Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
OnPoint
Participant[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]
You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Impressive response time Rustico!
Participant[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]
You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Impressive response time Rustico!
Participant[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]
You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Impressive response time Rustico!
Participant[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]
You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Impressive response time Rustico!
Participant[quote=Rustico]Hitler.[/quote]
You can debate English Common Law all you want, but Godwin’s Law is immutable!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin’s_law
Impressive response time Rustico!
January 27, 2011 at 7:53 PM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #659686Participant[quote]Can you name a particular Senator or Rep who has actually claimed that they didn’t read the bill?[/quote]
Senior Democrat John Conyers openly mocked the notion of reading the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA&feature=relatedThe speaker of the house notoriously said “we’ll have to pass this so you can find out what’s in it.” So while she may have read it, she clearly knew that we hadn’t.
I think it’s reasonable to infer that a Christmas Eve vote was an attempt to conceal.
One can only wonder why…
January 27, 2011 at 7:53 PM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #658883Participant[quote]Can you name a particular Senator or Rep who has actually claimed that they didn’t read the bill?[/quote]
Senior Democrat John Conyers openly mocked the notion of reading the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA&feature=relatedThe speaker of the house notoriously said “we’ll have to pass this so you can find out what’s in it.” So while she may have read it, she clearly knew that we hadn’t.
I think it’s reasonable to infer that a Christmas Eve vote was an attempt to conceal.
One can only wonder why…
January 27, 2011 at 7:53 PM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #658945Participant[quote]Can you name a particular Senator or Rep who has actually claimed that they didn’t read the bill?[/quote]
Senior Democrat John Conyers openly mocked the notion of reading the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA&feature=relatedThe speaker of the house notoriously said “we’ll have to pass this so you can find out what’s in it.” So while she may have read it, she clearly knew that we hadn’t.
I think it’s reasonable to infer that a Christmas Eve vote was an attempt to conceal.
One can only wonder why…
January 27, 2011 at 7:53 PM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #659548Participant[quote]Can you name a particular Senator or Rep who has actually claimed that they didn’t read the bill?[/quote]
Senior Democrat John Conyers openly mocked the notion of reading the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA&feature=relatedThe speaker of the house notoriously said “we’ll have to pass this so you can find out what’s in it.” So while she may have read it, she clearly knew that we hadn’t.
I think it’s reasonable to infer that a Christmas Eve vote was an attempt to conceal.
One can only wonder why…
January 27, 2011 at 7:53 PM in reply to: OT: No worries folks, federal debt is now under control #660014Participant[quote]Can you name a particular Senator or Rep who has actually claimed that they didn’t read the bill?[/quote]
Senior Democrat John Conyers openly mocked the notion of reading the bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW7mOaPnYYA&feature=relatedThe speaker of the house notoriously said “we’ll have to pass this so you can find out what’s in it.” So while she may have read it, she clearly knew that we hadn’t.
I think it’s reasonable to infer that a Christmas Eve vote was an attempt to conceal.
One can only wonder why…
Participant[quote=GH]The numbers don’t lie on this one. More guns = more deaths.[/quote]
To what numbers do you refer? Common sense, and the numbers I’m familiar with say the opposite. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295055713&sr=8-1
Stricter gun control = more crime (DC, NY, Chicago, et al).
I’m not a zealot on this, I’m still open to more info, but… This is the Piggington site man, bring the data!
Participant[quote=GH]The numbers don’t lie on this one. More guns = more deaths.[/quote]
To what numbers do you refer? Common sense, and the numbers I’m familiar with say the opposite. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295055713&sr=8-1
Stricter gun control = more crime (DC, NY, Chicago, et al).
I’m not a zealot on this, I’m still open to more info, but… This is the Piggington site man, bring the data!
Participant[quote=GH]The numbers don’t lie on this one. More guns = more deaths.[/quote]
To what numbers do you refer? Common sense, and the numbers I’m familiar with say the opposite. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295055713&sr=8-1
Stricter gun control = more crime (DC, NY, Chicago, et al).
I’m not a zealot on this, I’m still open to more info, but… This is the Piggington site man, bring the data!
Participant[quote=GH]The numbers don’t lie on this one. More guns = more deaths.[/quote]
To what numbers do you refer? Common sense, and the numbers I’m familiar with say the opposite. http://www.amazon.com/More-Guns-Less-Crime-Understanding/dp/0226493660/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1295055713&sr=8-1
Stricter gun control = more crime (DC, NY, Chicago, et al).
I’m not a zealot on this, I’m still open to more info, but… This is the Piggington site man, bring the data!
-
AuthorPosts