Nitro

Boy, that was a good one. The Professor who disagree's with me doesn't even have her own opinion or proof that the founding fathers rejected the idea. She draws her idea from ANOTHER college professor? Yeah, nice proof there! Truely laughable. Do you even know who Hakuta is?

I am making points that neither you or the article made? You apparently aren't an English major either. That made absolutely no sense, what-so-ever. You posted a link, which referenced an ACLU publication, in which that publication stated that the idea that Adam's had, was rejected. You stated, in your own words, that the idea was rejected by the 'founding fathers.' The idea may have been rejected by a few of the founding fathers, but you inferred that all or most of them accepted the rejection, when in fact, most of them didn't even consider or entertain the idea, because Ad

I have provided no source for what? Do you even remember what you are arguing about? What am I supposed to be providing you? A source that says all the founding fathers were for it? I NEVER said they were! YOU said they were. I have NEVER said anything that would be remotely conceived to as saying that the founding fathers wanted the primary language to be English. I said that they had no thought of making English an primary or official language because the largest majority (92%) of the people spoke English and making it an official language would have never crossed their mind

#1. Using Wikipedia as your reference doesn't help your case. #2. It specifically says that *SOME* historians regard the "founding fathers" as a larger group that includes, "politicians, jurists, statesmen, soldiers, diplomats, or ordinary citizens." *Some* historian's believe this.... doesn't make it a fact. The majority of historian's do not regard politician's, jurists, soldiers, diplomats, and especially ordinary citizen's of the time as "founding fathers." Even though, these people played a major role in development of the first stages of this country, they are not g

Their ages weren't listed in the news story.. I've known about these horses for a month. This happened several weeks ago. The news just did the story it on yesterday. Animal control has been taking donations for several weeks. I know the people at animal control and the marshal's office pretty well. This horse should be a lot bigger for it's age. I hope they throw all the books at these people!

You didn't provide anything. Did you even read the article you posted? :rolleyes:

That's actually not a baby... it's 2 years old. It was just malnourished at such a young age, it stunted it's growth, apparently. That 'baby' should be a lot bigger than it is...

Boy, to claim you know so much about how this country was founded, you know very little. The men of the era that forged the documents, yes. All the members of the first Congress were not all considered founding fathers. You should really get some history lessons.

You're right, I won't find it. For one thing, I didn't say you linked anything to the ACLU publication. I said you posted something that came from and based around an ACLU publication. Secondly, your links prove exactly what I said. The "founding fathers" were never mentioned in either of the three articles, by "founding fathers" or by name. YOU said the Founding Fathers rejected the idea. The idea was rejected... but not specifically by the founding fathers. You lose.

Yeah, and once again, I see you stating just crap...without anything to back it up. Only you would post something from the ACLU publications and try to pass it off as fact.

It wasn't a waste by the county. The state tells the county how many polling places they have to have based on the population of the county and the districting. And it's really pathetic that you think voting, even for one run off race, is a waste of your time and gas. Not knowing what you are voting for is also pretty pathetic. Why did you even go to the polls? You had no idea who or what you were voting on or for... Do you just go an randomly select your vote?

You apparently didn't read your own link. It said NOTHING about the founding fathers rejecting the idea. The article simply said the ACLU published a paper that said, "an effort by John Adams, in 1780, to establish an official academy devoted to English, a move which was rejected at the time as undemocratic." The ACLU published a paper and said that.. The founding fathers didn't say it. The ACLU made up propeganda for their agenda, just like normal. It doesn't say who rejected it... it says it was rejected. John Adams tried to get the academy going. John Jay said, "“

Mostly because they cannot maintain the minimum required speed limit of 40 mph.

Oh, so... I shouldn't have to pay the taxes on my motorcycle because I'm already paying them on my truck, my suv, and my other two cars, huh? That argument doesn't fly. Yeah, you are already paying taxes, but NOT on the the vehicle (bicycle). If you go buy a new car, guess what? You'll pay the taxes that support the road. There is no minimum speed limit on most roads, except interstate highways... which bicycles are already prohibited.

Yes, the motorist pass bicyclists all the time. When passing a bicyclist, a motor vehicle operator has to still follow the rules of the road and only pass in a proper passing zone. This rarely happens. I see motorists pass bicyclists all the time, illegally. On the same note, I personally don't think a bicyclist should be allowed to ride on the road where motor vehicles operate. Bicycles do not have to pay any form of registration, tag, property tax, or road tax to use those roads. I think if they should be allowed to use the same roadways, they should be made to pay a tax, just li

The video had three people in the audience holler "yeah" when asked the death question. Ron Paul answered, "We never turned anyone away from the hospital." ...and reiterated that it is not the governments job to take care of people, it's the own persons responsibility and if needed can obtain extra help from friends, neighbors, the church, etc... Three people out of a whole audience is what you are using to prove your point? :rolleyes: I doubt the majority of Republicans would say they want people do die. What they want is people to take responsibility for themselves a

Oh yeah, God forbid they learn another trade or skill! "Hell, my job is no longer needed, so let me just sit on my ass and let the government take care of me!" Another typical dumb-ass comment! You know people learn new skills and trades for this thing all the time. Responsible people, who are responsible for themselves, learn more than one skill or trade so that if their position is no longer needed, they have something to fall back on. You have a very board member on here that has done exactly that... and hasn't been on welfare. I won't mention his name, but I'm pretty

What? You mean that you actually want people to have to have some responsibility for themselves? You don't want the government to be responsible for everything? /saracsm

:rofl:

I really don't care for the term either, but I hardly let it bother me if someone calls me "dude." I had a co-work that "man" this and "man" that. It sounds so unprofessional in the work place. If someone calls me "dude" or "yo man..." it's just not worth worrying about. I just roll with it.

Apparently, you didn't understand both of our "dudes," because you accused me of making a personal character attack, when no such thing ever happened. Then you went off and started a whole thread, bitching and whining about something that didn't happen. Umm... I'm not. That's why I said, "I could give a rats ass less about your 'rathers'." :rolleyes: Do you even comprehend what you are saying?

What the hell are you talking about? Nothing in there was an attack on personal character traits. Maybe YOU don't understand either? He responded to her non-sense with "dude"... and she got all bent out of shape because he called her "dude." I simply posted the definition of "dude" can mean ANYONE, including a female. Nobody cut her down or supressed her.. she got bent out of shape for being called "dude" for no reason. And as far as handing out cut-downs, she was queen of them. She handed them out, just as well as they were handed too her... and yes, I've seen plenty of tim

As a motorcyclist, I absolutely despise these knuckleheads that do this. Twits like this are the exact reason that people are less tolerant of a motorcycle.

Apparently, you don't understand context, then. I doubt seriously that he was calling you a GQ man. I doubt seriously that he was calling you a chap (since this in not generally a term used in the US to describe a man or boy). So, it only stands to reason (which obviously you have no idea what reason is) that he was referring to you as 'dude' as a general term for referencing a person he is in communication with... LOL! Bullcheeze! Hyperbole, my ass! Dude, you were dead serious and you know it.

Really? You can't figure this out? Read the whole post. Remember the part where I stated, "People are speculating..." It kind of goes hand in hand. That WHOLE freaking post is about *some* people are speculating and you pull one little last sentence from it and tell me that I am one of these people? Where did I say that *I* am foreseeing the riots? Where did I say that that Obama is going to declare marshal law? I didn't. I said *some* people. Get the point of the WHOLE post... don't just pick one little sentence out of context and say that I am one of those pe