Sometimes conversations in the Gulch get really strange. And to add $5Au's five dollar's worth, FIDVCIA NEMO.

And what a better place for it? Lol

You make me want to eat three smores rapid fire.

Outrageous abuse of power.

dude

One more bit of Latin comes to mind:
"Reductio ad absurdum" -- a comedy of errors, a tragedy of terrors.

Pubic? Pun intended?

This is where the Nazis started kid...

Have you never heard Martin Niemoller's poem?

great points

this was specifically about the Civil War. To suggest that it goes on for every outrageous expenditure of the Congress to infinity, is taking it out of context, which is a typical technique of charlatans and tyrants

what is your take? Please articulate

do this on one of my posts again, and you will be hidden

minus one. get out of my post if you are going to do this. Disagree all you want, but I expect good arguments out of you.

wellll, is this computer generated?

Sean Hannity told one of the Reverands (today on his show) to take a stand, don't give in and He'll post bond for any or all of them that get arrested. If they give in now, it will be over - or so far gone that the fight won't be worth it. And Anise isn't our problem, I believe that Barry wants Anise to keep starting fires so that when election comes around Wendy Davis will win over Greg Abbott. That will ruin Texas. Obamacare will be implemented, there will be NO borders, Common core will go into effect - it will destroy us.

Of course. It's a favorite tactic of side show hucksters. Distract with shiny bright loud noisy sleight of hand tricks, whilst one's pockets are getting picked clean.

The 14th Amendment makes it illegal to question the public debt: whole hog or none. Perhaps the next time you want to complain about Federal Reserve Notes, you will just find a federal police agency and turn yourself in.

How do you know what I believe that America "should be"? You, Abaco, and I would likely disagree about that, beginning with the fact that you are a Moocher, a long time poster, a bandwidth consumer, who does not pay for the privilege. Ultimately, you must believe that all of us $Producers$ were put here to pay for your opinions. Somehow, that seems unAmerican. Are you a crypto-communist?

Well, NASA would qualify for that... former Texas senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson (replaced with Ted Cruz) was opposed to private space launch firms in Texas. See here - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badast...)

.. as opposed to conservatives, who care about the liberal agenda? (BTW barwick: when are you going to pony up your four bucks month and buy out of Moocherdom?)

Not up there with ebola and ISIS, but buried with the national debt and the failure to colonize Mars... Houston is just a city, like many others its size. The founders of the American republic were educated in the classics of Greek and Latin literature:
E pluribus unum - just another one of a lot of the same
Sic transit gloria mundi - Nothing new under the sun.
Aurea mediocritus - Read your Aristotle
Repetitio est mater studorium - If at first you do not succeed, try, try again.
O tempes! O mores! - you people are idiots.

Houston has a huge Asian population that is forced to embrace a wide ethnic across Vietnamese and Chinese, as if they are all the same. No one cares about that in screaming headlines, nor should they.

I agree. The claim that "predators" dressed as women will enter women's restrooms is a strawman, by which I mean "strawperson-of-chosen-gender."

I note also, the slight against "6-year-old Coy Mathis – a boy who says he thinks he’s a girl..." As I understand the case, Mathis is a girl, in her head where it matters most. We accept that people can be born with six toes or no color perception. Gender and sex are equally variable. The real problem is law: making criminal offenses out of civil suits. Invest in your own pubic restroom, charge admission, make your own complicated rules, and enforce them at your own expense.

The Fourteenth Amendment gives the incorporation. "No State shall make or enforce eny law which abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States."

The Federal Constitution and its Bill of Rights was intended originally to apply ONLY to the Federal government, not to states or to the cities that they incorporate. Massachusetts taxed the populace on behalf of the Congregational church until 1839. The so-called "bright line between church and state" was meant for the Federal government, originally.

If you want to argue a unified nation, where states are mere administrative units of the central government, that's fine. It could be objectively defensive of individual rights. But it is not the framework of so-called "states' rights federalism." Most of the people who self-identify as "conservatives" do not want the federal government interfering in local affairs.

Myself, I have a totally different take on this. However, I do note the apparent contradiction in what I perceive as your other opinions versus this.

A useful political axiom: What it shows the most, it is the least.