What is your breaking point?

[G.T.]

All you people who do not feel less free, go open a small business and then get back to me. Ya, you dont feel any less free so long as you conform to the system. Step out of line at all and get back to me.

Let your car tag expire. Forget to send in your property taxes. Try and open a radio station. Try and broadcast television. Spank your kids. etc etc etc.

You are not free. Name one thing you can do that you do not either directly or indirectly ask the government for permission for.

Going to the movies? Nope, government regulates the movies.

Listen to the radio? Nope, FCC controls that.

Looking at a hot chick at work? Nope, government regulated.

Growing your own garden? Nope, thats against the law.

On and on and on. Sheep in line to be slaughtered proclaim there own freedom until the end.

I have my own garden. It's not illega. I'm in Upstate NY.
Rush is on the radio everyday, bashing the **** out of the Government. Some "control" they have.
The movies? pppfffft.

I can look at hot chicks any time I want at work.

My car tag is b/c I'm driving on PUBLIC roads, not roads that I own. I'm free to have no tags on my own driveway - FACT.

YOU'RE HYSTERICAL.

Check the below link out.

Wickard v. Filburn - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[G.T.]

They dont search your car unless they have probable cause. Weed smell, etc.
And lets not forget, we're talking about Public roads, not private ones which is a big distinction which I'm sure misses you.

Have you ever been through a police DWI check point?

So asking you to prove you are eligible to vote is bad, but stopping you to see if you're eligible to drive is good?

I wonder if the clown is aware that not all states allow random stops for searches.

He is even aware of what a random stop is?

^ as usual, first with the name calling when everyone else was being civil.

 

[grunt11b]

The second amendment was placed into the constitution by the founders for that sole purpose, so that the citizens have a means to protect themselves from government.

And the Constitution was written back when the the citizen's and the government's firearms were equal in power and effectiveness.


As with a lot in the Constitution, the purpose behind the amendment is not really applicable today.


Who's gonna win?

It doesn't take away from the fact that the founders intent was for the people to be able to protect themselves from government. That was the original intent, the constitution is not a living breathing document, it means what it says and is not open for interpretations by anybody.

 

[DaGoose]

Can you explain who in the RW is doing this and what exactly they are doing to gain control of your personal life and decisions?
Also, would you agree that the individual mandate in obamacare "All signed into law by the left" would also take control of your personal life and decisions on healthcare?

Do I really need to explain?

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as abortion.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal conversations between patients and doctors. If a patient doesn't want their doctor to ask about guns in the home they can simply not answer or change doctors.

I don't want the gubmint telling someone they can't get married just because they are gay.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as euthanaisia.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as recreational drug use.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as life and death decision like it did with Terri Schiavo's family.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as whether a woman (or man) chooses to sell their time and bodies for sexual services.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in spying on me and support repeal of the so-called Patriot Act.

Oh....as for the "individual mandate"? NOW all of the sudden it's "socialism" when it was originally a wingnut sponsored idea?

So let me get this straight. You're a drug addled murdering pimp who doesn't know how to use a dictionary, right?

Nope. I just don't want some big gubmint RW hypocritical asshole trying to tell me how to live up to HIS morals.

But I will admit your "dictionary" comment got by me.

 

[rightwinger]

What is your breaking point? Taking your guns? Taxing you more? Taking away your right to assemble? Freedom of speech? government corruption? I believe everyone has one and I am curious as to what the majority think. Personally mine is the freedom to bear arms as it is the last fail safe or line of defense in the event of a rogue government. Thank You for any input.

Most of the industrialized world is freer than we are and gun ownership is rare.

People who can only feel "free" if they own a gun have deep seated insecurities.

Guess what guy, the government will always have more guns, better guns and they will be better with them. And if the government ever feels the need to take you out, it will be to the cheers of your neighbors because you frighten the children.

The second amendment was placed into the constitution by the founders for that sole purpose, so that the citizens have a means to protect themselves from government. It has nothing to do with insecurities, it has everything to do with liberty. If the second amendment fails, so does the rest of your rights. Do you honestly think that if we did not have the second amendment that this government would not have run rough shod over us years ago? They would have.

The First Amendment has done more to protect our freedom than the second amendment ever will

 

[Full-Auto]

So asking you to prove you are eligible to vote is bad, but stopping you to see if you're eligible to drive is good?

I wonder if the clown is aware that not all states allow random stops for searches.

He is even aware of what a random stop is?

^ as usual, first with the name calling when everyone else was being civil.

You are a threat to freedom with your beliefs, you are a democrat or at least favor 99% of the corruption.

You dont deserve respect and you will get none from me.

 

[G.T.]

They did in the 40's and the Constitution is a damned sight weaker today.

Yea, in the 40's, and the people mwho did it are dead now, and it was the Japanese during a war vs. the Japanese. Color me shocked, they did something stupid in the 40's.

Why is it such a far leap to think it couldn't happen again; this time with political enemies?
Every communist country started out with the same Utopian ideals Progressives have now, but resorted to "reeducation camps" to squash dissent.

Because we have a first Amendment, and information passes faster today than anytime EVER in the History of the US.

If they started putting hoards of innocent people in internment camps, how tdo you honestly think that will effect the populace? Would you watch it happen? I wo09uldn't. But what's the business about whining over hypotheticals? I'm confident it will never happen. Do you know any military? They're not going to armed guard innocent hoards of Americans. They're our families & friends.

Then there's world bodies, etc.


I mean, I'm really not as scared of this shit as you guys seem to be because I will fight if I have to, and I'm cool with that. But................I don't have to.

 

[G.T.]

I wonder if the clown is aware that not all states allow random stops for searches.

He is even aware of what a random stop is?

^ as usual, first with the name calling when everyone else was being civil.

You are a threat to freedom with your beliefs, you are a democrat or at least favor 99% of the corruption.

You dont deserve respect and you will get none from me.

Come get me then if I'm a threat ya big wanker.

 

[Katzndogz]

The whole idea of people having guns to protect themselves against government tyranny is absurd. At least today. People have guns to protect themselves from other people! They just don't use them enough. Mostly because the government won't let them. The government doesn't really need to take your guns away to make them ineffective. Just pass webs of laws to prevent you from using them.

The breaking point in this country came several years ago. It came from both liberals and conservatives who have recognized that neither wants to live under the government of the other. The government, whichever one is it, is illegitimate. It does not represent the collective will of the people. It can't. It perhaps never will again.

 

[grunt11b]

They did in the 40's and the Constitution is a damned sight weaker today.

Yea, in the 40's, and the people mwho did it are dead now, and it was the Japanese during a war vs. the Japanese. Color me shocked, they did something stupid in the 40's.

Why is it such a far leap to think it couldn't happen again; this time with political enemies?
Every communist country started out with the same Utopian ideals Progressives have now, but resorted to "reeducation camps" to squash dissent.

Exactly, and here is something that should be seen and heard, it's about Obamas buddy william ayers and his beliefs. Should give you insight on the mentality of this president and his friends towards us, the people.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ]Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions - YouTube[/ame]

 

[G.T.]

The whole idea of people having guns to protect themselves against government tyranny is absurd. At least today. People have guns to protect themselves from other people! They just don't use them enough. Mostly because the government won't let them. The government doesn't really need to take your guns away to make them ineffective. Just pass webs of laws to prevent you from using them.

The breaking point in this country came several years ago. It came from both liberals and conservatives who have recognized that neither wants to live under the government of the other. The government, whichever one is it, is illegitimate. It does not represent the collective will of the people. It can't. It perhaps never will again.

This is WAY more true than some 100 year conspiracy to enslave people.

 

[Ernie S.]

They dont search your car unless they have probable cause. Weed smell, etc.
And lets not forget, we're talking about Public roads, not private ones which is a big distinction which I'm sure misses you.

Have you ever been through a police DWI check point?

So asking you to prove you are eligible to vote is bad, but stopping you to see if you're eligible to drive is good?

Ernie, not to be a dick, but this is what's wrong with people right here. You don't have a clue how I feel about Voter I.D., but here you are on your "everyone but my side thinks 100% lock step" soap box. It's corny.

Actually no. I don't care enough about anyone here to make a mental note how they stand on individual issues. I tend to lump Progressives together until they distinguish themselves in some way.
So where DO you stand on voter ID's? Distinguish yourself.

 

[grunt11b]

Most of the industrialized world is freer than we are and gun ownership is rare.

People who can only feel "free" if they own a gun have deep seated insecurities.

Guess what guy, the government will always have more guns, better guns and they will be better with them. And if the government ever feels the need to take you out, it will be to the cheers of your neighbors because you frighten the children.

The second amendment was placed into the constitution by the founders for that sole purpose, so that the citizens have a means to protect themselves from government. It has nothing to do with insecurities, it has everything to do with liberty. If the second amendment fails, so does the rest of your rights. Do you honestly think that if we did not have the second amendment that this government would not have run rough shod over us years ago? They would have.

The First Amendment has done more to protect our freedom than the second amendment ever will

Yes, because talking shit to an armed intruder has saved more lives than shooting one.

 

[G.T.]

So asking you to prove you are eligible to vote is bad, but stopping you to see if you're eligible to drive is good?

Ernie, not to be a dick, but this is what's wrong with people right here. You don't have a clue how I feel about Voter I.D., but here you are on your "everyone but my side thinks 100% lock step" soap box. It's corny.

Actually no. I don't care enough about anyone here to make a mental note how they stand on individual issues. I tend to lump Progressives together until they distinguish themselves in some way.
So where DO you stand on voter ID's? Distinguish yourself.

Asking 1st is the much more reasonable approach, and I dont categorize myself as "progressive," but on the chart where it asks your specific views on issues I become a fiscal conniebot and a social libtard.

Anyhoo, Voter ID makes sense to me, as long as the ID's are provided to those who cannot afford them - because of the poll-tax shit in the Constitution.

 

[Katzndogz]

Yea, in the 40's, and the people mwho did it are dead now, and it was the Japanese during a war vs. the Japanese. Color me shocked, they did something stupid in the 40's.

Why is it such a far leap to think it couldn't happen again; this time with political enemies?
Every communist country started out with the same Utopian ideals Progressives have now, but resorted to "reeducation camps" to squash dissent.

Exactly, and here is something that should be seen and heard, it's about Obamas buddy william ayers and his beliefs. Should give you insight on the mentality of this president and his friends towards us, the people.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ]Larry Grathwohl on Ayers' plan for American re-education camps and the need to kill millions - YouTube[/ame]

This is because we have a liberal government in power. IF we had a conservative leaning government, the liberals would be screaming about the government intruding in everyone's bedrooms. They would say the days of lynching are coming back, and jim crow. Republicans won't let people take all the drugs they want. The poor will starve and the sick die. The libs have just as many complaints and are just as strident as conservatives.

The division is in the people who elect the government. That's where the breaking point is. This nation will not remain. It has no choice but to eventually collapse. It does not have the support of the people it purports to represent.

 

[grunt11b]

Heres a much better one.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9peonVh26A]Obama & Friends: "Will Re-educate or Eliminate 25 Million Resistors"? "Re-education Camps"? - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Ernie S.]

Do I really need to explain?

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as abortion.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal conversations between patients and doctors. If a patient doesn't want their doctor to ask about guns in the home they can simply not answer or change doctors.

I don't want the gubmint telling someone they can't get married just because they are gay.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as euthanaisia.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as recreational drug use.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as life and death decision like it did with Terri Schiavo's family.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in personal decisions such as whether a woman (or man) chooses to sell their time and bodies for sexual services.

I don't want the gubmint involving itself in spying on me and support repeal of the so-called Patriot Act.

Oh....as for the "individual mandate"? NOW all of the sudden it's "socialism" when it was originally a wingnut sponsored idea?

So let me get this straight. You're a drug addled murdering pimp who doesn't know how to use a dictionary, right?

Nope. I just don't want some big gubmint RW hypocritical asshole trying to tell me how to live up to HIS morals.

But I will admit your "dictionary" comment got by me.

From Websters:
Definition of MARRIAGE
1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

 

[G.T.]

From Websters:
Definition of MARRIAGE
1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Being un-open to the bending and breaking of "tradition" is also a form of anti-freedom, you know.

 

[DaGoose]

So let me get this straight. You're a drug addled murdering pimp who doesn't know how to use a dictionary, right?

Nope. I just don't want some big gubmint RW hypocritical asshole trying to tell me how to live up to HIS morals.

But I will admit your "dictionary" comment got by me.

From Websters:
Definition of MARRIAGE
1: the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law

Ok. Just because YOU think it's wrong YOU want others to conform to YOUR perception of morals.

Got it.

BTW....thanks for proving my point.

 

[Ernie S.]

Yea, in the 40's, and the people mwho did it are dead now, and it was the Japanese during a war vs. the Japanese. Color me shocked, they did something stupid in the 40's.

Why is it such a far leap to think it couldn't happen again; this time with political enemies?
Every communist country started out with the same Utopian ideals Progressives have now, but resorted to "reeducation camps" to squash dissent.

Because we have a first Amendment, and information passes faster today than anytime EVER in the History of the US.

If they started putting hoards of innocent people in internment camps, how tdo you honestly think that will effect the populace? Would you watch it happen? I wo09uldn't. But what's the business about whining over hypotheticals? I'm confident it will never happen. Do you know any military? They're not going to armed guard innocent hoards of Americans. They're our families & friends.

Then there's world bodies, etc.


I mean, I'm really not as scared of this shit as you guys seem to be because I will fight if I have to, and I'm cool with that. But................I don't have to.

You'd have thought the German army wouldn't have supported interning Jews, but a skillful orator can turn an ideological enemy into a perceived threat. I do see little chance of it happening with obama. He's not that good, but who's to say the US can't someday, have it's own Hitler