Alaska Darin

Maybe it was an inner city kid?

So because technology has evolved, it's really smart to cede more power to a faceless entity with virtually no accountability? Brilliant deduction, as usual. I fail to see how government has "evolved". Perhaps you can explain how the impoverished of today are significantly better off at the hands of their masters today than they were in the days of "nobleman-vs-serfs". Especially considering the largesse supposedly being "redistributed". So now you're admitting that those you've hired to do your bidding aren't in line? Thanks for making my argument, dumbass.

He never really gave it up. Just because a great amount of his stupidity was lost, there's no way you can overcome that kinda quantity with one thread of nonsense.

Iraq is a tiny blip on the radar as far as oil prices go. But don't let your oversimplification of such a complex issue get in the way of reality.

Again, you simply don't get it. When you cede such tremendous power and wealth to the very few, you shouldn't be at all surprised when they misuse it. Learn the definition of the word "consequences", which is a big reason why the Founders were against the large Federal establishment that you and the rest of your ignorant ilk covet so much. Vast? In the Senate, only 42% of liberals voted against the Resolution (which, dolt, means that 58% voted FOR the resolution. That's not even a majority, much less a vast one). In the house, Liberals voted 126-81 against. This means that percentage wise, across Congress it was about an even split.

Liberals only like failing, expensive, bloated government programs when they get to choose them.

That explains Pasta Joe a little more clearly.

From what I've read thus far, this draft looks suspiciously like the year the Steelers picked Santonio Holmes. There just aren't many wideouts that are deserving of being picked in the first but there are plenty of guys at both TE and WR from round 2 on. I don't know much about this particular DE but if there's a big nasty guy available at 11, I'd certainly rather pick him than reach for a WR who's not going to be much better than a guy drafted 2 rounds later.

Bull. I won that going away a LONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNG time ago.

Prime rib, baby.

One of the houses we looked at in a nice Rochester suburb was right at $300K. The taxes were $13K PER YEAR. That's right, sport's fans.

So now you liberals expect the government to move fast on paperwork stuff? You see how long it took to get water to the Super Dome? Idealism land has gotta be a great place to visit.

Why would it? NYers are too stupid to actually change anything.

We should sign him because unlike Peerless Price, he's actually willing to hit someone.

Never said otherwise. Nice lahjik. Because the 20,000 gun laws already on the books aren't enough of a hammer that we have to take the right to self defense away from the law-abiding? How's that war on drugs going? Has making them completely illegal kept them off playgrounds? CRIMINALS DON'T OBEY LAWS, LAWYER GUY. I fail to see how disarming people in their own homes has made the most violent city in America less violent - a fact that the statistics easily prove. But keep parroting the drivel. Whoo hoo. Cluster fug. I was always partial to Roy Rogers myself. Yippie-Kai-Yay.

Not true. I hate your posts.

From Davy Crockett to Grizzly Adams. You've got to be a very effective litigator with such references at your disposal. Thanks for the math lesson. I had no idea 4 was less than half of nine. I don't need logic to surmise you're a liberal. I've been reading your posts for years. Shoot, the fact that you're calling people zealots for being on the opposite side of the argument you don't have the balls to actually stand with tells the rest of us what we need to know. I didn't need that one explained again. I knew it when the case was first accepted by the SC because it's always really obvious what the liberals are going to do when it comes to actually important individual freedoms. You dancing around the questions is what I don't get. But we can keep up this stupidity as long as you want.

You're having a hard time with this, aren't you? 1. You're a liberal. 2. You state the liberal block is going to uphold the gun ban. You're not basing this on what you would do as a liberal? Thanks for ignoring the other 2 things. The silence ain't exactly deafening.

You're welcome. Sorry the obvious ain't so... I've never advocated anything of the sort. You think you can take off your lawyer hat for 2 seconds and discuss something rationally, instead of the typical emotionally bankrupt "absolutes" argument your profession is so fond of? You don't have to. You're a liberal. You've basically stated that all the liberal judges on the panel are going to vote that D.C. has the right to throw out the 2nd Amendment. Real tough to figure out where you stand based on that, ain't it?

Nice cut and run. I love how smart you lawyers think you are. You're not arguing law, you're arguing politics and your "profession" is at the forefront of ruining this country. No, you didn't. The funny part is you think you're the one being rational, all the while selling individual freedom to the lowest bidder.

Nor are the rights of the state absolute to completely ban speech (etc), which is what is actually being done. Under no definition is a complete ban a "reasonable restriction". And there is ZERO doubt that the Founding Fathers would have allowed implementation of a complete firearm ban, as they understood that without private ownership, the citizens become subject to tyranny of government at all levels. WHICH IS THE REASON THEY FOUGHT A GODDAMN WAR WITH THEIR PRIVATE FIREARMS (which included handguns) FOR FREEDOM.

Constitutional rights at that. Any other amendments in the original Bill of Rights not considered to be "individual"? Article the third [1st Amendment] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Article the fourth [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. Article the fifth [3rd Amendment] No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. Article the sixth [4th Amendment] The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Article the seventh [5th Amendment] No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. Article the eighth [6th Amendment] In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence. Article the ninth [7th Amendment] In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Article the tenth [8th Amendment] Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Article the eleventh [9th Amendment] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Article the twelfth [10th Amendment] The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibitedby it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people But you liberals keep pretending you're on to something. Let's pretend that the Founding Fathers were stupid.

Bet you they don't make the finals...

It has nothing to do with State's rights and that is a tired response from someone who actually knows the difference. Could we please stop looping the current administration in with the term "conservative"? This is a liberal and power hungry a group as has ever been in office. Just because they don't serve exactly the same masters that the Democrats do doesn't mean they are at all conservative.

Gee, what a surprse. A liberal using the word play game on a topic they have virtually no understanding of (gee, I think I alluded to that already. So thanks for not disappointing). Keep lapping up the spoiled milk your masters are shoveling at you. It has little to do with "liberal vs conservative". It has to do with balance of power of the individual versus the state and the implicit right granted by perhaps the greatest document man has ever produced. But keep pretending you have any clue what you're talking about.