Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Just wondering....


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#16 Jangler

Jangler

    Its gonna be just like they say, them voices tell me so

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 46,751 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 10:59 PM

Out of Iraq by September......<holding breath>

#17 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 11:02 PM

So....Democrats wants to restrict an individual's ability to kill other [innocent] people


Lol quoting someone wiser than us:

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment

If you can't understand that, you can't understand why guns are important.

and he inherited the debt created by a Republican president (who inherited no debt).


Lol again. I said he SPENT more than ALL US presidents before him combined! (Including Bush)

Any other ways that Republicans want to restrict the rights of individuals??????


Republicans want to restrict our rights in the exact same way! That was my original point. Bush said he would sign an assault weapons bill if it made it to his desk. He pushed for the wretched patriot act. He signed Mcain-Feingold.

Both parties want to take your freedom.

#18 ladypanther

ladypanther

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,250 posts
  • LocationWNC

Posted 16 February 2010 - 11:10 PM

Guns are a different issue than they were in the 1700's. More guns.....more victims. Victims have individual rights too.

#19 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 16 February 2010 - 11:12 PM

Guns are a different issue than they were in the 1700's. More guns.....more victims. Victims have individual rights too.


Which is why Chicago and DC are such bastions of safety.

#20 venom

venom

    oneinfiniteconsciousness

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,495 posts
  • LocationPleiades

Posted 17 February 2010 - 12:41 AM

So....Democrats wants to restrict an individual's ability to kill other [innocent] people and he inherited the debt created by a Republican president (who inherited no debt).

Any other ways that Republicans want to restrict the rights of individuals??????


Wow. Seriously?

First thing you need to do is drop the whole left/right paradigm; they're both one in the same. The country/world is run by the Fed/international bankers. They're the ones who decide policy. Congress is at their mercy and only serve their interests. 1913 was the game changer. That was the year the fed was created and thus given the power to run the country; as we had then lost our status as a constitutional republic. Lots of freedoms lost during this event. This nation would never be the same again.

Edited by venom, 17 February 2010 - 12:48 AM.


#21 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,308 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 06:40 AM

What individual freedoms do the democrats want to restrict?


Democrats have, for a while, wanted to place more restrictions on gun ownership. Now I don't necessarily disagree with some of their restrictions, but they certainly want to put some in place. And that is a restriction on personal freedom.

#22 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,086 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 17 February 2010 - 09:51 AM

The liberal side of the Democratic party is also pushing to restrict how US businesses operate by heaping all kinds of emissions restrictions and taxes on them. Have also seen some propose taxing those citizens who drive more than "x" number of miles to and from work each day. Talk about restricting?

#23 rodeo

rodeo

    Keelah se'lai

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,381 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 11:08 AM

The liberal side of the Democratic party is also pushing to restrict how US businesses operate by heaping all kinds of emissions restrictions and taxes on them. Have also seen some propose taxing those citizens who drive more than "x" number of miles to and from work each day. Talk about restricting?


that isn't personal freedom. corporations are not people, despite what the supreme court would have you believe.

#24 JeramiahCopperfield

JeramiahCopperfield

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 565 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 11:57 AM

that isn't personal freedom. corporations are not people, despite what the supreme court would have you believe.


Agreed.

#25 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,086 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 17 February 2010 - 12:06 PM

that isn't personal freedom. corporations are not people, despite what the supreme court would have you believe.


Tracking the distance people drive and taxing them on mileage driven to work is not infringing on personal freedom?

edit: Of course this is all propsoed crap right now, but the fact that they are even thinking about it.....

Edited by SouthCakPanther, 17 February 2010 - 12:18 PM.


#26 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,743 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 02:33 PM

It's not even proposed South. It's just people talking about wild ideas.

#27 Davidson Deac II

Davidson Deac II

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,308 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 08:42 PM

that isn't personal freedom. corporations are not people, despite what the supreme court would have you believe.


In that case, neither are political parties, unions, political action committees, the boy scouts etc....

A corporation is a group of people formed together for purposes of profit. As long as they obey the rules of society, then they should have the same rights as any other group.

#28 Kral

Kral

    Internet Legend

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,828 posts

Posted 17 February 2010 - 08:45 PM

Tracking the distance people drive and taxing them on mileage driven to work is not infringing on personal freedom?


Only as much as tracking how much money I make and taxing that.

#29 SCP

SCP

    Crop Dusting Son of a Bitch

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,086 posts
  • LocationOn a Sales Call

Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:13 AM

Only as much as tracking how much money I make and taxing that.


No. Wrong.

#30 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 18 February 2010 - 11:20 AM

In that case, neither are political parties, unions, political action committees, the boy scouts etc....


deal.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com - IP Content Design by Joshua Tree / TitansReport.