100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > JustAGuy2112
|
Topic:
Boycott Mexifornia
|
|
What gets me is that not ONE of the people who are screaming racism and racial profiling can point to ONE SENTENCE of that law that shows any of it.
They just keep repeating the " talking points " and figure reading the law and making a coherent argument is completely unnecessary. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Boycott Mexifornia
|
|
I thought the boycott was just Los Angeles,,,, I was mistaken. It's Los Angeles that is 500+ million in debt. The state is over 19 BILLION dollars in debt. The point remains, though. If they want to boycott Arizona...maybe Arizona should boycott L.A. and cut off the electricity they send there. Oh yeah. The water from the Colorado River too. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Boycott Mexifornia
|
|
I think you have a lot of work to do and I think you need to consider an alternative attitude - at least that may have a chance of working, while your current idea seems a bit lacking. sorry! Even New York and Texas are a dismal second and third place to CA. While that may change, given the environmental issues of the state, I doubt a boycott would be very effective. Economy Statistics > Gross State Product > Current Dollars (most recent) by state
Showing latest available data. Rank States Amount # 1 California: $1,543,835,000,000.00 # 2 New York: $899,660,000,000.00 # 3 Texas: $880,936,000,000.00 # 4 Florida: $594,525,000,000.00 # 5 Illinois: $528,904,000,000.00 # 6 Pennsylvania: $468,833,000,000.00 # 7 Ohio: $418,258,000,000.00 # 15 Indiana: $227,271,000,000.00 http://www.statemaster.com/graph/eco_gdp-gross-state-product-current-dollars Well..considering that the State of California is dead broke and 500 Million dollars+ in debt.... A boycott would, indeed, hit them right where it would hurt the most. Hey...while Cali is at it...why don't they boycott that 20% of their total electricity used that just happens to COME FROM Arizona???? I mean, if they are gonna boycott the state, then they should do it ALL THEY WAY. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2A Gains A New Enemy ...
|
|
This is what I read about a year ago. And there are more sites discussing it.
http://www.newsnet14.com/2009/01/04/ammunition-accountability-legislation/ Ammunition Accountability Legislation Remember how Obama said that he wasn’t going to take your guns? Well, it seems that his allies in the anti-gun world have no problem with taking your ammo! The bill that is being pushed in 18 states (including Illinois and Indiana) requires all ammunition to be encoded by the manufacture a data base of all ammunition sales. So they will know how much you buy and what calibers. Nobody can sell any ammunition after June 30, 2009 unless the ammunition is coded.. Any privately held uncoded ammunition must be destroyed by July 1, 2011. (Including hand loaded ammo.) They will also charge a .05 cent tax on every round so every box of ammo you buy will go up at least $2.50 or more! If they can deprive you of ammo they do not need to take your gun! Oddly enough, I have been saying for YEARS that the best way to go about " controlling " guns is to control the bullets. After all...a gun without bullets is nothing more than a fancy club. LOL I really don't think coding the ammo is all that bad an idea. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2A Gains A New Enemy ...
|
|
It's so easy to get the people who want to take our guns away to self-identify ... Really?? Would it, perchance, be ANYONE who doesn't agree with your position?? I live in an area that is big on hunting. I know of no one here ( including myself ) who thinks that taking away all guns is a good idea. I also know that, around here, it simply couldn't happen. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2A Gains A New Enemy ...
|
|
The CONSTITUTION does not list 'registration' as a REQUIREMENT or CONDITION of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Anti-gun zealots DO list 'registration' ... remember Germany in the '30s? this is, as usual , the problem with the Constitution,,,it wasnt exactly SPECIFIC about conditions or requirements and even its WORDING leaves constitutional scholars debating whether the right referred to individual citizens, militias, or state governments,,, whether it pertained to keeping and bearing on private property or in public, etc,,, perhaps an amendment is in order, but as the law stands licensing is required and if you dont have it,, you break the law, and you have no sympathy Ever think about the fact that the Constitution is a bit like the Bible?? Some people take every word of it literally. No room for interpretation. Some folks refuse to accept that it was written in a time that was very, VERY different from the time we now live in and that not all of it SHOULD be taken as " gospel " so to speak. The Constitution IS an extremely important document. But the intention behind it, in my opinion, was that it was set forth for the better good of the masses. Therefore, it has been amended many times to SUIT the times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tried a pay site for a month, once.
I got 14 messages. 13 of them were 13 of them were from Russian scammers who seemed to think that I had ' gullible loser who's totally desperate ' stamped on my forehead. Only one of the messages came from a real person who happened to live relatively close to me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow. PETA is just gonna LOVE that one...lmao
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2A Gains A New Enemy ...
Edited by
JustAGuy2112
on
Thu 05/13/10 09:42 AM
|
|
The CONSTITUTION does not list 'registration' as a REQUIREMENT or CONDITION of the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. Anti-gun zealots DO list 'registration' ... remember Germany in the '30s? Stop with the paranoia. Seriously. Handgun registration has been required for a good many years. No one has come along and tried to take away everyone's guns. Some laws are made for the good of the general population. Which is EXACTLY what our elected officials are elected FOR. There were an awful lot of instances of mentally unstable people getting hold of handguns and shooting a whole crapload of people. The registration laws ( and the waiting period involved ) were steps to make sure that mentally unstable people would be less likely to be able to buy weapons with which to kill masses of people. Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from those laws. They simply have to wait 30 days to purchase a handgun. So what? They won't be sending out the Gestapo ( to reference your Nazi Germany statements ) to collect everyone's guns any time soon. There are simply too many people in this country for that to be a feasible idea. Not to mention, if they WERE to try that, they KNOW they would face more resistance that it would be worth. They may be devious, but they are not stupid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2A Gains A New Enemy ...
|
|
Just one li'l problem here: States and municipalities do NOT supercede the U. S. Constitution. Again, you can own all the guns you want. You can own an entire warehouse full of them if you choose. Shotguns and rifles are not required ( at least where I live ) to be registered. Asking ( requiring ) handguns to be registered doesn't infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
2A Gains A New Enemy ...
Edited by
JustAGuy2112
on
Thu 05/13/10 09:28 AM
|
|
oh yes, I would much rather ANY American who wants a gun own one,,,,,,,, where the law requires a license and you have none,, Im not sympathetic either,,,,,what happened to illegal being illegal, what happened to the outrage about people crossing the border without proper documentation,,,but people having GUNS without documentation is a constitutional outrage? I dont quite get it,,, Very good question. The " black and white " answer would be that the Constitution of this country has a direct statement in it about the people of this country having the " right to keep and bear arms ". However, if a municipality or state decides that those weapons should be licensed, and makes that a law, then that is enough for me. One thing to keep in mind is that, while pistols have to be registered, shotguns and rifles ( unless they are assault rifles ) do not have to be. Requiring a license for a handgun, in my opinion, doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms. After all, you can have all the shotguns and rifles you want. They are just MUCH more difficult to conceal and carry around with you. As far as the outrage about illegals...show everyone where in the Constitution it states that they have the right to cross our borders illegally. I do agree that the laws shouldn't be selectively enforced depending on one's personal opinions on any given subject. Enforce them all equally, or enforce none of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Evening Ladies. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal
|
|
I am having difficulty finding a government site which verifies someone can receive 1500 per child in assistance,,,also verifying that undocumented immigrants are eligible for monetary or public assistance.... anyone have an actual POST with a link to verification,,not just a commentary or opinion? It's around $235/mth. per child in Missouri. But not for illegals. Uh huh. Not for illegals. Right. The anchor babies, of course, ARE covered since they are, technically, citizens. Nice try. Illegal PARENTS still get the money for children BORN here. So illegals do, indeed, collect welfare. No matter if THEY can provide documentation or not. The money is going to feed and clothe the American citizen child. Nice try to you too. If you don't like the fact that they are Americans when they are born here, do something to try to change it. Until then, those babies are Americans. Understood. I don't dispute THAT part. What I DO dispute is the repeated statement that Illegals do not get benefits when that is simply not true. Regardless of whether or not the benefits are collected on behalf of the child ( insert hand wringing and " WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???? " here ) the FACT IS that the benefits are COLLECTED BY ILLEGALS. Therefore, the statement ( repeated ad nausea by you and others here ) " Illegals don't get benefits " is nothing less than inaccurate. The Illegal parents do, indeed, receive the benefits. Facts are facts no matter how much people would like them not to be. So again, I say nice try. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal
|
|
Wow, the type gets bigger and bigger. Some people really want attention Big type sure doesn't make what is typed any more worthy of reading though. There are no illegals who make as much as legal citizens so the math is not accurate at any level. Oh wait do I need to type big for that to be understood? ILLEGALS NEVER MAKE AS MUCH AS CITIZENS DO. ILLEGALS PAY AS MUCH SALES TAX AND ALL OTHER TAXES EXCEPT INCOME TAX AS A CITIZEN DOES. ACTUALLY SINCE 47 PERCENT OF CITIZENS DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES ANYWAY THAT MAKES THE ILLEGALS EVEN WITH 47 PERCENT OF THE CITIZEN POPULATION IN INCOME TAXES AND WITH LESS INCOME. Understood now? I sure hope so. People do get tired of the misinformation, for real. I think the key part of your post is that " EXCEPT FOR FEDERAL ( AND STATE ) INCOME TAX. As soon as they shoulder AS MUCH OF THE BURDEN as every LEGAL American, people will stop complaining. The taxes you mention are, indeed, paid by Illegals. However, UNLIKE every other LEGAL American, those taxes are not IN ADDITION to the Federal Income Tax that EVERY LEGAL RESIDENT ( unless they work for cash ) is REQUIRED to pay. So...since those sales taxes and other such things are not being taken ON TOP OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY TAKES, the burden is not fair in any way shape or form. I think THAT is a big part of what the majority of the people in favor of the bill are looking at. It's not about " racism ". It's about fairness and equality. And isn't " fairness and equality " part of what the Liberals are all about? Only when it suits their agenda, and in this case it doesn't. The hypocrisy is stunning, isn't it?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal
|
|
I am having difficulty finding a government site which verifies someone can receive 1500 per child in assistance,,,also verifying that undocumented immigrants are eligible for monetary or public assistance.... anyone have an actual POST with a link to verification,,not just a commentary or opinion? It's around $235/mth. per child in Missouri. But not for illegals. Uh huh. Not for illegals. Right. The anchor babies, of course, ARE covered since they are, technically, citizens. Nice try. Illegal PARENTS still get the money for children BORN here. So illegals do, indeed, collect welfare. No matter if THEY can provide documentation or not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Joe Legal and Jose Illegal
|
|
Wow, the type gets bigger and bigger. Some people really want attention Big type sure doesn't make what is typed any more worthy of reading though. There are no illegals who make as much as legal citizens so the math is not accurate at any level. Oh wait do I need to type big for that to be understood? ILLEGALS NEVER MAKE AS MUCH AS CITIZENS DO. ILLEGALS PAY AS MUCH SALES TAX AND ALL OTHER TAXES EXCEPT INCOME TAX AS A CITIZEN DOES. ACTUALLY SINCE 47 PERCENT OF CITIZENS DO NOT PAY INCOME TAXES ANYWAY THAT MAKES THE ILLEGALS EVEN WITH 47 PERCENT OF THE CITIZEN POPULATION IN INCOME TAXES AND WITH LESS INCOME. Understood now? I sure hope so. People do get tired of the misinformation, for real. I think the key part of your post is that " EXCEPT FOR FEDERAL ( AND STATE ) INCOME TAX. As soon as they shoulder AS MUCH OF THE BURDEN as every LEGAL American, people will stop complaining. The taxes you mention are, indeed, paid by Illegals. However, UNLIKE every other LEGAL American, those taxes are not IN ADDITION to the Federal Income Tax that EVERY LEGAL RESIDENT ( unless they work for cash ) is REQUIRED to pay. So...since those sales taxes and other such things are not being taken ON TOP OF WHAT THE GOVERNMENT ALREADY TAKES, the burden is not fair in any way shape or form. I think THAT is a big part of what the majority of the people in favor of the bill are looking at. It's not about " racism ". It's about fairness and equality. And isn't " fairness and equality " part of what the Liberals are all about? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't it funny how, when a law is passed to enforce federal law...it's " racial profiling "...yet when a law is passed to STOP racial profiling ( which, no matter how they want to spin it, those classes are ) they scream to the heavens that it's wrong and racist??
Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is absolutely no comedy team that is or was even close to Abott and Costello.
THE definition of classic comedy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was gonna call you lovemonkey but I used to call someone else that (forgot who) and JT was lovebutton so can't call you that.. ect, ect.. lol LMFAO Fair enough. Damn you're quick tonight 
Not for much longer. I am gonna cruise on outta here and go watch a movie and munch on some popcorn or something. I'll see you ladies later. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was gonna call you lovemonkey but I used to call someone else that (forgot who) and JT was lovebutton so can't call you that.. ect, ect.. lol LMFAO Fair enough. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
