DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings continued

Can you? In MD? Come and try.

Yet now abortion is in control of every state and there are many making it nearly impossible for women to get an abortion. You're 1 in 50 argument isn't as strong as you think it is.

And yet the original point was:

People will tell you have x so you don't need y when it comes to rights. You have deflected and moved the goal posts yet again.


Ok... go buy a Colt LE9620 in California. You are purposefully missing the point. This is not surprising. Even when originally agreeing with you and adding information you find a way to fight. Go get yourself some help.

Yeah, it's me looking for a fight. lmao

Always seems to be. I even tried mostly agreeing with you, go see someone.

I'll tell you what, when the SCOTUS tells the states they have the right to ban selling assault rifles, get back to me.

Thankfully they won't now, but with all the "court stacking" talk one day it might get there.

But I suppose you still won't understand, the Bloombergs and Giffords want to tell us we have guns that will provide self defense so we should be willing to give up the really scary ones.

I see you haven't addressed that is part of their message. You wanted a fight, that is all you want.

Go get professional help.

Take a deeper look Democrats are the ones who pushed the legal drinking age to 21 not republicans.

In 1984, the National Minimum Legal Drinking Act, written by Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) and influenced by Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), required all states to set their minimum purchasing age to 21.

So you see it was Dems who think it's OK to murder your child at 18 but they don't want you to drink. So you see they have the right to murder their children but they can't drink booze. Talk about screwed up.

You aren’t even comparing apples to oranges. You are comparing apples to rocks. One is a constitutional right, guaranteed to American citizens, the other isn’t even mentioned in the constitution.

In all fairness, I do believe the "legal drinking act" basically required states to raise the legal limit to 21 IF the states wanted their own tax dollars for road construction.

You know, the old "you're being taxed and if you play by our rules, we'll give some of it back to you>" thing.

So you’re ok with a rapist getting less time in jail then a 10 year old girl who aborted the rapists seed/fetus?

Maybe the states should wise up and quit paying the extortion money.

Well, they have to pay it.

Money rules the world - and this country especially. Unless a state secedes, they have to pay. Then they get a portion back. It is what it is.

Extortion money?? lol you got it backwards. The feds are paying the extortion funds to states that adhere to a legal drinking age to save teenage lives. But that’s not your thing is it?

Are you OK. No I really mean it are you OK. Geez you had to reach so far up your backside too come up with that response your lucky that you didn't knock one of your teeth loose.

Since you don't pay even 1 percent attention. I will just say read my old posts and for once in your entire life pay attention.

And I admit I could be wrong (I don't think I am) but it was Dems who pushed so HARD TO RAISE THE DRINKING AGE TO 21. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong bro.

I don't know which party did it. I just remember the fed's saying "if you don't raise the legal age, we won't send you back a portion of the gas tax for road construction, repair, etc."

Look it up bro. It was the left. I don't care which side it was since I don't like either side. BUT the blame needs to be placed where it belongs. Don't blame one side when the other side is responsible.

The federal government can't tell states to raise the drinking age so they dangle sweet sweet road money in front of them.

So you are saying it wasn't the state's' thing to save teenagers without financial incentive? <=-- see, we can play that game.

Didn’t they do the same thing to push reluctant states into adopting 55mph speed limit??

"extremist"

At least they are tight on their messaging.

I wasn't blaming any side. I was trying to be politically correct by posting what I thought was a fact, while at the same time trying to avoid being lambasted by the left.