1 - 8
If you really do live in "Kalifornia", a state that is not in play this November, then your logic is as specious as you claim mine is.
Interesting argument;that we must vote for the lesser of two evils lest the greater evil prevail. As for myself, for the first time in my life I am glad that I live in a state that is not "in play"this November. Hence, I can vote my conscience without concern that my vote is being "wasted". Free advice: Even if you live in a swing state, if you love liberty you should vote Libertarian. Then, regardless of whether Obama or Romney wins, you will only feel screwed, as opposed to feeling both screwed AND betrayed.
I trust Prof McCranie pointed out that Article I, Sect. 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to raise an Army and to MAINTAIN a Navy. You can train up a soldier in 3 months, but to build and equip a warship takes years.
In response to:

A Matter of Supreme Importance

Walter115 Wrote: Jul 11, 2012 7:21 AM
Actually, Hugo Black ws not a member of the KKK when he was nominated and confirmed to the Court. He HAD temporarily joined the Klan previously when he was running for political office down South. But then, most folks who had political aspirations South of the Mason-Dixon line joined the Klan.
Charlie Brown getting suckered by Lucy is not the only cartoon analogy that could apply here. More apt is Popeye's buddy, Wimpy, who famously said, " I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today."
Can hardly wait for Mr. Bowyer's analysis of the "Predator" series. What does the Predator represent? And what about the "Alien v. Predator" spin offs? Are we all putative trophies living on a planetary game ranch? Saw an ad for a new movie today: "Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter", Now there's a President who could really swing a budgetary ax. If you ax me, we need a man like that in the White House to take care of those Secessionist Vampires, along with those Aliens, Predators, and Zombies.
You are wrong. I refer in part to the "Tenants by the Entirety" Common Law doctrine which advantages married couples in ways not available, even if a contract is present, to singles. As for your assertion the the US Tax Code screwqs married couples, that only occurs when both spouses have taxable income that is roughly equivalent. When the spouses incomes are not roughly equivalent, they are atvantaged, not disadvantaged.
A reason besides coveting straight nomenclature? Aside from favorable treatment vis-a-vis single persons under property law, inheritance law, contract law, family law, and the US Tax Code, I can think of nothing. Keep up the good work.
1 - 8