|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 15:45:31 GMT
Your liberty should not trump safety of others.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 15:51:23 GMT
Except look at it from a personal liberty standpoint...This is a large government entity...telling you, once again, it knows better as a collective what is good for you and what you need than you do as an individual. That is how many if not most gun rights advocates see it. Any time the government says...we know better than you...it's a bad thing. IMO you really need to stop looking at government as some big bad monster that won't let you play like you want. Before I retired I worked in commercial insurance. As such I was licensed by the state. My license renewed every two years. One of the requirements for renewing my license was to get 25 units of continuing education credits. I always learned something new that helped me do my job better. Would I have taken classes on my own? Maybe but I doubt it. Too busy. But when you have to do it you make the time. If you want to own a gun then you need to be licensed and take gun safety classes on a regular basis. You know why? Because one might just learn something they didn't know that could prevent an accident with the end result of someone getting killed. What do you think the chances are that gun owners would take safety classes on their own if not required? What is pathetic is that one would be REQUIRED to take gun safety classes. There is an essential element to government. Primarily to ensure that the rights of one person do not infringe on the rights of another person. But government is and can be a big bad monster, and those who refuse to believe that will repeat history. Because big government has ALWAYS led to implosion and loss of freedom. Here's the question...You were in commercial insurance. Your company felt you were qualified obviously. The license from the state did nothing except earn them income. Continuing education should have been YOUR decision. Not some governing body deciding what is best for you. Even if you make the wrong decisions, they are still your decisions and you suffer the consequences. Cause and effect. We can't expect government to mitigate that. No one has ever explained how big government is good, and how growing government increases freedom. I continually go back to the statement "Those who are willing to trade a little liberty for a little security are deserving of neither."
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 15:54:05 GMT
Your liberty should not trump safety of others. Owning a gun, doesn't trump your safety. Not taking safety courses, doesn't trump your safety. Your safety is ONLY trumped at the moment a gun owner takes his weapon in hand and points it towards you, and THAT is where the government responsibility to punish and protect comes into play. I'm not afraid of guns, I've been around them before, I see my brother and nephews and dad's guns in the gun cabinet and on hunting days in the rack on the back of the truck. The only time I need to fear a gun is when it's pointed at me.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 16:02:09 GMT
Or if your neighbor doesn't know gun safety. Accidentally shoots through wallGood thing no one was hurt. Stray bullet does kill someone. Guess it is okay if it doesn't happen to your family. This boy's liberty was cut short. 6 year old diesSo yes you should fear guns even though it may be pointed at you were you can see it.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:28:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 16:03:18 GMT
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Funny thing about the 2nd Amendment. Back in the day when I was in school when one talked about the 2nd Amendment the only one who had the right to own guns was the militia. Last year I ran across this article by Michael Waldman on how the NRA rewrote the meaning of the 2nd Amendment with the help of the Supreme Court's ruling on District of Columbia v Heller in 2008. It's a good read IMO. The article was a recap of a book he wrote called The Second Amendment a Biography. Which I bought. He makes a strong case how busy the NRA has been. And not for the good of the country IMO.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 16:08:28 GMT
Speaking of the NRA why would they lobby to stop the funding on the CDC researching gun violence?
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 16:24:14 GMT
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Funny thing about the 2nd Amendment. Back in the day when I was in school when one talked about the 2nd Amendment the only one who had the right to own guns was the militia. Last year I ran across this article by Michael Waldman on how the NRA rewrote the meaning of the 2nd Amendment with the help of the Supreme Court's ruling on District of Columbia v Heller in 2008. It's a good read IMO. The article was a recap of a book he wrote called The Second Amendment a Biography. Which I bought. He makes a strong case how busy the NRA has been. And not for the good of the country IMO. I have read a variety of sources on the topic, and from both sides of the argument. I agree with the 2008 Supreme Court decision. I agree with the concept of Originalism when it comes to the constitution. So did most politicians until that horrible Woodrow Wilson. No matter where we come down on the debate, the reason I agree with the 2008 decision is this. The Constitution as a whole is a list of Positives and Negatives. It is written as a list of what the Government CANNOT do to individuals. and a list of what the individual CAN do. It was intended as a road block preventing the Government from accumulating too much power and authority over the individual. Especially the Bill of Rights. None of the other rights are communal rights. None of them are written in terms of what a "State" can do. They are an Individual Bill of Rights protecting the Individual FROM the State and the Federal Government.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 16:24:58 GMT
Speaking of the NRA why would they lobby to stop the funding on the CDC researching gun violence? Why would the CDC be researching gun violence?
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 16:31:26 GMT
CDC Mission Statement:
CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise.
They also research Motor Vehicle Safety crazy I know.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 16:54:46 GMT
I also wonder how much gun violence is costing each person in America. Here is an article on that from smartgunlaws.org Statistics on the Costs of Gun Violence Posted on Friday, April 17th, 2015 Researchers conservatively estimate that gun violence costs the American economy at least $229 billion every year, including $8.6 billion in direct expenses such as for emergency and medical care. Gun violence costs more than $700 per American every year, more than the total economic cost of obesity and almost as much as the annual price tag for the entire Medicaid program.
Half of these costs are borne by U.S. taxpayers. But these costs are not borne evenly; the data shows that states with smart gun laws save lives and funds. Wyoming, with the nation’s highest rate of gun deaths, also bears the highest gun violence costs per capita of any state: gun violence costs Wyoming around $1,400 per resident every year, twice the national average. By comparison, Hawaii, among the two states with the nation’s lowest rate of gun deaths, had costs associated with gun violence of $234 per resident per year, about 1/6th of Wyoming’s.
In California, the direct costs of hospital use for firearm assault injuries alone was estimated at $87.4 million in 2010. 65% of these costs were borne by taxpayers.
|
|
|
Post by freecharlie on Jun 23, 2015 16:59:26 GMT
I also wonder how much gun violence is costing each person in America. Here is an article on that from smartgunlaws.org Statistics on the Costs of Gun Violence Posted on Friday, April 17th, 2015 Researchers conservatively estimate that gun violence costs the American economy at least $229 billion every year, including $8.6 billion in direct expenses such as for emergency and medical care. Gun violence costs more than $700 per American every year, more than the total economic cost of obesity and almost as much as the annual price tag for the entire Medicaid program. Half of these costs are borne by U.S. taxpayers. But these costs are not borne evenly; the data shows that states with smart gun laws save lives and funds. Wyoming, with the nation’s highest rate of gun deaths, also bears the highest gun violence costs per capita of any state: gun violence costs Wyoming around $1,400 per resident every year, twice the national average. By comparison, Hawaii, among the two states with the nation’s lowest rate of gun deaths, had costs associated with gun violence of $234 per resident per year, about 1/6th of Wyoming’s. In California, the direct costs of hospital use for firearm assault injuries alone was estimated at $87.4 million in 2010. 65% of these costs were borne by taxpayers. can you find those types of stats on a site that isn't as biased?
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 17:05:01 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:28:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 17:07:09 GMT
How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Funny thing about the 2nd Amendment. Back in the day when I was in school when one talked about the 2nd Amendment the only one who had the right to own guns was the militia. Last year I ran across this article by Michael Waldman on how the NRA rewrote the meaning of the 2nd Amendment with the help of the Supreme Court's ruling on District of Columbia v Heller in 2008. It's a good read IMO. The article was a recap of a book he wrote called The Second Amendment a Biography. Which I bought. He makes a strong case how busy the NRA has been. And not for the good of the country IMO. I have read a variety of sources on the topic, and from both sides of the argument. I agree with the 2008 Supreme Court decision. I agree with the concept of Originalism when it comes to the constitution. So did most politicians until that horrible Woodrow Wilson. No matter where we come down on the debate, the reason I agree with the 2008 decision is this. The Constitution as a whole is a list of Positives and Negatives. It is written as a list of what the Government CANNOT do to individuals. and a list of what the individual CAN do. It was intended as a road block preventing the Government from accumulating too much power and authority over the individual. Especially the Bill of Rights. None of the other rights are communal rights. None of them are written in terms of what a "State" can do. They are an Individual Bill of Rights protecting the Individual FROM the State and the Federal Government. But you are overlooking is what harmful acts one individual does to another individual. Or harmful acts a business does to an individual or individuals. The role of the government is to protect its citizens. Not after the fact as suggested in an earlier post but if at all possible to prevent these harmful acts from happening. I have certain expectations that when I turn on the tap water that it is not polluted. That when I buy my fruits and vegetables they are not covered in a harmful pesticide. That when I send my kids to a school it was not built on harmful sludge that some manufacturer buried instead of disposing in a safe manner. That I can swim in rivers and lakes that are not polluted. That I breath air that is not polluted. That I know all the side affects when I take medicines. That when I see someone walk into WalMart with a gun slung over his shoulder that he isn't going to start shooting. I could go on. Bottom line is I don't want the government to step in when I'm dying of cancer because my drinking water was polluted and I didn't know about it until it was too late. For the most part the size of government on all levels is dictated by the number of times and ways individuals and businesses want to screw others. Now if you can find away that individuals and businesses will want do the right thing all the time without the government stepping in then I'm all for it. Good luck on that.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 17:13:23 GMT
CDC Mission Statement: CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise. They also research Motor Vehicle Safety crazy I know. That is interesting, I had only pegged them for infectious diseases research. I would still prefer that they were not a government entity. Government controlling Science just isn't a good mix.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:28:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 17:18:53 GMT
CDC Mission Statement: CDC increases the health security of our nation. As the nation’s health protection agency, CDC saves lives and protects people from health threats. To accomplish our mission, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information that protects our nation against expensive and dangerous health threats, and responds when these arise. They also research Motor Vehicle Safety crazy I know. That is interesting, I had only pegged them for infectious diseases research. I would still prefer that they were not a government entity. Government controlling Science just isn't a good mix. They aren't controlling science. Private entities can still freely research what they want.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 17:20:22 GMT
I have read a variety of sources on the topic, and from both sides of the argument. I agree with the 2008 Supreme Court decision. I agree with the concept of Originalism when it comes to the constitution. So did most politicians until that horrible Woodrow Wilson. No matter where we come down on the debate, the reason I agree with the 2008 decision is this. The Constitution as a whole is a list of Positives and Negatives. It is written as a list of what the Government CANNOT do to individuals. and a list of what the individual CAN do. It was intended as a road block preventing the Government from accumulating too much power and authority over the individual. Especially the Bill of Rights. None of the other rights are communal rights. None of them are written in terms of what a "State" can do. They are an Individual Bill of Rights protecting the Individual FROM the State and the Federal Government. But you are overlooking is what harmful acts one individual does to another individual. Or harmful acts a business does to an individual or individuals. The role of the government is to protect its citizens. Not after the fact as suggested in an earlier post but if at all possible to prevent these harmful acts from happening. I have certain expectations that when I turn on the tap water that it is not polluted. That when I buy my fruits and vegetables they are not covered in a harmful pesticide. That when I send my kids to a school it was not built on harmful sludge that some manufacturer buried instead of disposing in a safe manner. That I can swim in rivers and lakes that are not polluted. That I breath air that is not polluted. That I know all the side affects when I take medicines. That when I see someone walk into WalMart with a gun slung over his shoulder that he isn't going to start shooting. I could go on. Bottom line is I don't want the government to step in when I'm dying of cancer because my drinking water was polluted and I didn't know about it until it was too late. For the most part the size of government on all levels is dictated by the number of times and ways individuals and businesses want to screw others. Now if you can find away that individuals and businesses will want do the right thing all the time without the government stepping in then I'm all for it. Good luck on that. And that is where we ideologically differ. I recognize the risk of liberty, I expect the government to create adequate laws protecting the citizens without overstepping their constitutional bounds. I believe they have wrongly interpreted the 10th amendment to suit their purposes. The thing is there are no guarantees in life. We have laws against robbing someone, because that infringes on their rights, we have laws against killing someone because that infringes on their rights, we have laws against polluting, because that infringes on their rights. What the government is NOT is a parent. The government does not have the authority to force someone to do what IT feels is best for them. Such as banning transfat or salt in restaurants, or requiring seatbelts, or banning drug use and prostitution. A group of people at the top get to make laws that those few believe are in our best interests. No, especially not on the federal level. How each state decides to govern is the responsibility of the citizens in that state, but at least they have more of a voice in their state and local governments.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 17:23:45 GMT
That is interesting, I had only pegged them for infectious diseases research. I would still prefer that they were not a government entity. Government controlling Science just isn't a good mix. They aren't controlling science. Private entities can still freely research what they want. All research should be private. Otherwise it grants too much power to a centralize government and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because the CDC is run by the government, the federal government without a doubt utilizes the CDC to assist in weaponizing bioagents. The Federal Government decides what information to share and what not to share, they get to control the messaging. That was never their intended role. Leave science, industry and technology to the private sector, and focus only on infrastructure and national security.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:28:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 17:26:26 GMT
They aren't controlling science. Private entities can still freely research what they want. All research should be private. Otherwise it grants too much power to a centralize government and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because the CDC is run by the government, the federal government without a doubt utilizes the CDC to assist in weaponizing bioagents. The Federal Government decides what information to share and what not to share, they get to control the messaging. That was never their intended role. Leave science, industry and technology to the private sector, and focus only on infrastructure and national security. I disagree. Wholly.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 17:33:46 GMT
All research should be private. Otherwise it grants too much power to a centralize government and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Because the CDC is run by the government, the federal government without a doubt utilizes the CDC to assist in weaponizing bioagents. The Federal Government decides what information to share and what not to share, they get to control the messaging. That was never their intended role. Leave science, industry and technology to the private sector, and focus only on infrastructure and national security. I disagree. Wholly. That's perfectly OK. The reason I don't agree with it is that the constitution doesn't provide the Federal Government that authority. And if it isn't expressly permitted by the Constitution, then it falls to the states and the people to do. Centralized government is bent towards corruption. Why would we want to risk that corruption seeping into our every day lives. Into our health decisions, into anything that effects us and our liberty. What benefit does the federal government provide through its involvement other than the expenditure of tax dollars. I was a huge proponent of the space program and even happier when it was mostly privatized. I believe the post office should be privatized as well. The government has never run a business or an agency efficiently or successfully.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:28:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 17:48:49 GMT
That's perfectly OK. The reason I don't agree with it is that the constitution doesn't provide the Federal Government that authority. And if it isn't expressly permitted by the Constitution, then it falls to the states and the people to do. Centralized government is bent towards corruption. Why would we want to risk that corruption seeping into our every day lives. Into our health decisions, into anything that effects us and our liberty. What benefit does the federal government provide through its involvement other than the expenditure of tax dollars. I was a huge proponent of the space program and even happier when it was mostly privatized. I believe the post office should be privatized as well. The government has never run a business or an agency efficiently or successfully. Do you realize that the post office is actually run very well? The only reason why it is "in the red" is because congress forces them to fund retirement for people that don't even work there yet. Something no one else does. It is very efficient and a good deal for our citizens. Privatize it and it will go threat of ups and FedEx and price itself out of the market. And leave the small towns and rural areas to flounder. It is self run except for certain areas and if congress would butt out it would be just fine. My dh is a carrier and works his ass off and certainly isn't overpaid. Although I feel he is overworked and for little benefits. That is changing next month thankfully when he's made regular.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 17:59:29 GMT
That's perfectly OK. The reason I don't agree with it is that the constitution doesn't provide the Federal Government that authority. And if it isn't expressly permitted by the Constitution, then it falls to the states and the people to do. Centralized government is bent towards corruption. Why would we want to risk that corruption seeping into our every day lives. Into our health decisions, into anything that effects us and our liberty. What benefit does the federal government provide through its involvement other than the expenditure of tax dollars. I was a huge proponent of the space program and even happier when it was mostly privatized. I believe the post office should be privatized as well. The government has never run a business or an agency efficiently or successfully. Do you realize that the post office is actually run very well? The only reason why it is "in the red" is because congress forces them to fund retirement for people that don't even work there yet. Something no one else does. It is very efficient and a good deal for our citizens. Privatize it and it will go threat of ups and FedEx and price itself out of the market. And leave the small towns and rural areas to flounder. It is self run except for certain areas and if congress would butt out it would be just fine. My dh is a carrier and works his ass off and certainly isn't overpaid. Although I feel he is overworked and for little benefits. That is changing next month thankfully when he's made regular. Thanks for that information. I'll read up more on it. I have a couple friends who work for the post office. I still don't feel the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to operate a business. Is it beneficial? Yes. Are they hard workers? Yes. Is it the job of a federal government? No.
|
|
|
Post by missmiss on Jun 23, 2015 18:01:22 GMT
Wasn't it the private sector doctors who said smoking cigarettes were okay for you back in the day?
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 18:04:09 GMT
Wasn't it the private sector doctors who said smoking cigarettes were okay for you back in the day? I'm pretty sure it was a consensus. It was also private sector doctors who once said being gay was a mental disorder. Times change, research develops and opinions change. Doesn't give the Federal government a place in it. Our system of government was designed with the full intent to have as limited of a federalized national government as humanly possible, while still affording for infrastructure and national security. And Government is as corrupt if not more corrupt than big business.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:28:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 19:20:25 GMT
And that is where we ideologically differ. I recognize the risk of liberty, I expect the government to create adequate laws protecting the citizens without overstepping their constitutional bounds. I believe they have wrongly interpreted the 10th amendment to suit their purposes. The thing is there are no guarantees in life. We have laws against robbing someone, because that infringes on their rights, we have laws against killing someone because that infringes on their rights, we have laws against polluting, because that infringes on their rights. What the government is NOT is a parent. The government does not have the authority to force someone to do what IT feels is best for them. Such as banning transfat or salt in restaurants, or requiring seatbelts, or banning drug use and prostitution. A group of people at the top get to make laws that those few believe are in our best interests. No, especially not on the federal level. How each state decides to govern is the responsibility of the citizens in that state, but at least they have more of a voice in their state and local governments. You may understand the risk of liberty but I don't want to pay for your risk. Your example of banning trans fat as an example of the government making a decision to make "you do what is good for you". I see it as realizing trans fat in food is not good for the general public. Some citizens may quit eating food that contain trans fat on their own. But we all know there will be a big chunk of folks who will continue to eat foods that contain trans fat that has now been proven is harmful to people and could result in health issues. At some point these folks are going to want their health care issues taken care of. With or without health care insurance their treatment is going to cost me money. Either by more tax dollars going to Medicaid or if they have health care insurance it will cost me because I will end up paying higher premiums to offset the money the insurance company is paying out in claims. Or if they don't have any insurance and are treated regardless and the medical provider charges insurance companies more to offset their out of pocket. Which will result in higher premiums for me. Just think think of trans fat as the current version of DTT or Asbestos.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 23, 2015 19:29:38 GMT
Do you realize that the post office is actually run very well? The only reason why it is "in the red" is because congress forces them to fund retirement for people that don't even work there yet. Something no one else does. It is very efficient and a good deal for our citizens. Privatize it and it will go threat of ups and FedEx and price itself out of the market. And leave the small towns and rural areas to flounder. It is self run except for certain areas and if congress would butt out it would be just fine. My dh is a carrier and works his ass off and certainly isn't overpaid. Although I feel he is overworked and for little benefits. That is changing next month thankfully when he's made regular. Thanks for that information. I'll read up more on it. I have a couple friends who work for the post office. I still don't feel the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to operate a business. Is it beneficial? Yes. Are they hard workers? Yes. Is it the job of a federal government? No. Jonda! It's in the Constitution. Article 1, section something gives Congress the right to establish post offices and post roads. Of course the Federal government runs the post office. I think Congress is working on destroying the USPS but I don't understand why.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 19:29:45 GMT
And that is where we ideologically differ. I recognize the risk of liberty, I expect the government to create adequate laws protecting the citizens without overstepping their constitutional bounds. I believe they have wrongly interpreted the 10th amendment to suit their purposes. The thing is there are no guarantees in life. We have laws against robbing someone, because that infringes on their rights, we have laws against killing someone because that infringes on their rights, we have laws against polluting, because that infringes on their rights. What the government is NOT is a parent. The government does not have the authority to force someone to do what IT feels is best for them. Such as banning transfat or salt in restaurants, or requiring seatbelts, or banning drug use and prostitution. A group of people at the top get to make laws that those few believe are in our best interests. No, especially not on the federal level. How each state decides to govern is the responsibility of the citizens in that state, but at least they have more of a voice in their state and local governments. You may understand the risk of liberty but I don't want to pay for your risk. Your example of banning trans fat as an example of the government making a decision to make "you do what is good for you". I see it as realizing trans fat in food is not good for the general public. Some citizens may quit eating food that contain trans fat on their own. But we all know there will be a big chunk of folks who will continue to eat foods that contain trans fat that has now been proven is harmful to people and could result in health issues. At some point these folks are going to want their health care issues taken care of. With or without health care insurance their treatment is going to cost me money. Either by more tax dollars going to Medicaid or if they have health care insurance it will cost me because I will end up paying higher premiums to offset the money the insurance company is paying out in claims. Or if they don't have any insurance and are treated regardless and the medical provider charges insurance companies more to offset their out of pocket. Which will result in higher premiums for me. Just think think of trans fat as the current version of DTT or Asbestos. Except, a person's body, and what they do or don't put into it should be their choice. Take a look at High Fructose Corn Syrup. That came about as a direct result of legislation. Now they find it's bad. I personally prefer foods without it. You can't have a society where on one hand you say, my body, my choice, and on the other say, your body, our choice. It's one way or the other. Look at Prohibition. Perfect example of government intrusion. I am always, you are always the better judge of what to put into your body than a government agency. I may not want to pay for maternity insurance that as a man I will never use, but that's part of the society we live in. Say the FDA decides that eating meat is bad. Should they ban meat because of the potential health care costs? Look how much money has been wasted on the war on drugs. Look at the violence it has caused in our cities. It has been an abysmal failure, and in fact the war on drugs....expanded violence and drug use. It had the exact opposite effect, just as prohibition did. Prostitution is the same. Legalize it and regulate it, but outlawing it goes against the same argument used for legalizing abortion. Governments are corrupt. Even more so when they are centralized and removed from the local citizenry. That's why it was designed for the state's to have more power than the federal government.
|
|
|
Post by jonda1974 on Jun 23, 2015 19:33:48 GMT
Thanks for that information. I'll read up more on it. I have a couple friends who work for the post office. I still don't feel the Federal Government has the constitutional authority to operate a business. Is it beneficial? Yes. Are they hard workers? Yes. Is it the job of a federal government? No. Jonda! It's in the Constitution. Article 1, section something gives Congress the right to establish post offices and post roads. Of course the Federal government runs the post office. I think Congress is working on destroying the USPS but I don't understand why. Thanks Lucy, I stand corrected. ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/MNrJDkDuSwqIMVw33MdD.jpg)
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Jul 4, 2024 13:28:48 GMT
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2015 19:42:33 GMT
Rush Limbaugh gives his opinion on why Dylann Roof murdered these people.
See all the liberals fault.
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Jun 23, 2015 19:51:17 GMT
Rush Limbaugh gives his opinion on why Dylann Roof murdered these people. See all the liberals fault. ![:rolleyes:](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/images/Ui47LhQw2NqWVWNNqtfM.jpg) Rush Limbaugh never disappoints, does he?
|
|
conchita
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,141
Jul 1, 2014 11:25:58 GMT
|
Post by conchita on Jun 23, 2015 19:55:57 GMT
Rush Limbaugh gives his opinion on why Dylann Roof murdered these people. See all the liberals fault. That's grasping at straws at this point. All this talk about what made him do what he did reminds me of this cartoon: ![](//storage.proboards.com/5645536/thumbnailer/vpUnka3oD1PECj7FpLba.jpg)
|
|