HereComesTheReignAgain

I wonder if these Politicians would support an apartment complex who refuses to rent to Arabs due to security concerns or restaurants who won't serve Arabs because they tend to blow themselves up in the Middle East? I know it is stretching the point, but the concept is the same.

Any Air America stickers will be collectors items soon. The station can't even succeed with millionaire liberals footing the bills. Good riddance to Stuart Smalley and the rest of the Anti-American whiners on that Station! We get it, you hate Bush, find a new topic and maybe someone will listen. I'm not agreeing that the woman should have been fired.

So because Ralph took a risk and made a lot of money he should not complain about a bunch of richer, less experienced owners and players screwing him? Guys like Ralph built this league into what it is today. You rip Ralph for wanting to make the most $ possible, but feel sorry for the players who make millions to play a game! These guys are free to find other work. Most of them would not have a college education if not for football and most of them still do not graduate. Have you listened to some of them speak! They would be lucky to land a $20,000 a year job. Lots of people potentialy sacrifice their future health to make a living, like miners, construction workers, policemen, firemen, etc. If you don't agree with his opinion on the deal that is fine, but don't hold Ralphs hard work and fortune against him, there were no guarantees when he bought this franchise and brought it to Buffalo. He took a big risk and we all enjoy Sundays a lot more because of it!

He was not at all happy about being released and will probably have a lot to prove this year. Sounds like a great fit right now, especially since he would get to prove the Jets wrong twice a year! If he was nasty before he should be a monster after being tossed aside by a team that he was very loyal to.

I apologize you are right(or should I say extreme left). Hey, the constituion probably meant that we have the right to bear(big fuzzy animal) arms. Why would a group of people that just had to overthrow the ruling government be concerned about preserving the right to revolt against the government! It doesn't get much clearer than "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

I heard the Dolphins were picking up every available free agent. They have recieved an exemption from the league to carry a roster of 268 players this year. Seriuosly, is there anyone the Dolphins aren't "reportedly interested in"?

I'll dumb this down a little more for you. Because our country needs an army, the people need to be able to protect themselves from the improper use of the army. An example of this would be a government that grew too oppressive. The 2nd amendment speaks about the "Militia" and the "People" as two seperate groups. The proper use of commas or any punctuation can change the meaning of a sentence substantially. The only reason we were able to defeat Britian in the revolutionary war was the people's guns. By the way, one of the meanings of militia is "armed force". last time I checked the British Army was an armed force.

The "well regulated militia" is reffering to the military. We have the military because it is "necessary to the security of a free state" . When the Constitution was written the country had just fought off another militia (Britian) who was trying to disarm the citizens to prevent revolt. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in case we ever need to rebel against an unjust government's militia even if it is our own. The founders knew that there was always the possibility for Government to become too powerfull. If you pay attention to the commas you can see that the well regulated "militia" part is seperate from the "people" part.

My Grandmother had this condition brought on by very low sodium levels. It was very painfull and kept her awake most of the night. This was an extreme case, but it was a medical condition, not something she concocted in her head. If you have ever had to watch a loved one deal with something like this while confined to a hospital bed you might not be making fun of it. I suppose you would also consider early parkinsons disease hyperactivity because it just causes you to move around and twitch a lot!

Actually what I said was that it is extremely hypocritical for an anti-gun advocate to accept armed protection at all times. It would be the similiar to a conservative pro lifer getting an abortion after proposing legislation to outlaw it. There is also a difference between "not being strong advocates of gun ownership rights" and being the face of the anti-gun lobby.

Thanks for the nomination. Not sure if you are making fun of me or complimenting me, but either way it sounds as though you were entertained!

Sorry, I got way off your point. I do agree with you though.

Former presidents are not required by law to have secret service protection. Nixon declined it after he left office due to the incredible cost to the taxpayers. But don't let facts get in the way of your point! Before calling someone stupid you may want to check your facts. Please point out the part of the constitution that gives the States the right to regulate gun ownership. I'm not debating if felons should own guns, obviously they should not and there are necesary regulations. We don't enforce the ones we have.

Exactly how many ex-presidents have been shot? I really don't remember any stories on that. Where in my post do I say anything about disarming the police? If the government can provide me with my own personal police force at all times than I will glady concede that I do not need to be able to protect myself. Typical liberal response! Last time I checked the fromer president was a citizen just like you and me. The constitutional right to bear arms (or have somebody braver than you do it for you) applies to all of us, not just those who feel they may be more important than the rest of us slobs. By the way, it's not "gun regulation" when you support banning handgun ownership. We have plenty of "gun regulation" in NY already. The people who commit crimes do not care if they are using an illegal gun. By your logic, if we make more lengthy and confusing regulations banning murder we could cut down on the murder rate in the U.S. Cities with very strict gun restrictions consistantly have higher crime rates than cities without overbearing gun restrictions. Criminals flock to place where good people can't fight back.

It is also funny how one of the most vocal anti-gun politicians (along with his wife) doesn't seem to mind being protected by gun toting secret service men. I guess you don't need gun rights when you can have the taxpayers pay for your own personal bodyguards for the rest of you life. If they really don't believe in the right to carry a concealed gun, do the right thing and refuse secret service protection. Hypocrisy runs deep in the Clinton household!

We are all victims! There are no more bad kids, they have add. There are no more drunks, they have a disease. There are no terrorists, they are freedom fighters who have been oppressed by the U.S.A. I just hope there is some way my tax dollars can go to pay for these drugs and help these poor shopaholic victims!

Sam might actually practice harder if it meant making Malarkey's offense look bad in practice!

Maybe they can organize a protest or hire a lobbyist to pitch their view. D.C. is the whiniest city n the country!

Thinking of Jones upset nearly brings a tear to my eye.