Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712560]I love your pizzas man but that sauce needs, how should I say, a little more kick. Hawaiian BBQ Chicken without the Bacon is my fav.[/quote]Anywho, we've :bdh: this topic.

Funny about the sauce, shortly after we bought the place we had a couple of customers complain about the sauce being too hot. We found out one of the managers wasn't following the recipe and adding WAAAAYYY too much crushed red pepper (eventually dude was fired for other stupidity).

Hawaiian BBQ Chix - Pizza Sauce/BBQ blend, ham, pineapple, grilled chicken, correct? We have a bunch of folks order the traditional Hawaiian, just ham/pineapple, but your Hawaiian BBQ may make the special board next week. Maybe I'll call it the "Crazy Hawaiian BBQ" :)

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712565]Anywho, we've :bdh: this topic.

Funny about the sauce, shortly after we bought the place we had a couple of customers complain about the sauce being too hot. We found out one of the managers wasn't following the recipe and adding WAAAAYYY too much crushed red pepper (eventually dude was fired for other stupidity).

Hawaiian BBQ Chix - Pizza Sauce/BBQ blend, ham, pineapple, grilled chicken, correct? We have a bunch of folks order the traditional Hawaiian, just ham/pineapple, but your Hawaiian BBQ may make the special board next week. Maybe I'll call it the "Crazy Hawaiian BBQ" :)[/quote]

Ha! Speaking of a horse's ass!

[url=http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/10_Photo_of_Day/100715.photo.of.day.b.html]Steve Quayle News Alerts[/url]

Hope you get a good laugh on this one!

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712566]Ha! Speaking of a horse's ass!

[URL="http://stevequayle.com/News.alert/10_Photo_of_Day/100715.photo.of.day.b.html"]Steve Quayle News Alerts[/URL]

Hope you get a good laugh on this one![/quote]Great find. and I did LOL

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

well done saden.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712565]Anywho, we've :bdh: this topic.

Funny about the sauce, shortly after we bought the place we had a couple of customers complain about the sauce being too hot. We found out one of the managers wasn't following the recipe and adding WAAAAYYY too much crushed red pepper (eventually dude was fired for other stupidity).

Hawaiian BBQ Chix - Pizza Sauce/BBQ blend, ham, pineapple, grilled chicken, correct? We have a bunch of folks order the traditional Hawaiian, just ham/pineapple, but your Hawaiian BBQ may make the special board next week. Maybe I'll call it the "Crazy Hawaiian BBQ" :)[/quote]

LOL...you sure he wasn't fired because he was liberal? I like my pizza without ham or bacon...pizza Sauce/BBQ blend, 2x pineapple, 2x grilled chicken hits the spot. You can call it "SADEN #1: Crazy Hawaiian BBQ."

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

One last thing...the real problem with why NBPP can't be charged is because the law as is written is very weak and open to interpretation. The law say simply say "no loitering and no weapons permitted within a quarter of a mile of polling locations on election day." There is a compelling reason to do this and I believe it would stand up to constitutional challenges.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712587]LOL...you sure he wasn't fired because he was liberal? [/quote]LOL.
Most of the kids that work for my wife and I are 18-22, I'll put on Fox (or if some wacko, commie customer puts on MSNBC) the kids will look at it for a few seconds, get the blank stare, and move on. Whenever they're taking a break to eat it's on MTV, Comedy Central, or Spike. These kids have no clue what a liberal or conservative even are. These are the young cats that will be running the show when we're old......I'm definitely buying LTC insurance.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=saden1;712593]One last thing...the real problem with why NBPP can't be charged is because the law as is written is very weak and open to interpretation. The law say simply say "no loitering and no weapons permitted within a quarter of a mile of polling locations on election day." There is a compelling reason to do this and I believe it would stand up to constitutional challenges.[/quote]The NBPP certainly can and should have been charged in a Civil case. The Voter Intimidation laws are not weak and the NBPP violations are clear and documented.

From one of the links, the writer worked in the Civil Right Division of DoJ and has first-hand knowledge of the process.

"First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. [B]With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.[/B]

Criminal cases can take longer to develop, particularly since the government usually has to convene a federal grand jury to return an indictment. Also, criminal cases focus like a laser beam on individual defendants, whereas [B]civil cases can include an organizational defendant (like the NBPP).[/B]

The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. [B]In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party.[/B] In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.

Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but [B]the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.[/B]

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Slingin Sammy 33;712597]The NBPP certainly can and should have been charged in a Civil case. The Voter Intimidation laws are not weak and the NBPP violations are clear and documented.

From one of the links, the writer worked in the Civil Right Division of DoJ and has first-hand knowledge of the process.

"First of all, although the Civil Rights Division has a Criminal Section, the vast majority of its voting-rights prosecutions are civil cases conducted by the division’s Voting Section. Whenever someone violates the Voting Rights Act and does so in a way that is potentially both a civil and a criminal violation, the division must decide whether to proceed first with a civil or a criminal case. [B]With most voting cases, the decision is usually to go with a civil case, particularly if there are elections coming up in the near future. That is because civil cases have a lower burden of proof and give the government the opportunity to obtain almost immediately a temporary injunction to stop the defendants from engaging in the same wrongful behavior as the case winds its way through the federal courts.[/B]

Criminal cases can take longer to develop, particularly since the government usually has to convene a federal grand jury to return an indictment. Also, criminal cases focus like a laser beam on individual defendants, whereas [B]civil cases can include an organizational defendant (like the NBPP).[/B]

The focus for the Civil Rights Division is always on the best way to get the remedy that is needed to stop and prevent the recurrence of the voter intimidation or other wrongful behavior as soon as possible. [B]In this particular case, when the decision was being made in January of 2009, the division knew there was going to be another election in May in Philadelphia. The fastest to way to make sure there would be no thugs in paramilitary uniforms and jackboots smacking batons into their fists at polling places in the upcoming election was to file a civil complaint and obtain a restraining order against the individual defendants and the New Black Panther Party.[/B] In fact, one of the defendants dismissed from the case was once again credentialed as a Democratic poll watcher in the May election.

Once the division obtained a judgment and an injunction in the civil case, they could have decided to further pursue a criminal prosecution against the individual New Black Panthers, but [B]the number one priority had to be getting a civil injunction as expeditiously as possible before the next election.[/B][/quote]

If the law wasn't so weak they wouldn't have to peruse a civil case because it's "easier." You make the civil case a slam dunk when it absolutely isn't.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAGdoBcnjWQ[/ame]

is this ok?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=dmek25;712772][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAGdoBcnjWQ]YouTube - Want this in the US Senate?[/url]

is this ok?[/quote]If the carrying of firearms in the way they were on the video is legal in that particular state/municipality then yes, it's OK. This was either a local parade or campaign rally, not a polling place.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

i didnt mean was it legal. kids were all over the place. does it send the right message?

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=dmek25;712780]i didnt mean was it legal. kids were all over the place. does it send the right message?[/quote]In Miller's state, considering he's running on a conservative platform, yes. From a safety perspective, I'm by no means an expert on guns so I could be wrong, but the rifles appeared unloaded.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=dmek25;712780]i didnt mean was it legal. kids were all over the place. does it send the right message?[/quote]

And what message does it send to you, be a pussy and wait for the police to save you from criminals? Kids love guns! I did and so did all my friends.

Your rifle is but a tool. It is a hardened heart that kills.

Re: The Supreme Court and guns
 

[quote=Trample the Elderly;712791]And what message does it send to you, be a pussy and wait for the police to save you from criminals?[B] Kids[/B] [B]love guns[/B]! I did and so did all my friends.

Your rifle is but [B]a tool.[/B] It is a hardened heart that kills.[/quote]
not the only tool, apparently:)