pBills

You are right on many occasions not to trust the complete governmental word. Another example a quick response for Katrina victims. Not joking at all... good for you on being prepared. Taking care of ones family is the most important thing. No doubt.

Wheew at least one of is prepared. Damn, I guess I never paid attention to the Boy Scout motto "Be Prepared". Just messing with ya.

2nd Amendment - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. As stated before, I understand people wanting a weapon for protection of family, home and hunting. I would never own a gun in a million years. However I do have to ask out of curiosity - does the 2nd Amendment mean individuals on their own or as a "well regulated Militia"? Should the Constitution be taken word for word? Side notes: D.C. can still bar handguns from being carried outside of the home. Of course, without the proper licensing. With my understanding of why people want this right, there is always this demonstration that pushes the "dislike" of some gun advocates: http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...08062601655.jpg

Fair enough.

Obviously being sarcastic... something that happens regularly on this board. I just have hard time when people state what other people believe in and respect:

I think that both sides can work towards closing the gun show loop holes, etc., etc.

You are right I have no respect for the Constitution. What a dumb thing to say. Side note: Both sides won today. According to the Post the ruling still leaves DC "a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns."

I do agree about the second amendment being upheld concerning the right to protect family and property. Don't care so much about hunting. That aside, I do see why the DC government had this law. I am hoping that gun advocates can fight to come up with some idea to hopefully keep guns out of the wrong hands as much as they fight to keep them in their own law abiding hands.

I am so terribly excited about this.

Which I guess is just as bad as people like you ACTING as though they know everything.

To bad we were talking about people making $100k.

At $100k one can write-off the majority of their donations. No problem what-so-ever!!

Yes, oh wise one. I will learn and follow ye ol' foot steps.

How is it a slanted POV? If I was only making $10k per year I would fight for/hold on to that $1k toe and nail. Whereas some people making $100k are more likely to spend $1k on frivolous items. Getting rid of the middle-am cuts out the wealthy gaining something in return for their kindness (deduction)... and it makes the "handout" statement that much louder.

Doesn't take much to realize that $1,000 means more to the person earning $10k as compared to someone making $100k. And I believe he's right, with great wealth one SHOULD try to help out when they can. Not saying that they have to, just makes to help out in some way. And really the wealthy person can donate money to a charity, help out someone less fortunate, and then have that extra tax deduction.

Well then I guess we didn't learn from that huh? Not going as peachy as everyone states.

Bottom line is that whatever you make it's all about budget. If the person budgets their money accordingly, in many cases it can go a long way.

Why have the lease if they are not going to explore the land and see if there is oil there? If there isn't, open the land up for something else.

That is true. War in two areas is awfully tough to pull off.

Come on vetoing of all beers. That should strike a nerve with everyone

So if things are going so well, isn't almost time to start bringing the troops home?

Talk about wanting what someone is smoking.

First off love the Don Cherry avatar. Secondly, I partly agree with this. Similar to what Rush Limbaugh was attempting to do with Hillary. He figured the Republicans could beat Hillary, so on went Operation Fat-Ass or Chaos whatever he called it.

Partly. Although he seems to changing the Straight Talk Express to align with Bush on some policies. Not all but some. So maybe wannabe was a bit strong.

Dismantling Nuclear Weapons - from his quote “To seek that goal I will not develop new nuclear weapons.” I take it wants to suspend the creation of NEW nuclear weapons, haven't seen anything credible relating to him dismantling anything. So not wanting to create NEW nuclear weapons makes those other leaders want him more than McCain? Or is it because Obama is pacifist? Don't get that one because wasn't he the one that stated he would do anything it takes to keep America safe as long as the information is credible? ie: going into Pakistan if need be to get terrorists Does Obama wanting to open up talks between countries make him a pacifist? Or should we just threaten and use sanctions instead of talk first? I guess I may be getting my McCain information from the same place you are getting your Obama information.