smitty

Where did you get this information that is in bold?

Again -- The military is traditional America.  So, you know obama's gonna be against it.  Just more of the same.

The Pacific Legal Foundation has filed a law suit on behalf of a small business owner.  This business owner is having to pay the finds imposed by obamacare.  Well, this is where the interesting part begins:  The Supreme Court heard arguments aginst obamacare based on the "Commerce" clause of the Constitution.  Cheif Justice John Roberts sided with the majority in stating that it did not violate this clause.  Why?  Because Roberts said the "fees and fines" were actually "TAXES!"  So, here's the rub.  All revenue bills are supposed to start in the House.  But -- the fees and the fines (TAXES, REVENUES) of obamacare started in the Senate!  Which is illegal.  When this gets to the Supreme Court, Roberts can now join the other 4 who originally voted against obamacare and strike down obamacare as unconstitutional!  You take away the fees and the fines and obamacare becomes nothing and withers on the vine.  There may be hope after all.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!   Because what Tebow stands for is traditional America.  obama's about striking back at that tradition...

[Hidden Content]

Because they can't cite islamic texts that contradict Boko's arguments...  Interesting!  Thoughts?   [Hidden Content] [Hidden Content]

Exposing the obama administration's lies on Benghazi.  Plus, the slap down of the lap-dog media!  Powerful stuff!!   [Hidden Content]

Where is it going wrong?

Nobody knows what happened!  But you claim to know?   Interesting contradiction, indeed!

BigGirl:  I presume you are of the opinion that it was JUST a race thing?  Again, just curious...

Hey -- BIGGIRL -- Still curious about what I asked you!  What's the answer?

And you know this how?  Are you a watcher/listener/supporter of Frank Taffe?  Just curious how you came upon this info?!

Know which part?  About his father?  About his mother?  Or that he sides with his father? 

If guns were banned, I presume this is where you are going, the assailant would still have any weapon he/she wanted.  That's why they call them CRIMINALS!  They do not abide by the laws that honest people do!  BigGirl, I'll tell something:  I'll move next door to you.  I'll let the world know that I have a ton of weapons in my house.  But -- I'll also let the world know that you don't have any weapons at yours.  Who's more likely going to get robbed??  And I bet, just bet, that criminals/thiefs will show up at your house with GUNS!!  And you tell them -- "mr thief, those weapons you have are banned you aren't supposed to have them!"  You might be able to excape while they are on the floor dying laughing!  

Yup, we armed them and let them run wild.   But, there's also oil and gas involved.  Interesting watch...   [Hidden Content]

Now -- this is something we can agree on!  But, it's not a gun problem.  It's a criminal problem which points to a law enforcement problem.  The will to enforce existing laws to the fullest extent has to be top priority if we are going to protect our citizens. 

Becasue he sides more with his muslim communist father then he does with his hippy athiest mother.  I guess in his eyes he picked the lesser of 2 evils.  Or -- is there more to it than that?!   Hummmm?!  

TTT

Again -- Since the honest, law abiding citizen will be banned from getting them -- can you guarantee that the dis-honest, the criminal will not??  AND -- if you can't, what's the point of the ban?? 

Democrat-aligned group MoveOn.org hosted an online petition opposing a terrorist designation for Boko Haram. The petition, "Reject Terrorist Designation for Boko Haram" was posted in 2012 and began gaining more signatures from Democrat Party activists after the group kidnapped 230 Nigerian girls to sell into sexual slavery. At the time, Secretary of State Hillary Rodman Clinton, refused to designate Boko Haram a terrorist group even after it bombed United Nations headquarters in Abuja, Nigeria in 2011.  MoveOn.org is one of the biggest bankrollers of Democrat Party campaigns, spending $21.6 million on its programs in 2012.  100 percent of its PAC contributions went to Democrats.  Again, just don't call them terrorist, which they actually are, and they'll play nice.  What's up with the Democrats on this?  Is it Touchy-Feely, or is it something bigger? 

This article was about the State department under Hillary Rodman Clinton's watch. 

I never said I agreed with their life style.  The bible says it's "un-natural."  That's my stance.  But never said anything about stopping them.  But, there is a gay mafia out there that stifles any decent.  So, it's everybody elses fault that makes them attack those that don't agree with them?  Hummm, typical liberal stance.    :rolleyes: 

Who's being intolerent?  Am I, or any others here, stopping the gays from doing anything.  But THEY bully all the time if one doesn't think like they do.  I just call their actions for what it is.  But no one is denying them anything.  But -- that can't be said for them, right?!   What so you?

They steal them.  That's why they call them criminals.  But, if you are saying that if the US stops making them, then they'll smuggle them.  We have a ban on drugs, don't we?!  Think about it... PS - Will the military still have access to assault rifles?  How about police departments?  If so, then that means they are still being made.   If so, then that means they can be stolen.  What say you?

PAM, can you guarantee that criminals would not get assault rifles if there were a ban?