Being able to have a gun offers some amount of protection (sm)
Posted By: MeMT on 2008-10-29
In Reply to: Money isn't everything and toting a gun solves - nothing. If you think McCain won't tax
 I do not have a gun, however, with gun control, only the registered guns are taken, right? That would be the people who have them legally. Criminals do not generally make sure everything is all nice and properly registered, so they get to keep theirs and no one else does. Kind of makes things seem off-balance, don't you think?
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Used to be only the 'mob' made offers
you couldn't refuse. New mob! Tony Soprano for president!
Offers $150 bounty for their severed foreleg. See link inside:
https://secure.defenders.org/site/Donation2?idb=0&df_id=1547&1547.donation=form1&s_src=6KY09WDC4F&s_subsrc=6KY09WDC4F_EK09Z08D_adsense&JServSessionIdr001=szcus3tjo1.app23a
I think the amount of money that
politicians and athletes make is just crazy. Don't even get me started on athletes. LOL!
Uh.....the mandate for the amount of recruits need come from the ..sm
commander in chief, i.e., Rummy. Do they not?
The recruiters just don't reach up and grab a number of recruits that they want to recruit. The pressure that these recruiters are feeling not meeting their recruitment goals (which have to be set by someone) is trickling down from the White House.
I have no problem with the amount of money
It is going right into the economy after all. Frankly, I am surprised it is not costing more.
If these calls did not amount to a hill of
beans when it came time for my representatives to *roll up their sleeves* and do *THEIR JOBS,* then it is time to fire them and elect someone who will listen to the calls. That is why we elected them, to listen to their constituents and REPRESENT us! You just do not get the picture at all.
The amount of $$ paid out in benefits to smokers
the amount of tax revenue generated by the sale of tobacco. You don't seem to protest too loudly when it comes time to spend it and waste no time marginalizing and bashing people with an addiction. These are tired tactics designed to take the focus off of the REAL issues raised in this thread with regard to the economy and differences between party platforms, policies and plans. Just how long do ou think pubs can run and hide from the fact that what they have to offer is EXACTLY the same thing as what we all are running fast and far away from? Careful, your desperation is showing.
Point being: Couldn't he find a church that offers those things sans the racism and hate mongeri
Many, many of the larger churches throughout the US offer those. My church offers almost every single one, excpet maybe the quilting and drill team. I am sure he could find something "consistent with his life experiences" elsewhere....unless racisim and hatemongering are also part of his life experiences.
Not hourly wage - paid by the amount of people they registered nm
x
It's about the right to protection
Not "running around with automatic weapons". We have a single shotgun in the house (my husband uses it to hunt) but when he is gone and I am home alone it is nice to know that we have that gun. Not only in the case of someone breaking in, but I have a horse and what if a wild animal attacked him? With 600 acres of woods next to us it is a very real possibility.
I'm not saying everyone should be able to load up on semi automatics and whatever else, but you can't just say "we are going to take everyone's guns away from them" it just doesn't work that way. Like I said, if you take away the law abiding citizens guns, you are just giving free reign to the criminals because you know darn well they will still get guns and have them and use them against those law abiding citizens who have no means to protect themselves anymore.
Protection, piglet.....
if we remove the US military presence and full blown insurgency left to take over, the people we are protecting with patrols in Baghdad will no longer have that protection. If they are killing as many of them as they are with us there, you really expect that to just stop when we leave? What bubble are YOU living in?
My way of thinking is not to abandon them now that we are there, regardless of how we got there. You can't turn back time. It's done. And yes, I think we owe it to the Iraqis who welcomed us (and they did in the beginning) and trusted us (and they did in the beginning and some still do...I see it because I don't just watch liberal media)...yes, I think we owe it to those people not to abandon them. If that means a continued military presence for awhile, then I think we should do that. You don't agree. Fine. I think the pain the Iraqi people will feel will be multipled many times over if we pull out now. You don't. Fine. Not sure how you arrive at that conclusion, but I don't need to. We will just agree to disagree.
And..as a side note...I don't really think you are in a position to call ME arrogant.
Going, having a nice day. lol.
not protection for a kindergartner, sex ed!
nm
I have my gun for home protection..
While I hope that I never have to use it, there is no more unmistakable sound than loading that shotgun!
Their vaccine needs to be protection
nm
You might try the Witness Protection Agency... sm
I hear they can help you with that.
If Bush, etc were not guilty, why do they need a War Crimes Act protection? sm
Why would you need to seek protection if your not ALREADY sure you are guilty?
They must be scared. Could charges be just around the corner? I am going to assume it isn't just about authorizing humiliating and degrading treatment of detainees, this also about 911/false-flag ops, Wanta's fund and many other charges they are soon to face.
Senator McCain opposes Marriage Protection Amendment
Senator McCain opposes Marriage Protection Amendment
Sen. McCain has said he will oppose the Marriage Protection Amendment (MAP), which defines marriage as being only between one man and one woman, when it comes up for a vote on June 6th.
Sen. McCain says it should be left up to each individual state to define marriage. Can you imagine the mess if that happened! Fifty different laws defining marriage! That is totally unworkable. Our forefathers knew the mess that would create, and that is the reason marriage fell under the Full Faith and Credit Clause in the U.S. Constitution.
One liberal activist Federal judge could strike down the marriage laws in all 50 states because they would be so confusing and conflicting.
In reality, a vote for the MAP is a vote for traditional marriage. A vote against the MPA (which Sen. McCain currently plans to do) is, in reality, a vote for homosexual marriage.
Remember that no matter how Sen. McCain explains his opposition to the MPA, the bottom line is that a vote against it is a vote for homosexual marriage.
Senator McCain needs to hear from you today! Call him using one of the district office numbers below. If the line is busy keep calling until you get through.
Take Action |
Please call Senator McCain today and tell him to vote for the MPA. If his lines are busy, please keep trying. He needs to hear from you personally.
Washington DC office:
202-224-2235
District Offices:
Phoenix 602-952-2410
Tempe 480-897-6289
Tucson 520-670-6334
|
The (Illinois) Born Alive Infants Protection Act of 2002.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ207.107
Obama blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act....sm
He said there was a law on the books in Illinois to protect these babies. In this article, he says there was a bill federally that he *would have* voted for. He killed the bill in Illinois by sitting on it as head of the Health and Human Services Committee. Which is it, Obama?
Excerpted from CNS News: Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.
He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions...
...State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.
Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.
"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."
In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"
Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.
On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."
"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."
That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because the following language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."
Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."
On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.
That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."
In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.
A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."
In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill. Source - CNS News
Bush first ex-prez to face limit on Secret Service protection
By Maria Recio McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON — President George W. Bush's "after-life," as Laura Bush calls the post-presidency, is shaping up to be pretty comfortable, with a Dallas office, staffers, Secret Service protection, a travel budget, medical coverage and a $196,700 annual pension, all at taxpayers' expense.
However, Bush will be the first president not to benefit from one former lifetime benefit: Secret Service protection.
"He'll be the first one to receive it for 10 years," said Malcolm Wiley, Secret Service spokesman. Congress changed the law in the 1990s so that any president elected after Jan. 1, 1997, and his or her spouse will receive the federal protection for only 10 years.
The Bushes will move to their new $2 million, 8,500-square-foot Dallas home — not paid for by taxpayers — on Jan. 20, and there Bush will be close to his future presidential library at Southern Methodist University.
"We're working on a conceptual design for the building," said Mark Langdale, president of the George W. Bush Foundation. The president will help develop the $300 million structure, which will include a library, museum and policy institute.
Fundraising is just beginning, Langdale said. Once the project is finished in 2013, the National Archives and Records Administration will take over the operation of the library and museum, at federal expense. Construction will be paid for with private funds, and Bush is expected to be involved in organizing the fundraising drive.
"He is enthusiastic about spending a lot of his time and effort working on the programs of the institute," Langdale said.
Bush will maintain an office nearby in space acquired by the General Services Administration, which, under the Former Presidents Act, will pay for the office suite and staff to assist him for the rest of his life.
Bush's pension, which is tied to the base pay of the most senior government executives and increases with federal cost-of-living adjustments, will be about half the $400,000 annual presidential salary. He and Vice President Dick Cheney will receive transition expenses as well for seven months — one month before the inauguration and six months afterward — "to facilitate their transition to private life," according to the Congressional Research Service.
The GSA also covers travel expenses for any official activities attended by a former president, as well as two staff members. Former President Bill Clinton was allocated $50,000 for travel in fiscal year 2008 and former President George H.W. Bush, $56,000.
Former presidents and their families are entitled to health care in military hospitals, although they have to pay a reimbursement rate set by the Office of Management and Budget.
Bush will receive a state funeral upon his death, with full military honors for the former commander in chief.
I sure hope not...I hope he has extra, extra protection sm
I think regardless of which candidate wins they will need extra security this time.
|
