http://www.stone-dead.asn.au/movies/holy-grail/scene-04.html

"I voted for Majette, Woof!"

Bump to check later

Tell me if I'm wrong, but this sounds eerily similar to the current state of security affairs in the airline industry. First, ignore repeated warnings that a problem is at hand (customer/owner complaints; numerous attacks on American interests) . Don't use reasonable and proactive means to deal with the problem (frequent drive-bys to shoo away loiterers and ticketing of repeat offenders; careful screening of suspicious passengers and tight immigration controls). Then, when the problem becomes a real or potential disaster, overreact to the point of assuming everyone is guilty (and is detained) until proven otherwise.

Since you got to the Elvis post already:

We are Borg. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.

Buffy bump.

You wish! ;-}

People will crap in their own Easter Basket - and then complain the candy tastes bad.

Or live in high-crime neighborhood and complain when they can't get a pizza delivered.

Archie said. "But you also have to look at people's rights. .."

Repeat after me, Archie:

I do not have the "right" to have a pizza delivered to my door.
I do not have the "right" to have a pizza delivered to my door.
I do not have the "right" to have a pizza delivered to my door.
Since, the no delivery area is geographic, presumably whites, asians and hispanics that live in this area would also be denied this service. I have just one suggestion for the folks here, if it's that important to you, MOVE! Duh!

Latest update!

City Councilman Julian Castro wants to outlaw using a car when driving through school zones.

He sent a memo to council members saying restricting the use of cars in school zones will keep everyone safer.

Castro has the support of eight other council members.

He's expected to publicly announce his proposal on Sunday.

"Cops leave and regroup at nearest Krispy Kreme to discuss."

Cops decide to raid local retirement home searching for terrorists. Less chance of opposition.

Most of this is just mindless rant, but he does have a few points I agree with. Although, not in the context in which it is presented, I presume.

Your constitution is a shambles thanks to "national security" …

I might add campaign finance reform (AKA political speech repression) , violence prevention (AKA gun-grabbing) and asset forfeiture (AKA property confiscation without due process).

'When will these Palestinians bring this war to an end?'

When indeed?

your War on Drugs is a disastrous 30-year folly--a gigantic con game designed to benefit lethal cartels, corrupt politicians and menacing intelligence agencies across the planet.....

I don't know if it was "designed" to achieve these but the results are the same.

bled dry of your hard-earned pay through outrageous bank schemes, Wall Street rip-offs and fake government budget grabs.

We're not exactly bled dry (yet) but paying for others misfortunes, mistakes and bad judgement is never a good idea.

The upcoming election needs investment.

All elections need "investment". It's just a matter of who is doing the investing. Those that honestly desire "liberty and justice for ALL" or those that desire liberty and justice for those that make the biggest campaign contributions?

through unmonitored and unrepresentative world committees, are driving countries like Argentina into hopeless debt and social upheaval. These greedy overlords are creating strife and suffering on a scale too tragic for words in nation after nation. Just look at Africa.

Uh, can you spell U.N.? NGO? Mugabe? Just look at Africa!

Amid all this, where are those who are supposed to represent your interests, America? For the most part, your congressional representatives are nothing but swine gathering at the corporate troughs.

For the most part.

just look to all the spineless wimps who constitute your mainstream news media.

It's like a car accident. You know it's bad but you can't help looking anyway.

You neglected to factor in the additional $ 104 million spent annually on these downtrodden people.

Eh, what's a few hundred million here or there? It's not like taxpayers in SF have anything better to do with their money, like, say, building affordable housing. But then they might have to give up some of that "green space".

Is this an example of that fuzzy math stuff? 1000 units for 700 people? $24.5 M for 700 = $35,000 each. That's more than I make (stingy boss) and I own my home, 3 cars and support 5 (the four legged kind). Granted, I don't live in a free-enterprise zone like SF (/sarc) and I don't have half a dozen social workers looking out for me but $35K? When I could get a raise by being "homeless" something's not right.

I hope you see my point

I do see your point and it is well taken. But one of the things that separates us from the "Islamonazis" is that women, in our country, are free to choose their course in life, even if it means they might fall in harm's way. Given that they meet the requirements for their position and understand the risks, should they be denied based solely on their sex?

you still worry about what can happen to your sisters in arms in actual combat.

If I were in a situation where the bullets were flying, I would try to put worry out of my mind and pray for courage, honor and a jam-free weapon, regardless of my sex. Based on what these fellows think of women, I can think of little more disconcerting or demoralizing to them than a confident, well-trained, heavily-armed woman. Payback's a b!tch!

It is all good for woman's lib, but it is back to beatings and raping when the Pave Hawk gets shot down in one of those friendly Geneva Convention honoring countries.

Pre-9/11, I would have said that women don't belong in combat (or combat support) units. Since then I've had a change of heart. I still have concerns about the physical requirements and unit cohesion, but ANY American who's willing to take the oath, put on the uniform and back it up with their life deserves all the support the rest of us can muster.

To answer your question, those cited above were expressing their general thoughts on individual liberty and State's rights. These quotes are trotted out every time the WOD is mentioned, as though the framers of the Constitution had Acapulco Gold specifically in mind when they wrote the Tenth Amendment.

Me thinks you should have stopped after your first sentence as your second is not reasonable. They no more had pot in mind when they wrote the tenth than they had the internet in mind when they wrote the first or semi-autos when they wrote the second. What they had in mind was preventing a federal government from legislating matters best left to the States or to individuals to decide.