Leaderboard

Well, it mainly shows that elections have consequences. The opposite of the "makes no diff who's in office" sentiment. ObamaCare was passed with a duly elected majority of House and Senate supporting it. The People sent those reps and senators there, and theoretically, they did the will of their constituencies. As far as Roberts, part of his philosophy is to find a way to allow the will of the people to prevail through finding a way to allow laws coming from the Hill to constitutionally prevail if at all possible. It is very likely that had ObamaCare been passed with the "individual mandate" defined as a "tax" instead of "penalty", the SCOTUS would never have even heard it. The one thing that folks are underestimating is the Medicaid part that was thrown out: it is going to have some very decisive effects on the states and consequently back on the feds as the states react and don't or simply can not comply. At any rate, I'll say it again: ObamaCare passed under the 111th Congress. It would not have passed under the 112th. Whether the US eventually becomes a failed state under either party is an extended debate. However, in real time, elections have consequences. And though it's a different tack on the topic, the decision today may in an ironic way be quite the boon for the GOP this Nov. ObamaCare alone was certainly a big reason the GOP made historic gains in Congress in the midterm elections, so we'll see. - OS

Tad uncalled for fellow. OS and I see a lot of things differently but personal attacks are juvenile and uncalled for. Attack the argument not the person. Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I727 using Tapatalk 2

adamoxtwo I would appreciate it if you stop insulting my friends in my thread.. if you cant be civil and refrain from acting like a scolded 7 year old.. just stay out of my thread please.. Thank you

My post addresses specifically that article. I picked it apart to show that when you apply facts and reasonable assumptions the article becomes baseless speculation. I included passages from the Old Testament as I thought it relevant to put into perspective the passages from the Quran, which were used to show that Muslims must have murderous attitudes towards Jews. After that I was told "If you think the good Muslims sums up the total of them all, then your stuck in a bias and not reality." In fact, my opinion is that just because there are bad Muslims that doesn't sum up the lot of them. Then I was told this: "Maybe you should start researching past the crap you use for retorts and start looking at the proof on other side. There is a ton of proof right from the radicals mouths in their propaganda, videos, etc." Well I felt that my post showed that I did do research and put a lot of thought into my post, and it wasn't meant at all to be a "retort". In fact, I was responding to billyscott's request to prove my point; I put my money where my mouth is. Then you came along and wanted to make it personal. I was debating the issue (which was the article from the OP). I continue to stand my beliefs that the article is baseless and seeks to incite emotion rather than reason. I don't see you challenging anything from that original post; just coming here to stir the pot.

I've never said anything of the like. If you read a few posts up I clearly state the following, "Yes, Islam has radicals." Is that not clear enough for you? There is no reading between the lines there and I don't think that makes me some kind of a Muslim lover. I've had plently more jihadists try to kill me than you, I can bet the bank on that. My position is that AMERICANS have a RIGHT to practice their religion. Last I heard that was the way things are done here. I'm a patriot, so I don't give a good damn what religion someone is, so long as they are American they get to have the same rights as me. Above I clearly state facts and reasonable assumptions based on facts. There is nothing personal or misleading there.

If you have a problem with me then send me a PM. I regard you making an issue of my opinions to be personal in nature. I still hold the same belief as I did before in regards to the Zimmerman shooting, but let's not derail the thread for that. I simply ain't participating in threads where the same few people just want to stroke each other and then get offended that someone has a different opinion. Besides, I never formed my opinion on the initial "facts" as you put it. I've explained my reasons very plainly.

If people can be shot for farting, I'm going to need to get a will made up.

Okey doke. Of course I can speak faster than I type, but you get the point. First off, consider the source or this "article". It is not some objective media source. Let's break down the article paragraph by paragraph and bring in a little logic: Okay, first I'd like to point out that there are no references to support the assertion that there are only 200-300 Muslim families living in the Murfreesboro area. I mean, how would he know? Do Muslims have to register or something? Is it like Selective Service where you go to the post office and tell them you're Muslim? Or did the local government issue them little cresent moons to wear on their clothing so they are easily identified? As I recall in one of the articles I read in the past the PR rep for the ICM said they have nearly 1,000 people that attend the current mosque which is why they are currently so cramped and have decided to build a new one. Furthermore, the ICM that already exists in a Murfreesboro business park has been in the area for 30 years. I would say that it's safe to assume that they can accrue the funds over 30 years to move some place better. On to the "active members". If you visit the ICM site you will see that active members must pay a monthly dues. In return you get voting/election rights. I'm assuming that "active members" is made up of some of the more well-to-do members of the mosque as $50 is pretty steep. The 45 active members probably only account for current operating costs of the mosque, but by no means are going to represent all the donations taken in over 30 years. Do you have to register at your church when they pass the plate around? Here is something else to think about, who funds these multi-million dollar mega-churches? Does anyone ask? Does anyone care? I don't. However they raise their money is their business so long as they aren't breaking the law.... and that has never happened before at any of these super churches, right? Another thing to consider is the fact that donations have most likely surged in the past few years from around the country and the world after this became a big story. Ironic that this Islamophobic lawyer has actually done more harm than good to his cause. They only need to raise 2 million to pay off their debts on this construction. I'm surprised they haven't ALREADY reached their goals considering the massive Muslim community that exists in middle Tennessee. Or perhaps we can pretend that doesn't exist. The 1,400 years of Islamic conquest? Is Christianity the only religion allowed to spread? I know folks hate talking about things like the Crusades, but damn. You can't argue about Islamic conquest without acknowledging that the same exists in Christianity. There was once a time that Christians were nothing more than an outcast cult in the Roman Empire. Over 2,000 years it has spanned the globe and dominated the western world. So, Islam spread across the iddy-biddy middle east while Christianity got an entire hemisphere. Once again, if you're gonna start throwing stones from your soapbox you should understand that Islam is not the only religion with a murderous past. I'm still not seeing what an opinion on a religion has to do with the 1st Amendment, but hey, I'm sitting here thumbing through the Old Testament here and seeing plenty of stuff that has nothing to do with "religion". I mean, I don't know how to classify what "religion" writing is. I guess a lot of it is meant to be a historical guideline, with guidance from God throughout, but certainly not more than 20 percent. In fact, I'm looking at nearly 30 pages that describe the proper construction of the Tabernacle. But let's see if this is what is considered "religious" writing or "guidance": Deuteronomy Ch 2 26. And I sent messengers out of the wilderness of Kedemoth unto Sihon king of Heshbon with words of peace, saying, 27. Let me pass through thy land: I will go along by the high way, I will neither turn unto the right hand nor the left. 30. But Sihon king of Heshbon would not let us pass by him: for the Lord thy God hardened his spirit, and made his heart obstinate, that he might deliver him into thy hand, as appeareth this day. 31. And the Lord said unto me, Behold, I have begun to give Sihon and his land before thee: begin to possess, that thou mayest inherit his land. 32. Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33. And the Lord our God delivered hime before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34. And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain: Ch 3 3. So the Lord our God delivered into our hands Og also, the king of Bashan, and all his people: and we smote him until none was left to him remaining. 4. And we took all his cities at taht time, there was not a city which we took not from them, threescore cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og in Bashan. 5. All these cities were fenced with high walls, gates, and bars; beside unwalled towns a great many. 6. And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city. Of course, if I go back a few chapters I can find where our Lord smote tens of thousands of Jews for various offenses. So in terms of Jew-killing tally, I hardly believe that one can attack the Quran with such evidence while ignoring the entirety of the Old Testament. Well, I guess you can if you're a hypocrite. Like I've said before, I don't really care for the Islamic world for a number of reasons. I could care even less about Islam itself. What I do care is about rights as Americans. As you can see, this article contains no substance or even one fact. It is a bunch of nonsense and opinion. If you're really concerned about this Murfreesboro mosque situation, maybe do a little research that isn't soley on anti-Islamic websites. You would be surprised what you would find out. Of course, if your goal is to simply reaffirm your opinions by seeking news sources that are clearly biased towards your own beliefs, then you have no hope in reaching a conclusion with any more facts than what you can make up in your head. I prefer to diversify my information sources.

Just some good short reading if you ever wonder the origin of the Gasden Flag http://www.foundingfathers.info/stories/gadsden.html?ref=nf

i have both lee and redding dies i think lee work best in the 300 blackout

I have both the Wharncliffe and Bowie Minimalists...great little blades (with the emphasis on little) ... they are really like thick razors more than knives. Great for light utility work, desperation self defense if can get to eye/neck etc, but not long and/or robust enough for general daily utility use IMO. Would be a pain to cut down bunch of cardboard with, etc. for example. But helluva nice design, good grip in fingers. Little pinkie stabilizer braided tassel came off my Bowie in a week, doesn't have place big enough to use para cord or anything to replace, no biggie though. Good sheath, holds nicely, easy deploy; you surely don't even notice the thing, it's so light. - OS

Yeah, I guess I should give you guys a little background. I run a Youtube Channel that is averaging 275-300 views daily, and I'm starting to earn about $40 a month in ad revenue. Youtube pays out in lumps of 100$+ so I'm about to get my first dump at the end of July. I've been asking my views that they wanted to see reviewed/used so they can get a data point on it, and an EDC fixed blade is close to the top of the choices. So my budget is around $100 for a quality blade... thus looking at the ESEE 3's.... preferably in tan to match my FDE AR.

Don't try to put words in my mouth. I differentiate between minor children and adult children. We all try to raise our children with wisdom and good advice, and a little punishment when it's deserved. When they reach adulthood, we hope they've also reached maturity and learned something along the way. I don't believe in coercing adults into behavior they don't want. I don't like to see homeless people sleeping in the streets, druggies wasting away from their habits, and criminals in striped suits picking up trash along the highway, but it's all a result of the sum of choices they've made in their lives -- make good choices and good things happen -- make bad choices and bad things happen. I'm willing to leave them to their results. It's called Liberty.

Would you let your kids do meth because they need to learn from the experience? Sorry ..but I would not stand by and let my kid get hooked on meth and say "well here ya go.. go and try to figure this out on your own" What kind of parent does that?

If you all think everything will be alright in November just as long as Romney is elected....well, I feel sorry for you. I'll wear my big pants the day Romney is successful in getting this law repealed, so monkeys can fly out of my butt! ROMNEY INVENTED OBAMACARE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The only difference between the muslim extremists and christian nuts is the fact that the stupid christians [much to the embarrassment of Jesus Christ] are nothing but cowardly couch commandos to fat and lazy to run anything but their mouth. The belief in a deity should give one a sense of security and peace but you will not find a group of people any more afraid and insecure than those who are deeply religious. Note I said religious. I point that out because religion and God often times have NOTHING to do with one another.

Right cause we all know that'll stop them from doing it. If it wasn't prohibited, think of all records the ATF would have..oh wait

I'm heartbroken to see the old girl go. RIP, United States of America. 235 years, not a bad run. You started with huge energy and potential, peaked well into middle age, and spent about the last 60 years in decline. From here on out it is life support until someone gets tired of paying the bill.

But I don't agree with this. Bush had a few minor problems, nothing like what ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC have pounded into your head over an 8 year period. I'll take a Bush Presidency and a Bush economy for the next 1,000 years over what we have now. This is Obama's economy, deficit, national debt and unemployment btw, just so your clear on that.

Truely sad day for sure. The Supreme Court should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Obama campaigned for the healthcare bill saying over and over again that it wasn't a tax then the SC upholds it as a tax. We'll which one is it? I'll vote for freakin Kermit the Frog in November before I vote for a man who has lied and lied about everything he campaigned on, drove up our debt, decided executive orders are greater than the constitution, ect. ect. ect. Either way allowing the goverment to require you to buy something soley on the basis that you exist on this planet is the beginning of a dangerous relationship between it and the citizens. The "what's next" argument is the scary one. We'll they can push and push but eventually the people will push back and we'll see how things go then. Fortunately I don't think that day is too far away.

Well... this sort of makes all those people who have been saying that both parties are pretty much the same seem pretty smart. Unfortunately, I haven't been one of them. I guess it is all up to Romney now and the overturning of the Senate if there is any hope of repealing this horrid piece of legislation. I won't hold my breath on that one. So basically, we're screwed. Pitchforks anyone?

I like that. At least for high offices and term limits on Supreme Court. Life time appointments should be a thing of the past.

I think anyone running for any office should have to step down for any current political office. You can't do your job effectivly if you are running around campaigning. Bob Dole is the only one I ever saw do this.

You're damned right they can....along with any other aspect of your life they decide to interfere with. I can think of basically nothing that can't be linked to one's health. This is the beginning of a never ending power grab that has nothing to do with healthcare except for the decptive name.

It's kinda mute now but, the bill was not passed as a tax IIRC. By the Constitution the SCOTUS can not create a tax. I guess I'd have to read deeper, but I'd say the SCOTUS acted unconstitutionally by declaring a tax.

I hear Mac(OhShoot) and others say the main reason to get Obama out of office is to stop him from appointing more liberals to the S.C. Obviously it doesn't matter as Roberts just screwed us.

This guy has found himself on the wrong end of the law 3 times in as many years. That is either real bad luck or he is a troublemaker. I'm not saying it justifies a beating, but we don't know what led up to it. It doesn't seem like normal behavior for law enforcement to just randomly beat up people, so I'm left to ponder the thought "what did he do to get himself in this situation." To me it is illogical to think that these cops spontaneously decided to lump a guy up. I'm not saying its impossible, but illogical. The article doesn't give us the full story, that is for sure. We won't have the officers' side of it until the internal investigation is complete.

I'd also like to make something perfectly clear. I have two good friends who are LEOs - neither of them would ever overstep their authority or let their personal biases influence how they carry out their duties, because they are professionals. They enforce the law, not use their authority to punish anyone who doesn't bend to their will. Neither would they tolerate one of their own abusing his or her authority. LEOs who go beyond enforcing the law and resort to physical violence when it is not justified are overstepping their bounds and, by doing so, become thugs with badges and guns. I don't see how you can call them anything else. No one is deserving of a beating just because they may have had a previous brush with the law. What they might have done in the past has no bearing on the present encounter, especially if they have no criminal record. I'm wondering if some folks' definition of "run-in" consists of refusing to allow an LEO or any other public servant to take advantage of or blatantly trample one's constitutional rights.

Maybe he was, I don't know for sure. Let me ask you again - what crime did he commit according to the article? No conjecture, or postulating, just facts as we know them at this time, please.

Smart man. Must be screwed up To live a life where you think that the sky is falling everyday. Some of the post in news worthy are becoming more amusing everyday.

Dennis, I recently bought an All American, I think I got the 921. A friend actually suggested the 930 but I decided to save a bit and go one smaller. Jury is still out. The taller one makes it easier to double stack. With a pressure canner you don't technically have to keep a pot of boiling water going for the jars and lids. I still sterilize them but you don't have to. I also have friends that use the sanitize cycle on the dishwasher and then hold them hot. Cuts down on the stovetop real estate quite a bit. I make smoked salsa. Freezing it left the tomatoes mushy. Canning it leaves it nice and fresh... And who knew pickled garlic was so yummy. I had a bunch of garlic that I was afraid was going to go bad. I wondered if I could can it. Out came my trusty ball canning book and I was off to the races... Mark

Spice? Really? I didn't know Han was making runs from Kessel to Earth.

Here is something, a Sitting President should not have to run for re-election. I mean sure they can have their debates, but everyone knows who he is, what he does. They don't need Millions and Millions of dollars to run for what they already have. Here is my promise, if I ever end up being president. I promise my second term I would not do any thing that required fund raising. I would debate, I would make the normal speeches from the White House and nothing more.

I don't think anyone's offended, it's just this is a black-and-white issue - either rights are inalienable or they aren't. If you start deciding who has 'God-given rights' and who doesn't, then they aren't bestowed by our creator at all, they're simply privileges or allowances granted us by our government. It's really that simple. I believe certain rights are inalienable - they are bestowed upon us as humans. You feel they are granted by our government.

No way in **** should people, who are here ILLEGALY, be afforded the same rights as those who chose the right path!!!

What else can you infer from it given the information that is there? What crime did he commit?

FTFY. Personally, I admire somebody that can muster up a good enough fart to make a man reach for his gun. I've lived on a pretty steady diet of soul food when I was working in Memphis, but never got that good at it.

http://www.usflag.org/uscode36.html

So, having past "run-ins" with the police justify a beating? Nowhere in the article does it say he was intoxicated or was there any evidence that he had imbibed, but "assume" all you like.

Man you have a high opinion of your "arguments"! I questioned your premise and now we are at a pity party. Facts are one thing, broad generalized assertions based on ones personal observations lead here. The only way to debate a personal observation is to address the person who is the stated observer. It's only personal because your arguments are personal. Just because I disagree with your premise does not make it personal, but that's where you framed it so thats where it went.

You're right. I guess I thought the forum guidelines were for well thought out responses in the spirit of debate. I see that if your comments are well thought out and relevant to the topic it is only okay if you agree with the majority. I guess it's time for me to leave.

As much as I despise the Islamic "faith" because of its clear vendetta on "infidels", there are no exclusions from 1st Amendment protections for anyone who practices a religion that is bellicose in nature and generally anti-American. It is fact that sharia law has already taken hold in some European countries, usurping the existing laws. Look at what's happening in Minnesota for a taste of what could happen to the entire country in a matter of years. They are proving that their religious laws trump commerce regardless of any economic impact. This is exactly why Arab countries are still underdeveloped and why they hate the free market system, subsequently the American way of life, which is built on capitalism. Maybe it's time for an amendment to the Constitution regarding Islam because of the serious and real threat it poses to the American way of life.

I know exactly what I said and I meant it and continue to stand by it. My question is why are you bringing it up? Here I am making well thought out points that involved research and life experience, and here you come along and want to make a smart a$$ statement about something in another thread. To me that is personal. So, if you have something to say PM me instead of starting a personal pissing contest just because you happen to disagree with me. Understand?

No need. You made public definitive statements, I just asked the question. I don't know you personally, I'm a only discussing what you have said. "A man is known by the words he leaves behind."

Really? Can't think of ANY situation where having a knife located on your belt that does not have to be opened is useful? Really? ANY situation where you need a knife QUICKLY. ANY situation where you only have 1 hand available to access the knife ANY situation where you only have your non dominant hand available to access the knife. A centerline carried small fixed blade is EXPONENTIALLY easier to access in a hurry than ANY folding knife. Whether we are needing it NOW to cut a seat belt or needing it NOW to cut our way out of a 2 on 1 clinch, the the small fixed blade carried on the belt in front of the body is going to be easier to access with either hand and make functional (since it does not have to be opened) than ANY folder carried in a pocket.

Holder and Bloomberg puppets don't seem to have any problem doing business out of their states of residence..

^^^^ Apparently if you cooperate with the police you are fundamentally opposed to the 4th Amendment. That is like saying someone is opposed to the 1st Amendment because they're not constantly speaking their mind in public. Perhaps some people prefer to be quiet. Perhaps some people prefer to be cordial with LEOs. God help us; folks like me will be the end of all our Constitutional rights..... I hear the FEMA choppers coming for me now!!!

Don't underestimate the ability of the Republican party to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.

That's where I am concerned. Do I have to be beaten into unconsciousness or so badly that I can't even pull a weapon without it easily being taken away from me before I can claim "fear of serious bodily injury or death" ?

Sounds like the HCP holder pulled over to get in a fight and then shot an unarmed man. Who then took his gun away from him and killed him with his own gun. Am I reading that right?