On 11/20/13, 5:46 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:37:43 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

If I was willing to do that much twisting I could easily get to
smokers rights


You probably could. I could not.

I know, you, like most liberals, are very selective about which rights
you think are valid.


As long as I don't have to inhale the stench of smokers or what they
smoke...hey, let them kill themselves.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

On 11/20/13, 6:24 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 17:57:16 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/20/13, 5:46 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:37:43 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

If I was willing to do that much twisting I could easily get to
smokers rights


You probably could. I could not.

I know, you, like most liberals, are very selective about which rights
you think are valid.


As long as I don't have to inhale the stench of smokers or what they
smoke...hey, let them kill themselves.

That doesn't seem to be the way it works tho.

When Sonnys offered to have 2 identical restaurants, across the road
from each other, one smoking one nonsmoking, that wasn't good enough.
The anti smoking crowd insisted a nonsmoking restaurant wasn't good
enough for them. They wanted to be able to go to the other restaurant
and not see a smoker.

I don't smoke but I still protect the rights of people who do.

I pretty much come down on the side of all rights.

I would not have a problem with your idea of the DoD defunding ther NG
in Oklahoma but then I think they should not have to send people to
fight in the wars since it would not be a federal organization.
In real life that would not ever happen

A more practical solution would be to fund these benefits programs
directly from DC if that is what they want and then Oklahoma would not
be involved. Just remove that part of the money from their funding.
(assuming it is federally funded at all.)


Separate but unequal...great idea.

--
Religion: together we can find the cure.

In article , says...

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin (R) announced earlier this month that
state-owned National Guard facilities will no longer allow any married
couples to apply for spousal benefits, regardless of whether they are
same-sex or opposite-sex. The Supreme Court?s decision overturning the
Defense of Marriage Act means that servicemembers with same-sex spouses
are now eligible for federal benefits. Fallin?s unusual tactic is
designed to avoid having to recognize those couples, which she asserts
would violate Oklahoma?s constitutional amendment limiting marriage to
one man and one woman:

FALLIN: Oklahoma law is clear. The state of Oklahoma does not
recognize same-sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to
same-sex couples. The decision reached today allows the National Guard
to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It
protects the integrity of our state constitution and sends a message to
the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the
will of the people.

I am surprised you are not demanding that Oklahoma change its racist name.

"F.O.A.D." wrote:


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago.


Wow. What a concept!

Let's declare the Constitution as being unconstitutional, **** can it
and start all over. Our new "founding fathers" in DC should be able
to draft, debate and approve a new one in, oh ... about 100 years.

On 11/20/2013 5:11 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:50:19 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:33:01 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

On 11/20/13, 4:23 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 16:11:32 -0500, "F.O.A.D." wrote:

Easy solution: withdraw federal support for the Oklahoma national guard.

Then those Okies wouldn't have to go fight in our foreign
misadventures. It might be a fair trade.


Nothing would prevent someone from Oklahoma from enlisting directly in
the U.S. Armed Forces branch of his or her choice.

That is not what we are talking about tho is it. Maybe the gays should
just "ship over" to the regulars. There might even be an enlistment
bonus in it for them

Gosh, I remember my second trip into Oklahoma, this time for a visit. (I
had driven through the state as a passenger some years earlier but
mostly slept until we got to Texas)

A friend of mine from the KC Star took a job with what was then called
the Tulsa World-Tribune, and I drove down for a visit. What a bunch of
dumpy towns along the way: Nevada, Carthage, Joplin, Owasso. At least
there were some parks and trees in Tulsa, but to me the drive into
Oklahoma was like a time warp back to the Great Depression of the 1930s,
and Tulsa when I visited was an oil boom town. Apparently the state is
still in a time warp.

My father's family is from Ada Oklahoma (the Adairs) His father
married into that gang as an oil field salesman.
I spent a few summers there and I agree. It is a vast wasteland. They
had a 25,000 acre ranch, most out on an oil and gas lease but it was a
lot of fun for a kid. My sister remained in love and actually packed
up and moved there 25 years later. A month later they were back in
Maryland. Fortunately he got his white house job back.
That lady I spoke of who worked at Walmart, lived in Broken Arrow and
she finally ate enough dust and moved.

My dad grew up in Bartlesville, OK, which is where his parents and a brother and sister lived. We'd
go visit them every so often, from LaMonte, MO, and we'd always bring back a couple dozen horned
toads found out in the desert. Of course, they'd get loose, and then my folks would get frantic
calls from the neighbors about the 'monster' in their yard.

http://images.fineartamerica.com/ima...ry-langley.jpg

Holy ****, that's cool... Are they harmless, are those horns hard... I
doubt they are poisonous by the color, but wth?

Never did see much about Oklahoma that I liked, but the musical was great.

Yeah, I saw it with my parents back in the 70's at a local (now gone)
theater in the round...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbrnXl2gO_k

Haven't heard that in a while.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!

On Wed, 20 Nov 2013 20:31:19 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:



"F.O.A.D." wrote:


States rights...a concept that should have been discarded generations
ago.


Wow. What a concept!

Let's declare the Constitution as being unconstitutional, **** can it
and start all over. Our new "founding fathers" in DC should be able
to draft, debate and approve a new one in, oh ... about 100 years.

I couldn't believe you let that hang out there as long as you did. In a pure 'union' of 'socialist'
states, as FOAD would like, there wouldn't be any of those miserable 'states rights'.

Utopia.

John H. -- Hope you're having a great day!