leroy

Irregardless of the "what happens"; i think its very intesting that this is even comming up.  The last talk of "succession" started the Civil War.  I think it demonstrates just how sick a large majority of the citizenry is of the "political class"  Colorado has been taken over by carpetbagging idiots from Kalefornia (...much like Florida...) and other sourland states.  Look what is happening there.   Thanks for posting this interesting bit of information.   leroy

Robert: RE: This RE: Item 1.  I think the "real answer" here is that "Americans dont think about the Constitution"; therefore they dont "understand the Constitution"...; especially younger folks.   The support for DOMA wuz exactly what ya said.  It was to curry political favor from a broad sector of citizens; that's what polititians on both sides of the political spectrum do when it suits their political goals; in this case, gettin re-elected.   The good news, i think, is that this current bunch of would be totalitarians have made folks real interrested in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights that were were either un-knowing, un-interested, or only "casually interested' about 6 or so years ago.  I think that is a good thing.  My advice to everybody is to read the Constitution and the Bill of Rights about once a month. You'll be amazed at the wisdom contained therein.   RE: Item 2.   I think the item 2 thing springs from item 1.  I dont think its willingness to "ignore" anything.  I think it's not thinking and being conditioned to believe that government should be involved in everything. There are lots of people in this country, Christians included, who fit this category.  Havin said that;   I dont think any Christian can be intellectually honest and not believe in individual liberty, and being scrupulously fair and even-handed.    I do believe that they (....Christians ....) are alarmed at what they see; and i think they should be.  There are those who are demanding that any references to "sin" and "perversion" be labled as hate speech by the gay jhadists.  I dont think that will happen because of the First Amendment thing; but there has been and wuz plenty of pushing on this very issue.  Look at the "hate crime" thing... I thought that by definition, all crime is "hate crime"... A criminal is willing to either kill, maim, or forcibly take what is not there's to take; whether it is life, sexual favor, or property by force.  That sounds pretty 'hateful" to me.   You and several other posters here hit the nail square on the head when you opined two things; the first.  Get the government out of the marriage business period... The second; stop the "winners and loosers" tax breaks for everybody, period....    Those two single things, alone, would straighten up a multitude of things in this country.    Havin said that, do i think it will happen... No, not a chance.   Here's hopin. leroy

Interesting, indeed...  Thanks for posting.   leroy

RE:  The "faith based birth control -- mornin after abortion pill" demand thing:   It's gettin ready to get hot.  Check this out:  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/06/29/obamacare-contraception-mandate-opponents-reject-finalized-coverage-rule   I think it's interestin that the Obamaite administration is attempting to "smooth this over" with everybody and stay out of court.  I think they do not want this one to go to the supremes. Right here is the heart of the matter:     I believe this one is another "slam dunk" and the "Becket Fund for Religious Liberty" guys and the Obamaites know it.   They are just doin the negotiation thing as a delaying tactic to keep this stuff out of the news as long as they can.  It aint workin too well.  This was written on 6/29/13.  Just 11 days ago.  Even Selebus and Obama are finally (...i believe...) gettin the idea that it wuz a bad idea to pick a fight with the supremes and they know full well that this is a First Amendment case they will loose when it gets to the supremes.   Here's hopin leroy

Daddyo:  RE: This... I think (...for now, at least...) ya already got this protection via the First Amendment on the "opposition to gay marriage and refusal to do the ceremonies" thing.   This is clearly an issue of "church doctrine" and is an issue of public interest; so its all protected under the First Amendment.     There aint been much said about it (...it doesnt fit the narrative....); and i think it's probably workin its way thru the Federal Court system; but the Obamacare Mandate that faith based organizations (...think catholic, and protestant hospitals, churches, etc... here...)  provide birth control and "morning after" abortion pills when the tennants of the church are against those things has resulted in court rulings against this stuff as well.  I think this one is a slam dunk too, since it goes against the Bill of Rights (...First Amendment, freedom of religion stuff...).   We'll do some diggin later; but i think this one is settled.    RE:  I think the same thing happened with the "hiring" thing; i just cant remember the details.    This stuff is real First Amendment stuff.  The Democrats and the great Obama have got a miserable track record on tryin to over-ride the Bill of Rights via these mandates and funny legislation.  They have also got a miserable track record of winnin against the Bill of Rights in the federal court too (...thankfully...).   leroy

Folks, OS made a great point in post #384 above; and Robert made a great point in post #386.  Look at it this way:  Each individual state has marriage laws duly passed by that particular state's legislature, voted on by that particular state's individual citizenry who duly elect these "state representatives".  Each state passes marriage related legislation (...marriage licenses, fees, definitions of who can get married, on and on...).   Remember, this (...marriage definition, ect.  ..) is a STATE issue; keep that in mind.  The individual states pass differing state legislation concerning marriage (...example-- New York, Kalefornia, Hetro, homo.--- Tennessee, alabama, georgia -- hetro marriage only...).   Remember, in every case marriage here is defined by the individual state(s); not the federal government.    Now remember back in our little speech about what the supreme court did.  There was a FEDERAL LAW called DOMA that defined marriage as one man, one woman that wuz passed on the Clinton watch just after the "gay marriage" thing wuz passed in one of the states (...probably new york or kalefornia, dont know for sure...); i think, as a push back against the "gay agenda".   Things rock along and no one complains until the two rich dykes from New York do their "estate planning" (...see the post several pages back...).  They discover they have to pay a inheritance tax (...to the FED, i think, not the state...).  They discover that even though they are legally "married" according to new york state law, they have to pay this tax that evidently a straight couple would not have had to pay.   They sue and the suit moves all the way to the Supreme Court.  The supremes rule that all forms of marriage recognized by the several states have to be treated the same way by the Federal Gubmt.    Said another way; the DOMA law said, in effect, that Hetro couples got a tax break on inheritance, the dyke couple didnt.  The DOMA thing wuz struck down due to the "equal protection under law" thing.  It says that the several states regulate (...marriage, in this case...) the state (...and the federal government, in this case...) has to treat even handedly.  Said another way; dont punish legally married gays causing them to pay a tax that hetro couples are exempt from if they are "legally married" as defined by that particular state;  and reside in the state that recognizes that marriage.  That's what all this is about; nothin more.  That's why DOMA was struck down.  It gave preferential treatment to one class of marriage over another.   The moral of this little story (...i think is two fold...):    (1)....What the several states regulates; the state and the federal government has an obligation to even-handedly treat as to taxes, benefits, etc. etc.   (2)...Regulation of marriage has been reconed to be by the Federal Supreme Court to be a STATE ISSUE.  That's a good thing.  For the first time in a long time, the power of the federal government has been limited.  That means that there aint a "right to marriage (...regular of homo...) in the Constitution.  We can all be thankful for that one.   Finally, if ya dont want the state to make a law allowing gay marriages; see to it that you elect folks that see things your way and see to it that they stay that way.  That's why the gay jhadists are talkin about moving the "fight" to the individual states.  I think this is the story up to now.   leroy

This is good stuff!!  Thanks for posting it.   leroy

Great pictures!!  Thanks for posting them.  I bet the valley is good and cool from the aeration of this much cold water!!   leroy

Thanks Broomhead.  Is there a specific epoxy ya like?   leroy

Looks good!!  What did ya glue the scales on (...and the pins...) with; or  did ya just upset 'em with a hammer and punch?  I'm gettin ready to do some myself.  I've got some cocobolo scales commin and i may glue them in instead of using screws.   Thanks for sharing.  Keep up the good work! leroy

I guess im conflicted about this one a bit.  I see the wisdom in DUI checkpoints.  I think it does save lives and get impared folks off the roads. The problem begins in the weighing of citizen's rights vs a small bit of inconvenience.  I've been thru 'em.  It wuz a nothin.  The officers in my neck of the woods are always professional and you can tell they are simply lookin for signs of imparement; and it doesnt take 'em log to do it.  Lots of times it's just a glance and a "thank you".    The "deal" seems to be some small inconvenience to the driver vs the safety of the public.  I will agree that this is a touchy subject, especially to the libertarians (...like me, and im sure others...) among us.  I agree that when they find somethin they dont like; you need to make 'em get a warrant.  I'm like some other posters on this one; "....the roadside aint the place to take a stand on constitutional ethics, and to banter words with a guy with police power and a gun.  If you sandpaper him, he will find somethin wrong...".  Is that ok?  Of course not.     leroy

We've travelled off in lots of pasture fields with this little bit of examinaton of a real 'hot button' topic.  We've heard lots of reasoned debate, satire (...some of it pretty good...), some laughable stuff (...meant to be laughable, some not...) and some regrettable stuff.     The discussion of late has turned to the "supposed hipocracy of "Christians" who pick and choose just what sins are "ok" and what are "not-ok".  As a person of faith, i feel compelled to try in my small way to answer the question that when asked as a genuine and serious question is supremely important to both believers and non-believers; and, at it's worst, is a "rhetorical "gotcha".   I think it is a supremely important, "really big" question which is very important to this discussion and all "pop-culture" questions.  It is the question of how should a christian react and ineract with his brother and sister human beings -- especially those labelled as "heinous sinners"....  Here goes:   The New Testament narrative gives us this answer in an account of the God-Man being asked a question by the "religious elites" of his time (...Think Westboro Baptist Church here; plus some others i wont name...).   This woman was caught in "the very act of adultry" the narrative says; and she was brought to the God-Man for a "legal ruling" on her "sin" by the "religious elites".   Actually, the religious elites weren't interested in the woman's sin; they were interested in entrapping the The God-Man in a matter of Old Testament jewish law which would allow them to accuse the God-Man of blasphemy and put Him to death (...Old Testament Jewish Law...) for it to shut Him up. The "old testament jewish law clearly called for stoning to death for adultry"..   The God-Man didnt answer the question directly ---- He said nothing.   He simply wrote in the dust of the street "...Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...".  He got no takers and the religious elites left one by one, starting with the oldest first.   Finally, no one was left other than the God-Man and the woman who was clearly guilty.  He then said "...Woman, where are your accusers?...".   He then said: "...Go and sin no more...".    The moral.  He loved the "sinful" woman in a brotherly and alturistic way --- He did not condemn her; even though she was clearly guilty under the law.   He did not condone the sin, He mentioned it privately to her and placed His life (...He later gave it to save all of us...) in danger to save her life.   That's where the ole "hate the sin", but "love the sinner" thing came from.     ... Whether you choose as an individual to believe this account or not (...i happen to believe it...); or whether you see it as a fanciful tale; you cannot help but see the wisdom, kindness, and majesty in this act.   You can find this account in any New Testament concordance.  I wont bother with the citations...   The way i see things, as christians, we are called to be like the God-Man if we are His followers.  We are also reminded that we too, are not without sin -- it aint just "them" that are sinners.  We are all sinners, whether christian or "unaffilliated".  The christians are just "forgiven"...As christians, we are also called to be honest and even-handed in our dealings with everyone.  That means we should never ostracize anyone, no matter how heinous (...or minor-- by our flawed standards...) the sin.  Does that mean christians must "approve and embrace sin"?  Of course not.  It does, however, mean that we are to be intellectually and ethically fair in our treatment of any matter; whether it's "approved of or not".   Remember this, the "unaffilliated' and jhadists among us are watching our actions and are lookin for an excuse to call us out and point us out as hypocrites.  The fact is that we are all hypocrites, because we are human.  We have all "sinned' in some way.    All that bein said, if we claim His Name, we need to be like Him in as much as we possible can.  I say to my brother and sister christians; "...be fair and loving in your dealings with others, no matter who they are...".  You can campaign against certain things based on moral issues; just be sure that campaign is fair.    The DOMA thing wasn't fair as soon as the individual states recognized more than one species of marriage....I would say in the kindest way possible, think everything thru, be kind, be reasonable, be supremely honest.  Otherwise, we denigrate that Name by which we claim to be called.  Remember, marriage was sanctioned by the Christian God in the beginning; not the state.    leroy

As i remember this whole thing on DOMA; it seems to me that a couple of very well to do gays were doing their "estate planning".  They discovered that the inheritance tax for the state wuz pretty hefty (...$300k if i remember right...).   They sued.  Worked the suit thru the court system until it got to the supremes.  The supremes struck DOMA down as we've discussed.    At the end of the day, as has been said several times before, the two lesbos from New York got this whole thing going. ...check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor     Poor folks and pop culture jhadists dont have the dollars to mount monumental lawsuits.   The "gay" community owes these two coots a debt of gratitude for having the dollars to see this thing thru to it's end.  I would guess this whole thing cost into the seven figures range.  The inheritance must be stupedous.  By the way, these two married in canada and moved to new york state.  New York as we all know recognizes "gay" marriage.   Remember the words of the great "Godfather" Rahm; he said the other day "...gays are the new jews of fundraising...".  That's why this is a hot topic.  It's about the money, man; nothin more.   leroy

I like analogs story.  Thanks for sharing it.   It reminds me of another one.  When i was a young man (...aeons ago...), a good friend of mine decided to proclaim his enduring love for his then current girlfriend and future fiancee by getting the old heart shaped tatoo with his true love's name inscribed thereon.  He went off to vietnam sportin the tatoo of his true love.  She got lonely and went boyfriend hunting.    You can guess the rest.  She caught a new boyfriend and eventually a husband that wasnt my ole buddy.  There are two morals to this story.  The first, be careful whos name goes on the old heart tatoo.  The second, absence doesnt always make the heart grow fonder.   Be careful whos' name goes in the tatoo... I would sugguest "mom"....   leroy

ET:  RE: the libertarians being viewed as lunatics.   I'm a bit older than some here and my political memory goes back a ways.  The "old perceived problem" with libertarianism wuz that it was tied to the drug culture of the 60's.  That's why some people hated (...and sitll do, for that matter...) them and worked to marginalize and demonize them.  I'm like you; i think the Tea Party is a legitimate branch of the libertarian movement.  I also think that long ago, the "drug culture" thing wuz thrown off the libertarian party.   The republicans were very guilty of "demonizing" the libertarians.   Hope this helps. leroy

TMF.  I think the recent supreme court thing on DOMA was exactly what you say.  What the state regulates, the state has to even-handly enforce.  It's the old "equal protection under law" thing.  Like you, im ok with that.   Ray Charles could see that DOMA would be struck down if the court wuz fair as soon as there wuz more than one kind of marriage recognized by the state.   As to the "pop culture" tolerance thing; i think lots of folks are intimidated into backing certain things because of peer pressure. It's "tolerance jhad" at work.  It's a tool used to further the "movement" based on wanting to be "part of the crowd" by those who dont take the time to think things thru.  It's fodder for the "children" and 'beings of lower estate"..    Im like you and some others, i dont believe that you can say you are for personal liberty, then limit the liberties of a certain class of citizens with discriminatory law passed to salve some political constituency.   I think you are exactly right  RE: the "....state meddling in marriage..." thing.  They need to get out of that business.  As you have also opined, sadly, i dont think for a minute that they will.  I say, get married in church if ya like that (...i happen to, that's what we did years ago...).  If ya dont like that one, get married where ever else ya want to.   leroy

Looks to me like ya are learning a bit:  RE: This: (1)....Why ya dont support the movement?  "...We..." dont have to; there is already governmental support for "the movement".   Its called "equal protection under law".... Regarding the "support of the movement".  Some of us believe that support of the movement by many, especially in the political class and in the business class is nothin more than pandering for dollars.  As you have graciously granted, "we" are free to debate its merits and need; even if those debates and reasioning seem unkind to some hearers.  In my view; the whole thing was masterfully answered by Good Steward" in post #247.  That's pretty much my view on a personal basis.   (2)....The religion thing....  Deeply held religious beliefs will automatically translate into actions in word and deed if the person holding them actually believes those "deeply held religious beliefs".  That's the way the "deeply held religious beliefs" thing (...or lack thereof...) works. William Wilberforce had a "deeply held religious belief" (...and a freedom belief...) that slavery wuz wrong. He and others like him translated those beliefs into action freeing the slaves in the British Empire in 1833 without firing a shot.   "Deeply held religious beliefs" can be a powerful force for good.   By contrast; when these "deeply held religious beliefs" translate theselves into lawless acts ALA muslum honor killings and the like; the government restrains them via law.   In summary, there is no prohabition in having "deeply held religious beliefs" as the motive for acceptance or rejection on any ideal or movement.  That's one of the reasons why we have debate and different political parties.   RE;  the "...religion pushed on ya...." thing.  It (...religion, or the lack thereof...) is already protected by the First Amendment.  Laws passed by legislatures cant override the Constitution (...yet...).  Do legislatures pass laws that they full well know wont pass Constitutional muster? "....Yes..." they do it all the time, hopin no one is watching.  It's called pandering and influence peddling; and in some cases governmentally sanctioned stealing...  But that aint workin out too well lately.  The internet has seen to that, thankfully.   As for the 'billygoat gruff" thing; thanks for the kind permission and acceptance.  Iv'e thought it over and i think ill stay "leroy" since the tenor of the discussion has changed a bit.  However i do believe the "out of context" thing is a bit snippy; but ill forgive that.   leroy..

  This right here is good stuff!!  I salute you sir on your superlive powers of folksy illustration and quick wit !!!  It dont get bette than this!!   With great admiration, leroy

As usual, OS makes some great points, especially RE: the Tea Party being diluted by the national Republicans thing.  I think he is dead right.   The republicans have been pretty successful in keeping the Tea Party in check, in large part.  They've coopted and diluted the movement; and they know there's not another viable alternative out there now.   I think to be successful, the Tea Party is gonna have to contrast themselves with the democrat and republican parties and their appartarajiks, period.   leroy 

  I guess you really told us and devistated us with your brilliance, powerful logic, and powers of debate.  You keep sayin the same things over and over.  I got news for ya; that aint debate; its repetition.    I figured id give you a little dose of what you were passin out so you could see that most everything is a two way street.  You aint got the inside track on richeousness or the last word in debate; nor has anyone else here.  Like your fond of sayin; "...ive got the right to call him on it (...whatever "it" is at the moment...)....".  So do others (...in this case, that's me...). You aint the only person on this forum with permission to opine.  I (...and others too...) have that right too; as long as we are polite about it.    Now, if you want to have a dialogue or a forum discussion, i would recommend that you back it up with opinions based on facts and citations rather than  relying on school yard name callin, mischaracterizations, and repetition; but that's just me.  If i wuz your debate teacher i would give ya an "F" on your performance up to now; but i realize that in some places ya would get an "A" for preachin the party line.  Too much speculation and name callin and not enough facts is the reason for my failing grade.   By the way, that's my opinion, you have the right to protest it.    I'll leave you with this little quip: "...you always know your winnin the debate when the debate goes from the discussion of facts to name callin...".     By the way, i kinda like the "troll" thing; but i really prefer "billygoat gruff".  Would you mind using that instead of "troll"?.  I see this as more of a clash of ideas.  "...Troll..." doesnt give the right ambiance to this little discussion. I think "billygoat" (...or maybe person goat; gender neutral, ya know...) may give just the right ambiance to this little debate ALA the "clash of ideas" thing.  Whaddy ya think?   leroy the "troll", and maybe with mr keal's permission "billygoat (...or even "person goat"...) gruff" leroy... heres hopin.

Guys.  Aint a "faraday cage" simply a conducting box like Mike is sayin?  It seems ive seen that before.  Went up to A. B. Chance one time and watched their lightning generator in action (...flashover tests on high voltage insulator strings and fiberglass crossarms, i think...).  It seems we watched it all in a control cage that wuz called a "faraday cage".  Am i dreamin this up?  It's been a long time ago.   leroy

If the establisment republicans do much more stupid stuff; they may need to morph into democrats.  That's what they are at heart for the most part anyway.  I think the time is ripe for a third party, and the Tea Party may well be it.  Folks are tired of government giving them the finger and telling them ".... its for your own good.  We know best...."   Heres hopin. leroy

Ya aint expectin trouble are ya brother??!   The EMP thing sounds pretty bad to me.  Keep us posted with any news.   leroy

Thanks for all the posts and opinions RE:  handeability and extra weight.  That wuz exactly what i wuz lookin for.  A special thank for Mac RE: the slug changeover thing.  It makes perfect sense, and i never even thought about it.   Thanks again everybody! leroy

Aint ya got an ole buddy who is a paint and body man?   If ya dont, do a bit of a google search and see how to sand the spot out and fair the paint primer and clear coat back by hand sanding.  When ya look at the "how to" stuff you'll see what i mean.  That little spot will get about 3 or 4 times larger if ya do it right.  Sand it out, goin finer and finer until it's slick as a baby's rumpus; then sand some more.  Then find some spray primer and spot it back in.  It'll look bad; but the problem will be fixed and the bare metal sealed back against the weather.     When paint is cut to the bare metal like yours is and rust starts; the only real good way to fix it is what ive described.  Ya really need to find an old buddy that does this sort of thing.  He can probably spot it back in to where ya hardly notice it.  Sorry for the bad news.  I've got some of the same problems on the hood of my 08 tacoma thanks to some sons of satan carving it with a key.  The fix.  Paint the hood.    leroy