May 29, 2012
Oh, I'm heart broken. Lol BTW, you did reply to me. (21 hrs ago | post #768)
Those "loopholes " are there for a reason. It makes turning a profit easier, and therefore creates more jobs for the working man. I take it you don't respect someone if they happen to win the powerball? (21 hrs ago | post #598)
Exactly. And how many of Obama's cabinet had to finally pay their back taxes to be eligible for his administration? (21 hrs ago | post #597)
Show where I have done that! Please, point out a post number, or copy and paste my post saying Zimmerman should be found innocent or guilty. (21 hrs ago | post #2088)
For that to be the case, you'd first have to present a point. (22 hrs ago | post #2087)
Really? Explain the situation to everyone. We'll be waiting. (22 hrs ago | post #2086)
Lmao! Someone telling me to educate myself uses a double negative to start that very sentence! Lol. Yep, you are truly educated! You are exactly the kind of person I want to take at face value and take advice from. I take it you are also a constitutional scholar? Lmao!!!!!!!!!!!!! (22 hrs ago | post #6749)
So much for innocent until proven guilty. This is who serves on juries. Do you want to go on trial as an innocent person, and have your fate decided by people like this, that "read between the lines" and have their mind made up of your guilt before trial? It's like the guy that protected himself from attack lawfully, but was sentenced to life in prison because he chose a 10mm as his carry weapon. The jury's reasoning? Someone that chooses a firearm that powerful, is just looking to kill someone. Take your country back while you still can. (23 hrs ago | post #2073)
You are talking around the subject now. Where did I say the unconstitutional law would not be the law? I didn't. I said if a law was passed banning free speech, that law would be unconstitutional, even before the SCOTUS rules on it. The SCOTUS doesn't "take it up" unless someone disputes the law, and files the case to be heard. Unconstitutional laws can go on for years or decades before being heard by the SCOTUS. That does not mean they were not unconstitutional laws before being ruled on. It means law abiding citizens followed unconstitutional law up to that point, and therefore had their rights infringed. You are contradicting yourself now. You originally posted that Bush started Fast and Furious. Then you posted that Bush started Wide Receiver rather than Fast and Furious, but noted that they were similar. Now, you are back to your original implication. It's hard to keep your head above water when you insist on swimming in lies, isn't it? (Yesterday | post #757)
It never makes it to court if the police have no proof or evidence. It's not shocking that you don't understand my question. (Yesterday | post #2068)
Sounds like if you just get over that jealousy of success, we'll get along just fine. BTW, there are rich and powerful in and representing both parties. The Dems may push for laws to tax the rich more, but the rich Dems don't follow those laws. That's the reason Dems like soapy rules and laws. Those rules and laws don't apply to them. (Yesterday | post #591)
Lake Charles, LA
I Belong To:
C.P.R. (Constituents for Political Reform)
When I'm Not on Topix:
I'm working. More people should try it.
Read My Forum Posts Because:
I know how to solve America's issues.
I'm Listening To:
Read This Book:
Camping, Shooting, Fishing, Hunting, Prepping
On My Mind:
Preparing for hard times and celebrating good ones.
I Believe In:
The US Constitution and it's legally ratified amendments.