Chucktshoes

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.

The rights enumerated in the Constitution only apply to government, not private organizations.if we were talking about UT, I'd be right there with you but we're not. Vandy is a private entity and therefore should have the ability to set its internal policies how it wishes. Of course, I view the large portions of the 1964 Civil Rights Act that apply to private business to be illegitimate. If one is not acting on behalf of the government, then one should be free to associate, or not associate as one pleases. TGO is a great analogy. You have the right to free speech, you don't have the right to exercise it here. This is David's house, you play by his rules, or you leave. These student orgs are in Vandy's house and have to play by their rules.

That sounds awfully familiar.

It's because they really are all about smaller government. Duh!

Directly under the rear seat just for reference purposes.

This is a VERY, VERY smart move by the NRA and one that I and many others have been saying they needed to make. This makes me very happy.

A lot of effort being expended to defend the actions of what is arguably the most incompetent and at the same time most evil so-called law enforcement in the country. An agency responsible for repeated murders and mass murders of American citizens. The only two things the ATF has ever shown itself capable of doing are performing acts of gross incompetence and violating the civil rights of Americans. They get no leeway or benefit of the doubt from me.

Q4E. This, this, oh a million times this. Wouldn't it be so nice if the general population understood the concepts of negative rights instead of believing they had positive rights that trample all over the rights of others.

Check the video date. Nearly 3 years go. We excoriated the F-Troop on this board over this when it happened. I'm pretty sure there is a near 3year old thread on the buried in the archives.

I still say we Maggart his ass.

That's a well reasoned, non-hysterical position I can agree with.

I've read this before but I can't place it. Care to refresh? ETA: ahh, heard it, not read it. Got its source. Great film.