When this goes, so will Conceal carry (in all states) - what you think?

[prof_fate]

Originally Posted by cjacob

Obama had his chance to change people's minds his first day. Instead of doing the right thing, and just taking office and getting to work like FDR did in the middle of a depression, he chose to have the most expensive ball of any president in history, he chose to spend more money on himself in 4 years than any 8 year president did. He spends more time on family vacations, the golf course, and in from of cameras than any president, when he should be behind a desk working.

and every dime of that is taxpayer dollars

As of last August...

So far, President Obama has taken 61 vacation days after 31 months in office. At this point in their presidencies, George W. Bush had spent 180 days at his ranch where his staff often joined him for meetings. And Ronald Reagan had taken 112 vacation days at his ranch.
Among recent presidents, Bill Clinton took the least time off -- 28 days.


Presidential vacations: How does Obama compare? - CBS News


And I don't see his face on TV nearly as much as I did Bush's face. So lets talk Press Conferences, shall we?
First Read - Fact Check: Obama 'less' press conferences 'than any recent president'?

The most press conferences by a president -- by far -- was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who held 1,020, or an average of seven per month.

(obama's avg is 2.0 per month).


As to costs of vacations...

The problem is that W. wasn’t thrifty. He was the most expensive vacation president in US history. Not only did Bush spend more days on vacation than any other president, but he used Air Force One more often while on vacation than any other president.

Bush Spent 5 Times More On Flights To Texas Than Obama


And somebody here says the democrats lie more than republicans...

[prof_fate]

Originally Posted by cjacob

bush spent time at a place he owned, obama spent time at places that he spent tax payers' money to rent.

OK, so we should only elect rich presidents then?

It just costs an obscene amount of money for the pres, or vp, to travel. Biden was in town for teh St Patricks day parade...my son got to shake his hand along with a lot of others. Anyway, I saw 2 armored caddy limos, 2 suvs right with them - that's a planeload right there. Then there was him, the 4 secret service guys around him. I saw an SUV a bit in front with 4 AR wielding tough guys inside scanning the tall buildings. A dog detail of 4 dogs and 8 handlers, 4 other SS guys in between (one asked me to take my hand out of my pocket). Perhaps being in PA these other SUVs drove up here...htey had DC and MD plates on them. To get from the airport to the city they do a rolling closure of the hiway - the were closing it right behind me as I was heading in to town for the parade - local and state police block the on/off ramps and for the pres also sit on every overpass but I didn't see them there for biden's visit. 20 some cops...and 3 hours later they were there to close things for his trip back to the airport.

I bet 4 of us could get new house and cars for the cost of Biden's visit.

It's just the way it is.

[Ridge]

Originally Posted by jprieto

then i found God, and I quit being the vice leader of the the second largest street gang in the usa, of which i was a part of for 8 long and violent years

If this is true, how can you now be allowed to purchase a firearm? Just wondering. Is this an April fool's thing?

[js12278]

Originally Posted by cjacob

you only get in trouble for not having car insurence, if you drive. there is a huge difference. Me not having health insurence can't hurt you, but me not having car insurence, could easily hurt you. It's apples and oranges. Plus cars are cheaper than medical bills. Fining people for not having health insurence, won't make it easier for them to afford it. The other issue is the fact that he used the healthcare bill to pass a lot of crap most people don't even know about. It's dirty. A man like Obama will be very dangerous without the concern of being reelected. You say if you don't like the country then get out, well I say that to people like you and every Obama lover who wants to change it, get the hell out of my country.

Car insurance is required by the individual states. The federal government does not require you to purchase car insurance. Individual states can do Health isnurance if they want, no one argues against it, except Barry O.

There sure are a few people that have American history wacky.

Black slaves were brought to America by traders that bought the Africans from other Africans. So, Africans were selling other Africans. They were slaves in their own country before being brought here and treated a whole lot better than they were in Africa. Some of the families of black slaves from Africa own land in the south that was part of huge plantations they worked.

Indentured Servants were the first type of American slaves. Do a search and you can learn a few things. Whites were slaves too in early America, some were even owned by blacks. One of the first slave owners was a balck man. He provided passage for many indentured servants.

It is long overdue to study history as history occured, not as some people with an agenda want it to be taught. Time for people to stop looking for some sort of debt to be paid off, anyone that was due anything either got it or is dead.

Time for people to man up and take care of themselves and their own with their own sweat and stop looking to make it off the sweat of hard working Americans, no matter who you are or what your skin color. If Americans did the best they could for themselves, their family and their country America would be the greatest nation in the world again and be respected like it used to be.

[Vhyrus]

Originally Posted by jprieto

Vhyrus, can we continue this talk in front of God one day?

I don't know, can we? You seem pretty sure of the answer.

When offensive words are being used, it is no longer a civil discussion among educated or informed people

If the word penis, the proper name of a body part, offends you, a self described former gang leader, I really think you should cancel your internet service, because it only goes downhill from there. If my assertion of facts and opinions that you fail to counter with anything other than rambling word salad offends you, then GOOD.

Because if it is one thing I am very certain of, is that you have NEVER read the Bible in full; if you had, you would NOT display ignorance of facts

Based on your responses above and below this line I am fairly certain we are sharing that particular boat.

You make comments on christianity without first reading the book it is based on, so you can know if those claiming to represent it are being true representatives or not

Religion can only be judged by its earthly appointed representatives, since God him(or her)self is too busy to answer us directly. If the stewards of the religion misinterpret the divine word we have no choice to but to judge the entirety of the system, much like a corrupt government founded on lawful principles will be judged on its actions.

For example, I know churches that reject gays, yet the bible says to love your neighbor .... it does NOT say to love your neighbor if they are not gay

yet, you seem to be the type of uninformed person who mocks christianity because you heard of a church that rejects gays -- had you be intelligent you would of consulted the Bible to first see if that church was representing the bible correctly

I see no place where I have 'mocked christianity'. Furthermore, you claim only SOME churches have rejected gays?

CNS STORY: Pope, in book, says homosexuality incompatible with priesthood

when the leader of the religion declares homosexuality to be a disorder and incompatible with the religion, that goes beyond 'a church'.

and by the way you replied here, I know FOR A FACT you would not had done that first. You would of spoken before being informed

but its okay, i used to be uninformed and ignorant just like you many years back

then i found God, and I quit being the vice leader of the the second largest street gang in the usa, of which i was a part of for 8 long and violent years

Wanna know what's even better than being a reformed murderer and gang leader? Never being a murdering gang member in the first place. Your holier than thou stance can stop now.

now i love everyone .... and accept everyone, even you -- and i respect your reply and repect the fact that you had the courage to offend me

And I would gladly die to protect your religion, just as quickly as I would kill you should you attempt to force it upon me.

we will meet in front of God one day, then we will continue this talk

good luck in this lifetime meantime

While you're discussing with god the people you murdered as a gang member I think I'll have plenty of time to come up with an argument of why I didn't make it to mass.

ps: i never met a man who had shown kindness who was ignorant

intelligence is always reflected in how you treat others ... thats a fact

I really hate harping on this, but when you admit you were part of a street gang for almost a decade, referencing 'treatment of others' is generally a bad argument to take.

I will restate my original premise: Your idea of 'Freedom of religion' is 'MY religion can do whatever it damn well pleases and I expect the backing of the United States Government'. THAT IS WRONG!

Love, Peace & Chicken Grease!

[john_bud]

Originally Posted by Vhyrus

There is a concept called 'Separation of church and state'. You may want to plug that one into google sometime today.

And yet "atheism" has all the earmarks of a radicalized religion. They "believe" there is no God without proof. Pure belief. They want to "convert" people from other religions and seek to stop them from carrying out their beliefs.

Also there is not a single reference in the constitution about "separation of church and state". In fact, the founders of our country opened every congressional meeting with a prayer. Have you ever read George Washington's inaugural address?

Here's the 2nd paragraph;

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station, it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official act my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the universe, who presides in the councils of nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that His benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the people of the United States a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes, and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow-citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency; and in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their united government the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities from which the event has resulted can not be compared with the means by which most governments have been established without some return of pious gratitude, along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage. These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me, I trust, in thinking that there are none under the influence of which the proceedings of a new and free government can more auspiciously commence.

George Washington: First Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989

[js12278]

Originally Posted by john_bud

Also there is not a single reference in the constitution about "separation of church and state". In fact, the founders of our country opened every congressional meeting with a prayer.

Thank you for pointing that out.

[Brimstone]

Ron Paul should have been the nominee, but since the Constitution is just for nut jobs we get to choose between two peas from the same pod.

Reminds me of the South Park episode where you have to choose between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich for the school mascot.

[Vhyrus]

Originally Posted by john_bud

And yet "atheism" has all the earmarks of a radicalized religion. They "believe" there is no God without proof. Pure belief.

Yes, because you can prove there is a God. Please, enlighten me. I would love to be part of a historic moment here on XDTalk.

Originally Posted by john_bud

They want to "convert" people from other religions and seek to stop them from carrying out their beliefs.

I know, right? I have atheists knocking on my door every weekend telling me to renounce my faith in god! And the ones that sit on the street corners with their signs yelling at random people... its too much!
And then we have the atheists that try to pass legislation banning gay marriage or abortion in order to further their atheist ideologies.. its just ridiculous!

Oh wait... atheists don't do that? Hmm.. must be the religious ones I'm thinking of...

Originally Posted by john_bud

Also there is not a single reference in the constitution about "separation of church and state". In fact, the founders of our country opened every congressional meeting with a prayer.

The first amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." that IS separation of church and state. It means that Congress is forbidden from endorsing a specific religion or infringing on one. In 1947 The Supreme Court explicitly used the phrase with reference to the first amendment in Everson V. Board of Education:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'"

Nice try though.

[3minuteshate]

Originally Posted by Radio Relay

Notice all these people who have just become members and immediately start with the liberal politics? Don't see them in the gun info threads. Just politics ... interesting ...

Anyway, Romney claims to have seen the error of his ways when it comes to his views on gun control. He's claiming that a lot these days on a number of issues.

Whatever his views, he is miles ahead of Obama, Holder, and the rest of that anti-American bunch currently in the White House. Certainly, being a devout Mormon, Romney, is very much a friend of Christians. Again, unlike the Obama administration.

Liberal politics? How so?

So back to Romney. He has the same views as Obama. I would never vote for him. If I did it would be no different than supporting Obama. Not going to do that either.

Obama took Romney's health care to create ObamaCare. How are the gun laws in Massachusetts? The last time I drove through Massachusetts there was a billboard on Interstate 95 that stated that the minimum for a firearm violation is one year in prison.

Romney will say what ever he has to say to convince republicans that he is better than Obama. He is willing to flip flop and has proven that many times.