No...that's my son's ceramics project that's being cooked (not a hammer, but a pick axe...that the Principle and teacher tried to ban because it's a "weapon")...it is now being cooked...or rather, "fired". :)

That you did! Like Thor! like...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY-yr6qYU...

Was reviewing this threads comments, and suddenly envisioned all of us as not being a whole lot different than the Founders - still engaged in the same spirited and profound debate as they were some 240 years ago. ALL IS NOT LOST MY FRIENDS!

Candidates running for federal house or senate seat may only except donations from citizens of that state or district.

Candidates may not campaign in any form more than 60 days prior to the election period.

That might slow down some of the seat buying anyway.

That's wonderful that you still love what you do, but unfortunate that the looters always filch from those like you, and the rest of us here.

P.s. my daughter has wanted to be a veterinarian since she was three. She is almost 13 now. :-)

No Amendment will be a solution to our problems. Review the latest ruling on Obamacare. Unfortunately our form of government is broken. The Founders regarded their creation an experiment, but it has failed, despite being the best form of government that the human race has yet achieved. The combination of "progressive" education, biased media, opportunistic politicians, and a corrupted legal system have brought us to this point. The majority of voters are too ignorant and indifferent to expect any real change for the better. Even a new Revolution will not be likely to return us to an age when our citizens were more moral and self-reliant. Objectivism is about seeing things as they are. Difficult times lie ahead.

excellent point stay Hank as long you can then. :)

No. I am in the medical field and I take care of all creatures other than humans. I am a specialist in oral surgery. I can relate to Hank Reardon given I started doing this years before veterinary medicine discovered animals have teeth. Like Hank, I love my work and at 67 do not see retirement in my future. But I am tired of giving my efforts to looters and bums. There is so much more I could do if I could keep the rewards and not "spread the weatlh."

huh. and here I thought they needed to be swung

When I first saw this, without my glasses, I thought you wrote, "cooked", not "cocked"! :-)

Estwing..... Damn auto correct! It changed it again here!!! I had to fix it twice, lol.

I actually have an Eswing. I wouldn't throw that one, though. :-)

...they need to be cocked.

she does, and I know little about hammers that aren't a literary tool

Estwing, the one with the blue handle that ALL carpenters use..... although she would know snap-on, because they are mechanical tools, as in fix up that camaro to race.... Haha, she sure knows how to swing that hammer at vz :)

ok, I replied to her, but my comment is in never never land. that said, hammer -nay, Snap-On Hammer!
seriously, make the distinction before someone says hammer toes, and I have to jettison from the discussion, because that's just hard to take, like well anything with feet. NOT ALLOWED

I have a few extra, will lend you one. :)

Party affiliation isn't the point here. The attack is on your reasoning. I'm afraid I find it faulty too. The founders most certainly did have an intent to their writings. They intended the country to be governed by their words. They ate their own dog food, so to speak. If one leaves the words open to the reader's own interpretation, then there is little point in even writing the law. The path you are on is the liberal path - one that "discovers" new meaning in old words, rather than being intellectually honest and just saying "let's propose an amendment, because we don't agree with those words anymore".

I feel exactly as you do, kh. Why should it have any bearing on how much a person pays. That only means bearing more of the burden.

i'm sorry but i'm republican and i don't think anything i have said would lead someone to believe that i have socialist preferences.

yea, what DK said. you were spot on until that last point. recheck your premise on that and get back to us, ragnar. This should not be based on income!!! write that 100 times before you go to bed tonight. Income earners are neither the drain on society nor the creators of overall wealth. therefore, not only is such a tax irrational, it is also onerous.

MrSelfish, the repeated violations of the 10th Amendment--the violation of state's rights--are a SYMPTOM of the loss of state representation, incurred with the 17th Amendment. Again, see my post. Whereas state legislatures were once actually able to hold the federal government accountable, they now are beholden to Supreme Court interpretations of the 10th Amendment. A very scary thought if Obama is able to appoint a third Justice.

The 10th Amendment is the wrong place to focus. Before Amendment 17, the federal government was accountable to the states. Since then the only protection for states is through juristic interpretations of the 10th Amendment, instead of the states exercising it themselves. See post by CapitalistFool.