Hello Thanks heaps for this indeed!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website Super Piano Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

On October 1st, 2009 at 8:25 pm, zyzzyg said:
LOL, what!?

The military collects spent rounds from the battlefield to resell to arms manufacturers? That’s taking recycling a little to far, don’t you?

OK, meeting you half way. Let’s say the spent rounds are collected from military firing ranges and recycled, but not sold to munitions manufacturers. Wouldn’t the manufactures just produce more brass to meet the increased demand? Have munition manufactures stopped being capitalists all of a sudden?

The brass manufacturers cannot meet the demand from the military and private markets simultaneously because in the past the reloaders have been able to buy spent brass from the military by the ton.(We are talking about millions of rounds of ammo per month BTW)The Brass manufacturers had no way of knowing that the Federal Government was going to keep this policy or repeal it. Do you think they can go out spend millions on new equipment without knowing if Barry Soetoro was going to keep the ban in force?

He instructed his head of Homeland Security to go after people like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin as terrorists for the gaul to ask our government leaders to follow our Constitution.

Sight a source for this assertion.

I suggest you do a google on the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) report that was issued on orders of Janet Napolitano.

On gun control, did you miss the fact that Barry appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the supreme court who is anti gun? In addition,Barry Soetoro signed onto the CIFTA treaty which will require Americans to get a license to own or posses a firearm and will require all reloading equipment to be registered and licensed as well.As a senator, he voted against the Second Amendment at every opportunity. He has never seen a piece of gun control legislation that he did not support.

He also supports HR 45.
H.R. 45 would require a federal license for all handguns and semiautomatics, including the ones you already possess. It would require handgun and semi-auto owners to be thumbprinted at a police station and sign a certificate that the gun will not be kept in a place where it could be used for the defense of the gun owner’s family.

These are not local measures by any stretch of the imagination.

Perhaps the tides will indeed turn for 2010, but we shall see if average voters have learned anything.

He has never supported the total elimination of all firearms.

Factcheck.org, a “non-partisan” liberal site, confirmed that Obama had, in fact, answered these questions as follows on a candidate questionnaire:

35. Do you support state legislation to:
a. ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns? Yes.
b. ban assault weapons? Yes.
c. mandatory waiting periods and background checks? Yes.

Again, this was confirmed by factcheck.org, which is pro-Obama.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

. . . or a liar.

What? You mean when Wilson correctly pointed out that Obama was lying about illegal aliens’ coverage status?

What a maroon.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

He instructed his head of Homeland Security to go after people like Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin as terrorists for the gaul to ask our government leaders to follow our Constitution.

Sight a source for this assertion

.See my April 2009 link above.

Just how short is your memory? It was covered right here by Michelle.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

How many placards were there at the 9/12 rally that Pres Obama might have found offensive or untrue? How many did Pres Obama or his minions and supporters stop from being shown?

His accomplices in the media stopped plenty. Did you watch CNN?

My favorite part was when CNN showed a man armed pretty heavily at the September 12 rally, calling him something along the lines of an “armed white racist” or “racist white people armed with assault weapons”. Of course they edited out the man’s head and other features that would expose that he was actually black.

There’s no other explanation for CNN’s actions other than CNN (Obama’s minions and supporters) stopping something important from being shown. They had the full tape, but chose to edit out key information for purposes of making a phony point to support Obama.

A perfect example of the kind of thing that happens all the time. Reason #4522786 no one watches CNN or the rest of the radical media anymore.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

And yes, calling someone a racist just because they disagree with him is an attempt to silence free speech.

Indeed it is.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

I managed to point out where William Cody is wrong on the facts. And, I stand by them. Exactly where am I wrong on the facts? Throwing out invectives does serve the discussion.

Hint: When the words on the screen are red, clicking on them will take you to the source being referenced. It’s called a “link”.

Try using them. There have been plenty provided.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Where and when has [Mr.] Obama threatened, or jeopardized, the “Free Speech” embodied in the Constitution? Free Speech seems to be working fairly well on this BLOG.

April 2009. This report was a direct attempt to suppress the First Amendment rights of those who disagree with Obama. As far as I know, Obama never called for any kind of retraction from DHS, but if he did, it would only have been in response to the criticism he took for it. Had Americans not said anything about it, he would have not only let it stand, but he would have done so with enthusiasm.

Obama also has shown his intentions with regard to bloggers and talk radio not by supporting the “Fairness Doctrine” outright (he’d get creamed like he did on healthcare if he did). Instead, you can bet his “Localism Doctrine” will be used to suppress free speech in ways the Fairness Doctrine couldn’t touch.

Yes, [Mr.] Obama has discussed local restrictions, made by local municipalities, on certain types of weapons. He has never supported the total elimination of all firearms.

Per the Second Amendment, these restrictions are just as illegal as any effort to ban all weapons. Furthermore, HR 45 is still out there, and you can bet Obama is a huge fan. Even if he applies a veto (which will only happen if there are enough votes to override him), it will only be to deliberately give the appearance that Congress overruled him against his will.

Did the Federal Government bailout the big 3 automakers, or did it bailout GM and Chrysler?

Doesn’t matter. The government had neither the money nor the authority to bail out any one of them, let alone two or three.

I will agree that the stimulus package was bloated and its effectiveness is yet to be fully determined. (grammar corrected)

Again, the government had neither the money nor the authority to do it. There is no indication anywhere that it will ultimately have been “effective” at anything good, and just like every other tax-and-spend program, will be shown to have exacerbated the problem it was supposed to alleviate.

If this guy is a target for anything, it is for not knowing what he is talking about.

Now you know why you have been a target for not knowing what you are talking about.

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

RWR
http://www.rightwingrocker.com

Since you and I have continued the converstion, it proves I am thinking for myself. Heck, it was your assertion and postulate. Admit it.

Since you have contributed nothing toward making it an actual conversation it proves that you chose – and choose – not to think for yourself.

Have you forgotten your own post #825973, where you said, “Another factless post by zyzzyg”?

Very well, if you want to play semantics.

What is ‘factless’ about my post #815971?

You’re the one who has been playing semantics. All I’ve been trying to do is to find a fact that you’ve posted.

Oh, wait. I found a fact that you posted!!

You said that you posted something in post #815971 – and you did!! That post #815971 was bereft of facts doesn’t mean that you didn’t make that post. Congrats on finally posting a fact!

On October 1st, 2009 at 9:28 pm, JHSII said: #816055

So you admit that you don’t want to think for yourself. Fair enough.

Since you and I have continued the converstion, it proves I am thinking for myself. Heck, it was your assertion and postulate. Admit it.

I have yet to see you post any facts. When you start posting facts I will start responding to them.

Have you forgotten your own post #825973, where you said, “Another factless post by zyzzyg”?

Very well, if you want to play semantics.

What is ‘factless’ about my post #815971?

On October 1st, 2009 at 10:04 pm, Little Ma said:
zyzzyg, the word you want is “cite” not “sight.” LOL

You are correct, my bad.