PJ,

I think we are on the same page too. I think that we could have won the Vietnam War if we really wanted to. If push came to shove, we could have done a lot more than what we did.

By the way, somebody mentioned Johnson picking and choosing targets in Vietnam, might have been you PJ, but I read this thread a while ago and walked away from the computer to watch a TV show with the fiance. Seems as though Clinton did the same thing in Kosovo according to some of my Navy pilot friends. The armed forces didn't care much for Clinton and I would guess they didn't care much for Johnson either.

After everything is said and done, I will fight as hard as I can to keep my guns. I am an Endowment Member in the NRA and give whenever I have the funds. However, the day they make it illegal to own firearms, albeit a sad day that will find me crying, I will turn them in if required to do so.

Not to change the subject but Clinton's move in Kosovo was purely "Wag the Dog" to take the media coverage off of his whoring of the Oval Office! :mad:

TD,

I'll agree with you on that one. Problem was that he was sending fighter pilots into dangerous situations and supposedly telling them not to bomb certain threats on their way in. Completely bone headed if you ask me.

Let the simple-minded redneck in...
 

Picture this: Yer in a new york ghetto w/ a gang on one side and a gang on another. Better yet, picture yerself in Bagdad w/ terroists on both sides of ya.
Now, picture yerself w/ a single shot 50 cal. in yer hand. Dead meat aint ya? Does ya bout as much good as a 1-legged man in a butt kickin contest.

So...why ban the dam thing? Why ban one of the oldest guns that man has concockted? Seems a lil out of place dont it....hmmm...maybe that's just they're way of addin another lil ole flea to the dog's back. But it dont take too many of them fleas to bring a dog down on his butt now does it? Just another way of lookin at things..

While I'm at it..let me say somethin bout that there Constitution.
Bein from Virginia and from a very long line of proud Virginians, I know my state's history perty good.
You see...the Constitution aint werth the paper it's printed on, iffin the people aint there to fight fer fer it..er back it up. Just like our money backed by gold. The state of Virginia has fought numerous times fer what they believed in, and more than once fer their own interpretation of that there Constitution.

Irregardless of that, no matter how many "interpretations" people may have, down through all of this here U.S. of A's ages, it has been the backbone of this country. Has it not been the one and only thing that has kept this nation connected in some form or another? And, on the other hand, has it not been the one thing that we have fought over fer hundreds of years? Yep folks, it has. Amend, amend, amend. But, there is 1 key werd in my last sentence that, IMHO, is the key. We fought. We still fight.

I dont know bout ya'll..but Lilred dont bow her head to nobody but the Good Lord and her Mama..and I reckon Mr. Redneck, that seein as how you aint from the South, sir, you need to change that there name of yers, cause you aint no purebred nuthin, esp. a redneck like us, iffin yer content to sit back and let them add them fleas on yer back.

I have more respect fer a person, wether I agree w/ em er not, iffin they have enough gumption to stand there and take the hit, than to cower. That is what your, and my, great-great-great granpappys fought fer and died fer. Why they came here to begin with. The way I see it, I aint shamin my gran-pappy by givin in to nobody. Then they all died, and continue to die, fer absolutley nothin. Iffin ya caint think of nuthin else, nor agree with nuthin else...think about yer ancestors who took the hit fer you and me..and what they would say to all of us today.

Lilred,

What is great about the Constitution is the ability to amend it. If it weren't for amendments to the Constitution, most of the people that vote today would not be allowed to. I am sure you know that women and uneducated people were not allowed to vote initially. I didn't even mention blacks because they weren't even considered citizens when the Constitution was drafted. Among other things, the Civil War was also over amending the Constitution.

The Constitution is able to change with changing times. Do you think the founding fathers ever thought there would be things such as airplanes and computers, much less satellites. The Constitution was made so that it can change as need be. That is why it has lasted as long as it has.

While we don't always agree with the Amendments (i.e., the Civil War), they usually mirror the people's wants. Let's hope that society never gets so bad that evil amendments can be passed by the majority. However, if it does get that bad, I guess we won't have much to look forward to anyway.

Justice Scalia has put forth what I think is a very compelling argument against the way some people look at the constitution. What he objects to is people who interpret the constitution to say what they think it should mean. A perfectly good example, in my mind, is people who try to morph the 2nd amendment into something completely contrary to its clear and common meaning.

One of the main functions of the constitution is to limit what the government can do to the people.

If the constitution means whatever someone thinks it ought to mean, then the people have no protection.

If it doesn't mean what it ought to mean, then the route for change is an amendment, not a twisted interpretation.

Agreed.

Thing is as time passes, interpretation gets tougher.

If we asked each of the founding father their take on the Bill of Rights, I am sure we would get a bunch of different interpretations of what each Amendment meant. Try getting that 200 years later when none of them are alive.

With respect to the above post from Lil Red, Amen!!! I've spent alot of time down South and still do as I have family there and I can say with pride that it will certainly be "From My Cold Dead Hands" in the South should any BS legislation ever pass denying us our 2nd Ammendment rights. I will be South of the Mason Dixon line quicker than a jackrabbit being run down by a pack of dogs.

I personally believe that our forefathers, knowing human nature, constructed with the help of God, the most perfect documents that were humanly possible. The anology they used was that this would only serve to be an experiment if the people were vigilant in protecting these rights. Look to Canada and England and ask yourself if they are better off now. I can go on and on but I will stop. There are certainly some things that are worth fighting for and in my book, this rates right on up there!

Fabs Wrote:
What was the difference between military fitearms and civilian firearms when the second amendment was drafted and passed? The intention was that the masses be equally armed.

PBR wrote:
You answered your own question. Killing someone would most definitely infringe on that persons right to life, therefore you do not have the right to persue happiness in that manner.

What I'd still like to know is why the gun runner mentioned earlier is still a roofer in New York and not a prisoner in a federal prison.

Lil red
One of the stars on the confederate battle flag are Missouri's. And being in Southern Missouri, I think that qualifies...
And as far as being a democrat being a bad thing, I'm sure your family's butts were saved just like mine by FDR ( the best or second best president ever). I vote democrat because that party still stands up for the little guy. If forced to, I will vote anti-gun and hippie before I vote pro-business.




He's not in jail because the cops haven't caught him in the act. He could just be the biggest liar on the planet and have all those guns in his basement.

It's like going up to a cop and telling him that you snorted coke 20 years. The cop can't do jack nothing.

Okay, there are a couple of good issues here.

Iwerk2hard,

There was almost no difference between the military guns and civilian guns during the Revolutionary War; however, there is a significant difference between military and civilian weapons of today. Things change over 200+ years and I would hate to think that almost every Tom, Dick & Harry could have a M249 chain gun in their basement if they have the money.


PBR,

As far as voting anti-gun and hippie in lieu of pro-business, that is a rather broad and somewhat ignorant statement. Business is pretty much what controls this nation, and the world for that matter. If we continue to strangle American business, you will soon see all of it move overseas. We are already becoming a country that cannot manufacture anything, make it harder on business and we will be up a creek. We won't even be able to manufacture a tank.

As far as FDR being the best President, I think there are many arguments for better Presidents. How about Reagan or Washington? Does Reagan not count because he is a Republican. I think trying to single out the single greatest President is pretty tough. A President's presidency is pretty much determined by events that occur during that presidency. FDR had World War II to deal with and that made him this great President. Did he also have to deal with the Great Depression? Why is it that other Presidents that didn't have to deal with these type issues are not as good, if not better, than FDR. Just because a President has a quiet presidency doesn't mean that he isn't a great President. Maybe he was so good that he could prevent things like the Great Depression or a World War occurring on his watch. Maybe the President before him was so good that it made his Presidency a walk in the park. Pretty tough to say that one President, above all others, is the best one out there, especially since people tend to look more upon the more recent Presidents' accomplishments.

Oh i definattly agree with that.

As far as gthe other stuff, I'll have to deal with that this afternoon when I'm not drunk. :o :o :o

PBR, sir, you have missed my point. First of all, under your location, you left it blank. Secondly, and most importantly, just because you are from a "Southern" state does not mean you are a "Southerner" or share a Sotherner's POV.
Southern folk, original Southern folk that is, have always had a different way of lookin at things than most Northerners. Just as the black and white folks. That's just the way it is, nothin in the world wrong with that. Judgin by yer posts, the difference stems from the werd "purebred".
You, comin from a Southern state, iffin you "purebred" bloodline is true, amazes me even more that you are so different from us simple-minded Southerners.

Come on PBR,

Last night, I wrote that post above after two glasses of wine, and I almost never drink. You just need to concentrate harder after drinking. LOL

got it beat Fabs
I had 7 beers at the bar - sang "I'm so lonesome I can cry" and "ring of fire" on kareoke (and I DON'T SING)
Went back to someone's house and drank a bottle of Boones Farm wine and 6 Schlitz.
Decided to walk 1/2 mile home and halfway there I decided that I wanted a taquito from the gas station. So ended up walking about 1 1/2 miles piss drunk.
Then I get home and you want me to type something constructive? I've done enough concentrating last night :D :D :D


Consistently on polls (you have in changing order depending on the polls)
Reagan
Clinton
W Bush
FDR
Washington
Lincholn
JFK

are on top

And I agree it is very hard to figure out what makes a good president.
Of the people on th elist I mentioned

Reagan - is probably in the top 10 but definatly not the top 5 on my list.

Clinton is in the top 5 and probably the top 3

W Bush is too new to figure out where he stands. I personally despise the coke head alcholic and put him somewhere in the back 20. But that doesn't mean the rest of the U.S. agrees. If after this war everything works out, I could go as high as probably 10-15

FDR - top 5 and probably top 3

Washington - nothing real special about him other than the fact he kept the nation halfass together. Somewhere in the top 20-30 I'm going.

Lincholn - I'm going to throw a bombshell and say 20-30. Perhaps the civil war was enevitable, but his election was the straw that broke the camel's back. He represented perhaps only 1/3 of the country - the northern republicans

JFK - nothing special about him. He was shot at the height of his popularity and was probably going to go downhill fast. 15-20 maybe

Not included in the polls I remember seeing is Teddy Roosevelt.
Now he is definatly in my top 5


My top three would probably consist of (in no order)
Both Roosevelts and Clinton

PBR,

You definitely had me beat in the drinking category, but if I had drank as much as you I wouldn't have even been awake, much less walking 1.5 miles.

Just to put this right out there, I despise Clinton and I don't think he really did much for the Nation. Yeah, the economy was doing well, but was that really a result of his Presidency? I doubt it since the economy is cyclical and it takes time for any policy change to have a dramatic effect. I think he set the economy up for a downfall with the take off of the stock market. Greenspan kept urging people to stop buying on credit by relying on their paper profits (i.e., unrealized capital gains in the stock market because they had not sold the stocks yet). The market hit the crapper and look at the economy since. People were having a great time during the stock market boom and they love Clinton as a result.

What happened with the first bombing of the World Trade Center on Clinton's watch? If you do not remember, that was the bomb that went off in the parking garage of the World Trade Center. Did Clinton do anything about that. NOPE. I know some diehard democrats that live in New York that decided not to vote for him after that incident.

On top of all that, he was a womanizer, a liar (not that all politicians aren't), he didn't inhale, and worst of all he lied on the stand under oath. That I cannot stand. I find it hard to swallow when LEO's lie on the stand to try and get a conviction, but the President of the USA lieing under oath? What type of dignity is that. Let's compare Nixon and Clinton. Nixon took the fall and in his Presidential library he has a wealth of information on the Watergate scandal. Clinton tried to lie his way out of it and he has very little, if anything, in his Presidential library about the Lewinsky scandal. Oh yeah, how about the White Water scandal of Clinton's where the person with all the knowledge conveniently ended up committing suicide. Personally, I think this country is trying to recover from all the wrongs of Clinton, of which the economy and terrorism are included. Do you think the terrorists that hit the World Trade Center and the Pentagon weren't here planning this thing while Clinton was in office? George W. Bush came into office and within less than 9 months 9/11 happened. Somehow, I doubt the terrorists put that entire plan into motion in less than 9 months. Further, if Clinton had hammered them like Bush has been doing, maybe they would have had less free time on their hands for planning and less resources for carrying out missions. Reagan bombed Quadafi and that was the last we ever heard of that man. Clinton should have done the same to Osama and the rest of his crew.

Don't even get me started about he and his wife falling asleep during Reagan's funeral. We'll see how many people attend Clinton's funeral.

Let's also look at another thing. The Presidents that you are ranking highly have been some of the most recent Presidents. Something tells me that you don't know much about all the Presidents' legacies and what they did. You definitely do not know what they all did during their Presidency and I rarely rely on polls because they are based on people's experiences while they are alive. Almost nobody will know what the 5th President of the nation accomplished. Hell, I don't know that either.

To really come down to who is the best President of them all, it would take a bunch of educated/smart people years of studying all of the Presidents' accomplishments and then voting to come up with a semi-legitimate list of the best and worst Presidents.

Would I put Clinton in there, probably not. Most Blacks would rank Lincoln rather high along with JFK. I also agree with you that JFK is famous because he got shot. A lot of Presidents are popular because of events that happened during their Presidency, not because they were great Presidents. You have to ask yourself, why couldn't we have prevented World War II or at least lessened the destruction from it (i.e., Pearl Harbor, D-Day), the Civil War, or 9/11. Why wasn't the Great Depression prevented or foreseen. How about Black Monday which I think occurred under George Bush's Presidency. How about the current disaster with the stock market? I am sure there are plenty of other incidents in there, but that is all I can come up with off the top of my head.

Oh I totally agree with you. (Clinton aside ;) )
It wouldn't take years to come up with an educated list, but I would sure get a headache reading up on all of them and making the call.

I know there are some great presidents early on. I was just commenting on the recent presidents because that's who the public voted on.

Clinton! Ha!....don't even get me started PBR. What a friggin' JOKE!!!!! :mad:

I'll tell ya, PBR.....the democraps that voted for FDR and JFK, just like the men themselves, are FAR DIFFERENT than the today's democraps.

I agree he might be a joke for you and most on this board, but for over half the country he represented the overwleming magority's of this nation's interests, kept relative peace, was in office for one of the greatest economical and technolocal advances in our nation's history, gave us a surplus economy all in amist of hatred by republican politians.
There is little doubt in mind that he would still be president this very day if there were no term limits. I think the only person capable of defeating him in 2000 and 2004 would of been McCain (who I think would also do a good job).

I think for the most part, democrats today are similar to democrats of the last say 75 years.
I highly doubt 40% of the nation vote democrat soley on the the fact they like abortion, hate guns, and protect the environment. Different radical interest groups are present in every election and political party.
The economy, labor, "work benifits", social programs, etc have been and are the reason why most democrats vote that way.
Most democrats are not liberals just as most republicans are not conservatives. You only have about 20 or so % vote that are hardcore democrats or republicans. Most are undevoted moderates or those whom slightly lean to one side.

http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/...shing-sign.gif
http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/...n-head-ani.gif http://www.jesseshunting.com/forums/...y_rotflmao.gif

lol :D :D :D



I edited BTW

Was Clinton impeached and just not voted out of office? My memory is fairly foggy on that one.

PBR,

I agree that most of the country lies between conservative and liberal. One of my best friends labels himself as a conservative democrat, if that makes any sense.

As far as Clinton being continually voted back into office, I think that would be a far cry from actually happening. He might have made it for a third term, but after 9/11 and the miserable economy that we currently have, he might have had a tough time getting a fourth term. Yeah, he might have been able to fix the economy if he were in office, even though I blame the economy's current condition on him, but I seriously doubt he would have been able to stop 9/11 from happening. It would have been really interesting to see how he handled 9/11 though. I would have really loved to see if he struck back or not after 9/11. Luckily, we did not have the opportunity to see what he would have done regarding 9/11.

Yeah, if my memory serves me right he was impeached...by a bunch of republicans who were just trying to stir the pot for 8 years. First time they had the opportunity since Jimmy Carter - and they did a great job of ruining him. Carter could of been a great president if the Republicans let him.
Your memory clear up now ;)

This is interesting
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/polit...acy010117.html

You do bring up an interesting point about how 9-11 would of been handled had it still occured. Regardless who would of been in office - Clinton, Gore, McCain, Buchanan, Bush- they would have gone into Afganistan. Of those 5 mentioned, I don't think anyone else would have even thought about going into Iraq besides Bush - given the same evidence and threat.
Now I'm not saying 9/11 was a good thing - not saying that at all. I'm not saying Bush is glad it happened.
But it sure saved Bush's butt. 9/11 was literally the best thing that could have happened for bush because he was going absolutly nowhere in both the polls and actual policies.

PBR,

You should read the entire article. I believe it says that Clintons' approval rating pretty much tracked the economy, as I have been trying to say in all my posts. If you know economics, the economy doesn't turn around over night and it always follows a cyclical pattern. Just in case you do not know what cyclical means (which you probably do), the economy cannot keep on an upward trend forever, it ebbs and flows, that is just the way it has been over the centuries. The politicians just try to make the upturns larger than the downturns.

I would have to study Clinton's economic policy better to figure out whether or not he is responsible for the upturn in the economy, but I am pretty sure that his watch was responsible for the downturn in the economy. When exactly did the stock market start taking a beating and unemployment increase? Who was in office then probably wasn't a big deal because they were at the end of their second term (i.e., Clinton).

Clinton is in the top 5 and probably the top 3

FDR - top 5 and probably top 3

Washington - nothing real special about him...

Lincholn - I'm going to throw a bombshell and say 20-30.

HUH?
Listen to Fabsroman. Do you really believe any president has a serious impact on the economy of this country? The economy has a mind of its own and goes where it wants, the president simply takes the blame. Name one single act done by any one of your "top 5" presidents and show me how they affected the economy. FDR did absolutely nothing for the economy for all his spending. The only thing that saved us was the war and the rebuilding contracts we got when it was over.Clinton? What magical act did he perform on the economy? I'd love to know and so would Wall Street and every other person on the planet.( can anyone say stock bubble or did you all get out before Clinton's magic really blossomed. Oh wait don't tell me, you really think Priceline.com was worth a billion bucks and it was only GWs ineptitude that prevented us from realizing that dream) Presidents don't do crap as far as making the economy boom, their powers are far too small. Considering the power corporations wield in this world do you really think they are going to let one man whose put there by political parties that can be bought and sold, decide their fate? The only president in this century who might have really affected the economy and not as a result of war, was Reagan and he did it by cutting taxes and simply unbridling the engine of the economy, greed. (GW's tax cut is meaningless economically speaking but every penny less to the govt is always good in my book as its one more penny that will be better spent)

The only meaningful way to judge a president is in the tough choices he had to make and how they affect us today.
Washington risked everything, life and property and when offered even more power he refused.
Lincoln faced some of the toughest choices of all, the future of the entire country and its makeup rested on his shoulders, right or wrong, he stuck by his choice and faced it down.
Can you imagine the world today if either of them had chosen the different paths that were being offered? Where would we be today if Reagan had chosen differently? All of those easy paths were turned down by these men and that is what made them great presidents.
Clinton aTop 5? What tough choice did he make that you are so proud about? Sure, he's top five and the Captain of the Titanic was the best captain in world if you asked about two hours before it sank. He sure had a nice ship, good service and they had a real good menu selection at dinner time.

And guys, as far as interpreting what they meant when they wrote the constitution, its not too hard, in fact we already know.
The dead speak to us and we can speak to those yet unborn. Its called writing and it very clear what the people meant as they wrote it all down for us and we can read about the actual debates that took place. The hard part is getting someone to care when it goes against their own wishes.

Had to post when I saw Washington and Lincoln being put down and not measuring up to the likes of Clinton.

Good post foto.

Last night at dinner, I asked my family who they thought was the best President, and they all came back with Reagan. My little brother even slamming his fist into his hand when he said Reagan. I then went on to tell them about this thread and that somebody had put down Washington and Lincoln, and they couldn't believe that. This topic actually made for a pretty good dinner topic and elicited some pretty good conversation from my brothers who usually don't talk about this type of stuff.

I agree economy swings on it's own but I'm big believer that the government can prolong economic growth or make recessions shorter. There's a term for this - too bad I slept through every economics class I ever took in college.

I think Alan Greenspan is beyond genouis.

FDR did not help the economy???
The New Deals did not help the economy or people's lives?


There are a variety of programs Clinton signed that help prolong this growth.
Targeting tax cuts
Financial aid for college
Balancing the budget
Welfare reform
Family leave act
International trade
That's just off the top of my head

We've covered this a little on here back in 2000. From what I remember there was quite a few people that agreed with me. I do not think the economy was done growing when Clinton left office. I think the economy collapsed because of the "sky is falling" campaign Bush ran that year.
Everything was going great, there was a short period of decline and Bush used that moment in time to scare the public. Since Bush hit the national spotlight, the economy has gone downhill. I think had he not jumped the gun in mentioning this and using it as a strategy, I think the government could have turned it around.

I think people were saying the "sky is about to fall", Greenspan included, even while Clinton was in office. That is why I didn't dump everthing I had into the stock market and I didn't buy on credit that I couldn't pay off at the end of the month.

The economy is the way it is right now because too many people were looking thorugh rose colored glasses and they thought it would never end. Everybody was going to be rich off of the stock market, yeah right.

That's what I think the problem is.

Bush told everyone to watch out because the economy is about to collapse while he was running against Gore. Then everyone like "huh? It is? I guess it is".

Consumer confidence is what makes the economy. If you believe the economy is falling, then it definatly will.

I agree that consumer confidence has a great deal to do with how well the economy is going.

According to what you are saying, people didn't believe Greenspan the genius buy believed Bush the moron. Kind of hilarious. Supposedly, the people don't like Bush, but they are willing to listen to him about the economy collapsing. Trust me when I tell you that Greenspan was saying it way before Bush was even running for the Presidency.

Personally, I have made a decent amount of money lately off of the stock market. Sold a bunch of stuff about 10 months ago after taking pretty decent gains and now everything is in the crapper again, so I am about to go on a buying spree again. Granted, I don't think I have made up what I lost when the market took the initial down turn and my retirement funds look like crap, but I am only 33 and have quite a while to worry about retiring. Hopefully, the economy will have an upswing before I have to retire. Otherwise, I better be investing a lot of money in guns and ammo to fend off the rioters.

I've been looking here lately at putting a pretty good chunk of money in a variety of U.S. Eagles, Canadian maple leafs, and Swiss Bullion. I need to do some research and talk to professionals to get their opinion first. Gold is at an all time high and is in great demand. I'm wondering if I should make a short term investment - buy high and sell slightly higher. It keeps going up...
I'm thinking I might wait 3,4,5 years until it reaches a peak low again. Buy a crap load fairly cheap (maybe 300-350 oz) and just sit on it.

As long as stocks are questionable, people are going to invest in precouis metals. Man if you would of bought a **** load of gold in the 70's for 200 an oz you would feeling pretty good about now since it's about 430.

Gold would have been a terrible investment if it was at 200 in the 70's and it is only at 430 now. That means that over 30 years you barely doubled your money, which according to the rule of 77, you barely made more than 2% on your investment over those 30 years. If a person gets a 7% return, he should double his money in 11 years and quadruple it in 22 years. In 33 years, his initial investment should be 8 times what it initially was. That means that gold would have to be at $1,600 an oz. to be worth something.

When the stock market goes bad, a lot of people invest in real estate. My brothers bought a place together almost 7 years ago and it has doubled in value over that time. They spent $195,000 for it and it is worth over $400,000 now. So, they got about a 10% return on their investment over the 7 years. Problem is that they live in the house and cannot realize the gain. The other problem is that real estate is just like the stock market. It is probably on a bubble right now as people are willing to invest more in the market because if the market goes any lower the entire country will be in trouble. Plus, real estate is rather risky now because it has been going up way too fast that normal people cannot even afford a house to live in, much less invest in rental properties or investment properties.

PBR wrote:
People have been convicted of murder with no corpse. This guy presented some pretty good evidence against himself, a bit of follow-up should uncover enough factual evidence to get a conviction on some charges.


Fabs wrote:
My point is that the second ammendment was intended to put the masses on equal ground. Yes things have changed, and in a lot more areas than firearms and weaponry. Let's not be too quick to start giving up what we still have. The roots lie in the likes of 50 caliber single shot rifles. Muzzle loaders rather than bolt action, significantly less power than modern rifles, but still the heritage has carried through to the level of todays civilian arms. And how many of todays civilian arms are direct descendants of military arms?


Now that there has been discussion about drinking habits, political party affiliations and reasons, the difficulty of determining who were the best and worst presidents, the fact that Bill Clinton happened to take office as the economy started booming, $425.00 per troy ounce is an all time high for gold even though it was over $610.00 per troy ounce in 1980, the rule of 77, better investments and a whole slew of other random thoughts, would anyone be interested in starting a thread discussing the "Open letter from Ronnie Barrett" that was brought to our attention by TreeDoc?

I thought this was a thread discussing the "Open letter from Ronnie Barrett" that was brought to our attention by TreeDoc. LOL Would you like to enter the chatroom and discuss it? If so, I am around almost all day and night today unless the fiance finds a mattress that she likes and wants me to go take a look at it.

All kidding aside, convictions for murder without a dead body are based on what we call circumstantial evidence. There is very little direct evidence in a murder trial unless the police are lucky enough to find a person that actually witnessed the murder or if the police were lucky enough to witness the murder. Even a dead body isn't really direct evidence because all it shows it that somebody was killed, it has to be connected to the killer either through direct or circumstantial evidence.

I agree that we shouldn't give up anything that we have right now. In fact, I think they should slacken some of the concealed carry laws, but that probably wouldn't happen in Maryland.

PBR I'll just note that as far as FDR and the NEW DEAL was concerned, go look back at the numbers, unemployment, housing, etc, basically the economy in general and you'll see the total ineffectiveness of his programs. Look for yourself.They were more like busy work to make people think the govt was doing something. Nothing changed till the war and the destruction of Europe. On the other hand at least we did get some good public works projects out of it though we did pay for them dearly and continue to do so today.

And as for rest, maybe you should rethink what those programs are really doing. Too many topics here for a political minded guy like me to single out just one. Giving away money or lending money to students to pay back later doesn't help the economy. Forcing an employer to pay workers who aren't working is not a way to make money. As far as a balanced budget we are a debtor nation, we owe trillions and trillions of dollars and will never be able to pay it back without cutting SS and other entitlements. Too many topics and don't want to go on a political rant, better to stay away remain calm. Going to hit the trout streams this weekend and maybe try for a turkey on Sunday. take care all.

See what happens when I post right before going to bed...fuzzy math :D :D :D
You are right.

Don't worry about it PBR, I have made some math mistakes before myself. Probably more than I care to admit to.