E4 No More

In the spirit of "opinions are like buttholes: everyone has one, and they all stink" I would stay away from the Fords for one reason - the sheet metal. I had a 2009 F150 Lariat 4 x 4 crew cab and the dang thing would dent just looking at it. When you shut the door you could see how flimsy the sheet metal was over the door.

It is not the responsibility of the LEO's to determine constitutionality, nor question their legislators, whether you think they should or not. They are not a bunch of constitutional lawyers running around with badges. And if you hadn't noticed, our constitution has been trampled on for a couple of hundred years now. Don't believe me? Go tell a judge to go F himself in court, or not shut up when the judge tells you to shut up. Also, in many states, (if not all), it's illegal for a LEO to not execute an arrest warrant. Where I was a cop not executing an arrest warrant was a felony if the arrest warrant was a felony arrest warrant, and a misdemeanor if the arrest warrant was a misdemeanor.

I think that you will find that most LEOs are sworn to enforce the laws of their respective state/local governments, and a law is a law until a higher power declares it to be unconstitutional.

I saw a news article stating that this was a Kentucky wide drawing. Still a very cool thing to do.

Nope!

A friend of mine, (Carrie), has rescued a young, full blooded coon dog. He's not a puppy but young and found in the woods about 2 weeks before the hunting season ended. He's Black and Tan and described as very sweet, gentle, and strong but also very bored and a fence jumper. He's free if claimed before he gets fixed on Tuesday. After that there'll be an adoption fee. If interested then call Carrie at 615-399-8017.

They prove to be crap. Back in the day I remember someone pushing a magnetic ring that the officer was to wear on their shooting hand, but the problem was it wasn't reliable, the ring could be lost, and what if your shooting hand is disabled?

I thought that was for Carpet Baggers???

More than you might think, actually. Why do you think there's such a market for security holsters? Prison yard videos show the asshats practicing disarming techniques.

Yes, it's beautiful!

Um, it was a kid who probably has no idea about the Christian ethic. You also appear to assume that they are Christians even though you state that you are removing said ethic. Our society is riddled with people making their donations in public - particularly if they are incredibly rich like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates - so non-Christians see that as the norm. I also got the understanding that the Lt Col was the one who advanced the story here when he said that he not only put the $20 to some charitable purpose, but also stated that he's doing a lot more. I highly doubt that the kid contacted the news to generate a "See what I did?" type of report. Perhaps the mother did.

Gentlemen, this isn't about religion per se; it's about the inane rigidness of this retarded argument that the atheists are trying to promulgate through the courts. Nowhere in the Bible will you find instruction to make a cross, wear a cross, or any such other item to include worshiping a cross. In fact, the cross shape that we refer to today is not the shape of the cross that Jesus was crucified upon. The crosses that were used to crucify people during that timeframe were "T" shaped. The only instruction found in the Bible is to take-up our cross daily. In other words, to bear the burdens of our belief. The cross that we know of today came about long after the deaths of Jesus and the disciples via Emperor Constantine who claimed to have had that shape appear to him in the sky along with instructions to go forth and conquer under that sign.   The issue is that the defendant in this suit specifically stated that there was no religious connotation to THAT cross. It was just something that gave him comfort. So the point is to the atheist argument, (you know, the people who think that they are smarter, more enlightened, and have stronger minds than Christians), that it matters not that there is no religious meaning to any cross; it cannot be on government owned property. By that argument alone it would extend to ANY cross-shaped item on any government land: therefore, the building themselves would be required to be torn down.   Personally, I'd love to take a wreaking ball to the IRS building. :)

War is hell in more ways than one.

But, the guy who put it there did not put it there for a religious reason; he found comfort in it during the aftermath of cleaning it up. So if it doesn't matter to the atheists that religion is out of it, then it should not be allowed in ANY material forming that shape. Unintended consequences.

...that would mean that there would be no buildings on their property since buildings are built mostly with materials forming a cross in their construction, right?   http://www.today.com/news/world-trade-center-cross-fight-continues-athiest-group-appeals-ruling-2D79328902?ocid=msnhp&pos=6#world-trade-center-cross-fight-continues-athiest-group-appeals-ruling-2D79328902   Thoughts?   Personally, I'm tired of atheists groups tying up our courts with stupid lawsuits. In this case they are suing due to the presence of crossed steel beams on LEASED government property.

Ok, I tried the banana technique. It did not take the "strings" with the peel, and it made me think of pinching a nipple apart for some strange reason. :(

I like this. It would be a PITA to do a large meal, but for the average family it'd be great!

Real men don't use those. :)

Too bad I've already finished my 300 Blackout.

Jousting deer?

Exactly what I thought!

I emailed all of the nefarious bastages, and I was even polite doing so. :)

The public school today is worse than it was when I went through it, and I loathe it as well. I will not, however, type out everything that happened to me or my children in a public school because there's not enough space or time. Let's just say that they were wrong in several things such as science, teach revisionist history that is incomplete, and act towards parents like they are allowing you the privilege to take THEIR children home with you in the evenings and on weekends.

I believe that you are wrong. The wearing of the American flag on shirts were banned, but Mexican, Puerto Rico, Panamanian, etc were not banned. I remember reading the story on it.

Restriction of free speech...it's for the children!!!!