Chucktshoes

I'm gonna jump in here and say as someone who has taken a dick and can also take a joke, I thought post #147 was funny. Even when I used to date men I thought leather daddies were funny. Now that I am married to a woman, I still do.

Ha! I can tell you are still kinda new around here. At least every couple of months we have a thread about the gays that goes long and strong and just when you think it has petered out it rises again for another round of flogging.

The deer poaching comment was a lighthearted attempt to translate the concept using a metaphor I thought would be relatable to you. I think any game warden would call boy driving just as guilty of poaching as the boy who did the shooting. Right? If one has a religious objection to homosexuality/gay marriage then to facilitate that would make one guilty as well. Here is different example. I have a friend of mine that works at another location of the same pharmacy chain I do. He is devoutly Catholic and the Church's teaching is that the use birth control is a sin. He does not handle BC pills and especially avoids the morning after pills because to facilitate someone else using them and committing a sin, he would be guilty of the sin of "scandal". (This is how it was explained to me by my friend, if any Catholics on the board are able to offer correction to something I have wrong, please do so. ) As far as the baker being part of what's wrong with the country I would counter that some folks inability to let others live life as they choose without demanding that everyone act and think like they do is a far more problematic issue. Really, how hard is it to go, "Oh, you don't want to bake us a cake, photograph our ceremony or rent us your facility*? Ok. We will take our money elsewhere." *All items that private individuals and in the last example, a church were sued over for declining to provide service to a gay wedding.

If you support or facilitate someone else engaging in an action that you view to be wrong or sinful, do you not bear culpability for your level of participation? It is the same concept as being an accessory to a crime. "Well warden, I didn't poach that deer, my buddy did. I just drove the truck."

This. This. A thousand times this. I don't support the baker's refusal of service. What I do support is his right to make that refusal.

To paraphrase and old saying, "You are what you carry". Considering the number of times I have been called a tool, I guess that means mine are all tools. It could be worse, I could be carrying a queen... :leaving:

Yep. For Ft. Campbell the border doesn't exist. At the gunship I work at we have sold handguns to soldiers stationed at Ft. Campbell. If we can sell a handgun to them, you can buy one from them. Those orders qualify for residency.

Ft. Campbell is located in both states and soldiers stationed at Ft, Campbell can buy/sell in both states at any FFL as long as they can show a copy of their orders. There are no legal worries.

There are kindle readers available for smartphones or PCs and Macs.

There is a sale on Amazon for the kindle version of Andrew Napolitano's Theodore and Woodrow: How Two American Presidents Destroyed Constitutional Freedom for only $1.99. This is good for today, Sunday 12/8 only. “Either the Constitution means what it says, or it doesn’t.” America’s founding fathers saw freedom as a part of our nature to be protected—not to be usurped by the federal government—and so enshrined separation of powers and guarantees of freedom in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But a little over a hundred years after America’s founding, those God-given rights were laid siege by two presidents caring more about the advancement of progressive, redistributionist ideology than the principles on which America was founded. Theodore and Woodrow is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano’s shocking historical account of how a Republican and a Democratic president oversaw the greatest shift in power in American history, from a land built on the belief that authority should be left to the individuals and the states to a bloated, far-reaching federal bureaucracy, continuing to grow and consume power each day. With lessons rooted in history, Judge Napolitano shows the intellectually arrogant, anti-personal freedom, even racist progressive philosophy driving these men to poison the American system of government. And Americans still pay for their legacy—in the federal income, in state-prescribed compulsory education, in the Federal Reserve, in perpetual wars, and in the constant encroachment of a government that coddles special interests and discourages true competition in the marketplace. With his attention to detail, deep constitutional knowledge, and unwavering adherence to truth telling, Judge Napolitano moves through the history of these men and their times in office to show how American values and the Constitution were sadly set aside, leaving personal freedom as a shadow of its former self, in the grip of an insidious, Nanny state, progressive ideology. http://www.amazon.com/Theodore-Woodrow-Presidents-Destroyed-Constitutional-ebook/dp/B0078FACL2

There are plenty of threads here rife with that worldview. Everybody wants to be free to live their life how they choose, but almost nobody wants to leave others alone to do the same. It's all "Anarchy for me, tyranny for you".

I just noticed this and I gotta say that is a bunch of crap. The Indiana State Supreme Court took the same position as you and the people of the state and it's legislature were so aghast they changed the law to clear up that but of unjustness. A badge doesn't make a person special and confer upon them power to violate other citizens' rights at will. Badge or no, if a person poses a danger to my family or myself, I will use whatever means I have available to me that I believe are appropriate. Even up to and including lethal force if required. When a government agent can do whatever they want and can't be resisted even if they are 100% wrong with the only recourse being after the fact appeals to a court structure that is biased towards their side we will fall into tyranny shortly after. Oh wait...

  The parallels are obvious and what I believe the basis these cases will be ultimately judged on. I personally do equate them as the same thing. That being said, I also think 6.8 is right with his next statement.   Open for business to the public or not, the government has no right to tell a private entity whom they must do business with. Those portions of the CRA that affected private entities were wrong not because of what it aimed to do, but because the government had no right to do it. Just as the government was wrong being an agent of segregation, it was just as wrong to be an agent of desegregation. Government is obligated to treat folks equally, private entities are not.

I don't disagree with anything you've written here. I only took issue with the phrasing that was overly broad in its indictments. The only reason I chose to point that out is that all too often we paint with these broad brushes and develop preconceptions that would prevent us from finding common ground. Not all gay folks are prancing around in thongs on main street demanding that every church gives them a wedding that would be just faaaabulous! That's all I'm saying.

I'd say that is a pretty broad brush you are painting with. Not all gay folks are driven by pushing an agenda just like not all blacks are saggy pantsed thugs and not all gun owners are inbred rednecks. There are actually some gay folks out there who don't have an agenda, they just want to be left alone to live their lives. Hell, I guarantee there are some gay folks that agree with you that this case was stupid and the couple should have just gone somewhere else and that the baker had the right to choose not to participate.

Meh, I once flipped an 89 escort 4 times side over side coming to a stop upside down on a flat portion of hwy 88 in Maury City. I was doing about 45 mph.It is just as easy to lose control of a vehicle doing the speed limit as it is while speeding. All it takes is just the right amount of driver error. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

I agree that if challenged it would be unlikely to withstand a court challenge but an important factor to take into account is that the city does not retain direct control over the Beale St. Entertainment area. Those several blocks, all buildings and the street itself are leased to and administered by a private management company. The city doesn't have direct control over what happens on the street anymore than it has direct control over what happens in the hallways of an office building.

How'd ya guess? :lol:

That blows.

Apparently there are enough of them that it is somewhat of a meme in the Doctrine Man cartoons.   I think it is just another piece of evidence that this quisling bastard is a tool that nobody in their right mind should pay attention to. The only thing I want to ask him is "How many citizens are you willing to see murdered by the government to achieve your goals? Hundreds of thousands? Millions? How many?"

How are you liking it TMF? Just discovered these and am thinking about one.

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/bateman-on-guns-120313 IT'S TIME TO TALK ABOUT GUNS AND THE SUPREME COURT By Lt. Col. Robert Bateman on December 3, 20135821 42 0 3 In his opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia spent nearly 4,000 words denying that the Second Amendment included the words, "A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State..." We crossed the line some time ago, it has just taken me a while to get around to the topic. Sadly, that topic is now so brutally evident that I feel shame. Shame that I have not spoken out about before now -- shame for my country, shame that we have come to this point. One story tripped me. A woman charged with killing a fellow Alabama fan after the end of last weekend's Iron Bowl football game was angry that the victim and others didn't seem upset over the Crimson Tide's loss to arch-rival Auburn, said the sister of the slain woman. People, it is time to talk about guns. My entire adult life has been dedicated to the deliberate management of violence. There are no two ways around that fact. My job, at the end of the day, is about killing. I orchestrate violence. I am not proud of that fact. Indeed, I am often torn-up by the realization that not only is this my job, but that I am really good at my job. But my profession is about directed violence on behalf of the nation. What is happening inside our country is random and disgusting, and living here in England I am at a complete loss as to how to explain this at all. In 2011 the number of gun deaths in the United States was 10.3 per 100,000 citizens. In 2010 that statistic in the UK was 0.25. And do not even try to tell me that the British are not as inclined to violence or that their culture is so different from ours that this difference makes sense. I can say nothing when my British officers ask me about these things, because it is the law. And for that, frankly speaking, I am embarrassed by our Supreme Court. The people who sit on a nation's Supreme Court as supposed to be the wisest among us. They are supposed to be the men and women who understand and speak plainly about the most difficult topics confronting our nation. Our Supreme Court, however, has been failing us, as their actions have been almost the exact opposite of this ideal. You do not have to read this full Supreme Court ruling, it is a supplemental. I can spell it out for you in ten seconds. Five of the nine members of the Supreme Court agreed that the part in the Second Amendment which talks about "A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State..." did not matter. In other words, they flunked basic high school history. The lengths to which Justice Scalia had to go in his attempt to rewrite American history and the English language are as stunning as they are egregious. In essence, what he said about the words written by the Founding Fathers was, "Yeah, they didn't really mean what they said." You have got to be fking kidding me. Seriously? You spent nearly 4,000 words to deny the historical reality of thirteen words? That, sir, is an embarrassingly damning indictment not just of you, but of an educational system that failed to teach history. But just so we are all clear on this, let me spell it out for the rest of you. During the American Civil War, a topic about which I know a little bit, we had a system of state militias. They formed the basis of the army that saved the United States. For most of the first year, and well into the second, many of the units raised by the states were created entirely or in part from militia units that predated the war. But even when partially "regulated," militias are sloppy things. They do not always work well outside their own home states, and in our own history and in our Revolutionary War, it was not uncommon for militia units to refuse to go out of their own state. In the Spanish-American war the way around this limitation was for "interested volunteers" to resign, en masse, from their militia units and then sign up -- again en masse -- as a "volunteer" unit. It was a cumbersome solution to a 123-year-old problem. Which is why, in 1903 Congress passed the Militia Act. Friends, if you have not read it I'll just tell you: As of 1903, the "militia" has been known as the National Guard. They are "well regulated," and when called to do so as they have been these past twelve years, they can fight like demons. I am proud of them. And I am ashamed that Justice Scalia thinks that they do not exist. Guns are tools. I use these tools in my job. But like all tools one must be trained and educated in their use. Weapons are there for the "well regulated militia." Their use, therefore, must be in defense of the nation. Shooting and killing somebody because they were not "upset enough" over the loss of a college football team should not be possible in our great nation. Which is why I am adding the following "Gun Plank" to the Bateman-Pierce platform. Here are some suggestions: 1. The only guns permitted will be the following: a. Smoothbore or Rifled muzzle-loading blackpowder muskets. No 7-11 in history has ever been held up with one of these. b. Double-barrel breech-loading shotguns. Hunting with these is valid. c. Bolt-action rifles with a magazine capacity no greater than five rounds. Like I said, hunting is valid. But if you cannot bring down a defenseless deer in under five rounds, then you have no fking reason to be holding a killing tool in the first place. 2. We will pry your gun from your cold, dead, fingers. That is because I am willing to wait until you die, hopefully of natural causes. Guns, except for the three approved categories, cannot be inherited. When you die your weapons must be turned into the local police department, which will then destroy them. (Weapons of historical significance will be de-milled, but may be preserved.) 3. Police departments are no longer allowed to sell or auction weapons used in crimes after the cases have been closed. (That will piss off some cops, since they really need this money. But you know what they need more? Less violence and death. By continuing the process of weapon recirculation, they are only making their jobs -- or the jobs of some other cops -- harder.) 4. We will submit a new tax on ammunition. In the first two years it will be 400 percent of the current retail cost of that type of ammunition. (Exemptions for the ammo used by the approved weapons.) Thereafter it will increase by 20 percent per year. 5. We will initiate a nationwide "buy-back" program, effective immediately, with the payouts coming from the DoD budget. This buy-back program will start purchasing weapons at 200 percent of their face value the first year, 150 percent the second year, 100 percent the third year. Thereafter there will be a 10 year pause, at which point the guns can be sold to the government at 10 percent of their value for the next 50 years. 6. The major gun manufactures of the United States, less those who create weapons for the federal government and the armed forces, will be bought out by the United States of America, for our own damned good. These opinions are those of the author and do not reflect the United States government, the United States Department of Defense, the United States Army, or any other official body. As for the NRA, they can sit on it. (Sorry, I grew up with Happy Days. "Sit on it" means something to those of my generation.) R_Bateman_LTC@hotmail.com. Read more: Bateman On Guns - It's Time We Talk About Guns - Esquire Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook Visit us at Esquire.com

I'm a bit fuzzy on how they can do this as well but my understanding is that it has to do with the special status of Beale as an entertainment district. The entire street is considered an outdoor bar with sales and consumption allowed openly on the street and alcohol is served past 3am. I don't know of anywhere else in the state where you can engage in public purchase and consumption of alcohol @ 4:30 in the morning.     I think it is all BS, but that is how they justify that if I remember correctly.

That's wonderful news.

I've shared this on FB, praying that she comes home safe, sound and soon.