Chucktshoes

   It was ok to carry "illegally" as long as you weren't the wrong shade or were not involved in helping those of the wrong shade.

I know right? If that happens, you're on your own.

A trebuchet? That's what I call doing it with style. :up:

Corker was having dinner with Obama.

Best description so far. "The last time there was a filibuster like this in Congress, it was the Democrats trying to keep blacks from getting their civil rights in 1964."

I'm confused was this ever in doubt?

I guess I will have to check mine when I fly to DC. :lol:

In the interest of giving credit when due, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon also assisted in the filibuster.

[url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/88779603@N08/8533948640/][/url] [url=http://www.flickr.com/photos/88779603@N08/8533948640/]adios[/url] by [url=http://www.flickr.com/people/88779603@N08/]chucktshoes[/url], on Flickr

Here is another very similar sounding story from the Associated Press. http://news.yahoo.com/researchers-report-sharp-rise-patriot-groups-170121578.html   This is not accidental.    Here is MVB's response on Sipsey Street Irregulars.   Be aware, if you openly value liberty, the constitution or the founder's ideals, then you are squarely in the government's crosshairs. 

Well, looks like they will just send drones from now on instead of the Federal Bureau of Incineration's Hostile Roasting Team in.

Two sections of this article really get my blood boiling.   EXCUSE ME!?!?!? Those weren't incidents of "anti-government violence". Those were massacres where the government murdered our fellow citizens.    That's actually pretty easy to accomplish. Don't send your black clad stormtroopers to murder people and we won't be forced to shoot back in self defense.   Fuck the author of this article and fuck the SPLC and their hate mongering way of painting the people who don't march in lockstep to their views as "dangerous extremists". Fucking tools.

Ok. Just checking.

:lol: Bwahahahahaha!!!!! :lol:   Is it terrible that I liked it?  :hiding:

Medicaid is a wholly different conversation. If the payments to Vandy are through the hospital by way of Medicaid then that does not allow the state the ability to determine internal policies of the college. My statement of doing without state funds assumes the payments are direct payments and not for "services rendered" or the state acting as the middleman for a federal program.   If you want to have the conversation on the legitimacy of government providing social services by way of taxation, I will be happy to explain how it is nothing more than legalized theft in another thread.

A TARDIS is the only way to travel.

^Awesome.

Then that should make doing without it easy. The state should not be providing those funds to Vandy.

Yes. IIRC, there is no state supremacy law on the books regarding knives. Any local ordinances would be valid.

That was after the death of the Spaniard. I'm referring to his kiltier days.

A claymore. After all, there can be only one! ;)

I think you worded it right the first time. I wasn't directing my laughter at you personally but expecting newbs to read the rules is like expecting folks to debate highly charged subjects using logic and reason without ad hominem attacks or insults. It happens, but it is the exception and not the rule.

Make über awesome tactical YouTube videos? :lol: J/K, well kinda. I would venture that's the main use though I am sure there is a valid non-mall ninja purpose.

:lol:

In what manner does it receive public money and more importantly, why does it receive any public money at all? If it receives public money in the form of student aid (loans, grants, etc.) how is that any different than a private religious college that requires chapel service getting those same types of funds? If it receives public funds directly, once again I ask why? Regardless of any internal policies, those funds should be cut off because it is not a proper use of taxpayer dollars.