R.I.P R.S.A. Rarely had that before the communist insurrection by the Northern invaders.
Some friends and I thought that old flame thrower idea should have been revived in Chicago and Philadelphia months ago given the rate of carjackings.
Printable View
R.I.P R.S.A. Rarely had that before the communist insurrection by the Northern invaders.
Some friends and I thought that old flame thrower idea should have been revived in Chicago and Philadelphia months ago given the rate of carjackings.
re post *1.
Means to avert or terminate that, are regulated, or simply illegal. That's not how you stop pirates.Quote:
Originally Posted by NortonDommi
Same here, but various [and specific] administrations in all their wisdom, have criminalized personal safety; while showering leniency on criminals.
It's counterintuitive to all the "Just say NO" and "No Means No" campaigns, that weren't so far back.
We dissenters feel those kind of actions are taken, because certain politicians need to protect their voter base and concerned relatives....... It's clear no reasonable person would enact such nonsense, and what dovetails in, otherwise.
"Politicians" and "reasonable person" in the same sentence! Tsk,tsk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Toolmaker51
Quote:
Originally Posted by mklotz
NO, No, they are clearly used in different sentences. There are just some extra ......'s after the first sentence. There is a subject, verb and complete thought in each of the two sentences. Mrs. VanFossen, my English teacher, would back me up on this. May she rest in peace.
I dispense '..........', to allow a comment sink in, or emphasize.Quote:
Originally Posted by hemmjo
I know what M. Klotz implies, but I'll side with Ms. VanFossen, hemmjo, and my own dear Ms. Peebles.
Hoping of course to be taken as reasonable to not allow diametrically opposed phrases on same side of '.'!