framer454

Would like to build a fishing boat, have plenty of scrap metal and four, fifty-five gallon plastic drums, how much will these drums hold?

Would like to build a fishing boat, have plenty of scrap metal and four, fifty-five gallon plastic drums, how much will these drums hold?

Freedom of speech?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z32Ayet7SKU&feature...

All of the problems and debt and criminal politicians and wacko laws and the loop of chaos that is Washington DC. Is it really a fixable sustainable system? If you think so, why and how. If not, what next?

Please, use some thought.

The same thing that is going on in Libya is going on in Sudan, Ivory Coast and Bahrain. Why are we only using our power to help the Libyans over throw their government?

In Libya the protesters, after not getting there way, which is understandable, they armed themselves and tried a new tactic. Would president Obama step down if 1/5th of the population protested and marched on Washington? And if after not getting their way decided to arm and fight would they still be considered civilians and would Obama order military strikes on them?

citizens to get guns is going to do anything for illegal guns? It has been proven that, states which implement concealed carry laws actually have a drop in crime. And your favorite president is trying to find a way around congress and trample on the constitution just to "control" "illegal" guns.

“We need tougher laws, but there’s a lot we can and should be doing to enforce the laws we have,” said Mark Glaze, the executive director of Mayors Against Illegal Guns. If they are against illegal guns why are they after my legal guns? Do you all really want to be unarmed peasants? If the citizens don't have fire power to match the government how are we to protect ourselves from that government?

In the use of both words there are derogatory and amiable meanings. In both words you find that when one says it to the other it is called hate. When one says it to one in the same it is a term of endearment. Some are even proud of it, on both sides. I understand the history behind both, and most of you don't, I have heard plenty with completely wrong versions. So tell me then if you were trying to explain these terms to someone from another world would you simply have to say one is for whites, and one is for blacks? Is there a better answer to this?

perfectly acceptable for anyone to say? I have been told that it just depends on how you use the word, and that is a pile of horse apples. When a black man calls me a redneck he means it just as derogatorily as if I had said the "N" word. So why is this acceptable? Racial equality is a myth in this country, like old Abe said, I think I should move some place where racism can be taken pure without the base lie of equality.

Can anyone honestly tell me they think their political leaders are completely open and honest? A career politician is a career criminal.

It is hard to imagine but I have been trying to wrap my head around this for quite some time. Thinking of writing a book on it. Would like some honest and intelligent insight. North V. South again, I think very unlikely. Red V. Blue, possible, OSC did a fine job of convincing me of the possibility of that. But if so, where is the line? Is there a line or is it a fight for the whole country? Please use some gray matter, no pickets please.

We have all heard the crap that goes on down there. Can you really blame these people? Its a great country.

By trying to limit the voting rights of students don't you think this will just cause them to mobilize and be even more willing to make it to the poles and vote? Which would of course be a bad thing for the GOP because historically college students vote Democrat.

Apparently liberals are all for tax hikes, I wonder how much they are willing to give. And do they really think politicians can be trusted with it? Politicians a corrupt, on both sides. Give one side too much power and they will be even more corrupt. What makes them think that giving them more money and more power will solve anything and still be able to keep their freedoms.

I myself don't support either one. I would like some answers from both sides on how one differs from the other and why you are against one but not the other. Use some logic and intelligence please. One sentence answers will be disregarded.

Does that mean all car manufacturers are responsible for all car related violence?

Are all knife manufacturers responsible for knife related violence?

Are all parents responsible for domestic violence?

This makes no sense to me. Why is it that the left thinks you can solve these problems by attacking gun manufacturers and letting people sue them for the actions of stupid people?

When a man writes hate with a pencil is it the pencil manufacturers fault?

Hence, 12 years of Reagonmics is what created the boom of the '90s. The 8 years of Clintonmics created the decline and eventual bust of the "00's". And W's inability to stop the Demo train of spend spend spend create this quagmire we are in now?

If the U.S., U.N., and NATO, would just let these people win their freedom on their own wouldn't they be better off? The 'freedom' we 'gave' to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan means very little to them, and corruption is rampant. Should we just watch as they change their own world?