mr_genius

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 19, 2008 -> 03:40 PM) Well what you just posted would be armed robbery... Thats an entirely different law. But go ahead and try it, Ill even defend you for free. sweet. if i'm found not guilty maybe i'll let you barrow my new tv for a superbowl party. impress your friends.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 19, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) He certainly doesn't have the right to threaten to kill people with the gun, but right now he certainly has the right to own the AK-47 and possibly to carry it around places depending on the local laws. The Assault Weapons ban expired a few years ago, so if you want to go and stockpile AK-47's, it's not against the law as long as you follow whatever registration rules the state you're in has set. oh well thats good to know, i guess i'll buy some. BUT i also want to be able to use it while threatening people, freedom of speech. Best Buy Employee: "Sir that plasma TV is $3000" Me (holding assualt rifle): Nope. Nope. It's free. f*** yea

haha i love how the liberals actually defend this goof with the AK-47, claiming he has the right to run around with a machine gun threatening to kill people you guys are making my day

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Aug 19, 2008 -> 03:17 PM) Really what law is that? I really doubt that if I go to the game tonight and yell: "Im going to kill you Felix Hernandez" Ill be arrested, but maybe I will be... My guess is the prosecutor tried his best to convict this person of the most punishable offense he could, most likely just did not have the evidence to support it. Although i doubt that they really went into the whole dragon/dog argument and how troublesome it is that "The Never Ending Story" has an ending. A serious threat to kill someone is illegal. having an AK-47 threatening to kill people is illegal. sorry bud. here is an example of someone being arrested for threatening to kill someone else. http://www.witn.com/entertainment/headlines/26475659.html http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/080..._on_threat.html

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 19, 2008 -> 03:12 PM) I've always wanted to own a ICBM with a strategic nuclear warhead. Can I buy one of those at Wal-Mart? That would be pretty bad ass. Well except for the part about getting radiation poisoning and all that. But damn, talk about home self-defense. hey man, no one ever said being a true patriot doesn't come with a cost (possible radiation poisoning).

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 19, 2008 -> 03:06 PM) The right to a chemical weapons just doesn't have the same ring to it as the right to bare arms (with tattoos) Nope, chemical weapons would be considered arms. You will need them to arm your militia. Hell, you should save up for a nuclear weapon too if you plan on keeping the US government in check or fight the king of england.

QUOTE (Texsox @ Aug 19, 2008 -> 03:03 PM) Unfortunately we still have the right to "spouting off jihad talk" aka freedom of speech. Depends on the speech. If your Jihad talk is "I am going to kill you, infidel" you have committed a crime. You cannot threaten to kill people, especially threatening to kill someone while holding an AK-47

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 19, 2008 -> 02:44 PM) Simply owning the AK-47 wasn't the problem. Carrying it in the back seat, brandishing it in a park, resisting arrest and spouting off jihad talk all add up to a dangerous person. That is why it is so odd that he got probation. Maybe the judge didn't want to 'offend' anyone of a certain religious persuasion? nope. nope. thats fine too. he was just taking a stand against the evil Bush regime. you see, that is completely acceptable.

oh here we go again with the psychos who think everyone should be able to own a AK-47. Hell, why stop there? Everyone should be able to build their own chemical weapons for self defense purposes. Don't mess with Texas!

Q for sure. The voters like to go with someone on a winning team and Q's numbers are superior.

hahahaha

mercy!

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 08:25 PM) not compared to the constitutional party's platform. i just looked up their platform. sounds AWESOME

swish

QUOTE (bmags @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 05:50 PM) I somewhat disagree Rex. How many % of voting population voted last year? If 95% of our population came out and voted for who they liked best, that would bring a third party into the fold. I don't really care about a third party though. There isn't a moderate third party they are all batsh** crazy and I hate the coalition system of multiple party governments. no offense, but lot of elected Democrats are bats*** crazy.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 04:40 PM) Maybe he was referring to his old state, with something like less than 1% black population.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) Well, now we get into those definitions. I do think "neo-con" might be the most overused and wrongly used description in forever, much like "liberal", but that's another topic. neo-con is usually referred to as a Republican whom supports large government spending, big budgets, the US maintaining status as the worlds main superpower. The term was originally coined as referring to a Democrat whom went Republican. Unfortunately these ideas of big government and foreign policy being a major aspect of the government was something that has been embraced by a segment of the GOP voting block. These are not traditional Republican stances.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 01:18 PM) That's just not true. I held my nose and voted for the guy... and I'm the same with McCain at this point, except it's worse - like I might not even vote. Which is sad, because I'm interested in the process, I just can't bring myself to like the guy at all... whats not true? evangelicals and neo-cons didn't like G.W Bush?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 12:07 PM) I hadn't read that yet. And here I thought the bailout bill couldn't have been any worse. Well sadly Congress proved me wrong AGAIN. how long until we get a bill to bailout people who can't pay the $7500 loan back?

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 12:06 PM) I went door to door for Kerry and spoke with a lot of Republican voters. The most common objection - "Yeah, he's been a mess but Kerry would be worse." Not exactly a ringing endorsement. Did you talk to some guy who works in a mill? I like mill worker stories. just messing with you. but i know for a fact a lot of evangelicals and neo-cons really loved GW Bush. I didn't, but I never voted for him.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/080...I_will_win.html oh come on now. and we aren't supposed to take cheap shots at this i assume and from Obama: Hmmm. Yea, like I said... He is running a "I'm not GW Bush" strategy.

QUOTE (Rex Kicka** @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 11:45 AM) Actually, you don't hear Obama talking about his opponent as much as the reverse is true. There was a good month where I didn't hear McCain talk about himself without mentioning his running mate. Obama talks about change - and although his speeches do tend to be rather vague, its not like McCain is much more specific. This election looks far different to me than any election in the last 12 years because we actually have a candidate that people are voting for. That energy always trumps the people who are voting against the other guy. I don't hear about many people voting FOR McCain these days. Even if they are punching his name on the ballot. See that is from the Dem perspective. A lot of G.W. Bush voters were voting for him, as Democrats were basically voting anyone but him. So I would say the reason you think this election is so much different is because you personally really like the Dem candidate. Obama voters hear the slogans and think "yea, i like that. change." However, I just hear a bunch of marketing slogans and not much substance. Eye of the beholder I suppose.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 10:30 AM) Meh, those of us who have been following this know what their stances are on policy issues. true, but elections aren't won by winning over 'politicos' such as posters in the filibuster.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 11:19 AM) That back-and-forth and posturing is standard political strategy and I honestly don't see how someone who considers themselves politically literate could act surprised. But until lately, McCain has spent very little time talking about his own campaign goals except as a way of mocking Obama. (Insert random response mocking the premise of "change" here) No one is surprised. I'm just pointing out that the Obama campaign hasn't been any more substantive than McCain's. But you see, it is still fairly early, there hasn't even been a debate yet. Policy differences will be shown.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Aug 18, 2008 -> 07:17 AM) I mean, really. Look at McCain's ads and see what they're about (I cannot think of a single one that hasn't been about what's wrong with Obama, for example the silly "who is responsible for high gas prices" with the Obama chant in the background, although not bothering to explain why or how McCain is not responsible), and then look at Obama's (the ones which are not responses to McCain ads, for example his Olympics ad). You tell me. There is a pretty distinct difference in tone and focus in these ads. If you can't see what I'm talking about it's because you're trying not to. Does Obama talk about his opponent and the unpopular incumbent that is a political advantage? Yeah. Of course he does. I didn't say he didn't. I haven't seen an Obama olympic ad. Is McCain going to try to neutralize one of Obama's political advantages, the mainstream news media? of course. I actually haven't seen this policy driven Obama campaign you speak of. I have seen constant bumper sticker slogans from him and his comparisons of G W Bush to McCain.