Monday July 6, 2015
Jump to content
He would probably be happier living in Soviet Russia -- oh, wait; they already tried the Socialism (Marxism-Lite) desired by Mr. Spatti ... until they got enough idiots to fall for the freebies and the giving up of arms until they were able to hold their October revolution and turn it into Marxism-Heavy, and shoot most of the "useful idiots" that, like Mr. Spatti, worked so hard for the Party.
You'd think people with a heck of a lot more education than the Russian peasants had would have better sense, but it must be the Socialist control of education that is shrinking their brain; we don't have enough pollution to cause it.
Newsflash, Mr. Spatti: You want to pay to educate Dreamers who have no right to be here, you do it. Or go to Mexico and pay them to do it, Dreamers have gotten more education here than they would ever get in Mexico, so they should do well there. They don't need to be here contributing to the Socialist poison you are spouting.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you think the annual Fourth of July fireworks event at Green Valley Park causes pollution of any consequence, it would appear -- based on the cause-and-effect you postulate -- that you have been living in a high pollution environment for quite a while.
You have too short an attention span for a list that long, Ted. It runs to many pages, over 20,000 State and federal laws, not one of which is authorized to the federal government to enforce, and every one of which is prohibited to the States to enforce. You can start with the current abomination of background checks in violation of your 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights and an a priori restraint on your 2nd Amendment right. Then you have many States requiring government permission to exercise the right (and then only if you first waive your 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights). You have the federal government telling you where, when, and under what circumstances you may and may not keep and/or bear arms, whether you may do so openly or concealed, or that it MUST be openly or concealed, depending on the State. And now you have subversive insurrectionists like Michael Bloomberg taking the next step of requiring private transactions to violate their 4th, 5th, and 10th Amendment rights. Tell me, Ted: What other right do you have that requires an interrogation under threat of criminal prosecution, and a search of your otherwise private records, as a precondition to receiving (or being denied) permission to exercise it when government has no authority at any level to issue or deny permission to exercise a right in the first place?
I think you used the wrong word, there, Jeffrey. You said the current events have less to do with "religious freedom" than they do with "tolerance." Well, not really. The response by the unprincipled, at least, has less to do with "religious freedom" than with "political correctness." That's how leftists, and totalitarians in general, restrict principled behavior: They call it "intolerant." In actual fact, the fundamental principles of liberty says business owners can choose to conduct business, or refuse to conduct business, with whomever they wish who will conduct business with them, for any reason or no reason. Similarly, shoppers can choose to conduct business with whomever is willing to conduct business with them, and their choice may be for any reason or no reason. I hate to break it to the anti-liberty types on this forum, but intolerance is a right, just as is tolerance. One person's principles is another person's intolerance. Deal with it. Unless you would rather live in a lockdown dictatorship in which no one has any right to choose for any reason or no reason.
Exactly the problem, Meria: The churches ARE being taxed, or if not, it is because they have gone hat-in-hand to the IRS and requested non-profit status, which the IRS will allow only so long as the church does not engage in political free speech against government policies. Government noted how effective the churches were in advocating and prosecuting the American Revolution; they don't want a repeat of that fundamental liberty.
I wouldn't be too holier-than-thou, Ted: You support Zerobama and Killary, so obviously you don't know pathological liars when you see them. Either that, or you don't care, which might be more likely given your political ideology.
Laugh it up, Ted. As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. Ducey is not a Tea party Republican. He's a liar.
And I would defend your right to express them, Ms Freeman ... with force of arms, if necessary. Can you tell me what right you would have to express your views, Ms Freeman, if you were to somehow succeed in depriving me and the other members of our nation of sovereign citizens of their right to keep and bear arms? Can you tell me what right you would have to, say, cross State lines on vacation or business without a government-issued permit? What right would you have to live where you wish, work where you wish at a job or career of your choice, if you, and the rest of us, are unable to defend your right to do so with force of arms, Ms Freeman? Indeed, what right would you have to publish a letter in this newspaper without first completing an interrogation as to your "upstanding citizenship," and then a search of your records to find out if you were telling the truth in the interrogation? What right would you have to submit a letter to the editor without first obtaining permission from your neighborhood party apparatchik? Ever heard of your right to due process? Ever heard of your right to be secure from being compelled to undergo an interrogation and search before receiving (or being denied) permission to exercise a right, Ms Freeman?
Be nice to Sylvia Freeman, guys, unless you know something I don't know (and you may). She sounds like what the Aussies call a "newchum" who knows nuttin'. Sylvia, I hope you read these forums and respond, because it is necessary for you to get a lesson in "immorality."
"Immorality" is when you allow someone to be murdered, raped, robbed, assaulted because you think it is "immoral" to carry the means of self-defense in public. It is a heavy responsibility, but it is not "immoral."
I hope you read this, because I and other citizens on this forum would like to know what skewed events in your life gave you such a skewed outlook on "morality." We'd like to politely offer you justification for adopting a more moral philosophy.
Did she hear of what, exactly? The bogus idea that only a State divorced from morality is a good State? And "let her go" where for all of us? I rarely agree with your far-left positions, Meria, but I usually understand them. This time it is no sense you are making.
Last login: Friday, June 19, 2015