Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: When The Big Lie Runs Out Of Gas 110

Journal by smittyoneeach

White House spokesman Josh Earnest was asked several questions about gun control during his press briefing today. Breitbart summarizes his responses, which were more of the same: endless references to "common sense" reforms which are never specified. Earnest wants to keep firearms out of the hands of "criminals and others who shouldn't have them"; so do we all, but how?
To state the blindingly obvious, mass murder is, and always has been, illegal. All mass shooters violate any number of laws, including, by definition, laws relating to firearms. The burden is on anyone who proposes adding new laws to the many that already exist to show why they would be any more effective than the laws already in place.

It may be the case that Earnest is in earnest and not lying per se. But gun control is part of the overall Lefty platform of collapse. What non-gibbering idiot remains who believes this noise?
Should America survive the current Commie infestation and recover (which I think likely, as an affirmed optimist), such an exceptional recovery shall have been partially predicated upon rejecting just this sort of dedication to failure.
It's not as though people who're paying attention don't know precisely why #OccupyResoluteDesk is flogging this particular dead horse.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When The Big Lie Runs Out Of Gas More

When The Big Lie Runs Out Of Gas

Comments Filter:

  • The burden is on anyone who proposes adding new laws to the many that already exist to show why they would be any more effective than the laws already in place.

    By that logic, we can then say that leaving the laws alone is guaranteed recipe for failure as they are not working. For that matter, by that logic our country - "The Great Experiment" - should have never started as there was no precedent for a democracy of this size and style to have ever worked for long.

    Even if we set aside the failures of your "logic", the reality is that the most common reform suggestion is to require meaningful background checks for all gun purchases. No person with the ability

    • Wait, are you accidentally agreeing that less regulation might be better?

      For that matter, by that logic our country - "The Great Experiment" - should have never started as there was no precedent for a democracy of this size and style to have ever worked for long.

      It's really been The Great Hijacking, over the last century, by many measures. [shadowstats.com]
      Maybe, as with so many experiments, it's time to admit that the current crop of nitwits [pjmedia.com] are just false and need to be ignored. We need a Convention of States, and a more Federalist course, in my opinion.

      • Wait, are you accidentally agreeing that less regulation might be better?

        I'd love to know how you came up with that from what I wrote. I'm asking, but not holding my breath for you to answer.

        For that matter, by that logic our country - "The Great Experiment" - should have never started as there was no precedent for a democracy of this size and style to have ever worked for long.

        It's really been The Great Hijacking, over the last century, by many measures.

        You can keep harping on the 17th amendment all you want right now. I'll bet in a few more years, when more governors' mansions are turned blue, you'll be trying to backtrack on it.

        We need a Convention of States, and a more Federalist course,

        There are more "federalist" countries out there, you know. Why does the rest of the country need to be subjected to your "federalist" fantasy against their will? You have previously advocated for other peopl

        • You can keep harping on the 17th amendment all you want right now.

          And you can continue the partial analysis and wonder at the lack of improvement.

          There are more "federalist" countries out there, you know. Why does the rest of the country need to be subjected to your "federalist" fantasy against their will?

          Hahahahahahahahaha! You seem to fancy the hijacking, the slow collapse into autocracy we've seen over the last century. But it's not viewed as legitimate.

          • You can keep harping on the 17th amendment all you want right now.

            And you can continue the partial analysis and wonder at the lack of improvement.

            I see the 17th amendment itself to be an improvement. You happen to dislike it because you see its repeal as an opportunity to get rid of some of the elected senators that you don't like.

            There are more "federalist" countries out there, you know. Why does the rest of the country need to be subjected to your "federalist" fantasy against their will?

            the slow collapse into autocracy we've seen over the last century.

            Funny how you didn't mind it when your guy was in office. Now there is a different guy on office - and nothing changed - but you can't stand it.

      • We need a Convention of States, and a more Federalist course, in my opinion.

        Pre or post civil war? I can't remember which time frame you wish to regress to... and with the current high level of general antipathy and fear present in your *primitive and paranoid culture*, a "convention of states" doesn't sound like a very good idea right now.

        • Pre or post civil war?

          You actually think the contemporary human wreckage of our youth capable of sustaining a civil war? I guess if it's run as a social media app on smart phones, it could have some legs.

          a "convention of states" doesn't sound like a very good idea right now

          I should think that the godless Commie sodomite infestation should *jump* at the chance to codify gay marriage, pederasty, bestiality, abortion, the entitlement plantation, anthropogenic global variable weather alteration, affirmative racism action, and every other wretched anti-intellectual bit of cognitive dissonance with whic

          • You're revealing your bigotry again. Just another troll I assume. Anyway, the bill of rights and various other important amendments like the 14th and all the other civil rights gains will be put to risk to institute your "christian" sharia law that you people want.

            cognitive dissonance with which it has bathed this country these last decades.

            Thank your Ronnie Reagan for that. That administration and your continued support defines it.

            • Sweet, sweet 'B' word. Oh, and you're stroking your Reagan fetish, too. #Derp

              • #Derp

                :-) Yep, sure is! Opposition to equal rights is bigotry. Are you a bigot, or just trolling?

                • You've so worn out the term that you might as well call me a raaaaacist, too, for all the difference it makes.

                  • Depends where you apply the bigotry. If this were the 40s or 50s you would be on the same bandwagon against interracial marriage too, just because that what your friends would be doing, and racism was cool and popular back then, so naturally you are going to follow along, exactly like you do now. And then there's your ongoing denial that racism is still widespread. You are just unaware of the bugs under your feet. And your cries of "demographic cratering" when the vote doesn't go your way. I see that fear w

                    • If this were the 40s or 50s you would be on the same bandwagon against interracial marriage too

                      Please insert your bogus counterfactual in your orifice of choice. You soil yourself with such.

                      And then there's your ongoing denial that racism is still widespread.

                      I have never denied that Affirmative Action is widespread and, in coordination with the media, fanning the flames of racism.
                      You should come to my totally rainbow church and disabuse yourself of some of your own wrongheadedness.

                    • :-) There ya go! It's true! Your reaction confirms it, thankyouverymuch. What you are doing now with the gays and women is no different from those same events in the past, without the fire hoses and police dogs though. Everything you say here is identical to what was said then. You claim they're not for real, unworthy of the same rights and privileges as everyone else. You're just a regular guy enjoying and more recently fearing for his overwhelming demographic supremacy. And your little rant against affirm

                    • My reaction is a straight up, accurate representation of reality. Your gyrations continue to be of scientific interest at best.

                      You're just a regular guy enjoying and more recently fearing for his overwhelming demographic supremacy.

                      Working hard, trying to find a shred of validity to your godless Commie sodomite droolings, one enjoys a tacit genomic supremacy. Homo sapiens enjoys a pride of place amidst the animals. Can't seriously argue there. But the laughable "overwhelming demographic supremacy" hogwash--are you trolling, projecting, simple, or what? If one understands the meaning of Christ crucified, your O

                    • My reaction is a straight up, accurate representation of reality.

                      Yes! The reality of your denials... Precisely what I said.

                      Commie sodomite droolings...

                      :-) Love it when you derp and troll, such style!

                    • Objective truth is a derp-free zone. Possibly explaining your absence.

                    • "Objective" requires evidence. You have none...

                    • This is the part where I feed you your "open your eyes" shtick. '-)

                    • This is the part where I feed you the "lay off the koolaid" schtick. You are merely superstitious.

                    • Well, I'm not the one who labeled your shtick "the koolaid", but I will allow it's appropriate.

  • Firearms must be inconvenient to keep them out of the hands of those that shouldn't have them.

    Few people needs pistols and revolvers. They are usually only needed for law enforcement.

    Hunting weapons rarely need more than a few rounds. You are a bad hunter if you can't bring down your prey on the first shot, additional shots shall be enough to finish the prey in case something went wrong with the first shot. If you need more than 4 shots for a single prey you should sell your gun and take up some other hobby

    • Not sure what anything you've said has to do with the basics of liberty, the right of self-defense, and the general understanding that people pushing gun control tend to be false.

    • Few people needs pistols and revolvers.

      Few people need you. Therefore by that same logic you should be banned.

      You don't need a house. You could live in a tent. Therefore hand over your house to me.

      I can always spot Leftie-concocted "arguments" by their off-the-charts asininity.

      • It's not the "asininity" of the arguments, it's the wretched empirical results that give me pause.

  • We're great at having laws that punish criminal gun use. We're somewhat ok at criminal background checks. We suck at mental illness background checks, and we suck at keeping guns we own away from the mentally ill.

    • You know, if we are to carry on with this 'mental illness' angle when a white guy does this, then we will have to admit that everybody is mentally ill.

      • What do you mean when a white guy does it?

        Adam Lanza was white. Most of the mass shooters in my lifetime have been white.

        What is unusual is a black man doing it.

        • It's the only time 'mental illness' is brought up. Non-white shooters are 'terrorists and thugs'. White boys are given an excuse...

          • Chris Mercer was nonwhite. So was Seung-Hoi Cho. Both were obviously mentally ill; in fact Cho was on antidepressants.

            • Grr...Seung-Hui Cho.. fat fingered that one. Virginia Tech shooting.

            • The antidepressants are what make them ill. I'm surprised the damn things are still legal... And also, I don't consider murderers of any kind particularly 'sane', just differently motivated.

              • The antidepressants is what made them suicidal and violent. The reason they took the antidepressants to begin with was mental illness.

                • There are no chemical cures for spiritual woes.

                  • Exactly. And America, land of the "free", is very, very, very good at creating spiritual woes

                    • All spiritual woes have the same source (Satan) and the same cure (Christ). Let's have compassion for the victim, while also encouraging repentance.

                    • As long as we still encourage repentance. Far too often in America, we'd rather celebrate the sin. But not apparently, as much as Germany. Or Bulgaria.

                • There's a lot of hypochondria and even more misdiagnosis surrounding mental illness. Antidepressants are being pushed like heroin. They are dangerous drugs. But they are profitable. Most mental illness can be traced to physical and environmental causes, in other words, it too, is a symptom.

                  • Well, I can't see making it illegal to pop properly prescribed pills any more than, say, making it illegal to be gay, and for the same reason: government isn't God, and making something illegal only (a) glamorizes it, and (b) empowers greater federal government overreach.
                    In the same breath, I wouldn't go jacking around with my body chemistry until all diet (including fasting), exercise, and prayer had failed. And I'd encourage others to be sparing in that regard, too. Wait: does that kind of heavy-handedne

                    • I don't get it. A terminally ill patient can't get prescribed heroin for pain relief, something which is truly and proven effective. So why is this crap any better? It's fucking snake oil. And since you brought it up, why aren't you speaking up against prohibition with the same gusto you use on Obamacare and Benghazi? Prohibition has killed a lot more than four Americans, and is indeed very racist in its implementation and enforcement, and from you, not a peep. Go figure.

                    • why aren't you speaking up against prohibition with the same gusto you use on Obamacare and Benghazi

                      Given finite resources, strangely, I prioritize my concerns in a subjective way? I mean, can we get you to run for office, so you can set the agenda more effectively, if you're so driven?

                    • Given finite resources, strangely, I prioritize my concerns in a subjective way?

                      You do claim to be pro-life, right? Obviously your stated priorities here belie that notion. Sorry, you're only serving your cultural superstitions that you grew up with. It's purely an effort in distraction from real issues, like medicare for all, and recovering the stolen pensions and property that remains unprosecuted.

                    • You do claim to be pro-life, right? Obviously your stated priorities here belie that notion.

                      Wow, you get the non-sequitur of the day here. Let's differentiate between
                      (a) advocating the obviousness of life starting when one's information is complete (it's an uber-#Derp to say otherwise, but you seem enamored of such) and
                      (b) insisting, as a policy matter, that my tax dollars not fund something I find morally equivalent to the Holocaust.
                      I'm guessing you may be trying to go for some hypocrisy play here, as though one cannot hold position (a) while halting at (b) and striving to improve the situatio

                    • The bible says, with breath comes life. And besides that, you simply have absolutely no standing on women's medical issues and decisions. If you want to reduce abortions, increase the education and available medical care. Treat sex as a healthy activity. Keep your superstitions out of it. They are a principle reason there are so many abortions.

                    • Do you mean to quote Genesis 2:7 [blueletterbible.org]? Are we all dead, then if God hasn't given us mouth-to-nose on a personal basis?
                      I'm the first to agree that, while the Bible is truth, that truth has an interpretation spectrum ranging from literal to figurative. The exegetical task is to (prayerfully) take the Bible as a whole, and not just run around proof-texting. Perhaps you prefer Psalm 139 [blueletterbible.org]?:

                      13. For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.
                      14. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

                      The abortion conversation is really about whether you respect humanity in both the unborn and adult phases. Men have no business (

                    • No, the entire abortion debate is about your desire to control and subjugate women. Your religion is merely the hammer. And the massive hypocrisy sends mixed messages to say the least. You have no trouble killing pregnant women in your wars, so please, save it. Rationalizing murder is your department. If men could get pregnant, you wouldn't hear a damn thing about it. And the people preaching the loudest against it are sending their daughters off to have the procedure done secretly. I could almost take you

                    • No, the entire abortion debate is about your desire to control and subjugate women.

                      I don't even subjugate my wife, much less women beyond my own roof. If your task is to keep me laughing, you're winning #BigTime.

                      It is the birthday that people celebrate.

                      So you're not alive, not even human, prior to then? I remain fascinated the desperate mental gymnastic routines of those fiendishly trying to justify murder.

                    • Not gonna stop until at least that particular evil stands fully exposed.
                    • I did?
                    • The glory of the "continuously, and subconsciously" pap is the sheer tautology of it all. After growing up and watching enough news to grasp that all such talk is pretty much meant for psychological manipulation, or a "stroking of the flesh" in more Biblical terms, at least it took on some humor value.
                    • Your response leads me to the conclusion that you probably never really understood who Christ is. The Gospel of John is arguably the optimal route to enlightenment. Because the Gospel completely, utterly contradicts and rejects your

                      A tool for crowd control.

                      The crowd control people were the Herod/Roman/Sanhedrin axis, not the diety personified whom they crucified. I encourage you to see past your cynicism and go for the existential truth here.

                    • And the opposing, cortex-energize response is. . .
                      Oh, right. Sitting there at the corner of Dada and Derp.
                    • I have never had the gift for golf.

                  • Yes, but a symptom that is comorbid enough with mass random shootings that I believe a medical records and prescriptions check should be a basic part of buying a gun from a licensed dealer.

                    You will still get idiots like Adam Lanza though, who obtain their weapons from family members. But maybe you'll at least notice the occasional guy living alone who tries to buy a gun legally, before he obtains one illegally, and goes to Forest Park in Portland, OR to take pot shots with a sniper rifle at Big Pink.

                    • Yes, but a symptom that is comorbid enough with mass random shootings...

                      That is just not so [washington.edu] sir. It is a convenient scapegoat, no different than Mr. Smith scapegoating the poor for the national 'debt'. The most common cause of these mass shootings, by far, is plain old hatred. And the shootings really aren't 'random', other than the stray bullet missing its intended target.

                    • Your article failed to address side effects from antidepressant medication, which is the *specific* co-morbidity. Yes, general mental illness does not necessarily create violence, but it is specifically listed in the potential side effects of drugs like Zoloft and Lithium.

                      Suicide is also a danger with these drugs (which makes me think anti-depressants are rather, well, misnamed).

                      Suicide by cop even more so. And for that you need, gasp, potential or real random victims.

                    • Your article failed to address side effects from antidepressant medication...

                      Yeah, and [slashdot.org]?

      • Wait, I thought he was a white supremacist [latimes.com]. As long as we're peddling propaganda, let's get it wrong, please.

  • *Anything* can be used as a weapon.

    We don't ban cars for having more deaths then guns.

    People who use guns to injure / kill another human obviously have no respect for others. Fix the *cause* instead of treating the symptom and the problem will change.

    • ...and the problem will change.

      A thought: "and the problem will change" implies that "the problem", or maybe, the results, will just "change" location. Or more colloquially, "move somewhere else".

      Not trying to be obtuse, just a bit far into the nearest bottle...

      As an aside

      People who use guns to injure / kill another human obviously have no respect for others.

      I won't use my gun to kill you, as long as you don't break into my house (obviously, at this point I no longer have any respect for you). Or try to carjack me (ditto). I know it is not simple, but sometimes it is.

  • Should get lots of response. Let's see if you can break 200 posts....

    • This is a troll post in the context of the Great Troll Administration. What fault are you finding, exactly?

      • What fault are you finding, exactly?

        Only your assertion that things are different from previous administrations. d_r has you pegged on that one also. You're just babbling the same crap about this one as your favorite pundits do. You hopped on a bandwagon, that's all. Plain old trolling, keeping the distractions on the front page.

        • I think there are substantial differences of degree, though not kind. Note, for example that Bush wanted to do *something* to un-jack Social Security, and was destroyed for the trouble. Did the same level of willingness to heed the will of the people apply in the case of the Affordable Care Act? Why, no: no, it did not.

          I understand the need to make "them all the same" as a means of short-circuiting actual analysis, and I don't expect you to awake and engage in such. But intellectual integrity demands one p

          • Note, for example that Bush wanted to do *something* to un-jack Social Security, and was destroyed for the trouble

            Really? Destroyed in what way? He was still "re-elected" in 2004, and you're here singing his praises. I could only be so lucky as to be "destroyed" in such a way at my own job.

            Did the same level of willingness to heed the will of the people apply in the case of the Affordable Care Act?

            You already showed with your own links that indeed the mandate was not only what your candidates wanted, but also what the Heritage Foundation wanted as well. Every "alternative" proposed so far by anyone with the ability to propose such a thing to congress has been the same bill with a different last name on it.

            intellectual integrity demands one put it out there.

            You might want

            • Note, for example that Bush wanted to do *something* to un-jack Social Security, and was destroyed for the trouble

              Really? Destroyed in what way? He was still "re-elected" in 2004, and you're here singing his praises. I could only be so lucky as to be "destroyed" in such a way at my own job.

              Allow me to be sporting and just put this here [brookings.edu].

              Did the same level of willingness to heed the will of the people apply in the case of the Affordable Care Act?

              You already showed with your own links that indeed the mandate was not only what your candidates wanted, but also what the Heritage Foundation wanted as well. Every "alternative" proposed so far by anyone with the ability to propose such a thing to congress has been the same bill with a different last name on it.

              Now *there* is a lie you just can't seem to dislodge from your throat [prospect.org].

              intellectual integrity demands one put it out there.

              You might want to try finding and applying some of that yourself.

              One does far more than "try" in that regard. But you know that, too. ;-)

              • Note, for example that Bush wanted to do *something* to un-jack Social Security, and was destroyed for the trouble

                Really? Destroyed in what way? He was still "re-elected" in 2004, and you're here singing his praises. I could only be so lucky as to be "destroyed" in such a way at my own job.

                Allow me to be sporting and just put this here.

                So I had the time line slightly off, but the rest remains.

                You already showed with your own links that indeed the mandate was not only what your candidates wanted, but also what the Heritage Foundation wanted as well. Every "alternative" proposed so far by anyone with the ability to propose such a thing to congress has been the same bill with a different last name on it.

                Now *there* is a lie

                You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed. You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill with someone else's name on it. You are lying when you accuse me of lying.

                intellectual integrity demands one put it out there.

                You might want to try finding and applying some of that yourself.

                One does far more than "try" in that regard.

                I have seen nothing from you lately that resembles even "try". Now granted, "try" rh

                • So I had the time line slightly off

                  In fairness, your argument is only as bollocky as the rest of your arguments, so, sure.

                  You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed.

                  Wait: what, specifically, am I lying about? You say "your candidates" as though it were meaningful. I guess it is, if you're building another of your Towers of Babel of something. It's as though you may get the same sexual release from the word "lying" that the blow-dried nitwits in the newsroom seem to get out of saying "lockdown".

                  You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill

                  Can you please be specific about what piece of legislation you're talking about? As long as

                  • You are trying to lie about what you yourself have written about before. Don't be ridiculous. Your own JE some time ago linked to the Heritage Foundation saying that a mandate would be needed.

                    Wait: what, specifically, am I lying about?

                    One of your lies is laid out in the very section you just quoted. Try reading before replying.

                    You say "your candidates" as though it were meaningful.

                    More than one candidate and/or politician you have praised has proposed replacing HIIBA with HIIBA.

                    You have repeatedly shown admiration for proposed "alternatives" that are the same damned bill

                    Can you please be specific about what piece of legislation you're talking about? As long as I am "lying" about something, it would be kinda helpful to know what it is.

                    Go back through your own comments and show any "alternative" that you have praised that has actually been proposed by a politician or political candidate. Seriously, any of them. They are all interchangeable and they are all >>90% the same as HIIBA.

                    • Sorry, what is "HIIBA"?

                    • Sorry, what is "HIIBA"?

                      Same thing it's been for about 5 years - Health Insurance Industry Bailout Act [wikipedia.org]. I've used it more regularly and consistently - and with more support of others - than you and the silly hashtag you like to use to describe one of your favorite conspiracies about President Lawnchair.

                      To get back to the point, you keep lying when you claim that your favorite congressional critters are proposing HIIBA replacements that somehow significantly differ from HIIBA. You are also lying when you claim that the manda

                    • To get back to the point, you keep lying when you claim that your favorite congressional critters are proposing HIIBA replacements that somehow significantly differ from HIIBA.

                      Serious question: how do you argue one can "keep lying" when you haven't even defined "somehow significantly differ"?
                      To the extent that this is all politics, and it's really all one Progressive Party with Demmican and Republocrat wings, there is some basis to reject the noise and call for actual Federalist reform, stripping power from Leviathan.
                      As I have argued, and you seem to crave pretending it's all a 17th Amendment quibble.
                      I speculate that the need to say other people are "lying" is an effort to sti

                    • you haven't even defined "somehow significantly differ"?

                      It's pretty simple. A bill significantly differs if the policy - and not just the name - is substantially different. HIIBA is the bill that the conservatives and the Heritage Foundation wanted. It also ensures that the insurance industry will remain strong for a long time to come. It doesn't involve the government in the administration or practice of health care any more so than the pre-HIIBA situation did.

                      Yet everything that has been proposed by any of your elected or campaigning politi-critters t

                    • HIIBA is the bill that the conservatives and the Heritage Foundation wanted.

                      Trivially disproven by the manner of passage. You're gonna need a bigger pile o' hooey.

                    • HIIBA is the bill that the conservatives and the Heritage Foundation wanted.

                      Trivially disproven by the manner of passage.

                      We've covered this before [slashdot.org], I don't know why you are lying about it now. The facts are plainly displayed and they support my statement. The fact that conservatives keep trying to replace HIIBA with HIIBA further supports the existing facts.

                    • Here it is: Heritage, and any policy ideas it may have historically floated, has scant relationship to the river of lies that has been ObamaCare passed as legislation, turned into regulations by the executive, subsequently altered by the executive [galen.org], free-styled by the Roberts court, and rammed up the public backside.
                      Heritage and ObamaCare are as logically related by the fact that both employ the Roman alphabet as anything else.
                      It is certainly your right to accuse me of "lying" when, other than acknowledgin
                    • I can't force you to read what Heritage Foundation members speaking on behalf of Heritage have written any more than I can force you to read anything else. However if you choose to ignore the simple facts I do then have the right to point out that you are lying to claim that they say something other than what they say.

              • the plans are different not in degree but in kind.

                It is exactly the opposite. It could be said that ACA is slightly less corrupt, but only slightly, being that there is no real opposition amongst any of these people, democrat, republican, Soros, and Adelson, all the same shit.

                And we all thank dog that Social Security wasn't just handed off to Wall Street to be sent overseas in a tax dodge the way your idol wanted, confirming again that you worship these people and you are blinded by it. It would actually b

                • And we all thank dog that Social Security wasn't just handed off to Wall Street

                  There are those who'd prefer just to walk away. You know it's a scam when you can't, no?

                  • Your desires are very unchristian. To "walk away", you are more than welcome to shed your citizenship if it is such a heavy burden. Don't let the door hit ya...

                    • Your desires are very unchristian.

                      I'm deeply fascinating as to how you would broad-jump to this completely novel conclusion. Please. By all means. Do share the development of your thought in arriving at this conclusion. As a life-long student of the Bible, I crave the enlightenment that must surely follow.

                      To "walk away", you are more than welcome to shed your citizenship if it is such a heavy burden.

                      So, might one say you're somewhat in favor of obviating a Convention of States [conventionofstates.com] to allow a peaceful harmonization of all the disparate political expressions of our day?

Slashdot Top Deals

An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.

Close