E4 No More

Umm, because his real crime was being Irish and NOT a chicken thief. Or do you believe stealing chickens is a capital offense?

It would certainly be quicker.

Coming from someone who had an Irish great-uncle lynched as a "Chicken Thief," I think I understand completely, and do no buy into anyone's hype.

As I said earlier he was apolitical. He presented both sides, and was quite refreshing compared to other professors that I had.

Collegiate level American History, (taught by a suprisingly apolitical professor), was sufficient for instructing me that bond servants, (or indentured servants), do not equate to the slavery that occured in this country, and also that the Founding Fathers only allowed it to appease the South: however, they still allowed it to occur and did not equate a black man as a man.

Bin Laden was just a mouth too.

Actions speak louder than words: I think that fact that the Founding Fathers allowed slavery in this country blows your point right out of the water.

My apologies. I misinterpreted your point.

"The Preamble to the United States Constitution is a brief introductory statement of the Constitution's fundamental purposes and guiding principles. It states in general terms, and courts have referred to it as reliable evidence of, the Founding Father's intentions regarding the Constitution's meaning and what they hoped the Constitution would achieve." The preamble to The U.S. Constitution says "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Where does that say the Constitution applies to all people outside the US?

The trees ARE being preserved. In both cases the wood was received with the full knowledge and approval of the governments of India (this raid) and of Madagascar (the 2009 raid). To me there are two very important points coming out of this. First: In the latest raid, the US government was using THEIR interpretation of Indian law to claim illegality when Gibson has documentation from the Indian government declaring that the transaction is in compliance of their laws. What...the Indians can't interpret their laws better than the US can? Second: The government has done absolutely NOTHING to the other custom instrument makers who use the same wood from the same broker and from the same source. The only difference is that Gibson supports the Republican party, and the other manufacturers support the Democrats.

I think that the modifier to the US citizen objection is that his actions of moving to Yemen and plotting against the US citizenry is tantamount to renouncing his citizenship making him unprotected by the US Constitution and court system.

I agree 100% with Ted. Of course, this strikes close to home since my wife works for Gibson.

Personally, I would have escalated it to a manager.

Fort Apache: The Bronx That's what I think of when I see that razor. "Move your head, sucka!"

Leave early enough and it isn't a problem.

I get what you're saying, but I immediately thought of his votes agains't the party to move Democratic candidates through the process rather than continuing to block them as very much anti-Republican. I almost choked when I read that comment.

Alexander to resign No. 3 Senate GOP post - WSMV Channel 4 I particularly got a laugh out of this, "In talking about consensus building, Alexander described himself as a "very Republican Republican,"

It seems to me that peanut brain wasn't endorsing the RINO, but rather simply stating that his religion shouldn't be a factor, and would be glad to see it wasn't.

This happened within eyesight of my daughter's house. Too close.

Excuse me! I'm a former Marine. What the heck do I know about the Army?

One member was a bit impressive: Audie Murphy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just another reason to stay at home and watch it from the comfort of my large TV with replay and afordable food/drink.

Perhaps some are forgetting that the president is not required to use The Resolute Desk at all. He can have it put in safe storage and have any other desk brought in to use or abuse as he wishes. While I disagree that he's absolutely being disrespectful he certainly is being thoughtless - which seems on par with most other things he does - but it pales in comparison to what I imagine Bill & Monica did on it. EDIT: Doh! Someone beat me to the Clinton crack, but it is still pertinent.

I somewhat about the skepticism: however, they also need to have an open mind to any results. They don't. If anything threatens their belief system they reject it.

Lester: You know, I like reading your replies. I may not agree with them all of the time, but you give due consideration to what you are writing and I appreciate that. Unfortunately work prevents me from doing the same all of the time, and sometimes I just don't have the inclination to do so on a forum since we are using only 7% of our communication skills when we write, but I do appreciate it when others try to be thorough. I have collegiate level education in numerous disciplines of science, (geology, physics, inorganic/organic/bio chemistries, biology, human biology, and a whole lot more), and what has bothered me is the amount of assumptive conclusions that are accepted as fact in the scientific field - which translates into the laymen accepting them even more strongly because, after all, scientists said it was so after all. Science is supposed to be laden with skeptics, but it seems now days that is just a term used as a defense for when someone presents an idea to which they are not open. It's sad to see how many laymen hold on to this crap.