Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Might as well give it up, RJ. This thread has become a slug-fest between Oakdale and Sang, the rest of us barely exist here.

When it comes to English, or any other language, there at least as many ways to parse the meaning of a sentence as there are speakers of the language.

.......So: The incumbent Congress and the incumbent State legislators should decide who should be allowed to say what; when and where…
The epitome of democracy! The "powers that be" insist that they persist…un-opposed!.......

This amendment abridges fundamental freedoms that are the birthright of Americans. The arguments made to support it are unconvincing. The amendment will weaken, not strengthen democracy. It will not reduce corruption, but open the door for elected officials to bend democracy's rules to benefit themselves. The fact that the Committee took up this amendment at all, and regrettably adopted it, is a great testament to the wisdom of our Founding Fathers in insisting on and adopting a Bill of Rights in the first place.

We recoil from the majority’s citation of poll results on the popularity of First Amendment protected speech as a basis to scale back the protections of the Bill of Rights. As Justice Jackson famously wrote, ‘‘The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.’’..........

..........We must preserve our Bill of Rights including our rights to free speech. We must not allow officials to curtail and ration that right. We must not let this proposal become the supreme law of the land...........

Defeat of this proposed amendment is the only acceptable outcome, & any remnants of it's concept must be forcefully cut out like the cancer that it is.

thought we'd settled this a long time ago; in fact, 1789… But as the 20th century dawned and blossomed and rotted… We saw the Common Man become a fictitious character, an idol. Which became the justification of any evil or excess.

Defeat of this proposed amendment is the only acceptable outcome, & any remnants of it's concept must be forcefully cut out like the cancer that it is.

Really, you can't really think that was an attempt to block speech by "the common man." It was about campaign finance.

Forget the car.How are YOU?

the airbags deployed late

I might need to sue the manufacturer of the old one though.

Pure America...

Safety is not to be found in passive systems! Be aware.)

(Get a model that has pontoons, in case you drive into a lake...    )

I was gonna take a trip down to Lake Mead....

If you've got more money than sense, go all out and get an amphibious car.

I just looked it up, and they have several choices now, including one that looks like a converted Humvee, almost-regular cars, and so help me, a bus-sized RV set up.

Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-10-11, 02:56:43

I just looked it up, and they have several choices now, including one that looks like a converted Humvee, almost-regular cars, and so help me, a bus-sized RV set up.

Lisbon with a splash.
Are you sure that isn't lesbos with a splash.

Note what I think is George Will's best column in a decade!
(He's the fellow who introduced the term "gravitas" into our political lexicon — in a book about baseball…    )

What I am arguing is that Exxonmobile and friends are not the common man.