Someotherguy
Well-Known Member
I think you should move to paris, where they do not have a constitution, and all that gun control stuff works..:toothy4:
Active shooter in San Bernardino right now
- Thread starter Richard Cranium
- Start date
I think you should move to paris, where they do not have a constitution, and all that gun control stuff works..:toothy4:
GetX'd
Making Life Great Again!
- Local time
- 8:49 AM
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2014
- Messages
- 11,896
- Reaction score
- 13,132
- Location
- Laguna Beach, CA
I knew it would come - all I can say is they are one for how many in France? Here it's happening every day...... And I'm a conservative.
Someotherguy
Well-Known Member
Yep, you can always count on me to tell it like it is
Every single time I hear someone say that we need to sacrifice our constitutional right to bear arms for a self perceived, idiotic sense of security that will never come to fruition...I always encourage this person/people to move out of the United States of America, to country that does not have a 2nd amendment...I believe its the best thing for both parties...You get what you want, and I get what I want..
You see this way, you get to live in a country that will ban all them evil guns you think are the problem, and I get rid of someone that wants to use our constitution for toilet paper...We already have a man in the white house that wipes his filthy *** with our constitution on a daily basis, we don't need anymore of your kind here in the United States...
Last edited:
- Local time
- 10:49 AM
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 68,433
- Reaction score
- 254,447
- Location
- New Hampster
Denial not an option
This is no rush to judgment on the San Bernardino massacre — not when 12 pipe bombs are found in the home of the two now-dead killers, along with three pipe bombs wired to a remote control device, hundreds of bomb-making tools in their garage, and thousands of rounds of ammunition in their car following their slaughter of 14 innocent human beings.
Workplace violence? Really? Is that some kind of sick joke?
Surely President Obama knew about most of that when he went on national TV from the Oval Office yesterday and said, “It is possible this is terrorist related ... We don’t know. It is also possible it was workplace related.”
Yes, life is complicated. But the more complicated it gets the more the American people are entitled to straight answers from the commander in chief, not more pap from a man who is apparently so blinded by his political agenda that he will use every opportunity to advance it.
Before the bodies were even identified Wednesday night, before they could even be removed from the scene, the president said, “The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world, and there’s some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently.”
Apparently the man has a short memory — or did Paris not count.
He, of course, wasn’t the only one to rush to make the it’s-all-about-guns argument. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein also put out a press release even as victims were still being triaged.
This isn’t an argument against better gun control laws and better records checks — far from it. It is an argument against taking the easy way out — which this president will do at every opportunity.
Don’t blame Islamic terrorism when there are any other options — find another reason, however remote, for the willful act of a couple who turned their home into a bomb-making factory, dropped off their 6-month-old child with relatives, slaughtered 14 people and wounded 21 more at a department party and then returned home to do what?
Workplace violence?
That Syed Farook had traveled to Saudi Arabia in the summer of 2014, picked up his would-be bride Tashfeen Malik, who traveled on a Pakistani passport, is simply a piece of that puzzle. A more compelling piece of evidence is that the three pipe bombs found in their home attached to a remote control device bore all the earmarks of the bomb-making recipes of the jihadists’ Inspire magazine.
Barack Obama can obfuscate if he chooses. But the act is growing tired. The American people are entitled to truth from their president. Well, maybe the next one.
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2015/12/editorial_denial_not_an_option
This is no rush to judgment on the San Bernardino massacre — not when 12 pipe bombs are found in the home of the two now-dead killers, along with three pipe bombs wired to a remote control device, hundreds of bomb-making tools in their garage, and thousands of rounds of ammunition in their car following their slaughter of 14 innocent human beings.
Workplace violence? Really? Is that some kind of sick joke?
Surely President Obama knew about most of that when he went on national TV from the Oval Office yesterday and said, “It is possible this is terrorist related ... We don’t know. It is also possible it was workplace related.”
Yes, life is complicated. But the more complicated it gets the more the American people are entitled to straight answers from the commander in chief, not more pap from a man who is apparently so blinded by his political agenda that he will use every opportunity to advance it.
Before the bodies were even identified Wednesday night, before they could even be removed from the scene, the president said, “The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the world, and there’s some steps we could take, not to eliminate every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that they don’t happen as frequently.”
Apparently the man has a short memory — or did Paris not count.
He, of course, wasn’t the only one to rush to make the it’s-all-about-guns argument. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein also put out a press release even as victims were still being triaged.
This isn’t an argument against better gun control laws and better records checks — far from it. It is an argument against taking the easy way out — which this president will do at every opportunity.
Don’t blame Islamic terrorism when there are any other options — find another reason, however remote, for the willful act of a couple who turned their home into a bomb-making factory, dropped off their 6-month-old child with relatives, slaughtered 14 people and wounded 21 more at a department party and then returned home to do what?
Workplace violence?
That Syed Farook had traveled to Saudi Arabia in the summer of 2014, picked up his would-be bride Tashfeen Malik, who traveled on a Pakistani passport, is simply a piece of that puzzle. A more compelling piece of evidence is that the three pipe bombs found in their home attached to a remote control device bore all the earmarks of the bomb-making recipes of the jihadists’ Inspire magazine.
Barack Obama can obfuscate if he chooses. But the act is growing tired. The American people are entitled to truth from their president. Well, maybe the next one.
http://www.bostonherald.com/opinion/editorials/2015/12/editorial_denial_not_an_option
steve from staten island
Well-Known Member
- Local time
- 11:49 AM
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2012
- Messages
- 6,747
- Reaction score
- 8,325
- Location
- staten island,ny
Your a hunter/gun owner/conservative. Thanks for standing up and telling it like it is. Unfortunately your being told leave the country because your opinion is seen as trampling someones constitutional rights. Common sense has now been replaced with something else.
Cmmopar
Well-Known Member
Regarding "Gun bans" which cannot be reconciled with the United States Constitution which every elected official has a duty to uphold:
1. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
2.
"Many people have questions about what a "well regulated" Militia is. I had questions too, so I decided to find out, and here's what I learned.
I'll start with some background on the Second Amendment. The reason I'm starting with background on it is because I believe that in order to really understand something you have to understand it in context.
In my efforts to get a good grasp on this issue, I sat down and read the Federalist Papers, all 85 of them (not an easy read BTW)( The Library of Congress http://thomas.loc.gov/home/his... Then I dug further, into the history that the Founding Fathers were living, trying to put myself in their shoes. In the end, here's what I came away with........
The first thing we need to understand is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". That's important, because no "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.
In this Light:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?
THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)
What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?
First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:
"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:
"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:
"To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the MILITIA, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?
Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better known as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:
"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!
This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."
It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. The Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defense."
Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
To put it another way:
The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."
The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
moparnation74
Well-Known Member
Until you change the Constitution, it is what it is!
I grew up around guns and hunting my whole life. Like the majority here we are responsible gun owners and respect them. Do I think people should have the right to own assault rifles and tactical gear, NO! There is no need for any of that but that's my opinion. The laws is the law. So I have to bite my tongue in this battle and not affect others right to bear arms! I/we do not possess that authority.
Here is an idea: before someone commits a crime if they know there is a high probability the other individual is armed, they will defiantly rethink their intentions.
I grew up around guns and hunting my whole life. Like the majority here we are responsible gun owners and respect them. Do I think people should have the right to own assault rifles and tactical gear, NO! There is no need for any of that but that's my opinion. The laws is the law. So I have to bite my tongue in this battle and not affect others right to bear arms! I/we do not possess that authority.
Here is an idea: before someone commits a crime if they know there is a high probability the other individual is armed, they will defiantly rethink their intentions.
Cmmopar
Well-Known Member
Control? How about some border control? How can you have any 'homeland security' without border controls? How about some "immigration" control both as "refugees" and "legal" from countries whose people culturally reject western forms of government? Islam translates to 'to submit'. They are submitting to the teachings of the Koran. Pass through any Muslim country or Muslim dominated neighborhood in France, England, Sweden Belgium etc and if you survive see how starkly different it is now then before it became dominated by these violence based beliefs. There you will also find the real 'war on women', not the fake democrat get to out the female vote narrative. The rapes, the assaults, murders and almost universal public assistance leeching off taxpayers to whom they will repay with instability and violence show that we are only hurting ourselves by letting these wolves in the proverbial henhouse.
Isis has stated that they have embedded sleeper cells disguised as refugees and have promised attacks in western countries. Why should americans who have the ultimate right and responsibility to protect their own life and their families pass off and delegate that responsibility to a third party who are often minutes away at a minimum when seconds count. Why should we give up these rights because of a foreign incompatible culture that rejects our way of life?
ISIS fighters are reportedly shaving their beards and dressing up as women in order to flee Syria, in the wake of Russia stepping up its military campaign in support of President Bashar al-Assad.
Pictures said to have been taken near Aleppo last week shows mounds of what looks like cut off facial hair, alongside discarded packets of razors.
In order to cross the border to Turkey undetected, ISIS jihadists are said to be shaving and disguising themselves in niqabs - a veil covering all but the eyes worn by some muslim women.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=314_1445278752#VudSZAZcQwikqItk.99
Isis has stated that they have embedded sleeper cells disguised as refugees and have promised attacks in western countries. Why should americans who have the ultimate right and responsibility to protect their own life and their families pass off and delegate that responsibility to a third party who are often minutes away at a minimum when seconds count. Why should we give up these rights because of a foreign incompatible culture that rejects our way of life?
ISIS fighters are reportedly shaving their beards and dressing up as women in order to flee Syria, in the wake of Russia stepping up its military campaign in support of President Bashar al-Assad.
Pictures said to have been taken near Aleppo last week shows mounds of what looks like cut off facial hair, alongside discarded packets of razors.
In order to cross the border to Turkey undetected, ISIS jihadists are said to be shaving and disguising themselves in niqabs - a veil covering all but the eyes worn by some muslim women.
Read more at http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=314_1445278752#VudSZAZcQwikqItk.99
barnfind
Well-Known Member
This excert stands true today as it did in 1792.
In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[121]
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arm
In 1792, Tench Coxe made the following point in a commentary on the Second Amendment:[121]
As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arm
GetX'd
Making Life Great Again!
- Local time
- 8:49 AM
- Joined
- Jul 20, 2014
- Messages
- 11,896
- Reaction score
- 13,132
- Location
- Laguna Beach, CA
As I thought - no one with the courage to directly confront what I said. Instead the same old tired arguments are thrown in My face that don't address directly what I said. It's always the bigger political footballs that go back and forth between the left and the right. Guess what folks - read my post - I'm for neither side, lm looking for common sense solutions that don't take everyone's gun away - and they also don't allow you hide behind the second amendment and arm yourself to the teeth with assault rifles and thousands of rounds of ammo.
Read my first post then jump my *** directly. Don't hide behind that pussy in the WH or other political arguments that are tired and worn thin. Address what I said because I'm tIred of the status quo and all the killings that are the product of the way we do things now. The left doesn't have the answers - but neither does the right - in the meantime we'll continue to have an average of more than one mass shooting per day in the good old USA. Don't any of you see the need for some kind of change? Don't bother to throw up the well worn NRA arguments - they're violent and self serving and don't work on this conservative any longer. We need some form of change......... Now have had it. I'm fresh meat. I believe in our constitution, I believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings - and I believe we need some form of change to try and put an end to or slow down this ugly mayhem were going thru daily. Read my first post before you attack - then read this one. I have the balls to stand up and be different even amongst friends.........
Read my first post then jump my *** directly. Don't hide behind that pussy in the WH or other political arguments that are tired and worn thin. Address what I said because I'm tIred of the status quo and all the killings that are the product of the way we do things now. The left doesn't have the answers - but neither does the right - in the meantime we'll continue to have an average of more than one mass shooting per day in the good old USA. Don't any of you see the need for some kind of change? Don't bother to throw up the well worn NRA arguments - they're violent and self serving and don't work on this conservative any longer. We need some form of change......... Now have had it. I'm fresh meat. I believe in our constitution, I believe in Jesus Christ and his teachings - and I believe we need some form of change to try and put an end to or slow down this ugly mayhem were going thru daily. Read my first post before you attack - then read this one. I have the balls to stand up and be different even amongst friends.........
- Local time
- 10:49 AM
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 20,230
- Reaction score
- 50,837
- Location
- In GTXtacy Illinois
[video=youtube;YVJzYy5hMQ8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVJzYy5hMQ8&spfreload=10[/video]
72Fourspeed
Well-Known Member
Some where I have a t shirt that reads "Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns."
- Local time
- 9:49 AM
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 6,527
- Reaction score
- 13,318
First off, I know I am Canadian so to a lot of you my opinion means nothing and I probably don't have the right to speak on this topic. But, this is a forum and everyone IS allowed to voice their thoughts, so I'll walk with you on this one GetX'd.
I do not have the answers, but I do have questions and I am very concerned about where we are headed.
I support the U.S.A.'s constitutional right to bear arms. I actually like the fact that you guys are so well protected. I consider our countries to be brothers and I think sometimes we should be more alike. However, when it comes to guns, there is a problem or multiple problems.
First, when people like these terrorists can "legally" purchase automatic weapons and thousands of rounds and then proceed to do these things, like it or not, there is a problem. Perhaps the "background check" is a bit weak? Perhaps purchasing "thousands" of rounds should require some form of logical reason? (For you avid shooters, this would be evident in your past history, your club association and regular visits to the range. But maybe for the "terrorists" who are just purchasing a weapon and multiple rounds it would also be obvious that they aren't regular shooters and raise some sort of flag.)
Second, I realize "the people" have "the right to bear arms" but "the people" does include the lunatic in Colorado and many more like him. It also includes these "new to America" types. That is a problem. How do you justify someone is "mentally stable" enough to own a gun, what kind of gun and how many rounds? Obviously he was stable at one time and had legal guns. This is a tough one due to "the right". Should there be a time limit on "immigrants" before they are allowed to purchase automatic weapons or any firearms at all? But that would infringe on "their rights" as they become a citizen.
Third, if everyone is allowed to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, how can you draw a line between enjoying the "hobby" and outright paranoia? I don't particularly think a truly "paranoid" person is fully stable and just possibly could be considered a threat to society with an armory full of weapons. I'm not saying all people with multiple guns are paranoid, but am willing to bet a lot of them are. Then there are those who own multiple weapons "just because they can" or because they have "little man syndrome". Again do these people actually need these guns or are they actually a little unstable?
I certainly don't have a cure for these types of crimes, nor do I know how the system can change to stop or slow down this type of people from doing these things. But I also know that "gun control" won't work. It is too far out of control to regain. There are too many illegal weapons out there and the criminals will get them one way or another. Whether they are stolen from legal owners or smuggled across borders, they will get them. But the criminals I'm referring to aren't the ones committing these acts. These seem to be mostly people who have legally owned firearms and are using them in these situations. How do you control that? I am leaning towards allowing the arming of all citizens of legal age and that are "background check" approved. Obviously no carry zones would have to be eliminated or greatly reduced as well. Of course this will also arm some lunatics and some radicals, but perhaps they will be stopped much faster if everyone is carrying. This is assuming the "good guys" have the courage to shoot back at a madman. I think a lot would just freeze, I probably would be terrified and not having military experience I have no idea how I would react. But just maybe with everybody being armed these people would be more hesitant, although I don't really think that would be the case. They go there to die.
Anyway these are just some of my thoughts............an outsider looking in.
God bless America and all it stands for.
I do not have the answers, but I do have questions and I am very concerned about where we are headed.
I support the U.S.A.'s constitutional right to bear arms. I actually like the fact that you guys are so well protected. I consider our countries to be brothers and I think sometimes we should be more alike. However, when it comes to guns, there is a problem or multiple problems.
First, when people like these terrorists can "legally" purchase automatic weapons and thousands of rounds and then proceed to do these things, like it or not, there is a problem. Perhaps the "background check" is a bit weak? Perhaps purchasing "thousands" of rounds should require some form of logical reason? (For you avid shooters, this would be evident in your past history, your club association and regular visits to the range. But maybe for the "terrorists" who are just purchasing a weapon and multiple rounds it would also be obvious that they aren't regular shooters and raise some sort of flag.)
Second, I realize "the people" have "the right to bear arms" but "the people" does include the lunatic in Colorado and many more like him. It also includes these "new to America" types. That is a problem. How do you justify someone is "mentally stable" enough to own a gun, what kind of gun and how many rounds? Obviously he was stable at one time and had legal guns. This is a tough one due to "the right". Should there be a time limit on "immigrants" before they are allowed to purchase automatic weapons or any firearms at all? But that would infringe on "their rights" as they become a citizen.
Third, if everyone is allowed to have as many weapons and as much ammo as they want, how can you draw a line between enjoying the "hobby" and outright paranoia? I don't particularly think a truly "paranoid" person is fully stable and just possibly could be considered a threat to society with an armory full of weapons. I'm not saying all people with multiple guns are paranoid, but am willing to bet a lot of them are. Then there are those who own multiple weapons "just because they can" or because they have "little man syndrome". Again do these people actually need these guns or are they actually a little unstable?
I certainly don't have a cure for these types of crimes, nor do I know how the system can change to stop or slow down this type of people from doing these things. But I also know that "gun control" won't work. It is too far out of control to regain. There are too many illegal weapons out there and the criminals will get them one way or another. Whether they are stolen from legal owners or smuggled across borders, they will get them. But the criminals I'm referring to aren't the ones committing these acts. These seem to be mostly people who have legally owned firearms and are using them in these situations. How do you control that? I am leaning towards allowing the arming of all citizens of legal age and that are "background check" approved. Obviously no carry zones would have to be eliminated or greatly reduced as well. Of course this will also arm some lunatics and some radicals, but perhaps they will be stopped much faster if everyone is carrying. This is assuming the "good guys" have the courage to shoot back at a madman. I think a lot would just freeze, I probably would be terrified and not having military experience I have no idea how I would react. But just maybe with everybody being armed these people would be more hesitant, although I don't really think that would be the case. They go there to die.
Anyway these are just some of my thoughts............an outsider looking in.
God bless America and all it stands for.
72Fourspeed
Well-Known Member
My guns are tools.My trigger finger is a weapon. So do the feds want to cut my finger off next ?
If we executed deserving criminals, there would be less interest in following their path. I do like the idea of hanging the bodies in public. Good learning tool.
If we executed deserving criminals, there would be less interest in following their path. I do like the idea of hanging the bodies in public. Good learning tool.
- Local time
- 10:49 AM
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2008
- Messages
- 20,230
- Reaction score
- 50,837
- Location
- In GTXtacy Illinois
72Fourspeed
Well-Known Member
Apparently the media, and general public cannot differentiate between semi & fully automatic weapons. Or can they ? I read the weapons used were acquired legally. Last I heard California did not allow them. Correct me if I am mistaken.
Someotherguy
Well-Known Member
Edit, mistaken post to wrong person..disregard
Last edited:
- Local time
- 9:49 AM
- Joined
- May 29, 2013
- Messages
- 6,527
- Reaction score
- 13,318
Deleted due to misunderstanding......all's good.
Last edited:
- Local time
- 10:49 AM
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2012
- Messages
- 68,433
- Reaction score
- 254,447
- Location
- New Hampster
Look what they are calling this now....
http://www.weeklystandard.com/abc-hybrid-workplace-jihad/article/2000051
http://www.weeklystandard.com/abc-hybrid-workplace-jihad/article/2000051
Similar threads
