# A Question for Rightwingers



## jillian

I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on... 

how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?


----------



## Oddball

Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?

Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.


----------



## Two Thumbs

I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.

Freedom is not forced.

anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon


----------



## The Rabbi

Wtf?


----------



## jillian

Oddball said:


> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.



hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus... 

and you're concerned about paying for insurance?

lol.


----------



## Mad Scientist

There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.


----------



## jillian

Two Thumbs said:


> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon



ok. you're consistent. fair enough.

now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?


----------



## Charles_Main

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



Absolutely not. Just because I support our Right to Own Guns does not mean I think the Government can Force someone to buy one.

This is an incredibly Lame Thread.


----------



## hjmick

I believe someone is attempting to draw a parallel between ACA and the 2nd.


----------



## Charles_Main

Mad Scientist said:


> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.



That's is a City, not the Federal Government.


----------



## jillian

Mad Scientist said:


> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.



and you're ok with that?

how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?


----------



## Two Thumbs

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
Click to expand...


I will always choose the shitty result of freedom over super nice results of force.


----------



## jillian

Charles_Main said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. Just because I support our Right to Own Guns does not mean I think the Government can Force someone to buy one.
> 
> This is an incredibly Lame Thread.
Click to expand...


as always, you're clueless as to the basis for the discussion.


----------



## jillian

hjmick said:


> I believe someone is attempting to draw a parallel between ACA and the 2nd.



well, i'm trying to draw an analogy to having to do something one doesn't want to do.

thanks for explaining it to charlie, though. he's a little slow.


----------



## Charles_Main

jillian said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. Just because I support our Right to Own Guns does not mean I think the Government can Force someone to buy one.
> 
> This is an incredibly Lame Thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as always, you're clueless as to the basis for the discussion.
Click to expand...


No you neg repping little bitch, I know exactly what your trying to do with this Thread.

and yes it is Lame.


----------



## Charles_Main

jillian said:


> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe someone is attempting to draw a parallel between ACA and the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, i'm trying to draw an analogy to having to do something one doesn't want to do.
> 
> thanks for explaining it to charlie, though. he's a little slow.
Click to expand...


Your trying to Draw a Parallel where none exists. Nobody is trying to Force anyone to Buy a Gun.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



so democrats aren't as pro choice as they pretend to be. we got that, you're all about "mandates". Yep


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


nobody really gives a shit about your uterus. you think way to highly of yourself.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nobody really gives a shit about your uterus. you think way to highly of yourself.
Click to expand...


poor angry willow


----------



## The Rabbi

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
Click to expand...


I'm all for reproductive choice.  You dont want to get pregnant?  Use precautions.
How are you on murder?  Do you think people have the right to live?


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nobody really gives a shit about your uterus. you think way to highly of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor angry willow
Click to expand...


I'm not angry, why do you persist in thinking everyone wants to tiptoe through your highly touted uterus? I've told you before, the more abortions democrats have the better off the country.


----------



## WillowTree

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm all for reproductive choice.  You dont want to get pregnant?  Use precautions.
> How are you on murder?  Do you think people have the right to live?
Click to expand...


No, obviously she opts for the right to murder the unborn, and as long as they're the unborn of democrats I don't have a problem with it.


----------



## The Rabbi

Charles_Main said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hjmick said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe someone is attempting to draw a parallel between ACA and the 2nd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well, i'm trying to draw an analogy to having to do something one doesn't want to do.
> 
> thanks for explaining it to charlie, though. he's a little slow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your trying to Draw a Parallel where none exists. Nobody is trying to Force anyone to Buy a Gun.
Click to expand...


Jillian does not get it.
There is no parallel at all.
For starters, even the most pro gun people do not want a government mandate to own one.  It's an individual decision.
Second, abortion involves ending another person's life.  

Yeah, tell us about the parallels, "counselor."  Stupid poseur.


----------



## AmericanFirst

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?


Concealed carry, like everything else, should be freedom of choice.


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody really gives a shit about your uterus. you think way to highly of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor angry willow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, why do you persist in thinking everyone wants to tiptoe through your highly touted uterus? I've told you before, the more abortions democrats have the better off the country.
Click to expand...


So you're either pro choice or you think murdering democrats is ok.

And you just took a page from Michael Moore's playbook.  congrats.


----------



## jillian

The Rabbi said:


> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> well, i'm trying to draw an analogy to having to do something one doesn't want to do.
> 
> thanks for explaining it to charlie, though. he's a little slow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your trying to Draw a Parallel where none exists. Nobody is trying to Force anyone to Buy a Gun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jillian does not get it.
> There is no parallel at all.
> For starters, even the most pro gun people do not want a government mandate to own one.  It's an individual decision.
> Second, abortion involves ending another person's life.
> 
> Yeah, tell us about the parallels, "counselor."  Stupid poseur.
Click to expand...


if you had half the brain you think you do, you'd know the thread came from another discussion with two thumbs.

aside from your insatiable need to pretend that you're more than you are, i find you and the other rightwingnut freaks pretending i'm not what i am more than funny. 

how are those toilets selling?


----------



## AmericanFirst

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...

Typical lefty idiot. Abortion is murder, second amendment is a right, and obamacare is unconstitutional.


----------



## WillowTree

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor angry willow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, why do you persist in thinking everyone wants to tiptoe through your highly touted uterus? I've told you before, the more abortions democrats have the better off the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you're either pro choice or you think murdering democrats is ok.
> 
> And you just took a page from Michael Moore's playbook.  congrats.
Click to expand...


I'm not advocating murdering democrats,, Jillian is. she wants to murder democrats it's no skin off my nose now is it?


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, why do you persist in thinking everyone wants to tiptoe through your highly touted uterus? I've told you before, the more abortions democrats have the better off the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're either pro choice or you think murdering democrats is ok.
> 
> And you just took a page from Michael Moore's playbook.  congrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating murdering democrats,, Jillian is. she wants to murder democrats it's no skin off my nose now is it?
Click to expand...


Michael Moore once said 9/11 was a tragedy because of all the democrats who were in the Twin Towers.  You did essentially the same thing here.


----------



## WillowTree

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you're either pro choice or you think murdering democrats is ok.
> 
> And you just took a page from Michael Moore's playbook.  congrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating murdering democrats,, Jillian is. she wants to murder democrats it's no skin off my nose now is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Michael Moore once said 9/11 was a tragedy because of all the democrats who were in the Twin Towers.  You did essentially the same thing here.
Click to expand...


no I didn't,, I told Jillian she thinks too much of her uterus and if she wants to murder democrats it's her choice, I'm not going to cry every time a democrats has an abortion, it's a losing proposition, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. and they'll mandate the piss out of us on the way.


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating murdering democrats,, Jillian is. she wants to murder democrats it's no skin off my nose now is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Moore once said 9/11 was a tragedy because of all the democrats who were in the Twin Towers.  You did essentially the same thing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I didn't,, I told Jillian she thinks too much of her uterus and if she wants to murder democrats it's her choice, I'm not going to cry every time a democrats has an abortion, it's a losing proposition, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. and they'll mandate the piss out of us on the way.
Click to expand...

ok, well, let's see what others have to say about it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm all for reproductive choice.  You dont want to get pregnant?  Use precautions.
> How are you on murder?  Do you think people have the right to live?
Click to expand...


Thats not the issue. 

The issue is the states are not authorized to determine when life begins, or compel citizens to abide by such a determination. The individual alone makes the choice  whether to procreate, or own a gun  free from government interference.


----------



## WillowTree

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for reproductive choice.  You dont want to get pregnant?  Use precautions.
> How are you on murder?  Do you think people have the right to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the issue.
> 
> The issue is the states are not authorized to determine when life begins, or compel citizens to abide by such a determination. The individual alone makes the choice  whether to procreate, or own a gun  free from government interference.
Click to expand...







democrats are "pro choice" until they "mandate"   fucking hypocrites.


----------



## WillowTree

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Moore once said 9/11 was a tragedy because of all the democrats who were in the Twin Towers.  You did essentially the same thing here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no I didn't,, I told Jillian she thinks too much of her uterus and if she wants to murder democrats it's her choice, I'm not going to cry every time a democrats has an abortion, it's a losing proposition, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. and they'll mandate the piss out of us on the way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok, well, let's see what others have to say about it.
Click to expand...


really? you think someone is gonna come along and talk her out of it?


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> no I didn't,, I told Jillian she thinks too much of her uterus and if she wants to murder democrats it's her choice, I'm not going to cry every time a democrats has an abortion, it's a losing proposition, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. and they'll mandate the piss out of us on the way.
> 
> 
> 
> ok, well, let's see what others have to say about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? you think someone is gonna come along and talk her out of it?
Click to expand...

talk her out of what?


----------



## WillowTree

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok, well, let's see what others have to say about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? you think someone is gonna come along and talk her out of it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> talk her out of what?
Click to expand...


getting an abortion.. she's damn pro choice until she mandates don'tyaknow?


----------



## whitehall

Government ordered carrying of a loaded weapon? Are you nuts?


----------



## Mad Scientist

jillian said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
Click to expand...

Because noone else is FORCED to buy a weapon for you if you can't afford it.

"Kids" up to age 26 will NOT be getting free guns at some one elses expense.


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> really? you think someone is gonna come along and talk her out of it?
> 
> 
> 
> talk her out of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> getting an abortion.. she's damn pro choice until she mandates don'tyaknow?
Click to expand...


who?


----------



## koshergrl

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
Click to expand...

 
Er..Jillian, you brought it up.

"Tiptoe through my uterus" ring any bells????


----------



## WillowTree

i vote this lamestest thread of the day, it has Elvis befuddled and bewildered.


----------



## koshergrl

Check this out:







This is my neck of the woods. Literally.


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> i vote this lamestest thread of the day, it has Elvis befuddled and bewildered.



what makes you think she's pregnant?


----------



## WillowTree

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> i vote this lamestest thread of the day, it has Elvis befuddled and bewildered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what makes you think she's pregnant?
Click to expand...


I never said she was pregnant. not once.


I said... pay attention now.. Jillian is "pro choice" until she "mandates".


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> i vote this lamestest thread of the day, it has Elvis befuddled and bewildered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what makes you think she's pregnant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never said she was pregnant. not once.
Click to expand...


stop her from getting an abortion...

last I heard, in order to have an abortion, said woman must first be pregnant..

yes?


----------



## ConservaDerrps

WillowTree said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for reproductive choice.  You dont want to get pregnant?  Use precautions.
> How are you on murder?  Do you think people have the right to live?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the issue.
> 
> The issue is the states are not authorized to determine when life begins, or compel citizens to abide by such a determination. The individual alone makes the choice  whether to procreate, or own a gun  free from government interference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> democrats are "pro choice" until they "mandate"   fucking hypocrites.
Click to expand...




You can CHOOSE not to buy health coverage.

Then you'll pay a tax.

OH THE FUCKING CONUNDRUM CONSERVATIVES ARE IN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## WillowTree

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the issue.
> 
> The issue is the states are not authorized to determine when life begins, or compel citizens to abide by such a determination. The individual alone makes the choice  whether to procreate, or own a gun  free from government interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democrats are "pro choice" until they "mandate"   fucking hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can CHOOSE not to buy health coverage.
> 
> Then you'll pay a tax.
> 
> OH THE FUCKING CONUNDRUM CONSERVATIVES ARE IN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


like I said. democrats are "pro choice" until they mandate,, fucking hypocrites.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> democrats are "pro choice" until they "mandate"   fucking hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can CHOOSE not to buy health coverage.
> 
> Then you'll pay a tax.
> 
> OH THE FUCKING CONUNDRUM CONSERVATIVES ARE IN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said. democrats are "pro choice" until they mandate,, fucking hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Like I said, you do have a choice. Buy health insurance at affordable rates thanks to the ACA, or pay a tax.

Or keep whining like a baby bitch. That seems to work well for you too.


----------



## The Infidel

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


Jeez..... really Jillian???


How gawd damned fucking stupid is that???? Nobody wants to tiptoe thru your fucking uterus 





*THREAD FAIL*

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=897jlnmTYqE]Fail button - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody really gives a shit about your uterus. you think way to highly of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor angry willow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, why do you persist in thinking everyone wants to tiptoe through your highly touted uterus? I've told you before, the more abortions democrats have the better off the country.
Click to expand...

I care about her uterus.  and either you do, you are pro choice, or you think it's ok to murder democrats.


----------



## koshergrl

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor angry willow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, why do you persist in thinking everyone wants to tiptoe through your highly touted uterus? I've told you before, the more abortions democrats have the better off the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care about her uterus. and either you do, you are pro choice, or you think it's ok to murder democrats.
Click to expand...


----------



## Oddball

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...

I don't think anything of the sort...Not _*even*_ a good try at marginalizing me.

But I do object to being forced to foot the bill and pay the consequences for your poor choices....Which is what you're _*really*_ after.


----------



## BDBoop

Oddball said:


> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.



Still butthurt, I see.


----------



## WillowTree

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can CHOOSE not to buy health coverage.
> 
> Then you'll pay a tax.
> 
> OH THE FUCKING CONUNDRUM CONSERVATIVES ARE IN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> like I said. democrats are "pro choice" until they mandate,, fucking hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you do have a choice. Buy health insurance at affordable rates thanks to the ACA, or pay a tax.
> 
> Or keep whining like a baby bitch. That seems to work well for you too.
Click to expand...


like I said democrats are "pro choice" until the mandate fucking hypocrites.


----------



## BDBoop

The Infidel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jeez..... really Jillian???
> 
> 
> How gawd damned fucking stupid is that???? Nobody wants to tiptoe thru your fucking uterus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THREAD FAIL*
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=897jlnmTYqE]Fail button - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Really? I'm guessing you have a REALLY bad case of willful ignorance.


----------



## koshergrl

Oddball said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think anything of the sort...Not _*even*_ a good try at marginalizing me.
> 
> But I do object to being forced to foot the bill and pay the consequences for your poor choices....Which is what you're _*really*_ after.
Click to expand...

 
No, what she's after is that you pay to eliminate the offspring of a population she thinks doesn't have any value.

She doesn't acknowledge that she's ever made a poor choice. But she thinks the children of those who do make poor choices should be offed.


----------



## The Infidel

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> like I said. democrats are "pro choice" until they mandate,, fucking hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you do have a choice. Buy health insurance at affordable rates thanks to the ACA, or pay a tax.
> 
> Or keep whining like a baby bitch. That seems to work well for you too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> like I said democrats are "pro choice" until the mandate fucking hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Pay this NEW TAX or go to jail... bottom line.

Why else would the IRS be the collection agency.

We are in big trouble if this is not repealed.... BIG TROUBLE


----------



## BDBoop

Second wave. Fuck it.

Back to the book/TV it is.

/sigh


----------



## WillowTree

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> poor angry willow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, why do you persist in thinking everyone wants to tiptoe through your highly touted uterus? I've told you before, the more abortions democrats have the better off the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I care about her uterus.  and either you do, you are pro choice, or you think it's ok to murder democrats.
Click to expand...


i don't give a shit about her uterus, she can do with it what she wants. Are you going to guard it for her?


----------



## The Infidel

BDBoop said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeez..... really Jillian???
> 
> 
> How gawd damned fucking stupid is that???? Nobody wants to tiptoe thru your fucking uterus
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THREAD FAIL*
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=897jlnmTYqE]Fail button - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? I'm guessing *you have a REALLY bad case of willful ignorance*.
Click to expand...


Watch it Boop.... ya dont want to go there with me today. 

Im in no mood for it.

Jillian is making a jump that is absolutely STUPID.


Seems no one cares about what The Constitution says about commerce.... no biggie right????

Im not ignorant Boop.... not even a little.


----------



## daveman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm all for reproductive choice.  You dont want to get pregnant?  Use precautions.
> How are you on murder?  Do you think people have the right to live?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats not the issue.
> 
> The issue is the states are not authorized to determine when life begins, or compel citizens to abide by such a determination. The individual alone makes the choice  whether to procreate, or own a gun  free from government interference.
Click to expand...

But not whether to buy insurance.


----------



## WillowTree

koshergrl said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anything of the sort...Not _*even*_ a good try at marginalizing me.
> 
> But I do object to being forced to foot the bill and pay the consequences for your poor choices....Which is what you're _*really*_ after.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, what she's after is that you pay to eliminate the offspring of a population she thinks doesn't have any value.
> 
> She doesn't acknowledge that she's ever made a poor choice. But she thinks the children of those who do make poor choices should be offed.
Click to expand...


Offing babies is the law of the land. It's a losing proposition to try and talk em out of it.


----------



## daveman

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not the issue.
> 
> The issue is the states are not authorized to determine when life begins, or compel citizens to abide by such a determination. The individual alone makes the choice  whether to procreate, or own a gun  free from government interference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democrats are "pro choice" until they "mandate"   fucking hypocrites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can CHOOSE not to buy health coverage.
> 
> Then you'll pay a tax.
> 
> OH THE FUCKING CONUNDRUM CONSERVATIVES ARE IN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?

By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.


----------



## Pheonixops

Hell no! I'm not a "rightie" but I don't like many mandates.


----------



## whitehall

There might be an obscure connection to abortion and then maybe not. Other than that I can't imagine why a left winger would ask people if they agree that the government should force them to carry a weapon.


----------



## The Infidel

whitehall said:


> There might be an obscure connection to abortion and then maybe not. Other than that I can't imagine why a left winger would ask people if they agree that the government should force them to carry a weapon.



Liberalism is a mental disorder


----------



## ConservaDerrps

daveman said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> democrats are "pro choice" until they "mandate"   fucking hypocrites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can CHOOSE not to buy health coverage.
> 
> Then you'll pay a tax.
> 
> OH THE FUCKING CONUNDRUM CONSERVATIVES ARE IN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?
> 
> By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.
Click to expand...


It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?


----------



## Avatar4321

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


No. We just care about your children more than you do.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

Avatar4321 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. We just care about your children more than you do.
Click to expand...


Gee, that's funny. I think setting up a system where our sons and daughters can never be denied health insurance is looking out for them. *shrug* I guess that's the problem with bullshit hyperbole. Doesn't make for great intellectual discussion, does it?


----------



## daveman

ConservaDerrps said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can CHOOSE not to buy health coverage.
> 
> Then you'll pay a tax.
> 
> OH THE FUCKING CONUNDRUM CONSERVATIVES ARE IN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?
> 
> By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not?
Click to expand...

Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.  


ConservaDerrps said:


> And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?


I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.


----------



## jillian

Avatar4321 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. We just care about your children more than you do.
Click to expand...


really? my son was by choice... after in vitro. and if it were up to you, i wouldn't have been able to have him.

so let's compare notes about how much we care about our kids one of these days.

and if you cared about people's children, you'd be in favor of fiunding head start and WIC and schools and daycare and job training for their moms.

"thup:


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?
> 
> By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
Click to expand...


so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?


----------



## jillian

The Infidel said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There might be an obscure connection to abortion and then maybe not. Other than that I can't imagine why a left winger would ask people if they agree that the government should force them to carry a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is a mental disorder
Click to expand...


that's so funny... 

insane... but funny.


----------



## daws101

would I get my choice of weapon and low cost ammo for life?
obama care gives you all that and more.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


Right, only Obama and Secretary of health has the key to your uterus


----------



## kaz

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



According to John Roberts if the government only fined you for not carrying a gun, since the penalty is just money it's a "tax" which apparently there is zero restriction on government for doing and it's OK by the Constitution for the government to do it.  So let's go for it, freedom in this country means nothing anymore.  Congratulations on that.


----------



## Avatar4321

ConservaDerrps said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We just care about your children more than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, that's funny. I think setting up a system where our sons and daughters can never be denied health insurance is looking out for them. *shrug* I guess that's the problem with bullshit hyperbole. Doesn't make for great intellectual discussion, does it?
Click to expand...


See that's where your wrong. Why?

Because one, Obamacare doesnt do that.

Two, our children dont need the government "looking out for them" they need their PARENTS looking out for them.

Three, outsourcing your parental responsibilities tells your children that you dont give a flying crap about them. It tells them you are selfish people who want to rob their neighbors in an effort to pretend you fulfill your responsibilities while completely ignoring them.

I might also point out there is a major difference between actively killing your child and choosing not to rob your neighbor to take care of them.


----------



## Si modo

The word "mandate", when used in the same sentence as government, is almost profane to me.


----------



## Conservative

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



by gun thing, are you saying we sleep with our weapons, or that we support the 2nd amendment?


----------



## Oddball

Si modo said:


> The word "mandate", when used in the same sentence as government, is almost profane to me.


The words are virtually synonymous anymore.


----------



## Avatar4321

jillian said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We just care about your children more than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? my son was by choice... after in vitro. and if it were up to you, i wouldn't have been able to have him.
> 
> so let's compare notes about how much we care about our kids one of these days.
> 
> and if you cared about people's children, you'd be in favor of fiunding head start and WIC and schools and daycare and job training for their moms.
> 
> "thup:
Click to expand...


how the heck would stopping abortion prevent you from having a child?

I cant believe you can honestly want people to be able to murder their offspring and you have the audacity to think that you are the one that cares about children. It's mindbogglign the lengths some of you will go to justify such vileness.

Oh and I dont have a problem with local communities funding programs the people in those communities need. I dont have a problem with people voluntarily providing their own means to benefit one another. In fact, I encourage it.

What I have a problem with is empowering the Federal Government to violate the Constitution. I have a problem with Robbery and extortion by our politicians in an effort for them to buy votes and keep people in bondage.


----------



## jillian

Conservative said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by gun thing, are you saying we sleep with our weapons, or that we support the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...


i think that would depend on which poster i was talking to.

my husband's are locked up where they're supposed to be.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

I wouldn't support it and I have concealed carry.


----------



## jillian

Avatar4321 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. We just care about your children more than you do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really? my son was by choice... after in vitro. and if it were up to you, i wouldn't have been able to have him.
> 
> so let's compare notes about how much we care about our kids one of these days.
> 
> and if you cared about people's children, you'd be in favor of fiunding head start and WIC and schools and daycare and job training for their moms.
> 
> "thup:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how the heck would stopping abortion prevent you from having a child?
> 
> I cant believe you can honestly want people to be able to murder their offspring and you have the audacity to think that you are the one that cares about children. It's mindbogglign the lengths some of you will go to justify such vileness.
> 
> Oh and I dont have a problem with local communities funding programs the people in those communities need. I dont have a problem with people voluntarily providing their own means to benefit one another. In fact, I encourage it.
> 
> What I have a problem with is empowering the Federal Government to violate the Constitution. I have a problem with Robbery and extortion by our politicians in an effort for them to buy votes and keep people in bondage.
Click to expand...


personhood laws like the ones you all seem to support would prohibit both contraceptives and in vitro fertilization because you'd be killing unused zygotes.

got it now?

read up on "snow babies".


----------



## candycorn

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> nobody really gives a shit about your uterus. you think way to highly of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> poor angry willow
Click to expand...


I was sort of ambiguous about the ACA but seeing the catatonic actions of the Right is enough for anyone to support it.


----------



## ecinicola

I support the right to carry a gun.  I have a permit and will continue to keep it.  
I do not support obamacare, and feel it will be repealed, and a temporary win for obama.
I am not a democrat or republican and i am voting obama and other democrats out, due to the damage they have done to the american citizens livelyhoods.


----------



## jillian

candycorn said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> nobody really gives a shit about your uterus. you think way to highly of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> poor angry willow
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was sort of ambiguous about the ACA but seeing the catatonic actions of the Right is enough for anyone to support it.
Click to expand...


it does make for great theatre of the absurd.


----------



## The Infidel

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance*, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) *pay tolls*,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
Click to expand...


Wow.... I thought you were smarter than this, but guess I was wrong.


----------



## GuyPinestra

jillian said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. We just care about your children more than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> really? my son was by choice... after in vitro. and if it were up to you, i wouldn't have been able to have him.
> 
> so let's compare notes about how much we care about our kids one of these days.
> 
> and if you cared about people's children, you'd be in favor of fiunding head start and WIC and schools and daycare and job training for their moms.
> 
> "thup:
Click to expand...


Plenty of evidence out there that Head Start hasn't done SHIT for kids and has wasted EVERY FUCKING DOLLAR they've ever spent. It's nothing more than subsidized daycare/early indoctrination.


----------



## WillowTree

Conservative said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by gun thing, are you saying we sleep with our weapons, or that we support the 2nd amendment?
Click to expand...


careful, next thing you know she'll sneer at you for "hugging your bible."


----------



## AVG-JOE

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


How in the hell does one 'tiptoe' in Jack Boots?!?


----------



## WillowTree

"The largest tax increase in American history" yep the democrats pulled off a good one today.


----------



## The Infidel

jillian said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by gun thing, are you saying we sleep with our weapons, or that we support the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think that would depend on which poster i was talking to.
> 
> my husband's are *locked up where they're supposed to be*.
Click to expand...


Make sure you put out a sign for the burgulars to give ya a chance to open the safe before they break in.
That way no one gets hurt before they get to your uterus or your gun.


----------



## candycorn

jillian said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> There might be an obscure connection to abortion and then maybe not. Other than that I can't imagine why a left winger would ask people if they agree that the government should force them to carry a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberalism is a mental disorder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's so funny...
> 
> insane... but funny.
Click to expand...

*
It's been a fun day...

"you don't want any of this....not today...."

Oh the comedy.*


----------



## Si modo

AVG-JOE said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How in the hell does one 'tiptoe' in Jack Boots?!?
Click to expand...

Congrats on being the idiot who godwinned the thread.


----------



## jillian

The Infidel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> by gun thing, are you saying we sleep with our weapons, or that we support the 2nd amendment?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i think that would depend on which poster i was talking to.
> 
> my husband's are *locked up where they're supposed to be*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Make sure you put out a sign for the burgulars to give ya a chance to open the safe before they break in.
> That way no one gets hurt before they get to your uterus or your gun.
Click to expand...


i think we'll be ok.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> "The largest tax increase in American history" yep the democrats pulled off a good one today.



that's right willow... get them talking points dowwwwwwwwwwn...rush will be so proud of you.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The largest tax increase in American history" yep the democrats pulled off a good one today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's right willow... get them talking points dowwwwwwwwwwn...rush will be so proud of you.
Click to expand...


That's the facts jack. or are you saying no one has to pay for this shit?


----------



## jillian

The Infidel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance*, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) *pay tolls*,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.... I thought you were smarter than this, but guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...


i'm trying to draw distinctions here, hon... and i can't really see any substantive ones. i can't help it if i see a lot of fauxrage around these parts.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
Click to expand...

See, if I don't drive, no one is going to penalize me for not purchasing auto insurance.  If I don't work, no one is going to charge me unemployment insurance.  If I don't take a toll road, I won't have to pay a toll.

But the ONLY way I could get out of being penalized for Obama's unconstitutional mandate, was to die.

Apples and bulldozers.


----------



## Oddball

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, if I don't drive, no one is going to penalize me for not purchasing auto insurance.  If I don't work, no one is going to charge me unemployment insurance.  If I don't take a toll road, I won't have to pay a toll.
> 
> But the ONLY way I could get out of being penalized for Obama's unconstitutional mandate, was to die.
> 
> Apples and bulldozers.
Click to expand...

They'll go to their graves trying to sell that bullshit auto insurance analogy, no matter how many times it gets so easily shot full of holes.

Tragicomic, really.


----------



## WillowTree

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, if I don't drive, no one is going to penalize me for not purchasing auto insurance.  If I don't work, no one is going to charge me unemployment insurance.  If I don't take a toll road, I won't have to pay a toll.
> 
> But the ONLY way I could get out of being penalized for Obama's unconstitutional mandate, was to die.
> 
> 
> Apples and bulldozers.
Click to expand...







Well today you aren't mandated to buy a car,, tomorrow may be a different story, they can mandate anything now and call it a tax.. get used to it.


----------



## WillowTree

Oddball said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> 
> 
> See, if I don't drive, no one is going to penalize me for not purchasing auto insurance.  If I don't work, no one is going to charge me unemployment insurance.  If I don't take a toll road, I won't have to pay a toll.
> 
> But the ONLY way I could get out of being penalized for Obama's unconstitutional mandate, was to die.
> 
> Apples and bulldozers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They'll go to their graves trying to sell that bullshit auto insurance analogy, no matter how many times it gets so easily shot full of holes.
> 
> Tragicomic, really.
Click to expand...

  it's not bullshit anymore, they can literally mandate that you buy a car and insurance now, it's called a tax.


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, if I don't drive, no one is going to penalize me for not purchasing auto insurance.  If I don't work, no one is going to charge me unemployment insurance.  If I don't take a toll road, I won't have to pay a toll.
> 
> But the ONLY way I could get out of being penalized for Obama's unconstitutional mandate, was to die.
> 
> Apples and bulldozers.
Click to expand...


not really... do you think there's any chance in hell that you won't ever be sick? won't ever need health insurance?

truth is you and i are already covered... it won't effect us in the least. and i'd wager that most of the whining hoards are covered too, given that approximately 80% of us, iirc, have health insurance of one type or another. the others run up our costs and should pay their share.

but perhaps, si, you can explalin to me, why was this perfectly acceptable, as personal responsibility, when the heritage foundation came up with the plan, and when romney enacted it in Massachusetts? is a state making you do something less onerous than the feds? or is it just less onorous for the whining hoards if the person signing it into law has an R after their name?


----------



## Desperado

The government should not be mandating anything. Be it health care insurance or concealed carry.
Again, these things should be left up to the individual.


----------



## Jackson

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



Can't think about guns when our economy is so bad and TAXES so darn high.  Think that's how most Americans feel right now.  Think they'll feel that way through November...


----------



## jillian

Desperado said:


> The government should not be mandating anything. Be it health care insurance or concealed carry.
> Again, these things should be left up to the individual.



how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?

or carry a pregnancy to term?


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
Click to expand...


You can screw whoever you want, whenever you want.

When you get pregnant.....there are more than one persons rights at stake.

Hhhhmmmmm......

So we can say we are for the individual whose voice can't be heard at that time.

Have a day.


----------



## The Infidel

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See, if I don't drive, no one is going to penalize me for not purchasing auto insurance.  If I don't work, no one is going to charge me unemployment insurance.  If I don't take a toll road, I won't have to pay a toll.
> 
> But the ONLY way I could get out of being penalized for Obama's unconstitutional mandate, was to die.
> 
> Apples and bulldozers.
Click to expand...


I wasn't going to bother... they aren't listening.


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not angry, why do you persist in thinking everyone wants to tiptoe through your highly touted uterus? I've told you before, the more abortions democrats have the better off the country.
> 
> 
> 
> I care about her uterus.  and either you do, you are pro choice, or you think it's ok to murder democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i don't give a shit about her uterus, she can do with it what she wants. Are you going to guard it for her?
Click to expand...


well obstruction of abortion is illegal.  so no.


----------



## tjvh

whitehall said:


> There might be an obscure connection to abortion and then maybe not. Other than that I can't imagine why a left winger would ask people if they agree that the government should force them to carry a weapon.



It's the "worm on the hook" sort of thing. Exactly why I did not participate.


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be mandating anything. Be it health care insurance or concealed carry.
> Again, these things should be left up to the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> or carry a pregnancy to term?
Click to expand...


Is this about gun control or your obsession with abortion rights.

Short live Dr. Tiller.


----------



## elvis

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I care about her uterus.  and either you do, you are pro choice, or you think it's ok to murder democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't give a shit about her uterus, she can do with it what she wants. Are you going to guard it for her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well obstruction of abortion is illegal.  so no.
Click to expand...


and again, you're either pro choice, or think it's ok to murder democrats.


----------



## Paulie

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



I'm guessing this didn't really go as planned?


----------



## AVG-JOE

Si modo said:


> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell does one 'tiptoe' in Jack Boots?!?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Congrats on being the idiot who godwinned the thread.
Click to expand...


Thanks!  

Nice boots!


----------



## elvis

Paulie said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm guessing this didn't really go as planned?
Click to expand...


It didn't.  

but then again, it didn't go the way willow thought it would either.


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not?
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
Click to expand...

Canards.  You don't have to own a car, hire employees, or drive.

With Obama's mandate, you have to pay something because you're alive.


----------



## WillowTree

elvis said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I care about her uterus.  and either you do, you are pro choice, or you think it's ok to murder democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i don't give a shit about her uterus, she can do with it what she wants. Are you going to guard it for her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well obstruction of abortion is illegal.  so no.
Click to expand...


so, you don't give a shit about her uterus then either, you just argue for the sake of arguing.


----------



## elvis

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't give a shit about her uterus, she can do with it what she wants. Are you going to guard it for her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well obstruction of abortion is illegal.  so no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so, you don't give a shit about her uterus then either, you just argue for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...


nope.  I care.  not being able to do anything about something is different then not caring.


----------



## candycorn

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> i don't give a shit about her uterus, she can do with it what she wants. Are you going to guard it for her?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well obstruction of abortion is illegal.  so no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so, you don't give a shit about her uterus then either, you just argue for the sake of arguing.
Click to expand...

*
Wow...you've been bullied off of whatever point you had and made to look like the disgusting fool you are.*


----------



## AVG-JOE

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The largest tax increase in American history" yep the democrats pulled off a good one today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's right willow... get them talking points dowwwwwwwwwwn...rush will be so proud of you.
Click to expand...


I'd still like to see a link... I think there has been larger taxes levied - like 9 cents a gallon on gas for road work.


----------



## daveman

Si modo said:


> The word "mandate", when used in the same sentence as government, is almost profane to me.


Really?  Some people get tingles down their legs.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be mandating anything. Be it health care insurance or concealed carry.
> Again, these things should be left up to the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> or carry a pregnancy to term?
Click to expand...

Internal songrams, up to 12 weeks, are the best objective and immediate method to determine gestational age.  In a state where elective abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, you can bet that it's in the physician's best interest to have such an objective determination of gestational age...if he wants to keep his license, that is.

(And, I'd guess that the abortion itself is more unpleasant than an internal sonogram.)


----------



## The Infidel

AVG-JOE said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AVG-JOE said:
> 
> 
> 
> How in the hell does one 'tiptoe' in Jack Boots?!?
> 
> 
> 
> Congrats on being the idiot who godwinned the thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Nice boots!
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> by gun thing, are you saying we sleep with our weapons, or that we support the 2nd amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i think that would depend on which poster i was talking to.
> 
> my husband's are locked up where they're supposed to be.
Click to expand...

And if anyone, God forbid, breaks into your home, they'll wait patiently while your husband unlocks the gun safe?


----------



## jillian

Listening said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be mandating anything. Be it health care insurance or concealed carry.
> Again, these things should be left up to the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> or carry a pregnancy to term?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is this about gun control or your obsession with abortion rights.
> 
> Short live Dr. Tiller.
Click to expand...


it is simply a thread about being compelled to do things we don't want to do.

thanks for the heads up that you think murdering doctors is ok. can't say i'm surprised.


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> 
> The government should not be mandating anything. Be it health care insurance or concealed carry.
> Again, these things should be left up to the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> or carry a pregnancy to term?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Internal songrams, up to 12 weeks, are the best objective and immediate method to determine gestational age.  In a state where elective abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, you can bet that it's in the physician's best interest to have such an objective determination of gestational age...if he wants to keep his license, that is.
> 
> (And, I'd guess that the abortion itself is more unpleasant than an internal sonogram.)
Click to expand...


it's intended as a means of harassing women

because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.


----------



## The Infidel

AVG-JOE said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The largest tax increase in American history" yep the democrats pulled off a good one today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's right willow... get them talking points dowwwwwwwwwwn...rush will be so proud of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd still like to see a link... I think there has been larger taxes levied - like 9 cents a gallon on gas for road work.
Click to expand...


Really??? 


Was .09 cents a gallon 2/3's of the American economy???


----------



## WillowTree

AVG-JOE said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> "The largest tax increase in American history" yep the democrats pulled off a good one today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> that's right willow... get them talking points dowwwwwwwwwwn...rush will be so proud of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd still like to see a link... I think there has been larger taxes levied - like 9 cents a gallon on gas for road work.
Click to expand...


The Biggest Tax Increase In U.S. History? - Forbes.com

written in 2010, an accurate assessment since nothing in this bill has changed except now the truth is out about it being a tax hike,,


----------



## The Infidel

jillian said:


> si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> Or carry a pregnancy to term?
> 
> 
> 
> internal songrams, up to 12 weeks, are the best objective and immediate method to determine gestational age.  In a state where elective abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, you can bet that it's in the physician's best interest to have such an objective determination of gestational age...if he wants to keep his license, that is.
> 
> (and, i'd guess that the abortion itself is more unpleasant than an internal sonogram.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> nonsense...
Click to expand...


link?


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> or carry a pregnancy to term?
> 
> 
> 
> Internal songrams, up to 12 weeks, are the best objective and immediate method to determine gestational age.  In a state where elective abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, you can bet that it's in the physician's best interest to have such an objective determination of gestational age...if he wants to keep his license, that is.
> 
> (And, I'd guess that the abortion itself is more unpleasant than an internal sonogram.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's intended as a means of harassing women
> 
> because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.
Click to expand...





they're not in the legislature, they walked out today. cowards


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> or carry a pregnancy to term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this about gun control or your obsession with abortion rights.
> 
> Short live Dr. Tiller.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it is simply a thread about being compelled to do things we don't want to do.
> 
> thanks for the heads up that you think murdering doctors is ok. can't say i'm surprised.
Click to expand...


Good to know you don't mind making stuff up in an effort to look smart.

I am sorry to tell you that after 42,000 posts, you have not succeeded.

Your poll is about gun control.  And so is the thread title.  Can't imagine where I got that from ?

For the record, AZ executed a man for killing an abortion doctor.  I fully support that.

Wasn't sorry to see Dr. Tiller go.  I would have prefered someone suck out his brains while he was alive to feel it....but we can't all have our way.

Wasn't sorry to see Ted Kennedy go either.  I only wish it would have been more slow and painful for him.


----------



## Zander

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



I oppose most government mandates, and this one is no different.   Feel free to get an abortion, marry a monkey, eat foie gras, smoke pot, boot heroin, etc... my default position is, and always will be, PRO FREEDOM.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) pay tolls,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> 
> 
> See, if I don't drive, no one is going to penalize me for not purchasing auto insurance.  If I don't work, no one is going to charge me unemployment insurance.  If I don't take a toll road, I won't have to pay a toll.
> 
> But the ONLY way I could get out of being penalized for Obama's unconstitutional mandate, was to die.
> 
> Apples and bulldozers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not really... do you think there's any chance in hell that you won't ever be sick? won't ever need health insurance?
> 
> truth is you and i are already covered... it won't effect us in the least. and i'd wager that most of the whining hoards are covered too, given that approximately 80% of us, iirc, have health insurance of one type or another. the others run up our costs and should pay their share.
> 
> but perhaps, si, you can explalin to me, why was this perfectly acceptable, as personal responsibility, when the heritage foundation came up with the plan, and when romney enacted it in Massachusetts? is a state making you do something less onerous than the feds? or is it just less onorous for the whining hoards if the person signing it into law has an R after their name?
Click to expand...

Actually, a state doing it IS less onerous than the feds doing it, to me.

I don't believe this won't affect me.

And, although I agree reform was needed, what the Democrats and Obama came up with is not only not a good solution, it's just not viable.

The court was absolutely correct to disallow this sort of mandate for NOT doing something.

It was bad law and it still is.  I would say they can do better, but I have seen no reason to believe they can.

But, thanks to the SCOTUS, they get a Mulligan.  Let's see if this tee shot makes it out of the tips this time.


----------



## BDBoop

The Infidel said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you won't mind abortion being made illegal?  You still have the choice.
> 
> I don't like it no matter whose idea it was.  The Federal government has no business telling people they have to buy stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance*, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) *pay tolls*,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow.... I thought you were smarter than this, but guess I was wrong.
Click to expand...


Sure ya did. As often and strongly as you bad mouth the "stupid liberals", we're supposed to believe you thought Jillian was 'different'?


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> or carry a pregnancy to term?
> 
> 
> 
> Internal songrams, up to 12 weeks, are the best objective and immediate method to determine gestational age.  In a state where elective abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, you can bet that it's in the physician's best interest to have such an objective determination of gestational age...if he wants to keep his license, that is.
> 
> (And, I'd guess that the abortion itself is more unpleasant than an internal sonogram.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's intended as a means of harassing women
> 
> because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.
Click to expand...


If I want insurance, I will make that decision...not a bunch of rabid old pinkos in the legislature.


----------



## WillowTree

daveman said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Internal songrams, up to 12 weeks, are the best objective and immediate method to determine gestational age.  In a state where elective abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, you can bet that it's in the physician's best interest to have such an objective determination of gestational age...if he wants to keep his license, that is.
> 
> (And, I'd guess that the abortion itself is more unpleasant than an internal sonogram.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's intended as a means of harassing women
> 
> because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I want insurance, I will make that decision...not a bunch of rabid old pinkos in the legislature.
Click to expand...





Hey! You need to keep the hell up. Jillian is pro choice just before she mandates what's good for you..


----------



## The Infidel

BDBoop said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *so you shouldn't have to buy auto insurance*, unemployment insurance (if you'r an employer) *pay tolls*,... heck you can always not go to that next state over. right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.... I thought you were smarter than this, but guess I was wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure ya did. As often and strongly as you bad mouth the "stupid liberals", we're supposed to believe you thought Jillian was 'different'?
Click to expand...


Jillian and I have a history you don't know about... Believe me, she don't need you to defend her... she does just fine.


 "stupid liberals"... does the shoe fit?


I am never going to deny that there are "stupid con$" as well... we all have moments of brilliance. This is just not one of Jillian's brilliant moments.


----------



## Listening

WillowTree said:


> Hey! You need to keep the hell up. Jillian is pro choice just before she mandates what's good for you..



And Willow parks another one.

Funny how the hipo(Chrissy) abounds on this board.


----------



## BDBoop

The Infidel said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow.... I thought you were smarter than this, but guess I was wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure ya did. As often and strongly as you bad mouth the "stupid liberals", we're supposed to believe you thought Jillian was 'different'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jillian and I have a history you don't know about... Believe me, she don't need you to defend her... she does just fine.
> 
> 
> "stupid liberals"... does the shoe fit?
> 
> 
> I am never going to deny that there are "stupid con$" as well... we all have moments of brilliance. This is just not one of Jillian's brilliant moments.
Click to expand...


"Does the shoe fit?"

Well gosh, hon; if you have to ask? We can just chat again when your ass isn't quite so chapped.

Have a lovely.


----------



## Oddball

BDBoop said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure ya did. As often and strongly as you bad mouth the "stupid liberals", we're supposed to believe you thought Jillian was 'different'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian and I have a history you don't know about... Believe me, she don't need you to defend her... she does just fine.
> 
> 
> "stupid liberals"... does the shoe fit?
> 
> 
> I am never going to deny that there are "stupid con$" as well... we all have moments of brilliance. This is just not one of Jillian's brilliant moments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Does the shoe fit?"
> 
> Well gosh, hon; if you have to ask? We can just chat again when your ass isn't quite so chapped.
> 
> Have a lovely.
Click to expand...

Translation: I believe that the ass of everyone who doesn't have their head jammed up Boiking's ass is chapped, therefore I don't have to do anything today more than claim that their assess are chapped.


----------



## daveman

WillowTree said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's intended as a means of harassing women
> 
> because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I want insurance, I will make that decision...not a bunch of rabid old pinkos in the legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey! You need to keep the hell up. Jillian is pro choice just before she mandates what's good for you..
Click to expand...

I am a Democrat because I believe in women's right to choose. I mean, not a church school or a tax shelter, or something like that, obviously. Let's be reasonable.


----------



## WillowTree

Oddball said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian and I have a history you don't know about... Believe me, she don't need you to defend her... she does just fine.
> 
> 
> "stupid liberals"... does the shoe fit?
> 
> 
> I am never going to deny that there are "stupid con$" as well... we all have moments of brilliance. This is just not one of Jillian's brilliant moments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Does the shoe fit?"
> 
> Well gosh, hon; if you have to ask? We can just chat again when your ass isn't quite so chapped.
> 
> Have a lovely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I believe that the ass of everyone who doesn't have their head jammed up Boiking's ass is chapped, therefore I don't have to do anything today more than claim that their assess are chapped.
Click to expand...


we'll charge the bitch for ointment.


----------



## BDBoop

Oddball said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian and I have a history you don't know about... Believe me, she don't need you to defend her... she does just fine.
> 
> 
> "stupid liberals"... does the shoe fit?
> 
> 
> I am never going to deny that there are "stupid con$" as well... we all have moments of brilliance. This is just not one of Jillian's brilliant moments.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Does the shoe fit?"
> 
> Well gosh, hon; if you have to ask? We can just chat again when your ass isn't quite so chapped.
> 
> Have a lovely.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: I believe that the ass of everyone who doesn't have their head jammed up Boiking's ass is chapped, therefore I don't have to do anything today more than claim that their assess are chapped.
Click to expand...


Oh honey. We've all got eyes, YOU all have been whining nonstop for WELL over 10 hours. Helen Keller could see how butt hurt your lot is.


----------



## Listening

BDBoop said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Does the shoe fit?"
> 
> Well gosh, hon; if you have to ask? We can just chat again when your ass isn't quite so chapped.
> 
> Have a lovely.
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: I believe that the ass of everyone who doesn't have their head jammed up Boiking's ass is chapped, therefore I don't have to do anything today more than claim that their assess are chapped.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh honey. We've all got eyes, YOU all have been whining nonstop for WELL over 10 hours. Helen Keller could see how butt hurt your lot is.
Click to expand...


And you've subjected us to electronic flatulence for 10 months.

What was your point ?


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Internal songrams, up to 12 weeks, are the best objective and immediate method to determine gestational age.  In a state where elective abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, you can bet that it's in the physician's best interest to have such an objective determination of gestational age...if he wants to keep his license, that is.
> 
> (And, I'd guess that the abortion itself is more unpleasant than an internal sonogram.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's intended as a means of harassing women
> 
> because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I want insurance, I will make that decision...not a bunch of rabid old pinkos in the legislature.
Click to expand...


easy to say when you get free medical care. isn't it dave?


----------



## The Infidel

I am just amazed at how the left has twisted and rolled everything upside down and inside out with the healthcare law - this is an infringement on the constitution if there ever was one - and on the F & F issue, Obama used E/P and you guys dont see how it is non applicable in this situation unless Obama was directly involved... I know most of you on the left know these things to be true, but you would rather go down with our Republic than admit maybe we made a mistke electing this man.

When we point out that mexicans also died bc of F & F, we are laughed and told we never cared for brown people in the first place... you guys applaud the folks on capital hill for marching out and then calling us racist because we demand to know what Holder is hiding...

You guys cheer Obama subverting the Constitution by not enforcing existing imigration laws... laws already on the books, and our Homeland security director telling Arizona dont call us... and we aren't answering the phone if ya do.
This is a disgrace!!! 

Its just been a constant denial of the truth lately and its getting old.


There... I feel a bit better now


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> how about forcing women to have an internal sonogram?
> 
> or carry a pregnancy to term?
> 
> 
> 
> Internal songrams, up to 12 weeks, are the best objective and immediate method to determine gestational age.  In a state where elective abortions are illegal after 12 weeks, you can bet that it's in the physician's best interest to have such an objective determination of gestational age...if he wants to keep his license, that is.
> 
> (And, I'd guess that the abortion itself is more unpleasant than an internal sonogram.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's intended as a means of harassing women
> 
> because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's intended to ensure that elective abortions are not performed after 12 weeks of gestation in states where they have decided that's the law.

And, I cannot imagine any physician who wants to keep his license in such a state not doing that anyway.  Like I would take a patient's word on something that could get my license yanked?  Not quite.

But, the sound byte just sounds so much better than the boring reality.


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's intended as a means of harassing women
> 
> because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I want insurance, I will make that decision...not a bunch of rabid old pinkos in the legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy to say when you get free medical care. isn't it dave?
Click to expand...

Free, my ass.  It cost me 20 years of my life.  Not to mention the premiums and copays.

Perhaps you should refrain from talking about that which you have no clue.


----------



## Dr Grump

Charles_Main said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. Just because I support our Right to Own Guns does not mean I think the Government can Force someone to buy one.
> 
> This is an incredibly Lame Thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> as always, you're clueless as to the basis for the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you neg repping little bitch, I know exactly what your trying to do with this Thread.
> 
> and yes it is Lame.
Click to expand...



Bawwaahhh!!!


----------



## Dr Grump

AmericanFirst said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Typical lefty idiot.* Abortion is murder,* second amendment is a right, and obamacare is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Wow, so where are all those murderers? In jail?


----------



## logical4u

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


How is anyone tiptoeing thru your uterus when you chose to have sex when you did not want a child?  You get pregnant and want others to pay for your decisions?  You want everyone in your uterus, all the taxpayers have a "stake" in your "uterus" because you want to force your uterus responsibility on the taxpayer.

I want to pay for things that I "choose" to buy.  I do not want to pay for people that want to ignore sound advice, and then cry when their life turns to shit, an demands others bail them out of the mess they made.

If you don't like guns, just wear a sign that states you do not touch guns.  See how that works out for you!


----------



## P@triot

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
Click to expand...


I love how you guys phrase *murder* as "reproductive choice". Don't have the backbone to call murder what it is?


----------



## P@triot

jillian said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
Click to expand...


Um, you claim to be an "attorney" yet you don't know the difference between unconstitutional federal mandates and local statutes? 

Seriously, I laugh _really_ hard every time I read something you post...


----------



## candycorn

Dr Grump said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> Typical lefty idiot.* Abortion is murder,* second amendment is a right, and obamacare is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, so where are all those murderers? In jail?
Click to expand...


It's fun to watch them implode.


----------



## BDBoop

The Infidel said:


> I am just amazed at how the left has twisted and rolled everything upside down and inside out with the healthcare law - this is an infringement on the constitution if there ever was one - and on the F & F issue, Obama used E/P and you guys dont see how it is non applicable in this situation unless Obama was directly involved... I know most of you on the left know these things to be true, but you would rather go down with our Republic than admit maybe we made a mistke electing this man.
> 
> When we point out that mexicans also died bc of F & F, we are laughed and told we never cared for brown people in the first place... you guys applaud the folks on capital hill for marching out and then calling us racist because we demand to know what Holder is hiding...
> 
> You guys cheer Obama subverting the Constitution by not enforcing existing imigration laws... laws already on the books, and our Homeland security director telling Arizona dont call us... and we aren't answering the phone if ya do.
> This is a disgrace!!!
> 
> Its just been a constant denial of the truth lately and its getting old.
> 
> 
> There... I feel a bit better now


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you claim to be an "attorney" yet you don't know the difference between unconstitutional federal mandates and local statutes?
> 
> Seriously, I laugh _really_ hard every time I read something post...
Click to expand...


Every time you what?


----------



## P@triot

WillowTree said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not advocating murdering democrats,, Jillian is. she wants to murder democrats it's no skin off my nose now is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Moore once said 9/11 was a tragedy because of all the democrats who were in the Twin Towers.  You did essentially the same thing here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no I didn't,, I told Jillian she thinks too much of her uterus and if she wants to murder democrats it's her choice, I'm not going to cry every time a democrats has an abortion, it's a losing proposition, they're gonna do what they're gonna do. and they'll mandate the piss out of us on the way.
Click to expand...


Man Willow, you make a GREAT point. I've mentioned how self-destructive the idiot liberal, ignorantly claiming that the Constitution is "living" and can be changed at a whim. Meaning, they actually advocate that their rights are not set in stone and can be taken away from them at any whim.

But it never even ocurred to me that these pro-murder-the-baby idiots are the one's killing of their own future brainwashed idiot liberals. All we have to do is wait long enough and they will literally cause themselves to go extinct. Jesus, these people are so much dumber than I even realized (and I put them at an IQ below severely mentally retardeda) 

How _dumb_ do you have to be to cause yourself to go extinct....?


----------



## Dr Grump

Listening said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this about gun control or your obsession with abortion rights.
> 
> Short live Dr. Tiller.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it is simply a thread about being compelled to do things we don't want to do.
> 
> thanks for the heads up that you think murdering doctors is ok. can't say i'm surprised.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good to know you don't mind making stuff up in an effort to look smart.
> 
> I am sorry to tell you that after 42,000 posts, you have not succeeded.
> 
> Your poll is about gun control.  And so is the thread title.  Can't imagine where I got that from ?
> 
> For the record, AZ executed a man for killing an abortion doctor.  I fully support that.
> 
> Wasn't sorry to see Dr. Tiller go.  I would have prefered someone suck out his brains while he was alive to feel it....but we can't all have our way.
> 
> Wasn't sorry to see Ted Kennedy go either.  I only wish it would have been more slow and painful for him.
Click to expand...


Wow, you're a real nice person.

Can anybody tell me why Cons (on this board) are so nasty? So nasty, so little time..

Must be because they lead such shitty lives...shrug...


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Man Willow, you make a GREAT point. I've mentioned how self-destructive the idiot liberal, ignorantly claiming that the Constitution is "living" and can be changed at a whim. Meaning, they actually advocate that their rights are not set in stone and can be taken away from them at any whim.



Er, they can be. It's called the amendment process.

Wouldn't call it a 'whim' though. Takes quite a bit to get one passed or taken off the books...


----------



## BDBoop

Dr Grump said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Um, you claim to be an "attorney" yet you don't know the difference between unconstitutional federal mandates and local statutes?
> 
> Seriously, I laugh _really_ hard every time I read something post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Every time you what?
Click to expand...


I'm tellin ya!


----------



## Si modo

Rottweiler said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love how you guys phrase *murder* as "reproductive choice". Don't have the backbone to call murder what it is?
Click to expand...

As  abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.  It's a definition thing.

But, let's not let facts get in the way of hysterical rhetoric.


----------



## P@triot

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's intended as a means of harassing women
> 
> because if a doctor wants his patient to have one, HE or SHE will ORDER ONE... not a bunch of old rabid men in the legislature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I want insurance, I will make that decision...not a bunch of rabid old pinkos in the legislature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> easy to say when you get free medical care. isn't it dave?
Click to expand...


Uh, no - he EARNS his healthcare.... A concept that liberals just can't comprehend because they demand stuff for free and won't accept anything less...


----------



## P@triot

Si modo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you guys phrase *murder* as "reproductive choice". Don't have the backbone to call murder what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As  abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.  It's a definition thing.
> 
> But, let's not let facts get in the way of hysterical rhetoric.
Click to expand...


So to be clear, if tomorrow we legalize kiling liberals, you will believe it is ok and you won't refer to it as "murder"?

Just because something gets legalized by the radical liberal, doesn't mean it is ok, anymore than O.J. being found "not guilty" means he was innocent, _stupid_...


----------



## P@triot

Si modo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you guys phrase *murder* as "reproductive choice". Don't have the backbone to call murder what it is?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As  abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.  It's a definition thing.
> 
> But, let's not let facts get in the way of hysterical rhetoric.
Click to expand...


By the way, only the idiot liberal would refer to kililng babies as "hysterical". There is nothing funny about terminating the life of a baby, unless of course your a liberal whose ideology aligns frighteningly close to Adolf Hitler's (control everyone, control everything, make mandates on everyone, terminate the life of anything that is inconvenient, and try to convince everyone you're on the right side with lies and propaganda)...


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you guys phrase *murder* as "reproductive choice". Don't have the backbone to call murder what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> As  abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.  It's a definition thing.
> 
> But, let's not let facts get in the way of hysterical rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So to be clear, if tomorrow we legalize kiling liberals, you will believe it is ok and you won't refer to it as "murder"?
> 
> Just because something gets legalized by the radical liberal, doesn't mean it is ok, anymore than O.J. being found "not guilty" means he was innocent, _stupid_...
Click to expand...


And just because you're a troll or a sock doesn't mean you can make a valid point...


----------



## elvis

Rottweiler said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Um, you claim to be an "attorney" yet you don't know the difference between unconstitutional federal mandates and local statutes?
> 
> Seriously, I laugh _really_ hard every time I read something you post...
Click to expand...

 

I don't agree with her on these issues.  But she's an attorney.  I know her.  This whole "you're not really a"  bit gets really old.


----------



## Dr Grump

Rottweiler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you guys phrase *murder* as "reproductive choice". Don't have the backbone to call murder what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> As  abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.  It's a definition thing.
> 
> But, let's not let facts get in the way of hysterical rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, only the idiot liberal would refer to kililng babies as "hysterical". There is nothing funny about terminating the life of a baby, unless of course your a liberal whose ideology aligns frighteningly close to Adolf Hitler's (control everyone, control everything, make mandates on everyone, terminate the life of anything that is inconvenient, and try to convince everyone you're on the right side with lies and propaganda)...
Click to expand...


Oh. This debate. Again. Wow. I thought this had been covered in the other 762 threads on this subject. Apparently not....


----------



## Si modo

Rottweiler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you guys phrase *murder* as "reproductive choice". Don't have the backbone to call murder what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> As  abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.  It's a definition thing.
> 
> But, let's not let facts get in the way of hysterical rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So to be clear, if tomorrow we legalize kiling liberals, you will believe it is ok and you won't refer to it as "murder"?
> 
> Just because something gets legalized by the radical liberal, doesn't mean it is ok, anymore than O.J. being found "not guilty" means he was innocent, _stupid_...
Click to expand...

If tomorrow, killing a person of some political is legal, and I CHOOSE to kill one, then it is not murder.

Again, it's a simple definition.

As to whether it is OK or not, it is, according to the law.  If it is OK with you or me personally, is your or my business.

But, your hypothetical would not happen.


----------



## Si modo

Rottweiler said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how you guys phrase *murder* as "reproductive choice". Don't have the backbone to call murder what it is?
> 
> 
> 
> As  abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.  It's a definition thing.
> 
> But, let's not let facts get in the way of hysterical rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By the way, only the idiot liberal would refer to kililng babies as "hysterical". There is nothing funny about terminating the life of a baby, unless of course your a liberal whose ideology aligns frighteningly close to Adolf Hitler's (control everyone, control everything, make mandates on everyone, terminate the life of anything that is inconvenient, and try to convince everyone you're on the right side with lies and propaganda)...
Click to expand...

You're right.  There is nothing funny about killing babies.

I wonder where I ever said there was.

Hmmmm.


----------



## Si modo

And, as is usual in these types of threads, now comes the time when I switch from pissing off one side to pissing off the other (and just disagreeing with the sane...).

*sigh*


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> And, as is usual in these types of threads, now comes the time when I switch from pissing off one side to pissing off the other (and just disagreeing with the sane...).
> 
> *sigh*



you're ambidextrous?


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, as is usual in these types of threads, now comes the time when I switch from pissing off one side to pissing off the other (and just disagreeing with the sane...).
> 
> *sigh*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're ambidextrous?
Click to expand...

 Funny.

(I prefer to call it old school Goldwater Republican.  )


----------



## blackhawk

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



Why do you direct your question at right wingers only you don't think there are left wingers who like guns and like to shoot as well? Just out of curiosity would you support this if it were mandated or would you consider it vast overreach by the Government?


----------



## jillian

blackhawk said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you direct your question at right wingers only you don't think there are left wingers who like guns and like to shoot as well? Just out of curiosity would you support this if it were mandated or would you consider it vast overreach by the Government?
Click to expand...


fair question. i asked rightwingers b/c i know most of you object to the mandate. and i was wondering if such a mandate would offend if it involved gun ownership, which i know most on the right support.

i didn't have to ask those questions of the left leaners. plus, the thread arose from an exchange between me and two thumbs.


----------



## Dr Grump

jillian said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you direct your question at right wingers only you don't think there are left wingers who like guns and like to shoot as well? Just out of curiosity would you support this if it were mandated or would you consider it vast overreach by the Government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fair question. i asked rightwingers b/c i know most of you object to the mandate. and i was wondering if such a mandate would offend if it involved gun ownership, which i know most on the right support.
> 
> i didn't have to ask those questions of the left leaners. plus, the thread arose from an exchange between me and two thumbs.
Click to expand...


I remember being on a board a while back where two rabid right wingers were advocating the OP...and they weren't joking either...


----------



## blackhawk

jillian said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you direct your question at right wingers only you don't think there are left wingers who like guns and like to shoot as well? Just out of curiosity would you support this if it were mandated or would you consider it vast overreach by the Government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fair question. i asked rightwingers b/c i know most of you object to the mandate. and i was wondering if such a mandate would offend if it involved gun ownership, which i know most on the right support.
> 
> i didn't have to ask those questions of the left leaners. plus, the thread arose from an exchange between me and two thumbs.
Click to expand...


I notice you avoided my second question which was would you support this if it were mandated or would you feel it was a overreach. I'm asking my question because most on the left supported the healthcare mandate and did not feel it was a overreach but would you feel this way if it was mandated gun ownership? Aren't these set the people up questions fun?


----------



## jillian

blackhawk said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you direct your question at right wingers only you don't think there are left wingers who like guns and like to shoot as well? Just out of curiosity would you support this if it were mandated or would you consider it vast overreach by the Government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fair question. i asked rightwingers b/c i know most of you object to the mandate. and i was wondering if such a mandate would offend if it involved gun ownership, which i know most on the right support.
> 
> i didn't have to ask those questions of the left leaners. plus, the thread arose from an exchange between me and two thumbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I notice you avoided my second question which was would you support this if it were mandated or would you feel it was a overreach. I'm asking my question because most on the left supported the healthcare mandate and did not feel it was a overreach but would you feel this way if it was mandated gun ownership? Aren't these set the people up questions fun?
Click to expand...


sorry, i was so busy answering the first part of your question that i missed on the second. yes, i know lefties who are pro gun... my husband being one. he hunts, fishes, shoots and takes our son trap shooting and to do archery. i have no particular objection to reasonable and sane (as well as safety-trained) people owning guns. my issue is with people who get all gun nuts. (and before you ask, i was opposed to the AWB).

in terms of being forced to own guns? well, there's a societal interest in making sure people have health converage and i pay taxes for a lot of things i don't agree with. and i figure that is what it is... i wouldn't agree with being forced to own a gun. in fact i'd think it was a little nuts. but i wouldn't lose my mind over it... particularly given we have them already... same as i already have health insurance.


----------



## The Rabbi

jillian said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Charles_Main said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your trying to Draw a Parallel where none exists. Nobody is trying to Force anyone to Buy a Gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian does not get it.
> There is no parallel at all.
> For starters, even the most pro gun people do not want a government mandate to own one.  It's an individual decision.
> Second, abortion involves ending another person's life.
> 
> Yeah, tell us about the parallels, "counselor."  Stupid poseur.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if you had half the brain you think you do, you'd know the thread came from another discussion with two thumbs.
> 
> aside from your insatiable need to pretend that you're more than you are, i find you and the other rightwingnut freaks pretending i'm not what i am more than funny.
> 
> how are those toilets selling?
Click to expand...


Typical for you, "counselor."  Stir up a bunch of shit and then insult people who disagree with you.
Pfft.  Fugging waste of bandwidth and DNA.


----------



## The Rabbi

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you direct your question at right wingers only you don't think there are left wingers who like guns and like to shoot as well? Just out of curiosity would you support this if it were mandated or would you consider it vast overreach by the Government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fair question. i asked rightwingers b/c i know most of you object to the mandate. and i was wondering if such a mandate would offend if it involved gun ownership, which i know most on the right support.
> 
> i didn't have to ask those questions of the left leaners. plus, the thread arose from an exchange between me and two thumbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember being on a board a while back where two rabid right wingers were advocating the OP...and they weren't joking either...
Click to expand...


No, you're lying.  Again.  No one ever advocated a mandatory carry.


----------



## daveman

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is simply a thread about being compelled to do things we don't want to do.
> 
> thanks for the heads up that you think murdering doctors is ok. can't say i'm surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know you don't mind making stuff up in an effort to look smart.
> 
> I am sorry to tell you that after 42,000 posts, you have not succeeded.
> 
> Your poll is about gun control.  And so is the thread title.  Can't imagine where I got that from ?
> 
> For the record, AZ executed a man for killing an abortion doctor.  I fully support that.
> 
> Wasn't sorry to see Dr. Tiller go.  I would have prefered someone suck out his brains while he was alive to feel it....but we can't all have our way.
> 
> Wasn't sorry to see Ted Kennedy go either.  I only wish it would have been more slow and painful for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a real nice person.
> 
> Can anybody tell me why Cons (on this board) are so nasty? So nasty, so little time..
> 
> Must be because they lead such shitty lives...shrug...
Click to expand...

So, how's that selective perception thing working out for you?  Looks like pretty good.


----------



## BDBoop

daveman said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know you don't mind making stuff up in an effort to look smart.
> 
> I am sorry to tell you that after 42,000 posts, you have not succeeded.
> 
> Your poll is about gun control.  And so is the thread title.  Can't imagine where I got that from ?
> 
> For the record, AZ executed a man for killing an abortion doctor.  I fully support that.
> 
> Wasn't sorry to see Dr. Tiller go.  I would have prefered someone suck out his brains while he was alive to feel it....but we can't all have our way.
> 
> Wasn't sorry to see Ted Kennedy go either.  I only wish it would have been more slow and painful for him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a real nice person.
> 
> *Can anybody tell me why Cons (on this board) are so nasty?* So nasty, so little time..
> 
> Must be because they lead such shitty lives...shrug...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, how's that selective perception thing working out for you?  Looks like pretty good.
Click to expand...


It's a valid question. If anybody on the planet looked at this board to see what kind of people conservatives are? They'd come up with a really warped opinion.

I personally have to frequently remind myself that a) it's the net where anonymity and mob rule make a perfect storm of toxicity, and b) nobody can carry all that ugly into real life without winding up lonely and alone. So there has to be some kind of verbal vomiting, drunkenness - SOMETHING that means people here aren't total ass fedoras in real life (as well).


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a real nice person.
> 
> *Can anybody tell me why Cons (on this board) are so nasty?* So nasty, so little time..
> 
> Must be because they lead such shitty lives...shrug...
> 
> 
> 
> So, how's that selective perception thing working out for you?  Looks like pretty good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid question. If anybody on the planet looked at this board to see what kind of people conservatives are? They'd come up with a really warped opinion.
> 
> I personally have to frequently remind myself that a) it's the net where anonymity and mob rule make a perfect storm of toxicity, and b) nobody can carry all that ugly into real life without winding up lonely and alone. So there has to be some kind of verbal vomiting, drunkenness - SOMETHING that means people here aren't total ass fedoras in real life (as well).
Click to expand...


Tissue? Really? Tissue?


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how's that selective perception thing working out for you?  Looks like pretty good.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's a valid question. If anybody on the planet looked at this board to see what kind of people conservatives are? They'd come up with a really warped opinion.
> 
> I personally have to frequently remind myself that a) it's the net where anonymity and mob rule make a perfect storm of toxicity, and b) nobody can carry all that ugly into real life without winding up lonely and alone. So there has to be some kind of verbal vomiting, drunkenness - SOMETHING that means people here aren't total ass fedoras in real life (as well).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tissue? Really? Tissue?
Click to expand...


/hands over roll of toilet paper


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a valid question. If anybody on the planet looked at this board to see what kind of people conservatives are? They'd come up with a really warped opinion.
> 
> I personally have to frequently remind myself that a) it's the net where anonymity and mob rule make a perfect storm of toxicity, and b) nobody can carry all that ugly into real life without winding up lonely and alone. So there has to be some kind of verbal vomiting, drunkenness - SOMETHING that means people here aren't total ass fedoras in real life (as well).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue? Really? Tissue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> /hands over roll of toilet paper
Click to expand...


you sound so damn butt hurt today,, you keep it.


----------



## koshergrl

Irony.


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tissue? Really? Tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /hands over roll of toilet paper
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you sound so damn butt hurt today,, you keep it.
Click to expand...


I do, huh.

Your perception on that, like everything else, is off.


----------



## Si modo

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is simply a thread about being compelled to do things we don't want to do.
> 
> thanks for the heads up that you think murdering doctors is ok. can't say i'm surprised.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good to know you don't mind making stuff up in an effort to look smart.
> 
> I am sorry to tell you that after 42,000 posts, you have not succeeded.
> 
> Your poll is about gun control.  And so is the thread title.  Can't imagine where I got that from ?
> 
> For the record, AZ executed a man for killing an abortion doctor.  I fully support that.
> 
> Wasn't sorry to see Dr. Tiller go.  I would have prefered someone suck out his brains while he was alive to feel it....but we can't all have our way.
> 
> Wasn't sorry to see Ted Kennedy go either.  I only wish it would have been more slow and painful for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a real nice person.
> 
> Can anybody tell me why Cons (on this board) are so nasty? So nasty, so little time..
> 
> Must be because they lead such shitty lives...shrug...
Click to expand...

It's sad to see that you think only cons are nasty on this board.  Nasty comes in all flavors, to those who value objectivity.


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> /hands over roll of toilet paper
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you sound so damn butt hurt today,, you keep it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do, huh.
> 
> Your perception on that, like everything else, is off.
Click to expand...


vewy butt hurt.


----------



## jillian

The Rabbi said:


> *Fugging waste of bandwidth and DNA*.



yes... you are.


----------



## jillian

The Rabbi said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> fair question. i asked rightwingers b/c i know most of you object to the mandate. and i was wondering if such a mandate would offend if it involved gun ownership, which i know most on the right support.
> 
> i didn't have to ask those questions of the left leaners. plus, the thread arose from an exchange between me and two thumbs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember being on a board a while back where two rabid right wingers were advocating the OP...and they weren't joking either...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you're lying.  Again.  No one ever advocated a mandatory carry.
Click to expand...


really? you were on the other board with him?

i was. and they did. and even here, i've seen people say, 'if peopel were forced to buy guns, there wouldn't be any crime'. 

silly ... but it is what they believe.

so stop lying.

and, before you make yourself look even more ridiculous, please note there are two votes on this poll saying they'd be just find with mandatory gun ownership.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


Tiptoe through your uterus?  WTF?

Are you fucking high or something?  I wouldn't go near that diseased organ sack between your legs.


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you direct your question at right wingers only you don't think there are left wingers who like guns and like to shoot as well? Just out of curiosity would you support this if it were mandated or would you consider it vast overreach by the Government?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fair question. i asked rightwingers b/c i know most of you object to the mandate. and i was wondering if such a mandate would offend if it involved gun ownership, which i know most on the right support.
> 
> i didn't have to ask those questions of the left leaners. plus, the thread arose from an exchange between me and two thumbs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember being on a board a while back where two rabid right wingers were advocating the OP...and they weren't joking either...
Click to expand...


i remember that, too.


----------



## BDBoop

Soggy in NOLA said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Tiptoe through your uterus?  WTF?
> 
> Are you fucking high or something?  I wouldn't go near that diseased organ sack between your legs.
Click to expand...


Sweetness, only boys like you have "diseased organ sacs between their legs."

And yes. You spelled it wrong.


----------



## nodoginnafight

No call for that charles - maybe posts like that are why you get negative reputation.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

BDBoop said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tiptoe through your uterus?  WTF?
> 
> Are you fucking high or something?  I wouldn't go near that diseased organ sack between your legs.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetness, only boys like you have "diseased organ sacs between their legs."
> 
> And yes. You spelled it wrong.
Click to expand...




Ouch...


----------



## jillian

BDBoop said:


> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tiptoe through your uterus?  WTF?
> 
> Are you fucking high or something?  I wouldn't go near that diseased organ sack between your legs.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweetness, only boys like you have "diseased organ sacs between their legs."
> 
> And yes. You spelled it wrong.
Click to expand...


eh... the pathetic loser is just showing his usual level of classlessness... 

that's what happens when someone is angry that they only have a 5th grade education and all the other kids are smarter. 

*shrug*

besides, he probably thinks i insulted his boyfriend the pretend rabbi... given he always shows up after one of his tirades.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

I'm confused. ObamaCare means more freedom and less intrusion into Jilly's uterus?

Does the phrase "regulations promulgated by the Secretary" that appears throughout ObamaCare mean that they are exempting Jilly?


----------



## The Rabbi

CrusaderFrank said:


> I'm confused. ObamaCare means more freedom and less intrusion into Jilly's uterus?
> 
> Does the phrase "regulations promulgated by the Secretary" that appears throughout ObamaCare mean that they are exempting Jilly?



It means the government can pay for her birth control pills and abortions.  That's the only kind of freedom the Left cares about.  Freedom from bills.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Soggy in NOLA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tiptoe through your uterus?  WTF?
> 
> Are you fucking high or something?  I wouldn't go near that diseased organ sack between your legs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetness, only boys like you have "diseased organ sacs between their legs."
> 
> And yes. You spelled it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> eh... the pathetic loser is just showing his usual level of classlessness...
> 
> that's what happens when someone is angry that they only have a 5th grade education and all the other kids are smarter.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> besides, he probably thinks i insulted his boyfriend the pretend rabbi... given he always shows up after one of his tirades.
Click to expand...


personally most of us think you have a 5th grade education, you certainly sound as if you do most of the time, then every once in a while Elvis will show up and try to convince us you have a law degree.


----------



## BDBoop

Women and the Affordable Care Act ? Fact Sheets | HealthCare.gov



> The health care law protects women by providing insurance options, covering preventive services, and lowering costs:
> 
> *Insurance Companies Can&#8217;t Deny Coverage to Women.* Before the Affordable Care Act became law, insurance companies selling individual policies could deny coverage to women due to pre-existing conditions, such as cancer and having been pregnant. Under the law, insurance companies are already banned from denying coverage to children because of a pre-existing condition. In 2014, it will be illegal for insurance companies to discriminate against anyone with a pre-existing condition.
> 
> *Women Have a Choice of Doctor. *Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, all Americans joining new insurance plans have the freedom to choose from any primary care provider, OB-GYN, or pediatrician in their health plan&#8217;s network, or emergency care outside of the plan&#8217;s network, without a referral.
> 
> *Women Can Receive Preventive Care Without Copays.* Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, all Americans joining a new health care plan can receive recommended preventive services, like mammograms, new baby care and well-child visits, with no out-of-pocket costs. See a list of preventive services for women. (Preventive services benefits apply if you&#8217;re in a new health plan that you joined after March 23, 2010.) Learn about new women's preventive care guidelines issued August 1, 2011.
> 
> *Women Pay Lower Health Care Costs*. Before the law, women could be charged more for individual insurance policies simply because of their gender. A 22-year-old woman could be charged 150% the premium that a 22-year-old man paid. In 2014, insurers will not be able to charge women higher premiums than they charge men. The law takes strong action to control health care costs, including helping states crack down on excessive premium increases and making sure most of your premium dollars go for your health care.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweetness, only boys like you have "diseased organ sacs between their legs."
> 
> And yes. You spelled it wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eh... the pathetic loser is just showing his usual level of classlessness...
> 
> that's what happens when someone is angry that they only have a 5th grade education and all the other kids are smarter.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> besides, he probably thinks i insulted his boyfriend the pretend rabbi... given he always shows up after one of his tirades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> personally most of us think you have a 5th grade education, you certainly sound as if you do most of the time, then every once in a while Elvis will show up and try to convince us you have a law degree.
Click to expand...


most of whom, honey? subliterates on the board like you and your friends?

might well be.

poor willow ijit... 

you should probably lie down for a while... your brain is fried...


----------



## BDBoop

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> eh... the pathetic loser is just showing his usual level of classlessness...
> 
> that's what happens when someone is angry that they only have a 5th grade education and all the other kids are smarter.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> besides, he probably thinks i insulted his boyfriend the pretend rabbi... given he always shows up after one of his tirades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> personally most of us think you have a 5th grade education, you certainly sound as if you do most of the time, then every once in a while Elvis will show up and try to convince us you have a law degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> most of whom, honey? subliterates on the board like you and your friends?
> 
> might well be.
Click to expand...


Apparently, she's never seen the "Smarter than a 5th grader" show. She may want to drop the insult level.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> eh... the pathetic loser is just showing his usual level of classlessness...
> 
> that's what happens when someone is angry that they only have a 5th grade education and all the other kids are smarter.
> 
> *shrug*
> 
> besides, he probably thinks i insulted his boyfriend the pretend rabbi... given he always shows up after one of his tirades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> personally most of us think you have a 5th grade education, you certainly sound as if you do most of the time, then every once in a while Elvis will show up and try to convince us you have a law degree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> most of whom, honey? subliterates on the board like you and your friends?
> 
> might well be.
> 
> poor willow ijit...
> 
> you should probably lie down for a while... your brain is fried...
Click to expand...


stay out of my brain and I promise to stay out of your rotten uterus.


----------



## DiamondDave

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
Click to expand...


I think you know where I have stood for a while on most subjects.. 

But just to state things again

1) I am against infringement on the right to bear arms... except for felons, mentally ill people, etc... but I am also for states rights for gun registration and things of the like

2) I fully support your choice to reproduce or not to reproduce... I support your freedom to have all the recreational sex with whatever other consenting adult you choose... I support the right to buy whatever birth control you want... I support the right for you to do to your body whatever you wish to do, unless you are using your body or acts to your body to inflict harm on another human... So while I am for your freedom to control reproduction thru behavior or birth control methods (not paid for by others or forcing a person or company to provide things toward your recreational sexual activity, attempts at conception, or attempts at preventing conception), I am not for the act of abortion considering it now involves another human life


----------



## WillowTree

DiamondDave said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know where I have stood for a while on most subjects..
> 
> But just to state things again
> 
> 1) I am against infringement on the right to bear arms... except for felons, mentally ill people, etc... but I am also for states rights for gun registration and things of the like
> 
> 2) I fully support your choice to reproduce or not to reproduce... I support your freedom to have all the recreational sex with whatever other consenting adult you choose... I support the right to buy whatever birth control you want... I support the right for you to do to your body whatever you wish to do, unless you are using your body or acts to your body to inflict harm on another human... So while I am for your freedom to control reproduction thru behavior or birth control methods (not paid for by others or forcing a person or company to provide things toward your recreational sexual activity, attempts at conception, or attempts at preventing conception), I am not for the act of abortion considering it now involves another human life
Click to expand...


and she supports your right to be mandated to by her nazi cohorts.


----------



## DiamondDave

jillian said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
Click to expand...


I personally don't agree with the Utah city and I don't agree with Obamacare...

I think you should be free to purchase the weapon or the health insurance, but not forced to .. and definitely don't support infringing on the rights and freedoms of others to subsidize your choice to purchase either


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> personally most of us think you have a 5th grade education, you certainly sound as if you do most of the time, then every once in a while Elvis will show up and try to convince us you have a law degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of whom, honey? subliterates on the board like you and your friends?
> 
> might well be.
> 
> poor willow ijit...
> 
> you should probably lie down for a while... your brain is fried...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stay out of my brain and I promise to stay out of your rotten uterus.
Click to expand...


Brain?


----------



## amrchaos

I just dislike mandates.

Even the mandate to pay taxes, but at least _taxes have a clear reason for existing_.


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> most of whom, honey? subliterates on the board like you and your friends?
> 
> might well be.
> 
> poor willow ijit...
> 
> you should probably lie down for a while... your brain is fried...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stay out of my brain and I promise to stay out of your rotten uterus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brain?
Click to expand...


you don't know what a brain is? figures!


----------



## WillowTree

amrchaos said:


> I just dislike mandates.
> 
> Even the mandate to pay taxes, but at least _taxes have a clear reason for existing_.



Taxes are unfair. They're a burden on 50% of Americans who pay FEDERAL tax to the benefit of the 50% who do not. Fifty percent of AMERICANS live in slavery today.


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> stay out of my brain and I promise to stay out of your rotten uterus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you don't know what a brain is? figures!
Click to expand...


No. I don't believe you have one. And you just proved it.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> personally most of us think you have a 5th grade education, you certainly sound as if you do most of the time, then every once in a while Elvis will show up and try to convince us you have a law degree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> most of whom, honey? subliterates on the board like you and your friends?
> 
> might well be.
> 
> poor willow ijit...
> 
> you should probably lie down for a while... your brain is fried...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stay out of my brain and I promise to stay out of your rotten uterus.
Click to expand...


apparently, i'm already living in your widdle bwain rent free.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

WillowTree said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just dislike mandates.
> 
> Even the mandate to pay taxes, but at least _taxes have a clear reason for existing_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are unfair. They're a burden on 50% of Americans who pay FEDERAL tax to the benefit of the 50% who do not. Fifty percent of AMERICANS live in slavery today.
Click to expand...


Rhetoric alert! Rhetoric alert!

Fact Check: Pastor Rick Warren Tweets &#8216;HALF of America pays NO taxes&#8217; - ABC News



> In fact, 64 percent of the country will pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes this year.
> Only 18 percent of people who are old enough to work will escape both income tax and payroll tax. Almost all of them will be retired or unemployed.


----------



## WillowTree

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just dislike mandates.
> 
> Even the mandate to pay taxes, but at least _taxes have a clear reason for existing_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are unfair. They're a burden on 50% of Americans who pay FEDERAL tax to the benefit of the 50% who do not. Fifty percent of AMERICANS live in slavery today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rhetoric alert! Rhetoric alert!
> 
> Fact Check: Pastor Rick Warren Tweets HALF of America pays NO taxes - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, 64 percent of the country will pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes this year.
> Only 18 percent of people who are old enough to work will escape both income tax and payroll tax. Almost all of them will be retired or unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





slavery.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> most of whom, honey? subliterates on the board like you and your friends?
> 
> might well be.
> 
> poor willow ijit...
> 
> you should probably lie down for a while... your brain is fried...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> stay out of my brain and I promise to stay out of your rotten uterus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> apparently, i'm already living in your widdle bwain rent free.
Click to expand...


enjoy your stay, you might learn something.


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> stay out of my brain and I promise to stay out of your rotten uterus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, i'm already living in your widdle bwain rent free.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> enjoy your stay, you might learn something.
Click to expand...


I wish you'd learn how to re-size your sig. I shouldn't have to hit page down to get past it, kwim?


----------



## ConservaDerrps

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are unfair. They're a burden on 50% of Americans who pay FEDERAL tax to the benefit of the 50% who do not. Fifty percent of AMERICANS live in slavery today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetoric alert! Rhetoric alert!
> 
> Fact Check: Pastor Rick Warren Tweets HALF of America pays NO taxes - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, 64 percent of the country will pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes this year.
> Only 18 percent of people who are old enough to work will escape both income tax and payroll tax. Almost all of them will be retired or unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> slavery.
Click to expand...


Ah, so you don't get how taxes actually work then. Cool. Thanks for clarifying.

Also, just an FYI, you live in a country that actually did enslave people for about a hundred years. People were robbed of their humanity, their families split-up at AUCTIONS and they were mercilessly and savagely beat for non-compliance. You comparing paying taxes to slavery makes you simultaneously the stupidest and the most poetically ignorant piece of shit on the planet.

Contributing to our infrastructure isn't slavery, you fuck. It's our duty.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> stay out of my brain and I promise to stay out of your rotten uterus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, i'm already living in your widdle bwain rent free.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> enjoy your stay, you might learn something.
Click to expand...


the only thing i'm learning from you is that your extraordinary ignorance never ceases to amaze.


----------



## WillowTree

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetoric alert! Rhetoric alert!
> 
> Fact Check: Pastor Rick Warren Tweets HALF of America pays NO taxes - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you don't get how taxes actually work then. Cool. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Also, just an FYI, you live in a country that actually did enslave people for about a hundred years. People were robbed of their humanity, their families split-up at AUCTIONS and they were mercilessly and savagely beat for non-compliance. You comparing paying taxes to slavery makes you simultaneously the stupidest and the most poetically ignorant piece of shit on the planet.
> 
> Contributing to our infrastructure isn't slavery, you fuck. It's our duty.
Click to expand...


slavery,


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, i'm already living in your widdle bwain rent free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> enjoy your stay, you might learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only thing i'm learning from you is that your extraordinary ignorance never ceases to amaze.
Click to expand...


I take the same from you, you think with your uterus and talk through your anus, that's cool.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you don't get how taxes actually work then. Cool. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Also, just an FYI, you live in a country that actually did enslave people for about a hundred years. People were robbed of their humanity, their families split-up at AUCTIONS and they were mercilessly and savagely beat for non-compliance. You comparing paying taxes to slavery makes you simultaneously the stupidest and the most poetically ignorant piece of shit on the planet.
> 
> Contributing to our infrastructure isn't slavery, you fuck. It's our duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> slavery,
Click to expand...


----------



## DiamondDave

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just dislike mandates.
> 
> Even the mandate to pay taxes, but at least _taxes have a clear reason for existing_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are unfair. They're a burden on 50% of Americans who pay FEDERAL tax to the benefit of the 50% who do not. Fifty percent of AMERICANS live in slavery today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Rhetoric alert! Rhetoric alert!
> 
> Fact Check: Pastor Rick Warren Tweets HALF of America pays NO taxes - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, 64 percent of the country will pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes this year.
> Only 18 percent of people who are old enough to work will escape both income tax and payroll tax. Almost all of them will be retired or unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


We ALL know it means 50% pay nothing in federal INCOME taxes... and it is not like those paying income tax are NOT paying other other taxes the 'poor' pay... taxes are not done under the concept of equal treatment by government under law in our country.. and this is a horrible situation... and it needs to be rectified


----------



## ConservaDerrps

DiamondDave said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are unfair. They're a burden on 50% of Americans who pay FEDERAL tax to the benefit of the 50% who do not. Fifty percent of AMERICANS live in slavery today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetoric alert! Rhetoric alert!
> 
> Fact Check: Pastor Rick Warren Tweets &#8216;HALF of America pays NO taxes&#8217; - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, 64 percent of the country will pay more in payroll taxes than they do in income taxes this year.
> Only 18 percent of people who are old enough to work will escape both income tax and payroll tax. Almost all of them will be retired or unemployed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We ALL know it means 50% pay nothing in federal INCOME taxes... and it is not like those paying income tax are NOT paying other other taxes the 'poor' pay... taxes are not done under the concept of equal treatment by government under law in our country.. and this is a horrible situation... and it needs to be rectified
Click to expand...


They don't make enough to be taxed on their income, Genius. Like I said, if you want to go traipsing into someone house that only makes ten grand a year and tell them to pay more, go right ahead. Being a fucking asshole seems to be what you guys are really good at. So have fun with it.

Highest-Paid CEOs Often Earn More Than Company Pays In Income Taxes, Study Finds
Why do half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes? - The Washington Post.
Here's Why Half Of Americans Don't Pay Income Tax



> Why Do Some People Pay No Federal Income Tax? - Forbes
> It&#8217;s also important to recognize that while tax expenditures push many people off the income tax rolls, they provide much larger benefits to higher-income households than to others, measured both in dollar value and as a share of income.  Rather than focusing on how relatively modest tax breaks make many of the elderly and low-income workers with children nontaxable, we should keep in mind that high-income households pay a lot less tax than they would without tax expenditures.



http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-old-half-of-americans-pay-no-taxes-line/

Oh, and neg-repping me just because you disagree with my FACTS is fine by me, DiamondDouche. Please, by all means, keep it up. It's not me that has no fucking clue what I'm talking about.


----------



## DiamondDave

ConservaDerrps said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetoric alert! Rhetoric alert!
> 
> Fact Check: Pastor Rick Warren Tweets HALF of America pays NO taxes - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We ALL know it means 50% pay nothing in federal INCOME taxes... and it is not like those paying income tax are NOT paying other other taxes the 'poor' pay... taxes are not done under the concept of equal treatment by government under law in our country.. and this is a horrible situation... and it needs to be rectified
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't make enough to be taxed on their income, Genius. Like I said, if you want to go traipsing into someone house that only makes ten grand a year and tell them to pay more, go right ahead. Being a fucking asshole seems to be what you guys are really good at. So have fun with it.
> 
> Highest-Paid CEOs Often Earn More Than Company Pays In Income Taxes, Study Finds
> Why do half of all Americans pay no federal income taxes? - The Washington Post.
> Here's Why Half Of Americans Don't Pay Income Tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Do Some People Pay No Federal Income Tax? - Forbes
> Its also important to recognize that while tax expenditures push many people off the income tax rolls, they provide much larger benefits to higher-income households than to others, measured both in dollar value and as a share of income.  Rather than focusing on how relatively modest tax breaks make many of the elderly and low-income workers with children nontaxable, we should keep in mind that high-income households pay a lot less tax than they would without tax expenditures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/the-old-half-of-americans-pay-no-taxes-line/
> 
> Oh, and neg-repping me just because you disagree with my FACTS is fine by me, DiamondDouche. Please, by all means, keep it up. It's not me that has no fucking clue what I'm talking about.
Click to expand...


you SUBJECTIVELY DEEM that they don't make enough... $1 is enough on income tax as it is on sales tax

There should be NO tax breaks, no loopholes, no deductions, no exemption, no lower limit, no upper cut off, no nothing.. equal treatment by government under law.. equal taxation across the board on every dollar earned by every citizen.. period.. 

You posted no facts.. you tried an 'ah ha' moment... well, as stated, we all know that when the statement is made about 1/2 of the citizenry of adult age is paying 'no tax', it means FEDERAL INCOME TAX

you are indeed clueless, troll


----------



## ConservaDerrps

DiamondDave said:


> you SUBJECTIVELY DEEM that they don't make enough... $1 is enough on income tax as it is on sales tax



Aren't you the one who just told me that sales tax and income tax are two different things? Are you telling me there are people in this country living off of a dollar a year? I didn't think so. So this first point is Totes McGotes bullshit.



> There should be NO tax breaks, no loopholes, no deductions, no exemption, no lower limit, no upper cut off, no nothing.. equal treatment by government under law.. equal taxation across the board on every dollar earned by every citizen.. period..



Flat taxes don't work. Period. 

You want to model your economy after these countries'?

Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tell me, genius, where's all the revenue lost from cutting taxes on the rich EVEN FURTHER going to come from? You really believe that taxing the lower 50% the same as the upper 1% will balance out?

You.are.fucking.cray.cray.



> You posted no facts.. you tried an 'ah ha' moment... well, as stated, we all know that when the statement is made about 1/2 of the citizenry of adult age is paying 'no tax',* it means FEDERAL INCOME TAX*



I did post facts. The facts are that most people do not make enough money to be taxed Federally. Do you own your home? Have you paid it off? Do you want to lose your mortgage deduction credit? If you've already paid your house off but expect others to give up the credit you got the whole time, you're just another old, wrinkle-sacked bastard who wants "MINE MINE MINE!" but don't want others to have the help you got.

I guess I'm saying, "Fuck your face."



> you are indeed clueless, troll



Troll? Sure. Clueless? Uh, that's the AIDS calling the cancer fatal.


----------



## M14 Shooter

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?


The Queen Mother of Useful Idiots asks a question with an obvious answer:

Having a right to do something means you also have the right to NOT do that something.


HOWever...  if you agree with the recent decision on Obamacare, you cannot disagree with the federal government taxing you should such mandate come down and you choose to not carry a gun.


----------



## The Infidel

jillian said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you direct your question at right wingers only you don't think there are left wingers who like guns and like to shoot as well? Just out of curiosity would you support this if it were mandated or would you consider it vast overreach by the Government?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fair question. i asked rightwingers b/c i know most of you object to the mandate. and i was wondering if such a mandate would offend if it involved gun ownership, which i know most on the right support.
> 
> i didn't have to ask those questions of the left leaners. plus, the thread arose from an exchange between me and two thumbs.
Click to expand...


The government can not mandate an individual to buy anything... whether it be guns or insurance.


----------



## DiamondDave

ConservaDerrps said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> you SUBJECTIVELY DEEM that they don't make enough... $1 is enough on income tax as it is on sales tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the one who just told me that sales tax and income tax are two different things? Are you telling me there are people in this country living off of a dollar a year? I didn't think so. So this first point is Totes McGotes bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be NO tax breaks, no loopholes, no deductions, no exemption, no lower limit, no upper cut off, no nothing.. equal treatment by government under law.. equal taxation across the board on every dollar earned by every citizen.. period..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flat taxes don't work. Period.
> 
> You want to model your economy after these countries'?
> 
> Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Tell me, genius, where's all the revenue lost from cutting taxes on the rich EVEN FURTHER going to come from? You really believe that taxing the lower 50% the same as the upper 1% will balance out?
> 
> You.are.fucking.cray.cray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted no facts.. you tried an 'ah ha' moment... well, as stated, we all know that when the statement is made about 1/2 of the citizenry of adult age is paying 'no tax',* it means FEDERAL INCOME TAX*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did post facts. The facts are that most people do not make enough money to be taxed Federally. Do you own your home? Have you paid it off? Do you want to lose your mortgage deduction credit? If you've already paid your house off but expect others to give up the credit you got the whole time, you're just another old, wrinkle-sacked bastard who wants "MINE MINE MINE!" but don't want others to have the help you got.
> 
> I guess I'm saying, "Fuck your face."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are indeed clueless, troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll? Sure. Clueless? Uh, that's the AIDS calling the cancer fatal.
Click to expand...


Flat taxes CAN work.. hell, it is you guys complaining about all the deductions, differing types of income, upper level ceilings for SS tax, etc... and you also neglect to realize that a rate would be determined for what is needed for taxation.. AND when you couple that with spending cuts, a flat tax can be made to work....

Nobody should be exempt.... the exemption and subjective reasoning behind it is why we are in this mess in the first place

And no... you did not state any fact.... $1 is enough to be taxed.... unfortunately, you and your ILK SUBJECTIVELY exclude people from being taxed... it is not that they cannot, it is that for vote pandering they are not taxed

Do I want mine?? Yep... I want mine to be treated EXACTLY like others... you know, that who thing you just cannot grasp of equal treatment by government under law


----------



## elvis

"fuck your face" is a new insult.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

DiamondDave said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> you SUBJECTIVELY DEEM that they don't make enough... $1 is enough on income tax as it is on sales tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the one who just told me that sales tax and income tax are two different things? Are you telling me there are people in this country living off of a dollar a year? I didn't think so. So this first point is Totes McGotes bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat taxes don't work. Period.
> 
> You want to model your economy after these countries'?
> 
> Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Tell me, genius, where's all the revenue lost from cutting taxes on the rich EVEN FURTHER going to come from? You really believe that taxing the lower 50% the same as the upper 1% will balance out?
> 
> You.are.fucking.cray.cray.
> 
> 
> 
> I did post facts. The facts are that most people do not make enough money to be taxed Federally. Do you own your home? Have you paid it off? Do you want to lose your mortgage deduction credit? If you've already paid your house off but expect others to give up the credit you got the whole time, you're just another old, wrinkle-sacked bastard who wants "MINE MINE MINE!" but don't want others to have the help you got.
> 
> I guess I'm saying, "Fuck your face."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are indeed clueless, troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll? Sure. Clueless? Uh, that's the AIDS calling the cancer fatal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flat taxes CAN work.. hell, it is you guys complaining about all the deductions, differing types of income, upper level ceilings for SS tax, etc... and you also neglect to realize that a rate would be determined for what is needed for taxation.. AND when you couple that with spending cuts, a flat tax can be made to work....
> 
> Nobody should be exempt.... the exemption and subjective reasoning behind it is why we are in this mess in the first place
> 
> And no... you did not state any fact.... $1 is enough to be taxed.... unfortunately, you and your ILK SUBJECTIVELY exclude people from being taxed... it is not that they cannot, it is that for vote pandering they are not taxed
> 
> Do I want mine?? Yep... I want mine to be treated EXACTLY like others... you know, that who thing you just cannot grasp of equal treatment by government under law
Click to expand...


You're right, it can work. 

Just travel to one of these countries, and EXPERIENCE Flat Tax Utopia!


Albania (10%) [35][36]
 BIH [20]
 Bulgaria [37]
 Estonia [38][39][40]
 Georgia [40][41]
 Guernsey [42]
 Hungary
 Iceland
 Iraq [43][44][45] It is not clear how effectively the Iraqi tax is being collected in practice.
 Jamaica
 Jersey [46]
 Kazakhstan [47]
 Kyrgyzstan [42]
 Latvia [40]
 Lithuania [40][48]
 Macedonia [42][49]
 Mauritius [42]
 Mongolia [50]
 Montenegro [51]
 Romania [40]
 Russia [40][52]
 Serbia [53]
 Slovakia [40]
 Trinidad and Tobago
 Ukraine [40][54]


----------



## ConservaDerrps

Here's one country from the Flat Tax Utopian Collective, Ukraine.

Ukraine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Who wouldn't want to live in a country where the average person makes $3600 a year?! THAT SOUNDS WONDERFUL!

Sign me up to live in Flat Tax Utopia


----------



## flacaltenn

Gotta be one on the all-time stupiest questions on USMB.. It shows an utter misunderstanding of the role of responsibility and liberty.

How about I start a poll about your uterus --- something like :

Hey Lefties -- would you be in favor of REQUIRING one abortion for all mothers for every one borne alive.

Surely you'd think I was a moron..


----------



## M14 Shooter

flacaltenn said:


> Gotta be one on the all-time stupiest questions on USMB.


Well, it -is- Jillian we're talking about - you have to expect these things.


----------



## jillian

M14 Shooter said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be one on the all-time stupiest questions on USMB.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it -is- Jillian we're talking about - you have to expect these things.
Click to expand...


its so much fun watching the board stupid contingent trying to insult me.

such lovely guys... 

well... for a bunch of braindead losers. 

but whatchagonnado?


----------



## GHook93

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



Why the absolutes? It's not black and white in my mind! 

I support a version of concealed carry, but with very very rigorous background checks (greater than the Brady Bill), limitations (any business can opt out of allowing guns in their establishment and violations of that prohibition is a crime, can't carry near or in schools or daycares unless you're a teacher or security guard with a special permit, can't drink while carrying similar to DUI etc.).

Lastly no Muslims are able to carry or even own a gun!


----------



## M14 Shooter

jillian said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gotta be one on the all-time stupiest questions on USMB.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it -is- Jillian we're talking about - you have to expect these things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> its so much fun watching the board stupid contingent trying to insult me.
Click to expand...

Aww...   does your puddy hurt?   Less time on your back might help that.

Your bigoted, partisan dumbassery is legendary; every time you post, you only further reinforce that legend.

By all means continue -- and while you're at it, tell us how you'd oppose the tax laid upon you by the government for refusing its mandate to carry a concealed weapon.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

M14 Shooter said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, it -is- Jillian we're talking about - you have to expect these things.
> 
> 
> 
> its so much fun watching the board stupid contingent trying to insult me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww...   does your puddy hurt?   Less time on your back might help that.
> 
> Your bigoted, partisan dumbassery is legendary; every time you post, you only further reinforce that legend.
> 
> By all means continue -- and while you're at it, tell us how you'd oppose the tax laid upon you by the government for refusing its mandate to carry a concealed weapon.
Click to expand...


You're dumb. And gross.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ConservaDerrps said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> its so much fun watching the board stupid contingent trying to insult me.
> 
> 
> 
> Aww...   does your puddy hurt?   Less time on your back might help that.
> 
> Your bigoted, partisan dumbassery is legendary; every time you post, you only further reinforce that legend.
> 
> By all means continue -- and while you're at it, tell us how you'd oppose the tax laid upon you by the government for refusing its mandate to carry a concealed weapon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're dumb. And gross.
Click to expand...


You're dodging the relevant and directly related issue presented here, just like Jillian, who started this thread.

What's that make you?


----------



## ConservaDerrps

M14 Shooter said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww...   does your puddy hurt?   Less time on your back might help that.
> 
> Your bigoted, partisan dumbassery is legendary; every time you post, you only further reinforce that legend.
> 
> By all means continue -- and while you're at it, tell us how you'd oppose the tax laid upon you by the government for refusing its mandate to carry a concealed weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're dumb. And gross.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're dodging the relevant and directly related issue presented here, just like Jillian, who started this thread.
> 
> What's that make you?
Click to expand...


Smarter than you; clearly.


----------



## Nosmo King

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?


I wouldn't support putting more guns on the streets anymore than I would support putting gasoline in fire extinguishers.  There are people who shouldn't own video games, let alone deadly weapons!  Mandating everyone carry a gun is tantamount to mandating every bar fight end with shots fired.  Every traffic dispute and road rage incident end in a coroner's inquiry.  Every domestic violence call requiring an ambulance or a hearse.

Those testoterone soaked Rambo fans grew up watching cartoon violence and, due to their lack of curiousity and abundence of self importance, seem to believe that guns don't kill, people can get hit in the head with a cast iron skillet and the shape of the skillet changes to show the contours of the victim's face, and good guys always triumph.

Only a Conservative could equate something as necessary and useful as health insurance with something as deadly and havoc-wreaking as the general public walking around packing heat.


----------



## M14 Shooter

ConservaDerrps said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're dumb. And gross.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're dodging the relevant and directly related issue presented here, just like Jillian, who started this thread.
> 
> What's that make you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Smarter than you; clearly.
Click to expand...


Yes...  avoiding issues you don't want to address makes you smart in that you don't want to embarass yourself with your inability to effectively create said response.

Good work!


----------



## WillowTree

Nosmo King said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't support putting more guns on the streets anymore than I would support putting gasoline in fire extinguishers.  There are people who shouldn't own video games, let alone deadly weapons!  Mandating everyone carry a gun is tantamount to mandating every bar fight end with shots fired.  Every traffic dispute and road rage incident end in a coroner's inquiry.  Every domestic violence call requiring an ambulance or a hearse.
> 
> Those testoterone soaked Rambo fans grew up watching cartoon violence and, due to their lack of curiousity and abundence of self importance, seem to believe that guns don't kill, people can get hit in the head with a cast iron skillet and the shape of the skillet changes to show the contours of the victim's face, and good guys always triumph.
> 
> Only a Conservative could equate something as necessary and useful as health insurance with something as deadly and havoc-wreaking as the general public walking around packing heat.
Click to expand...


hey moron, the only fucking person to do that was Jillian take you some notes


----------



## M14 Shooter

Nosmo King said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't support putting more guns on the streets anymore than I would support putting gasoline in fire extinguishers.
Click to expand...

An utterly inept analogy.


----------



## Nosmo King

WillowTree said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't support putting more guns on the streets anymore than I would support putting gasoline in fire extinguishers.  There are people who shouldn't own video games, let alone deadly weapons!  Mandating everyone carry a gun is tantamount to mandating every bar fight end with shots fired.  Every traffic dispute and road rage incident end in a coroner's inquiry.  Every domestic violence call requiring an ambulance or a hearse.
> 
> Those testoterone soaked Rambo fans grew up watching cartoon violence and, due to their lack of curiousity and abundence of self importance, seem to believe that guns don't kill, people can get hit in the head with a cast iron skillet and the shape of the skillet changes to show the contours of the victim's face, and good guys always triumph.
> 
> Only a Conservative could equate something as necessary and useful as health insurance with something as deadly and havoc-wreaking as the general public walking around packing heat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> hey moron, the only fucking person to do that was Jillian take you some notes
Click to expand...

I know Jillian and I know two folks voted yes.  Should i call you a moron now?  No.  I have more grace than that.


----------



## Qball

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



Against.


----------



## daws101

should rename this thread  assholes throwing tantrums!
the kind of people who think traffic signals are just suggestions.
all of you screaming "my individualism is threatend,but get nasty when true individuals have a different pov.


----------



## daveman

BDBoop said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you're a real nice person.
> 
> *Can anybody tell me why Cons (on this board) are so nasty?* So nasty, so little time..
> 
> Must be because they lead such shitty lives...shrug...
> 
> 
> 
> So, how's that selective perception thing working out for you?  Looks like pretty good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a valid question. If anybody on the planet looked at this board to see what kind of people conservatives are? They'd come up with a really warped opinion.
> 
> I personally have to frequently remind myself that a) it's the net where anonymity and mob rule make a perfect storm of toxicity, and b) nobody can carry all that ugly into real life without winding up lonely and alone. So there has to be some kind of verbal vomiting, drunkenness - SOMETHING that means people here aren't total ass fedoras in real life (as well).
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's just pretend all the hatred and vitriol from the left here just doesn't exist.


----------



## WillowTree

Nosmo King said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't support putting more guns on the streets anymore than I would support putting gasoline in fire extinguishers.  There are people who shouldn't own video games, let alone deadly weapons!  Mandating everyone carry a gun is tantamount to mandating every bar fight end with shots fired.  Every traffic dispute and road rage incident end in a coroner's inquiry.  Every domestic violence call requiring an ambulance or a hearse.
> 
> Those testoterone soaked Rambo fans grew up watching cartoon violence and, due to their lack of curiousity and abundence of self importance, seem to believe that guns don't kill, people can get hit in the head with a cast iron skillet and the shape of the skillet changes to show the contours of the victim's face, and good guys always triumph.
> 
> Only a Conservative could equate something as necessary and useful as health insurance with something as deadly and havoc-wreaking as the general public walking around packing heat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey moron, the only fucking person to do that was Jillian take you some notes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know Jillian and I know two folks voted yes.  Should i call you a moron now?  No.  I have more grace than that.
Click to expand...


I've been called worse.


----------



## daveman

WillowTree said:


> amrchaos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just dislike mandates.
> 
> Even the mandate to pay taxes, but at least _taxes have a clear reason for existing_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taxes are unfair. They're a burden on 50% of Americans who pay FEDERAL tax to the benefit of the 50% who do not. Fifty percent of AMERICANS live in slavery today.
Click to expand...

Unfair is the new fair.


----------



## daveman

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rhetoric alert! Rhetoric alert!
> 
> Fact Check: Pastor Rick Warren Tweets HALF of America pays NO taxes - ABC News
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah, so you don't get how taxes actually work then. Cool. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Also, just an FYI, you live in a country that actually did enslave people for about a hundred years. People were robbed of their humanity, their families split-up at AUCTIONS and they were mercilessly and savagely beat for non-compliance. You comparing paying taxes to slavery makes you simultaneously the stupidest and the most poetically ignorant piece of shit on the planet.
> 
> Contributing to our infrastructure isn't slavery, you fuck. It's our duty.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll find too many conservatives who object to investing in infrastructure.

But 4th-generation professional welfare recipients, Piss Christ, and payback to Democrat special interest groups aren't "infrastructure".


----------



## daveman

Nosmo King said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't support putting more guns on the streets anymore than I would support putting gasoline in fire extinguishers.  There are people who shouldn't own video games, let alone deadly weapons!  Mandating everyone carry a gun is tantamount to mandating every bar fight end with shots fired.  Every traffic dispute and road rage incident end in a coroner's inquiry.  Every domestic violence call requiring an ambulance or a hearse.
> 
> Those testoterone soaked Rambo fans grew up watching cartoon violence and, due to their lack of curiousity and abundence of self importance, seem to believe that guns don't kill, people can get hit in the head with a cast iron skillet and the shape of the skillet changes to show the contours of the victim's face, and good guys always triumph.
> 
> Only a Conservative could equate something as necessary and useful as health insurance with something as deadly and havoc-wreaking as the general public walking around packing heat.
Click to expand...

Yes, guns are scary!


----------



## ConservaDerrps

daveman said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you don't get how taxes actually work then. Cool. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Also, just an FYI, you live in a country that actually did enslave people for about a hundred years. People were robbed of their humanity, their families split-up at AUCTIONS and they were mercilessly and savagely beat for non-compliance. You comparing paying taxes to slavery makes you simultaneously the stupidest and the most poetically ignorant piece of shit on the planet.
> 
> Contributing to our infrastructure isn't slavery, you fuck. It's our duty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think you'll find too many conservatives who object to investing in infrastructure.
> 
> But 4th-generation professional welfare recipients, Piss Christ, and payback to Democrat special interest groups aren't "infrastructure".
Click to expand...


Piss Christ? What is this 2001?

I'd rather have my money go to a million Piss Christs than to Exxon/Mobil.

Then again, I don't believe in fake things, so who knows...maybe I'm the asshole.


----------



## P@triot

Si modo said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> As  abortion is legal, it cannot be murder.  It's a definition thing.
> 
> But, let's not let facts get in the way of hysterical rhetoric.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So to be clear, if tomorrow we legalize kiling liberals, you will believe it is ok and you won't refer to it as "murder"?
> 
> Just because something gets legalized by the radical liberal, doesn't mean it is ok, anymore than O.J. being found "not guilty" means he was innocent, _stupid_...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If tomorrow, killing a person of some political is legal, and I CHOOSE to kill one, then it is not murder.
> 
> Again, it's a simple definition.
> 
> As to whether it is OK or not, it is, according to the law.  If it is OK with you or me personally, is your or my business.
> 
> But, your hypothetical would not happen.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you're right - that would _never_ happen. Thank God, right? I mean, can you imagine if there was somebody, say like an Adolf Hitler, who created something called the Holocaust and tried to wipe out an entire class of people.

Crazy, right? Thank God that could _never_ happen....


----------



## P@triot

ConservaDerrps said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> you SUBJECTIVELY DEEM that they don't make enough... $1 is enough on income tax as it is on sales tax
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the one who just told me that sales tax and income tax are two different things? Are you telling me there are people in this country living off of a dollar a year? I didn't think so. So this first point is Totes McGotes bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There should be NO tax breaks, no loopholes, no deductions, no exemption, no lower limit, no upper cut off, no nothing.. equal treatment by government under law.. equal taxation across the board on every dollar earned by every citizen.. period..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Flat taxes don't work. Period.
> 
> You want to model your economy after these countries'?
> 
> Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Tell me, genius, where's all the revenue lost from cutting taxes on the rich EVEN FURTHER going to come from? You really believe that taxing the lower 50% the same as the upper 1% will balance out?
> 
> You.are.fucking.cray.cray.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You posted no facts.. you tried an 'ah ha' moment... well, as stated, we all know that when the statement is made about 1/2 of the citizenry of adult age is paying 'no tax',* it means FEDERAL INCOME TAX*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did post facts. The facts are that most people do not make enough money to be taxed Federally. Do you own your home? Have you paid it off? Do you want to lose your mortgage deduction credit? If you've already paid your house off but expect others to give up the credit you got the whole time, you're just another old, wrinkle-sacked bastard who wants "MINE MINE MINE!" but don't want others to have the help you got.
> 
> I guess I'm saying, "Fuck your face."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are indeed clueless, troll
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll? Sure. Clueless? Uh, that's the AIDS calling the cancer fatal.
Click to expand...


So you now admit that A.) you are a TROLL and more importantly, B.) you and your entire sad ideological fools are indeed a CANCER that is killing America (just like your ideology killed the former U.S.S.R., Cuba, Greece, Spain, England, North Korea, etc., etc., etc.)


----------



## P@triot

M14 Shooter said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> The Queen Mother of Useful Idiots asks a question with an obvious answer:
> 
> Having a right to do something means you also have the right to NOT do that something.
> 
> 
> HOWever...  if you agree with the recent decision on Obamacare, you cannot disagree with the federal government taxing you should such mandate come down and you choose to not carry a gun.
Click to expand...


"*The Queen Mother of Useful Idiots*..." Man M14, truer words were never spoken. She claims to be an attorney, but can't think for herself (just regergates ThinkProgress garbage), can't comprehend the US Constitution, and can't understand the difference between federal, state, and local. I mean, seriously WTF?!?! She actually avoids me llike the plague because I have so profoundly destroyed her in debates, proving her wrong with her own words. She contradicts herself and defeats her own arguments. I feel sorry for what ever clients she defends in court. She has to lose every case - because she can't make an argument for shit and she certainly can't weigh facts and draw her own conclusion.


----------



## P@triot

ConservaDerrps said:


> DiamondDave said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aren't you the one who just told me that sales tax and income tax are two different things? Are you telling me there are people in this country living off of a dollar a year? I didn't think so. So this first point is Totes McGotes bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> Flat taxes don't work. Period.
> 
> You want to model your economy after these countries'?
> 
> Flat tax - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Tell me, genius, where's all the revenue lost from cutting taxes on the rich EVEN FURTHER going to come from? You really believe that taxing the lower 50% the same as the upper 1% will balance out?
> 
> You.are.fucking.cray.cray.
> 
> 
> 
> I did post facts. The facts are that most people do not make enough money to be taxed Federally. Do you own your home? Have you paid it off? Do you want to lose your mortgage deduction credit? If you've already paid your house off but expect others to give up the credit you got the whole time, you're just another old, wrinkle-sacked bastard who wants "MINE MINE MINE!" but don't want others to have the help you got.
> 
> I guess I'm saying, "Fuck your face."
> 
> 
> 
> Troll? Sure. Clueless? Uh, that's the AIDS calling the cancer fatal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flat taxes CAN work.. hell, it is you guys complaining about all the deductions, differing types of income, upper level ceilings for SS tax, etc... and you also neglect to realize that a rate would be determined for what is needed for taxation.. AND when you couple that with spending cuts, a flat tax can be made to work....
> 
> Nobody should be exempt.... the exemption and subjective reasoning behind it is why we are in this mess in the first place
> 
> And no... you did not state any fact.... $1 is enough to be taxed.... unfortunately, you and your ILK SUBJECTIVELY exclude people from being taxed... it is not that they cannot, it is that for vote pandering they are not taxed
> 
> Do I want mine?? Yep... I want mine to be treated EXACTLY like others... you know, that who thing you just cannot grasp of equal treatment by government under law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're right, it can work.
> 
> Just travel to one of these countries, and EXPERIENCE Flat Tax Utopia!
> 
> 
> Albania (10%) [35][36]
> BIH [20]
> Bulgaria [37]
> Estonia [38][39][40]
> Georgia [40][41]
> Guernsey [42]
> Hungary
> Iceland
> Iraq [43][44][45] It is not clear how effectively the Iraqi tax is being collected in practice.
> Jamaica
> Jersey [46]
> Kazakhstan [47]
> Kyrgyzstan [42]
> Latvia [40]
> Lithuania [40][48]
> Macedonia [42][49]
> Mauritius [42]
> Mongolia [50]
> Montenegro [51]
> Romania [40]
> Russia [40][52]
> Serbia [53]
> Slovakia [40]
> Trinidad and Tobago
> Ukraine [40][54]
Click to expand...


Or we could travel to one of YOUR "utopia" countires and experience poverty and misery that far exceeds these nations. You know, the U.S.S.R. (oh wait, that's right, it completely collapsed under ConservaDerp knowledge and because of that, no longer exists). Well, there's always Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam. You know, the shit holes of the world. That's what your lack of knowledge and common sense creates - misery and failure.


----------



## daveman

ConservaDerrps said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you don't get how taxes actually work then. Cool. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Also, just an FYI, you live in a country that actually did enslave people for about a hundred years. People were robbed of their humanity, their families split-up at AUCTIONS and they were mercilessly and savagely beat for non-compliance. You comparing paying taxes to slavery makes you simultaneously the stupidest and the most poetically ignorant piece of shit on the planet.
> 
> Contributing to our infrastructure isn't slavery, you fuck. It's our duty.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you'll find too many conservatives who object to investing in infrastructure.
> 
> But 4th-generation professional welfare recipients, Piss Christ, and payback to Democrat special interest groups aren't "infrastructure".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss Christ? What is this 2001?
> 
> I'd rather have my money go to a million Piss Christs than to Exxon/Mobil.
> 
> Then again, I don't believe in fake things, so who knows...maybe I'm the asshole.
Click to expand...

The National Endowment for the Arts is a waste of money.  

If you want a Piss Christ, pay for it your own self.  Get your hands out of my wallet.  

And Exxon/Mobil does a lot more for the nation than Serrano ever could.  The government has no business paying for "art" which is little more than a small child yelling "Poo poo!  Pee pee!" in a roomful of adults.


----------



## copsnrobbers

jillian said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
Click to expand...


Can you tell me who you consider to be a moocher?


----------



## buckeye45_73

copsnrobbers said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you tell me who you consider to be a moocher?
Click to expand...

 
She's a liberal, she wants people covered at the ER then complains when they use it. Instead of the government mandating insurance, just dont GIVE healthcare to people without insurance. We still have freedom and people would get it and if they dont, that's one less person that's uninsured(figure this part out)


----------



## snowbound

The 2nd Amendment stands not just because of Repub support, but because so many Democrats support it too. 

If Democrats truly believed the only true victims are the criminals, we'd have lost all our gun rights long ago. Bleeding heart Libtards fear guns and automatically think all of the left feels the same.


----------



## copsnrobbers

buckeye45_73 said:


> copsnrobbers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you tell me who you consider to be a moocher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She's a liberal, she wants people covered at the ER then complains when they use it. Instead of the government mandating insurance, just dont GIVE healthcare to people without insurance. We still have freedom and people would get it and if they dont, that's one less person that's uninsured(figure this part out)
Click to expand...


I'm familiar with Jillian, I'd like to see her answer to her statement.


----------



## California Girl

Two Thumbs said:


> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon



Jillian is left wing. The concept of 'freedom' is alien.


----------



## California Girl

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



Oh, for the love of (insert optional deity here). Do you actually understand what the word 'freedom' means?


----------



## The T

California Girl said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian is left wing. The concept of 'freedom' is alien.
Click to expand...

 
The words Life, Liberty, Property send her under her bed into a fetal position.


----------



## copsnrobbers

California Girl said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian is left wing. The concept of 'freedom' is alien.
Click to expand...


She really needs to answer the question.. It appears she is pointing a finger at her own base.


----------



## Chris

1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.

If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of a gun death. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or a depressed teenager than for defense.


----------



## WillowTree

There are no guns allowed in Chicago. How many people die every day from being shot to death? In Chicago?


----------



## copsnrobbers

California Girl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, for the love of (insert optional deity here). Do you actually understand what the word 'freedom' means?
Click to expand...


Its not difficult to get a CCP in most states. No need for a mandate. Some folks just want to be heard, be part of conversation they aren't prepared for.  Those are the ones who constantly need forgiveness. It usually works around family.


----------



## copsnrobbers

WillowTree said:


> There are no guns allowed in Chicago. How many people die every day from being shot to death? In Chicago?



Where in Chicago? By whom...? and not just Chicago, Where does this rule leave a law abiding citizen? 

We all need to cut the politically correct crap and spit out the truth. Nothing will change until we do.

It's about a lawless and  prolific subculture. A massive social and economic burden on the country.


----------



## jillian

copsnrobbers said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no guns allowed in Chicago. How many people die every day from being shot to death? In Chicago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Chicago? By whom...? Where does this rule leave a law abiding citizen?
> 
> We all need to cut the politically correct crap and spit out the truth. Nothing will change until we do.
Click to expand...


don't get your underwear in a knot. chicago allows guns. they just don't allow concealed carry.


----------



## copsnrobbers

jillian said:


> copsnrobbers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no guns allowed in Chicago. How many people die every day from being shot to death? In Chicago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Chicago? By whom...? Where does this rule leave a law abiding citizen?
> 
> We all need to cut the politically correct crap and spit out the truth. Nothing will change until we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't get your underwear in a knot. chicago allows guns. they just don't allow concealed carry.
Click to expand...


Okay Jillian, So law abiding citizens don't carry.. Who is carrying concealed weapons then? If no one, why is Chicago not the Liberal Utopia they hoped for?
and why is Chicago considered to be the most corrupt city in the country?

Jillian, You forgot this part: *It's about a lawless and prolific subculture. A massive social and economic burden on the country.*


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> copsnrobbers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no guns allowed in Chicago. How many people die every day from being shot to death? In Chicago?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Chicago? By whom...? Where does this rule leave a law abiding citizen?
> 
> We all need to cut the politically correct crap and spit out the truth. Nothing will change until we do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> don't get your underwear in a knot. chicago allows guns. they just don't allow concealed carry.
Click to expand...


so it's okay to walk around the streets of Chicago with a gun right out in the open. Is that your position?


----------



## The T

Chris said:


> 1,000,000 Americans have been killed by guns since 1960.
> 
> If you own a gun, you or a member of your family is seven times more likely to die of a gun death. Why? Because a gun in the house is much more likely to be used by an angry spouse or a depressed teenager than for defense.


 
Killed BY GUNS...? Really? Have _smart weapons_ come that far Chrissy?


----------



## copsnrobbers

copsnrobbers said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> copsnrobbers said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where in Chicago? By whom...? Where does this rule leave a law abiding citizen?
> 
> We all need to cut the politically correct crap and spit out the truth. Nothing will change until we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> don't get your underwear in a knot. chicago allows guns. they just don't allow concealed carry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay Jillian, So law abiding citizens don't carry.. Who is carrying concealed weapons then? If no one, why is Chicago not the Liberal Utopia they hoped for?
> and why is Chicago considered to be the most corrupt city in the country?
> 
> Jillian, You forgot this part: *It's about a lawless and prolific subculture. A massive social and economic burden on the country.*
Click to expand...


again............^


----------



## Ernie S.

jillian said:


> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
Click to expand...


Sorry dear. I think it's *NO ONE'S* right to tip toe, slash vacuum or anything else, through your uterus, especially not to take the life of an innocent child.


----------



## flacaltenn

So - Jillian ---

Did your poll turn out the way you expected to? Or did those knuckle-dragging, gun-toting, bible thumpin' r-w'ers surprise you with their answers to you MANDATE question?

Inquiring minds want to know what you learned from this question... Especially ones that got negged for suspecting that you wouldn't know the answer...


----------



## jillian

flacaltenn said:


> So - Jillian ---
> 
> Did your poll turn out the way you expected to? Or did those knuckle-dragging, gun-toting, bible thumpin' r-w'ers surprise you with their answers to you MANDATE question?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know what you learned from this question... Especially ones that got negged for suspecting that you wouldn't know the answer...



i didn't call anyone knuckle-draggers,

and i only negged losers who are only here to toss insults

you know the type\

as for your purported question, eh.. some people are smart enough to give an intelligent answer and i appreciated and responded to those answers.

and then there's you guys.


----------



## jillian

Ernie S. said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oddball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry dear. I think it's *NO ONE'S* right to tip toe, slash vacuum or anything else, through your uterus, especially not to take the life of an innocent child.
Click to expand...


so government can force me to carry a pregnancy to term that i don't want... despite the law?

or force me to have an internal sonogram that i don't need... despite my constitutional right to exercise dominion over my own body?

so much for individual liberty.

i stand by my initial point... the right claims a fealty to individual liberty...except when its something they don't like.


----------



## GuyPinestra

ConservaDerrps said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, so you don't get how taxes actually work then. Cool. Thanks for clarifying.
> 
> Also, just an FYI, you live in a country that actually did enslave people for about a hundred years. People were robbed of their humanity, their families split-up at AUCTIONS and they were mercilessly and savagely beat for non-compliance. You comparing paying taxes to slavery makes you simultaneously the stupidest and the most poetically ignorant piece of shit on the planet.
> 
> Contributing to our infrastructure isn't slavery, you fuck. It's our duty.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you'll find too many conservatives who object to investing in infrastructure.
> 
> But 4th-generation professional welfare recipients, Piss Christ, and payback to Democrat special interest groups aren't "infrastructure".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Piss Christ? What is this 2001?
> 
> I'd rather have my money go to a million Piss Christs than to Exxon/Mobil.
> 
> Then again, I don't believe in fake things, so who knows...maybe I'm the asshole.
Click to expand...


Maybe???


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear. I think it's *NO ONE'S* right to tip toe, slash vacuum or anything else, through your uterus, especially not to take the life of an innocent child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so government can force me to carry a pregnancy to term that i don't want... despite the law?
> 
> or force me to have an internal sonogram that i don't need... despite my constitutional right to exercise dominion over my own body?
> 
> so much for individual liberty.
Click to expand...


No but they can force you to buy any damn thing they think you need. So much for individual liberty.. hooray for MANDATES errrrrrr. TAXES.




Anybody who thinks there is such a thing as individual liberty is sub iliterate.


----------



## jillian

*yawn*


----------



## WillowTree

yawn yawn


----------



## California Girl

jillian said:


> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> hey.. you think it's ok for some rightwingnut to tiptoe through my uterus...
> 
> and you're concerned about paying for insurance?
> 
> lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear. I think it's *NO ONE'S* right to tip toe, slash vacuum or anything else, through your uterus, especially not to take the life of an innocent child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so government can force me to carry a pregnancy to term that i don't want... despite the law?
> 
> or force me to have an internal sonogram that i don't need... despite my constitutional right to exercise dominion over my own body?
> 
> so much for individual liberty.
> 
> *i stand by my initial point... the right claims a fealty to individual liberty...except when its something they don't like.*
Click to expand...



Just like the left.


----------



## WillowTree

The Right didn't mandate this lastest and greatest TAX HIKE. THE left did. The Right didn't remove a personal right to choose. The LEFT did. 



Yawn.


----------



## Contumacious

WillowTree said:


> *The Right didn't mandate this lastest and greatest TAX HIKE. THE left did*. The Right didn't remove a personal right to choose. The LEFT did.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.



Is this scumbag a leftwinger?






John G. Roberts Jr


----------



## WillowTree

Contumacious said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Right didn't mandate this lastest and greatest TAX HIKE. THE left did*. The Right didn't remove a personal right to choose. The LEFT did.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this scumbag a leftwinger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John G. Roberts Jr
Click to expand...


He's supposed to be apolitical but in this case he voted politically and with the left. He imposed the greatest tax hike in the history of AMerica.


----------



## WillowTree

Personally I think Roberts spent too much time with Kagen? Isn't she the one who was caught on tape saying judges made policy?


----------



## WillowTree

Watch this and you have your answer.. 



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSoWGlyugTo]Kagan Declines To Say Gov't Has No Power to Tell Americans What To Eat - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Contumacious

WillowTree said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Right didn't mandate this lastest and greatest TAX HIKE. THE left did*. The Right didn't remove a personal right to choose. The LEFT did.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this scumbag a leftwinger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John G. Roberts Jr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's supposed to be apolitical but in this case he voted politically and with the left. He imposed the greatest tax hike in the history of AMerica.
Click to expand...


Yes, indeed.

There is no excuse for what he did.

There was legal precedent that he could have used:


"A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"


*United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936)*

.


----------



## flacaltenn

jillian said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> So - Jillian ---
> 
> Did your poll turn out the way you expected to? Or did those knuckle-dragging, gun-toting, bible thumpin' r-w'ers surprise you with their answers to you MANDATE question?
> 
> Inquiring minds want to know what you learned from this question... Especially ones that got negged for suspecting that you wouldn't know the answer...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i didn't call anyone knuckle-draggers,
> 
> and i only negged losers who are only here to toss insults
> 
> you know the type\
> 
> as for your purported question, eh.. some people are smart enough to give an intelligent answer and i appreciated and responded to those answers.
> 
> and then there's you guys.
Click to expand...


I asked you about your POLL RESULTS..

U know -- the entire reason for this OP... 

 Were you surprised that Conservatives would OVERWHELMINGLY oppose your fictional mandate?


----------



## WillowTree

Contumacious said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this scumbag a leftwinger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John G. Roberts Jr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's supposed to be apolitical but in this case he voted politically and with the left. He imposed the greatest tax hike in the history of AMerica.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
> There is no excuse for what he did.
> 
> There was legal precedent that he could use:
> 
> 
> "A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"
> 
> 
> *United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936)*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


But this bill was not sent to him as a tax unless the democrats lied about that. It was sent to him as being under the commerce clause. So basically he did just what Kagen would have done. He re wrote the bill and made it a tax before passing it. The judiciary have now moved into the womb of the legislators.


----------



## Freewill

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



I support federal government mandating NOTHING.  Or as little as possible.


----------



## flacaltenn

California Girl said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ernie S. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry dear. I think it's *NO ONE'S* right to tip toe, slash vacuum or anything else, through your uterus, especially not to take the life of an innocent child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so government can force me to carry a pregnancy to term that i don't want... despite the law?
> 
> or force me to have an internal sonogram that i don't need... despite my constitutional right to exercise dominion over my own body?
> 
> so much for individual liberty.
> 
> *i stand by my initial point... the right claims a fealty to individual liberty...except when its something they don't like.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Just like the left.
Click to expand...


And there yu have it.. The reason that folks who spend time on political boards end up more libertarian than not.. 

It's years of watching the left/right shuffle around the rights and liberties that they want to enforce..


----------



## Zoom-boing

No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.


----------



## jillian

Zoom-boing said:


> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.



i appreciate your consistency. 

but auto insurance is ok?


----------



## WillowTree

Zoom-boing said:


> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.



and keep your damn probe out of Jillian's womb too


----------



## GuyPinestra

If you don't want to buy auto insurance you can self-insure by putting up a cash bond, at least in some states...


----------



## Zoom-boing

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
Click to expand...


Are people who chose not to own cars taxed for not owning a car?


----------



## Zoom-boing

WillowTree said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and keep your damn probe out of Jillian's womb too
Click to expand...


The ultrasound should be a routine part of abortions to determine gestational age.  I was under the impression that an abortion was done in conjunction with an ultra sound ... don't they need to see where the babby is to rip it out?


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
Click to expand...


it will be as soon as you MANDATE that we own an auto. next question?


----------



## WillowTree

Zoom-boing said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and keep your damn probe out of Jillian's womb too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The ultrasound should be a routine part of abortions to determine gestational age.  I was under the impression that an abortion was done in conjunction with an ultra sound ... don't they need to see where the babby is to rip it out?
Click to expand...


Jillian doesn't just rip that sucker out.


----------



## Contumacious

WillowTree said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's supposed to be apolitical but in this case he voted politically and with the left. He imposed the greatest tax hike in the history of AMerica.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
> There is no excuse for what he did.
> 
> There was legal precedent that he could use:
> 
> 
> "A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"
> 
> 
> *United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936)*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this bill was not sent to him as a tax unless the democrats lied about that. It was sent to him as being under the commerce clause. So basically he did just what Kagen would have done. He re wrote the bill and made it a tax before passing it. The judiciary have now moved into the womb of the legislators.
Click to expand...


Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling

*Ron Paul on todays Supreme Court decision:*

I strongly disagree with todays decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised.  The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a mandate.  The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance,  or simply compel you to pay a tax if you dont.  The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse.  The fundamental hallmark of  a free society should be the rejection of force.  In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of Obamacare without paying a government tribute.

.


----------



## Freewill

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
Click to expand...


I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?


----------



## jillian

Freewill said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?
Click to expand...


why would that make the difference?

are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?


----------



## Billo_Really

I've got a question for right-wingers...


Why are you so fucked?


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
> There is no excuse for what he did.
> 
> There was legal precedent that he could use:
> 
> 
> "A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"
> 
> 
> *United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936)*
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this bill was not sent to him as a tax unless the democrats lied about that. It was sent to him as being under the commerce clause. So basically he did just what Kagen would have done. He re wrote the bill and made it a tax before passing it. The judiciary have now moved into the womb of the legislators.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling
> 
> *Ron Paul on todays Supreme Court decision:*
> 
> I strongly disagree with todays decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised.  The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
> 
> Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a mandate.  The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance,  or simply compel you to pay a tax if you dont.  The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse.  The fundamental hallmark of  a free society should be the rejection of force.  In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of Obamacare without paying a government tribute.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?

his idiot son said it doesn't matter what the court says as to constitutionality.

dumb and dumber.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this bill was not sent to him as a tax unless the democrats lied about that. It was sent to him as being under the commerce clause. So basically he did just what Kagen would have done. He re wrote the bill and made it a tax before passing it. The judiciary have now moved into the womb of the legislators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling
> 
> *Ron Paul on todays Supreme Court decision:*
> 
> I strongly disagree with todays decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised.  The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
> 
> Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a mandate.  The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance,  or simply compel you to pay a tax if you dont.  The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse.  The fundamental hallmark of  a free society should be the rejection of force.  In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of Obamacare without paying a government tribute.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?
> .
Click to expand...


HUH?

Yo jilly, thou are confusing the Constitution (1787) with the Communist Manifesto.

As always, Heil Hitler.

.


----------



## jillian

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling
> 
> *Ron Paul on todays Supreme Court decision:*
> 
> I strongly disagree with todays decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised.  The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
> 
> Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a mandate.  The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance,  or simply compel you to pay a tax if you dont.  The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse.  The fundamental hallmark of  a free society should be the rejection of force.  In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of Obamacare without paying a government tribute.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> Yo jilly, thou are confusing the Constitution (1787) with the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> As always, Heil Hitler.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


riiiiiiiiiiiight.. because i'm such a pro-hitler type.

idiota... 

but if you have an issue with it, you can always complain to justice roberts. 

pity people like you reflect so poorly on real conservatives.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

jillian said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would that make the difference?
> 
> are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?
Click to expand...


This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer.  Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?


----------



## BDBoop

CrusaderFrank said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would that make the difference?
> 
> are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer.  Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?
Click to expand...


Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would that make the difference?
> 
> are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer.  Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.
Click to expand...


do tell where is your better half?


----------



## Billo_Really

loinboy said:


> I've got a question for right-wingers...
> 
> 
> Why are you so fucked?


Any of you bitches care to answer my question?


----------



## hjmick

I'm guessing no one is going to answer you , boyloins.

Probably don't take you seriously. Can't imagine why...


----------



## The T

hjmick said:


> I'm guessing no one is going to answer you , boyloins.
> 
> Probably don't take you seriously. Can't imagine why...


 
Right. Loinbore is a bore.


----------



## daveman

loinboy said:


> I've got a question for right-wingers...
> 
> 
> Why are you so fucked?



Hush, tenderloin.  Some grownups and some liberals are talking.


----------



## daveman

loinboy said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a question for right-wingers...
> 
> 
> Why are you so fucked?
> 
> 
> 
> Any of you bitches care to answer my question?
Click to expand...


Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, kid.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

BDBoop said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would that make the difference?
> 
> are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer.  Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.
Click to expand...


No, Dear. It's everyone who has read your posts. We're still waiting for you to post the Clarence Thomas decision that shows he's an idiot.

You think the federal government has unlimited powers and abilities to spend, it's an infantile mind set


----------



## Billo_Really

daveman said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a question for right-wingers...
> 
> 
> Why are you so fucked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hush, tenderloin.  Some grownups and some liberals are talking.
Click to expand...

After what you did to this country, I'm being kind.


----------



## Billo_Really

daveman said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a question for right-wingers...
> 
> 
> Why are you so fucked?
> 
> 
> 
> Any of you bitches care to answer my question?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, kid.
Click to expand...

Threats are illegal; and besides....

...I'm a kind, sensitive person, who cares about the feelings of others, you asshole!


----------



## BDBoop

CrusaderFrank said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer.  Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Dear. It's everyone who has read your posts. We're still waiting for you to post the Clarence Thomas decision that shows he's an idiot.
> 
> You think the federal government has unlimited powers and abilities to spend, it's an infantile mind set
Click to expand...


Over 72 hours later, and you're still butt hurt.

Boring, Frank. Beyond boring.


----------



## The Rabbi

CrusaderFrank said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer.  Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Dear. It's everyone who has read your posts. We're still waiting for you to post the Clarence Thomas decision that shows he's an idiot.
> 
> You think the federal government has unlimited powers and abilities to spend, it's an infantile mind set
Click to expand...


She has no ability to argue.  She merely cheers posts she agrees with and insults those she doesn't.  Better left on ignore.  Even Truthnatters has more going for her than this waste.


----------



## BDBoop

The Rabbi said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Dear. It's everyone who has read your posts. We're still waiting for you to post the Clarence Thomas decision that shows he's an idiot.
> 
> You think the federal government has unlimited powers and abilities to spend, it's an infantile mind set
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She has no ability to argue.  She merely cheers posts she agrees with and insults those she doesn't.  Better left on ignore.  Even Truthnatters has more going for her than this waste.
Click to expand...


Ignore?! Now why didn't I think of that?

Oh, right; because I'm not a pussy.


----------



## The T

loinboy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a question for right-wingers...
> 
> 
> Why are you so fucked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hush, tenderloin. Some grownups and some liberals are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After what _*you *_did to this country, I'm being kind.
Click to expand...

 
So DAVE is responsible? Really?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Contumacious said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this scumbag a leftwinger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John G. Roberts Jr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's supposed to be apolitical but in this case he voted politically and with the left. He imposed the greatest tax hike in the history of AMerica.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
> There is no excuse for what he did.
> 
> There was legal precedent that he could have used:
> 
> 
> "A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"
> 
> 
> *United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936)*
> 
> .
Click to expand...


In order for the limitations regarding Congress authority to tax and spend as expressed in _Butler_ and other cases to come into play, one of the three general conditions must first apply: 



> The spending power [of Congress] is of course not unlimitedbut is instead subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases. The first of these limitations is derived from the language of the Constitution itself: the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of "the general welfare"* In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress.* Second, we have required that if Congress desires to condition the States' receipt of federal funds, it "must do so unambiguously . . ., enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation" Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate *if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.*
> 
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes



In the _Healthcare Cases_, the majority acknowledges _Butler_ and determined that indeed the spending power claimed by Congress was in pursuit of "the general welfare"



> Congresss use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-tions. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress _has_ properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchas-ing health insurance, not whether it _can_.* Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.
> *
> We have already explained that the shared responsibil-ity payments practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 3536. *Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it.*



_Butler_ is consequently not on point.


----------



## jillian

CrusaderFrank said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would that make the difference?
> 
> are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer.  Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?
Click to expand...


Why? Because I already knew it was constitutional if at least one rightwingnut judge wasn't a hack.

My point, since you weren't smart enough to grasp it, was that you whining pissants don't care about being forced to pay for health insurance. It's all about your obama derangement syndrome. 

Thank you for reinforcing the fact that you don't have two brain cells to rub together


----------



## hjmick

loinboy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a question for right-wingers...
> 
> 
> Why are you so fucked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hush, tenderloin.  Some grownups and some liberals are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After what you did to this country, I'm being kind.
Click to expand...


Dave you BASTARD!  You singlehandedly daved the country!


----------



## AmericanFirst

jillian said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> why would that make the difference?
> 
> are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?
Click to expand...

The idea of a national pool of money to take care of everybody whether they can afford it or not is socialist economics and wrong in this country. Obamacare is unconstitutional, doesn't matter what a bunch of lawers in black robes say. Lawyers have ruined this country anyway.


----------



## BDBoop

/passes out fresh hankies


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> Yo jilly, thou are confusing the Constitution (1787) with the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> As always, Heil Hitler.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> riiiiiiiiiiiight.. because i'm such a pro-hitler type.
Click to expand...


Yes, you is. granted, not by design but by stupidity...but a nazi nevertheless.



> idiota...



puta.....



> but if you have an issue with it, you can always complain to justice roberts.
> 
> pity people like you reflect so poorly on real conservatives.



Well Frau jill, I have been stating for years, that the ONLY difference between libruls and conservatives is the fact that the latter hate Negroes.

.

.


----------



## Contumacious

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's supposed to be apolitical but in this case he voted politically and with the left. He imposed the greatest tax hike in the history of AMerica.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, indeed.
> 
> There is no excuse for what he did.
> 
> There was legal precedent that he could have used:
> 
> 
> "A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the Government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another"
> 
> 
> *United States v. Butler - 297 U.S. 1 (1936)*
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In order for the limitations regarding Congress&#8217; authority to tax and spend as expressed in _Butler_ and other cases to come into play, one of the three general conditions must first apply:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The spending power [of Congress] is of course not unlimited&#8230;but is instead subject to several general restrictions articulated in our cases. The first of these limitations is derived from the language of the Constitution itself: the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of "the general welfare&#8230;"* In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress.* Second, we have required that if Congress desires to condition the States' receipt of federal funds, it "must do so unambiguously . . ., enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation&#8230;" Third, our cases have suggested (without significant elaboration) that conditions on federal grants might be illegitimate *if they are unrelated "to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.&#8221;*
> 
> FindLaw | Cases and Codes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In the _Healthcare Cases_, the majority acknowledges _Butler_ and determined that indeed the spending power claimed by Congress was in &#8216;pursuit of "the general welfare&#8230;"&#8217;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress&#8217;s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa-tions. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress _has_ properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchas-ing health insurance, not whether it _can_.* Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one.
> *
> We have already explained that the shared responsibil-ity payment&#8217;s practical characteristics pass muster as a tax under our narrowest interpretations of the taxing power. Supra, at 35&#8211;36. *Because the tax at hand is within even those strict limits, we need not here decide the precise point at which an exaction becomes so punitive that the taxing power does not authorize it.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Butler is consequently not on point.*
Click to expand...



No, YOU are not on point:


*
4. From the conclusion that the exaction is not a true tax it does not necessarily follow that the statute is void and the exaction uncollectible if the regulation, of which the exaction is a part, is within any of the powers granted to Congress. P. 297 U. S. 61.
*

Identify by article section and clause the proviso which states that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN REGULATE A PURELY INTERNAL MATTER AND FORCE THE CITIZENS TO BUY HEALTH INSURANCE

May I remind you that the states retained their sovereignty and only conferred to the federal government powers dealing with purely external matter such a foreign plicy and defense.

.


----------



## BDBoop

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> HUH?
> 
> Yo jilly, thou are confusing the Constitution (1787) with the Communist Manifesto.
> 
> As always, Heil Hitler.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> riiiiiiiiiiiight.. because i'm such a pro-hitler type.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you is. granted, not by design but by stupidity...but a nazi nevertheless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> idiota...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> puta.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but if you have an issue with it, you can always complain to justice roberts.
> 
> pity people like you reflect so poorly on real conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Frau jill, I have been stating for years, that the ONLY difference between libruls and conservatives is the fact that the latter hate Negroes.
> 
> .
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The latter? Sure you meant to say that?


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this bill was not sent to him as a tax unless the democrats lied about that. It was sent to him as being under the commerce clause. So basically he did just what Kagen would have done. He re wrote the bill and made it a tax before passing it. The judiciary have now moved into the womb of the legislators.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling
> 
> *Ron Paul on todays Supreme Court decision:*
> 
> I strongly disagree with todays decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised.  The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
> 
> Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a mandate.  The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance,  or simply compel you to pay a tax if you dont.  The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse.  The fundamental hallmark of  a free society should be the rejection of force.  In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of Obamacare without paying a government tribute.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?
> 
> his idiot son said it doesn't matter what the court says as to constitutionality.
> 
> dumb and dumber.
Click to expand...


They are two elected officials.....

and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.

His son was right......

You are a moron.


----------



## jillian

Listening said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling
> 
> *Ron Paul on todays Supreme Court decision:*
> 
> I strongly disagree with todays decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised.  The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.
> 
> Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a mandate.  The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance,  or simply compel you to pay a tax if you dont.  The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse.  The fundamental hallmark of  a free society should be the rejection of force.  In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of Obamacare without paying a government tribute.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?
> 
> his idiot son said it doesn't matter what the court says as to constitutionality.
> 
> dumb and dumber.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are two elected officials.....
> 
> and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> His son was right......
> 
> You are a moron.
Click to expand...


So because he's an elected official, you think the president is a genius?

Or is it only rightwingnuts who should be held I in Hugh esteem.

He and his son -- dumb and dumber ... And then there's you -- even dumber. *shrug*


----------



## Dr Grump

Listening said:


> ..
> 
> and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> .



You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....


----------



## jillian

AmericanFirst said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why would that make the difference?
> 
> are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The idea of a national pool of money to take care of everybody whether they can afford it or not is socialist economics and wrong in this country. Obamacare is unconstitutional, doesn't matter what a bunch of lawers in black robes say. Lawyers have ruined this country anyway.
Click to expand...


There is nothing -- zip, zilch, nada -- in the constitution which requires any particular type of economic system in this country. And as was decided during the 1940's, the federal government using the general welfare clause and commerce clause for the public good is a lawful exercise of constitutional power.

And if you can't understand that the high court IS the final arbiter of the constitution, then you really have no idea what type if country you live in.

Its sad


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
Click to expand...


Yeah, but he's a butthurt nutter who's cranky because he found out that at least one rightwing  justice gave a damn about his legacy


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
Click to expand...


The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.

Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do.  She is good for two or three short sentences....

Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but he's a butthurt nutter who's cranky because he found out that at least I e rightwingnuts justice gave a damn about his legacy
Click to expand...


That is funny.

The SCOTUS rules on legacy....

No wonder this country is in trouble.


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> ron paul doesn't know anything about the constitution. why would his opinion matter?
> 
> his idiot son said it doesn't matter what the court says as to constitutionality.
> 
> dumb and dumber.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are two elected officials.....
> 
> and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> His son was right......
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So because he's an elected official, you think the president is a genius?
> 
> Or is it only rightwingnuts who should be held I in Hugh esteem.
> 
> He and his son -- dumb and dumber ... And then there's you -- even dumber. *shrug*
Click to expand...


They are elected officials...they walk....we talk.

I am afraid the rest means nothing.

I call Obama names....you can call them names...it plays out differently.

But, in this case....Rand was right.

If he is dumb...you are braindead.


----------



## Dr Grump

Listening said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.
> 
> Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do.  She is good for two or three short sentences....
> 
> Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.
Click to expand...


Daily post count matters more than overall....

You're both here about the same amount of time with regard to posts...

I would not bother posting on a messagebaord if it was meaningless...


----------



## The Rabbi

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.
> 
> Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do.  She is good for two or three short sentences....
> 
> Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daily post count matters more than overall....
> 
> You're both here about the same amount of time with regard to posts...
> 
> I would not bother posting on a messagebaord if it was meaningless...
Click to expand...

Hint: Don't bother posting.


----------



## The T

Listening said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but he's a butthurt nutter who's cranky because he found out that at least I e rightwingnuts justice gave a damn about his legacy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is funny.
> 
> The SCOTUS rules on legacy....
> 
> No wonder this country is in trouble.
Click to expand...

 
Agreed. Seems most every Government official worries of thier 'legacies' versus doing what is correct, right, and just.


----------



## hjmick

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.
> 
> Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do.  She is good for two or three short sentences....
> 
> Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daily post count matters more than overall....
> 
> You're both here about the same amount of time with regard to posts...
> 
> I would not bother posting on a messagebaord if it was meaningless...
Click to expand...


Me thinks you find meaning in strange places...


----------



## The T

hjmick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.
> 
> Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do. She is good for two or three short sentences....
> 
> Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daily post count matters more than overall....
> 
> You're both here about the same amount of time with regard to posts...
> 
> I would not bother posting on a messagebaord if it was meaningless...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me thinks you find meaning in strange places...
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

loinboy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've got a question for right-wingers...
> 
> 
> Why are you so fucked?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hush, tenderloin.  Some grownups and some liberals are talking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After what you did to this country, I'm being kind.
Click to expand...

After what you've done to the internet, so am I.


----------



## daveman

loinboy said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any of you bitches care to answer my question?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe if you threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Threats are illegal; and besides....
> 
> ...I'm a kind, sensitive person, who cares about the feelings of others, you asshole!
Click to expand...

Good thing I didn't threaten anyone, huh?

Way to display your public school education!


----------



## daveman

The T said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hush, tenderloin. Some grownups and some liberals are talking.
> 
> 
> 
> After what _*you *_did to this country, I'm being kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So DAVE is responsible? Really?
Click to expand...

It must be true.  Some random dweeb on the internet says so.

I'm so ashamed.


----------



## The T

daveman said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> After what _*you *_did to this country, I'm being kind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So DAVE is responsible? Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It must be true. Some random dweeb on the internet says so.
> 
> I'm so ashamed.
Click to expand...


----------



## daveman

hjmick said:


> loinboy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hush, tenderloin.  Some grownups and some liberals are talking.
> 
> 
> 
> After what you did to this country, I'm being kind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dave you BASTARD!  You singlehandedly daved the country!
Click to expand...

Welcome to the Daveocracy!


----------



## daveman

Contumacious said:


> Well Frau jill, I have been stating for years, that the ONLY difference between libruls and conservatives is the fact that the *latter hate Negroes*.
> 
> .
> 
> .



Then you've been wrong for years.


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why we wonder if you're really a lawyer.  Can you answer the question or is it beyond you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is this 'we' you speak of? Or is there schizophrenia involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do tell where is your better half?
Click to expand...


Slumming. Shall I give him your number?


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Frau jill, I have been stating for years, that the ONLY difference between libruls and conservatives is the fact that the *latter hate Negroes*.
> 
> .
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you've been wrong for years.
Click to expand...


at least we agree on something. *shrug*

he's a bit...er... high strung.


----------



## jillian

Listening said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> and you are.......someone who spends enough time to make 42,000 plus posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.
> 
> Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do.  She is good for two or three short sentences....
> 
> Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.
Click to expand...


approximately 18 posts a day is not having a life?

stop projecting.


----------



## jillian

The T said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but he's a butthurt nutter who's cranky because he found out that at least I e rightwingnuts justice gave a damn about his legacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny.
> 
> The SCOTUS rules on legacy....
> 
> No wonder this country is in trouble.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Agreed. Seems most every Government official worries of thier 'legacies' versus doing what is correct, right, and just.
Click to expand...


his legacy IS doing what was right.

the court is not an arm of the rightwingnut brigade.... notwithstanding its behavior over the last 10 years.


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> You make almost 17 posts a day, Jillian 18.5....so looks like you spend enough time, too.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.
> 
> Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do.  She is good for two or three short sentences....
> 
> Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Daily post count matters more than overall....
> 
> You're both here about the same amount of time with regard to posts...
> 
> I would not bother posting on a messagebaord if it was meaningless...
Click to expand...


I'll say it again....if I hit 40K...I will know I am in trouble.


----------



## jillian

eh.. .you're still a loser.


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is funny.
> 
> The SCOTUS rules on legacy....
> 
> No wonder this country is in trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. Seems most every Government official worries of thier 'legacies' versus doing what is correct, right, and just.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> his legacy IS doing what was right.
> 
> the court is not an arm of the rightwingnut brigade.... notwithstanding its behavior over the last 10 years.
Click to expand...


Wrong again Schillian....

There is no right or wrong...there is constitutional and unconstitutional.

42,000 posts and you are still in the third grade.

His legacy now stands to be someone who buckled under pressure to supposedly save the integrity of the court....by sacrificing the USC to the bastards on the left who felt they would die without ACA....

Even Kennedy said the whole thing was bulls**t.

I still get nauseated.


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> eh.. .you're still a loser.



And you are still Schillian.


----------



## jillian

Listening said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> eh.. .you're still a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are still Schillian.
Click to expand...


if that makes you feel better about yourself... i understand you feel inadequate because you're incapable of having a discussion... or doing much of anything else. 

tissue?


----------



## Listening

jillian said:


> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> eh.. .you're still a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are still Schillian.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if that makes you feel better about yourself... i understand you feel inadequate because you're incapable of having a discussion... or doing much of anything else.
> 
> tissue?
Click to expand...


And where praytell is your supporting evidence ?

You are pretty consistent with little one or two liners that basically say nothing and add nothing to the argument.  If you show me your last reasoned argument or substantive post....I'll point to one of mine.

Let's see it, Schillian.

And, of course, you like terms like loser because you are capable of a discussion.


----------



## Dr Grump

hjmick said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> The day I hit 40,000 is the day, I know I will be like Schillian.....don't have a life.
> 
> Of course, I'd say that each of my posts has about 100 times the content hers do.  She is good for two or three short sentences....
> 
> Maybe I should have said 42,000 meaningless posts to a meaningless message board.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daily post count matters more than overall....
> 
> You're both here about the same amount of time with regard to posts...
> 
> I would not bother posting on a messagebaord if it was meaningless...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me thinks you find meaning in strange places...
Click to expand...


And you don't


----------



## The Rabbi

Listening said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Listening said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are still Schillian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if that makes you feel better about yourself... i understand you feel inadequate because you're incapable of having a discussion... or doing much of anything else.
> 
> tissue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where praytell is your supporting evidence ?
> 
> You are pretty consistent with little one or two liners that basically say nothing and add nothing to the argument.  If you show me your last reasoned argument or substantive post....I'll point to one of mine.
> 
> Let's see it, Schillian.
> 
> And, of course, you like terms like loser because you are capable of a discussion.
Click to expand...

Forget it.  You might as well ask her to sprout wings and fly to the Moon. She is incapable of anything resembling discussion, much less debate.  She is a poseur of the first order.  Actually a poseur of the second order, since she is so transparently fake.


----------



## Dr Grump

The Rabbi said:


> [quot
> Forget it.  You might as well ask her to sprout wings and fly to the Moon. She is incapable of anything resembling discussion, much less debate.  She is a poseur of the first order.  Actually a poseur of the second order, since she is so transparently fake.



Spoken like somebody who gets their arse kicked by her regularly...


----------



## jillian

Dr Grump said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quot
> Forget it.  You might as well ask her to sprout wings and fly to the Moon. She is incapable of anything resembling discussion, much less debate.  She is a poseur of the first order.  Actually a poseur of the second order, since she is so transparently fake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somebody who gets their arse kicked by her regularly...
Click to expand...


eh...the pretend rabbi is sullen and bitter. it makes selling hardware easier if he pretends that i'm not what i am.

i think it makes him feel like he actually has more than microscopic genitalia.


----------



## Amelia

Oh lookie -- two trolls making fun of a rabbi.  There's a joke in that somewhere.


----------



## Dr Grump

Amelia said:


> Oh lookie -- two trolls making fun of a rabbi.  There's a joke in that somewhere.



Oh look, a sock adding something interesting to a thread...amazing....


----------



## jillian

Amelia said:


> Oh lookie -- two trolls making fun of a rabbi.  There's a joke in that somewhere.



he's not a rabbi. he's a hardware salesman.

not even close to a rabbi. and probably one of the least talmudic minds i've ever seen.

as for trolls... 

you must be looking in the mirror.


----------



## The Rabbi

jillian said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quot
> Forget it.  You might as well ask her to sprout wings and fly to the Moon. She is incapable of anything resembling discussion, much less debate.  She is a poseur of the first order.  Actually a poseur of the second order, since she is so transparently fake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somebody who gets their arse kicked by her regularly...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> eh...the pretend rabbi is sullen and bitter. it makes selling hardware easier if he pretends that i'm not what i am.
> 
> i think it makes him feel like he actually has more than microscopic genitalia.
Click to expand...







 ?

And your thinking about my genitals is creepy.


----------



## jillian

The Rabbi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somebody who gets their arse kicked by her regularly...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eh...the pretend rabbi is sullen and bitter. it makes selling hardware easier if he pretends that i'm not what i am.
> 
> i think it makes him feel like he actually has more than microscopic genitalia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> And your thinking about my genitals is creepy.
Click to expand...


i was thinking about your absence of them and how that's made you bitter and misogynist.

but that's kind of funny from the loser who told me in yiddish to blow him.


----------



## nitroz

Oddball said:


> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.



I wouldn't care. But I think everyone should go through extended training and safety courses in order to do so. You just don't let idiots play with guns.


----------



## Clementine

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



"Gun thing going on?"     Whatever.    It's a right whether people take advantage of it or not.   People shouldn't be forced to buy guns any more than they should be forced to buy health insurance.  

If you're asking if I support our rights, then yes.   Whether or not it's allowed by law, criminals will still have weapons and will still use them.   I wish some would focus on that rather than picking on the law abiding citizens.        

I'm also not a rightwinger.


----------



## Dr Grump

The Rabbi said:


> And your thinking about my genitals is creepy.



Liar....


----------



## CrusaderFrank

jillian said:


> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> why would that make the difference?
> 
> are you paying more or less for insurance if there's a national pool of money?
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a national pool of money to take care of everybody whether they can afford it or not is socialist economics and wrong in this country. Obamacare is unconstitutional, doesn't matter what a bunch of lawers in black robes say. Lawyers have ruined this country anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing -- zip, zilch, nada -- in the constitution which requires any particular type of economic system in this country. And as was decided during the 1940's, the federal government using the general welfare clause and commerce clause for the public good is a lawful exercise of constitutional power.
> 
> And if you can't understand that the high court IS the final arbiter of the constitution, then you really have no idea what type if country you live in.
> 
> Its sad
Click to expand...


It's sad that FDR threatened the Court to run roughshod over the Constitution


----------



## jillian

CrusaderFrank said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmericanFirst said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a national pool of money to take care of everybody whether they can afford it or not is socialist economics and wrong in this country. Obamacare is unconstitutional, doesn't matter what a bunch of lawers in black robes say. Lawyers have ruined this country anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing -- zip, zilch, nada -- in the constitution which requires any particular type of economic system in this country. And as was decided during the 1940's, the federal government using the general welfare clause and commerce clause for the public good is a lawful exercise of constitutional power.
> 
> And if you can't understand that the high court IS the final arbiter of the constitution, then you really have no idea what type if country you live in.
> 
> Its sad
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad that FDR threatened the Court to run roughshod over the Constitution
Click to expand...


and the court stomped on that idea fairly quickly. so he backed down.

your point?


----------



## jillian

Clementine said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Gun thing going on?"     Whatever.    It's a right whether people take advantage of it or not.   People shouldn't be forced to buy guns any more than they should be forced to buy health insurance.
> 
> If you're asking if I support our rights, then yes.   Whether or not it's allowed by law, criminals will still have weapons and will still use them.   I wish some would focus on that rather than picking on the law abiding citizens.
> 
> I'm also not a rightwinger.
Click to expand...


since i don't oppose gun rights when they're addressed in a rational way, i was asking more about a theoretical mandated concealed carry.  thank you for your response in that regard.

i'm not seeing how you're not a rightwinger, though. i've read your posts.


----------



## WillowTree

Amelia said:


> Oh lookie -- two trolls making fun of a rabbi.  There's a joke in that somewhere.



Jillian's righwing bash thread has been quite successful wouldn't you say?


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lookie -- two trolls making fun of a rabbi.  There's a joke in that somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian's righwing bash thread has been quite successful wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...


funny, to me it's looked more pretty good except for a few righwingnuts.

luckily there were actually some smart rightwingers who know how to conduct a conversation.

you should watch them and learn.


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh lookie -- two trolls making fun of a rabbi.  There's a joke in that somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian's righwing bash thread has been quite successful wouldn't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> funny, to me it's looked more pretty good except for a few righwingnuts.
> 
> luckily there were actually some smart rightwingers who know how to conduct a conversation.
> 
> you should watch them and learn.
Click to expand...


face it gurl, this was designed to be a rightwing bash fest, and you've been very successful. take your congrats where you find them. most people on this board are bored with you calling them stupid.


----------



## P@triot

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
Click to expand...


Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?

First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.

Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.

I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian's righwing bash thread has been quite successful wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, to me it's looked more pretty good except for a few righwingnuts.
> 
> luckily there were actually some smart rightwingers who know how to conduct a conversation.
> 
> you should watch them and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> face it gurl, this was designed to be a rightwing bash fest, and you've been very successful. take your congrats where you find them. most people on this board are bored with you calling them stupid.
Click to expand...


actually it wasn't.

you just continually show that you're incapable of having a discussion.

of course, i've known you long enough not to be surprised by that or you and your friends' persistent trolling of this thread.

*shrug*


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny, to me it's looked more pretty good except for a few righwingnuts.
> 
> luckily there were actually some smart rightwingers who know how to conduct a conversation.
> 
> you should watch them and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> face it gurl, this was designed to be a rightwing bash fest, and you've been very successful. take your congrats where you find them. most people on this board are bored with you calling them stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> actually it wasn't.
> 
> you just continually show that you're incapable of having a discussion.
> 
> of course, i've known you long enough not to be surprised by that or you and your friends' persistent trolling of this thread.
> 
> *shrug*
Click to expand...


face it gurl. you just say we are "incapable of having a discussion" because we don't talk or express ourselves they way that you mandate. Actually, it's your cop out; that and the use of the expression "trolling" so you can put me on ignore if you'd like to but  I think I do a damn fine job of expressing myself and so do most of the people on this board whom you fancy yourself to be so far "above."


----------



## koshergrl

Rottweiler said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?
> 
> First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.
> 
> Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.
> 
> I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.
Click to expand...


It forces us to consume something whether or not we want to consume it. It forces us to purchase something we don't want.

And that is unconstitutional.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

koshergrl said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?
> 
> First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.
> 
> Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.
> 
> I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It forces us to consume something whether or not we want to consume it. It forces us to purchase something we don't want.
> 
> And that is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


Wrong. It forces you to take personal responsibility for your health care coverage and not expect someone else to pay for it for you.

Gee. That almost sounds like something a Conservative would advocate for. Interesting.

Why do you hate the American tax payer so much you'd force them to pay for your medicine, KosherFuck?


----------



## WillowTree

ConservaDerrps said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?
> 
> First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.
> 
> Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.
> 
> I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It forces us to consume something whether or not we want to consume it. It forces us to purchase something we don't want.
> 
> And that is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It forces you to take personal responsibility for your health care coverage and not expect someone else to pay for it for you.
> 
> Gee. That almost sounds like something a Conservative would advocate for. Interesting.
> 
> Why do you hate the American tax payer so much you'd force them to pay for your medicine, KosherFuck?
Click to expand...


are you in favor of forcing the American Taxpayer to pay for health care for illegals? Yes or NO


----------



## ConservaDerrps

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It forces us to consume something whether or not we want to consume it. It forces us to purchase something we don't want.
> 
> And that is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It forces you to take personal responsibility for your health care coverage and not expect someone else to pay for it for you.
> 
> Gee. That almost sounds like something a Conservative would advocate for. Interesting.
> 
> Why do you hate the American tax payer so much you'd force them to pay for your medicine, KosherFuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> are you in favor of forcing the American Taxpayer to pay for health care for illegals? Yes or NO
Click to expand...


I believe the Constitution of this country guarantees protections to all humans on our soil. I believe the Constitution only reserves very specific rights for citizenship only, like owning a firearm and voting. If we had a single payer system, then no, I don't think non-citizens should be a part of that. I don't know if domestic insurers will issue policies to non-citizens as well, so that point seems kind of moot.

The tax payer will pay for their health care regardless because we're not heartless fucks who send people to die in the street rather than pay for their medicine, no matter what Justice "Douchebag" Scalia suggests should be the case. 

And I also firmly believe that eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts will free up a fuckload of cash that would help pay for things like this. I also don't believe that illegal immigrants are responsible for the lion share of health care costs in this country. That's on all you baby-boomers getting old at the same time.

As more and more countries adopt national health coverage, and they will, it becomes an even less important factor because those countries' governments would cover their expenses here.


----------



## BDBoop

jillian said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Gun thing going on?"     Whatever.    It's a right whether people take advantage of it or not.   People shouldn't be forced to buy guns any more than they should be forced to buy health insurance.
> 
> If you're asking if I support our rights, then yes.   Whether or not it's allowed by law, criminals will still have weapons and will still use them.   I wish some would focus on that rather than picking on the law abiding citizens.
> 
> I'm also not a rightwinger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> since i don't oppose gun rights when they're addressed in a rational way, i was asking more about a theoretical mandated concealed carry.  thank you for your response in that regard.
> 
> i'm not seeing how you're not a rightwinger, though. i've read your posts.
Click to expand...


Seen her posts, hell. Her avatar is pretty much a dead give-away.

If she's not a rightwinger, she's "ANYBODY BUT OBAMA!" And that's even worse. Because that's not thinking, that's flat-out reacting.


----------



## flacaltenn

ConservaDerrps said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?
> 
> First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.
> 
> Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.
> 
> I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It forces us to consume something whether or not we want to consume it. It forces us to purchase something we don't want.
> 
> And that is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Wrong. It forces you to take personal responsibility for your health care coverage and not expect someone else to pay for it for you.*
> 
> Gee. That almost sounds like something a Conservative would advocate for. Interesting.
> 
> Why do you hate the American tax payer so much you'd force them to pay for your medicine, KosherFuck?
Click to expand...


So Derps -- Those 40 Million you were crying about being "denied healthcare" -- the ACA fixes this RIGHT???

How many of THOSE are "expecting someone to pay for it for you"?? You clowns need to get your story straight...


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jillian's righwing bash thread has been quite successful wouldn't you say?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> funny, to me it's looked more pretty good except for a few righwingnuts.
> 
> luckily there were actually some smart rightwingers who know how to conduct a conversation.
> 
> you should watch them and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> face it gurl, this was designed to be a rightwing bash fest, and you've been very successful. take your congrats where you find them. most people on this board are bored with you calling them stupid.
Click to expand...


You are the only one with double-vision here, I think you need new glasses on your avatar. How bout you drop one of your redundant lines in the sig? And don't go getting all happy about how you're upsetting someone. My next move is ignoring sigs.


----------



## WillowTree

ConservaDerrps said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. It forces you to take personal responsibility for your health care coverage and not expect someone else to pay for it for you.
> 
> Gee. That almost sounds like something a Conservative would advocate for. Interesting.
> 
> Why do you hate the American tax payer so much you'd force them to pay for your medicine, KosherFuck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you in favor of forcing the American Taxpayer to pay for health care for illegals? Yes or NO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe the Constitution of this country guarantees protections to all humans on our soil. I believe the Constitution only reserves very specific rights for citizenship only, like owning a firearm and voting. If we had a single payer system, then no, I don't think non-citizens should be a part of that. I don't know if domestic insurers will issue policies to non-citizens as well, so that point seems kind of moot.
> 
> The tax payer will pay for their health care regardless because we're not heartless fucks who send people to die in the street rather than pay for their medicine, no matter what Justice "Douchebag" Scalia suggests should be the case.
> 
> And I also firmly believe that eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts will free up a fuckload of cash that would help pay for things like this. I also don't believe that illegal immigrants are responsible for the lion share of health care costs in this country. That's on all you baby-boomers getting old at the same time.
> 
> As more and more countries adopt national health coverage, and they will, it becomes an even less important factor because those countries' governments would cover their expenses here.
Click to expand...


Is that a NO? How hard is it to say NO?  or was that a YES? how hard is it to say YES?


----------



## BDBoop

Rottweiler said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?
> 
> First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.
> 
> Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.
> 
> I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.
Click to expand...


Lemmesee if I can translate.

Ad hom, ad hom.

Stupidity, ad hom ad hom.

Yet more stupidity, more ad hom, 

Snerk, snark.

xoxo,

Dog who haz webz


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny, to me it's looked more pretty good except for a few righwingnuts.
> 
> luckily there were actually some smart rightwingers who know how to conduct a conversation.
> 
> you should watch them and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> face it gurl, this was designed to be a rightwing bash fest, and you've been very successful. take your congrats where you find them. most people on this board are bored with you calling them stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only one with double-vision here, I think you need new glasses on your avatar. How bout you drop one of your redundant lines in the sig? And don't go getting all happy about how you're upsetting someone. My next move is ignoring sigs.
Click to expand...


bossy huh?


----------



## BDBoop

WillowTree said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> face it gurl, this was designed to be a rightwing bash fest, and you've been very successful. take your congrats where you find them. most people on this board are bored with you calling them stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one with double-vision here, I think you need new glasses on your avatar. How bout you drop one of your redundant lines in the sig? And don't go getting all happy about how you're upsetting someone. My next move is ignoring sigs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bossy huh?
Click to expand...


And not only are sigs gone, but a certain pussy willow has left the building as well.


----------



## Amelia

WillowTree said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> are you in favor of forcing the American Taxpayer to pay for health care for illegals? Yes or NO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Constitution of this country guarantees protections to all humans on our soil. I believe the Constitution only reserves very specific rights for citizenship only, like owning a firearm and voting. If we had a single payer system, then no, I don't think non-citizens should be a part of that. I don't know if domestic insurers will issue policies to non-citizens as well, so that point seems kind of moot.
> 
> The tax payer will pay for their health care regardless because we're not heartless fucks who send people to die in the street rather than pay for their medicine, no matter what Justice "Douchebag" Scalia suggests should be the case.
> 
> And I also firmly believe that eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts will free up a fuckload of cash that would help pay for things like this. I also don't believe that illegal immigrants are responsible for the lion share of health care costs in this country. That's on all you baby-boomers getting old at the same time.
> 
> As more and more countries adopt national health coverage, and they will, it becomes an even less important factor because those countries' governments would cover their expenses here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that a NO? How hard is it to say NO?  or was that a YES? how hard is it to say YES?
Click to expand...




Sounded like a yes to me.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

flacaltenn said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> It forces us to consume something whether or not we want to consume it. It forces us to purchase something we don't want.
> 
> And that is unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Wrong. It forces you to take personal responsibility for your health care coverage and not expect someone else to pay for it for you.*
> 
> Gee. That almost sounds like something a Conservative would advocate for. Interesting.
> 
> Why do you hate the American tax payer so much you'd force them to pay for your medicine, KosherFuck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Derps -- Those 40 Million you were crying about being "denied healthcare" -- the ACA fixes this RIGHT???
> 
> How many of THOSE are "expecting someone to pay for it for you"?? You clowns need to get your story straight...
Click to expand...


By 2014 95% of Americans will be covered in one way, shape or form. Next?


----------



## ConservaDerrps

Amelia said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe the Constitution of this country guarantees protections to all humans on our soil. I believe the Constitution only reserves very specific rights for citizenship only, like owning a firearm and voting. If we had a single payer system, then no, I don't think non-citizens should be a part of that. I don't know if domestic insurers will issue policies to non-citizens as well, so that point seems kind of moot.
> 
> The tax payer will pay for their health care regardless because we're not heartless fucks who send people to die in the street rather than pay for their medicine, no matter what Justice "Douchebag" Scalia suggests should be the case.
> 
> And I also firmly believe that eliminating the Bush Tax Cuts will free up a fuckload of cash that would help pay for things like this. I also don't believe that illegal immigrants are responsible for the lion share of health care costs in this country. That's on all you baby-boomers getting old at the same time.
> 
> As more and more countries adopt national health coverage, and they will, it becomes an even less important factor because those countries' governments would cover their expenses here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a NO? How hard is it to say NO?  or was that a YES? how hard is it to say YES?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounded like a yes to me.
Click to expand...


Then you heard wrong. The answer is: "We always have, always will."


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one with double-vision here, I think you need new glasses on your avatar. How bout you drop one of your redundant lines in the sig? And don't go getting all happy about how you're upsetting someone. My next move is ignoring sigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bossy huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And not only are sigs gone, but a certain pussy willow has left the building as well.
Click to expand...


----------



## WillowTree

ConservaDerrps said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a NO? How hard is it to say NO?  or was that a YES? how hard is it to say YES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounded like a yes to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you heard wrong. The answer is: "We always have, always will."
Click to expand...


but are you in favor of it? Yes or NO?


----------



## BDBoop

ConservaDerrps said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that a NO? How hard is it to say NO?  or was that a YES? how hard is it to say YES?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sounded like a yes to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you heard wrong. The answer is: "We always have, always will."
Click to expand...


Thank you. I swear to God, last Thursday a solid half the board took that long walk off the short sanity pier.


----------



## Amelia

BDBoop said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounded like a yes to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you heard wrong. The answer is: "We always have, always will."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thank you. I swear to God, last Thursday a solid half the board took that long walk off the short sanity pier.
Click to expand...




Nice of you to help shore up his weak back pedal.


----------



## BDBoop

Nice of you to ....

No, Amelia; I'm not going there. I don't know when you went full snickerdoodles, but you can imagine my shock when it happened.


----------



## Amelia

BDBoop said:


> Nice of you to ....
> 
> No, Amelia; I'm not going there. I don't know when you went full snickerdoodles, but you can imagine my shock when it happened.





Riding the snickerdoodle wave to November.


----------



## Si modo

BDBoop said:


> Nice of you to ....
> 
> No, Amelia; I'm not going there. I don't know when you went full snickerdoodles, but you can imagine my shock when it happened.


Going where?

Now we have a law that mandates health care for foreign nationals. Few deny that we have already been doing so because of so many illegals.

But, now it is law - a law that does NOTHING to reduce that problem.

Can you understand the distinction and the problem?


----------



## BDBoop

Si modo said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to ....
> 
> No, Amelia; I'm not going there. I don't know when you went full snickerdoodles, but you can imagine my shock when it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Going where?
> 
> Now we have a law that mandates health care for foreign nationals. Few deny that we have already been doing so because of so many illegals.
> 
> But, now it is law - a law that does NOTHING to reduce that problem.
> 
> Can you understand the distinction and the problem?
Click to expand...


Can you understand - I mean, you've seen me on the board. I only speak to full partisan hacks when I feel the need to slap somebody about the head and shoulders.

Buh-bye now.


----------



## Dot Com

BDBoop said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> funny, to me it's looked more pretty good except for a few righwingnuts.
> 
> luckily there were actually some smart rightwingers who know how to conduct a conversation.
> 
> you should watch them and learn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> face it gurl, this was designed to be a rightwing bash fest, and you've been very successful. take your congrats where you find them. most people on this board are bored with you calling them stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the only one with double-vision here, I think you need new glasses on your avatar. How bout you drop one of your redundant lines in the sig? And don't go getting all happy about how you're upsetting someone. My next move is ignoring sigs.
Click to expand...


her siggie does scream of desperation


----------



## Si modo

BDBoop said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to ....
> 
> No, Amelia; I'm not going there. I don't know when you went full snickerdoodles, but you can imagine my shock when it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Going where?
> 
> Now we have a law that mandates health care for foreign nationals. Few deny that we have already been doing so because of so many illegals.
> 
> But, now it is law - a law that does NOTHING to reduce that problem.
> 
> Can you understand the distinction and the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you understand - I mean, you've seen me on the board. I only speak to full partisan hacks when I feel the need to slap somebody about the head and shoulders.
> 
> Buh-bye now.
Click to expand...


Oh well, it was a pretty simple question.  Who knew I would get road rage style flip of the bird for asking it.

Don't question; just follow.


----------



## BDBoop

Si modo said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going where?
> 
> Now we have a law that mandates health care for foreign nationals. Few deny that we have already been doing so because of so many illegals.
> 
> But, now it is law - a law that does NOTHING to reduce that problem.
> 
> Can you understand the distinction and the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand - I mean, you've seen me on the board. I only speak to full partisan hacks when I feel the need to slap somebody about the head and shoulders.
> 
> Buh-bye now.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh well, it was a pretty simple question.  Who knew I would get road rage style flip of the bird for asking it.
> 
> Don't question; just follow.
Click to expand...


Oh, fuck. I was SUPPOSED to be speaking to Amelia.


----------



## Skull Pilot

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



I don't support the government mandating anyone's behavior.


----------



## WillowTree

I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.


----------



## BDBoop

Amelia said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to ....
> 
> No, Amelia; I'm not going there. I don't know when you went full snickerdoodles, but you can imagine my shock when it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riding the snickerdoodle wave to November.
Click to expand...


This is the first time in all my time on the board that I've seen someone announce "Yes, I've come undone just like the rest of the wingnuts on the board, and I'm happy to say so, WooT!!"


----------



## Dot Com

WillowTree said:


> I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.



seen your siggie lately Willow?


----------



## WillowTree

Dot Com said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seen your siggie lately Willow?
Click to expand...


don't ya just love it?


----------



## Dot Com

I'm worried about Willow's meltdown this time  She seems to have gone full- 'tard on us.


----------



## candycorn

Dot Com said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seen your siggie lately Willow?
Click to expand...


Its fun to watch the hapless in a death spiral is it not?  We only have 4 more months of this.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

Amelia said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you heard wrong. The answer is: "We always have, always will."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I swear to God, last Thursday a solid half the board took that long walk off the short sanity pier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to help shore up his weak back pedal.
Click to expand...


Who the fuck is back pedaling? I'm simply stating that we always have and always will. And yes, I do think that's the right and HUMANE thing to do. It's absolutely shitty to think that you guys would rather a person die simply because they came here illegally. I really hope you're not Christians, because you'd just add one more layer of shittiness to religion by believing in something that so clearly flies in the face of your Messiah.


----------



## BDBoop

Dot Com said:


> I'm worried about Willow's meltdown this time  She seems to have gone full- 'tard on us.



I never know when a meltdown has occurred. Surely someone at some point has seen what 'normal' is to/for Willow?


----------



## BDBoop

ConservaDerrps said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I swear to God, last Thursday a solid half the board took that long walk off the short sanity pier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to help shore up his weak back pedal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck is back pedaling? I'm simply stating that we always have and always will. And yes, I do think that's the right and HUMANE thing to do. It's absolutely shitty to think that you guys would rather a person die simply because they came here illegally. I really hope you're not Christians, because you'd just add one more layer of shittiness to religion by believing in something that so clearly flies in the face of your Messiah.
Click to expand...


Amelia? Yeah, she's a "Christian."


----------



## Listening

Dr Grump said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> 
> [quot
> Forget it.  You might as well ask her to sprout wings and fly to the Moon. She is incapable of anything resembling discussion, much less debate.  She is a poseur of the first order.  Actually a poseur of the second order, since she is so transparently fake.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like somebody who gets their arse kicked by her regularly...
Click to expand...


She couldn't win an argument if she were the only one there.


----------



## Listening

BDBoop said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to ....
> 
> No, Amelia; I'm not going there. I don't know when you went full snickerdoodles, but you can imagine my shock when it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Riding the snickerdoodle wave to November.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the first time in all my time on the board that I've seen someone announce "Yes, I've come undone just like the rest of the wingnuts on the board, and I'm happy to say so, WooT!!"
Click to expand...


No Poop...that would be your medication.  She didn't say anything to that effect and your constant efforts to translate meaning to peoples posts gets very boring (in not occasionally stupid-funny).

Post something meaningful....for once.


----------



## Amelia

ConservaDerrps said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you. I swear to God, last Thursday a solid half the board took that long walk off the short sanity pier.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to help shore up his weak back pedal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck is back pedaling? I'm simply stating that we always have and always will. And yes, I do think that's the right and HUMANE thing to do. It's absolutely shitty to think that you guys would rather a person die simply because they came here illegally. I really hope you're not Christians, because you'd just add one more layer of shittiness to religion by believing in something that so clearly flies in the face of your Messiah.
Click to expand...




Which means I was correct to hear "yes" and you were backpedaling when you said that my observation about what I heard was wrong.  I was right.  You believe it is right.  The "it just is" attitude you tried to replace my interpretation with was a back pedal.

I'll leave this thread now.

I've already apparently lost one friend over it.  That's enough for now.  I should try to pace myself.  We have four long months ahead.


----------



## Listening

candycorn said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seen your siggie lately Willow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its fun to watch the hapless in a death spiral is it not?  We only have 4 more months of this.
Click to expand...


Are you really that unaware...?

The day after the election....the next cycle begins in earnest.

It is really getting old.


----------



## Listening

BDBoop said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand - I mean, you've seen me on the board. I only speak to full partisan hacks when I feel the need to slap somebody about the head and shoulders.
> 
> Buh-bye now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well, it was a pretty simple question.  Who knew I would get road rage style flip of the bird for asking it.
> 
> Don't question; just follow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, fuck. I was SUPPOSED to be speaking to Amelia.
Click to expand...


It looks like you are on drugs.

Get some help....please.


----------



## Listening

BDBoop said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?
> 
> First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.
> 
> Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.
> 
> I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lemmesee if I can translate.
> 
> Ad hom, ad hom.
> 
> Stupidity, ad hom ad hom.
> 
> Yet more stupidity, more ad hom,
> 
> Snerk, snark.
> 
> xoxo,
> 
> Dog who haz webz
Click to expand...


A pleasant mix of sidestepping, dodge and deflection.

Nice job Poop.


----------



## Listening

BDBoop said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice of you to ....
> 
> No, Amelia; I'm not going there. I don't know when you went full snickerdoodles, but you can imagine my shock when it happened.
> 
> 
> 
> Going where?
> 
> Now we have a law that mandates health care for foreign nationals. Few deny that we have already been doing so because of so many illegals.
> 
> But, now it is law - a law that does NOTHING to reduce that problem.
> 
> Can you understand the distinction and the problem?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Can you understand - I mean, you've seen me on the board. I only speak to full partisan hacks when I feel the need to slap somebody about the head and shoulders.
> 
> Buh-bye now.
Click to expand...


And you wind up looking like an ass.


----------



## Dot Com

candycorn said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> seen your siggie lately Willow?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its fun to watch the hapless in a death spiral is it not?  We only have 4 more months of this.
Click to expand...


Don't remind me


----------



## P@triot

ConservaDerrps said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?
> 
> First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.
> 
> Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.
> 
> I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It forces us to consume something whether or not we want to consume it. It forces us to purchase something we don't want.
> 
> And that is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. It forces you to take personal responsibility for your health care coverage and not expect someone else to pay for it for you.
> 
> Gee. That almost sounds like something a Conservative would advocate for. Interesting.
> 
> Why do you hate the American tax payer so much you'd force them to pay for your medicine, KosherFuck?
Click to expand...


Uh, well - here's the thing sparky... it was your ignorant party that got government involved with healthcare in the first place. The fact that by law - an uninsured person must receive medical care should they walk into a hospital is comical.

If I mandated that you must cut my lawn whether I could pay for it or not, you'd blow a gasket. If I mandated that you must wash my car whether you can pay for it or not, you'd blow a gasket. If I mandated that you must flip my burgers and pass them through the window to me whether I could pay for it or not, you'd blow a gasket. Yet somehow, you think a doctor should perform his labor for free if a person cannot pay for it themselves.

Why? Well, because you are part of the parasite class that believes in two things: One - that they are entitled to everything they want whether or not they can afford it, and two - that you should be empowered to force others into Socialism (same thing the Nazi's believed, same thing the communists believe, etc.).


----------



## P@triot

Listening said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Going where?
> 
> Now we have a law that mandates health care for foreign nationals. Few deny that we have already been doing so because of so many illegals.
> 
> But, now it is law - a law that does NOTHING to reduce that problem.
> 
> Can you understand the distinction and the problem?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you understand - I mean, you've seen me on the board. I only speak to full partisan hacks when I feel the need to slap somebody about the head and shoulders.
> 
> Buh-bye now.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you wind up looking like an ass.
Click to expand...


"end up looking like an ass"? She _starts_ off looking like an ass. She lies about everything, can't get her story straight, contradicts herself, defeats her own argument, and in the end never adds anything of value to the post. She never has documented facts or anything interesting. She ends up looking far worse than an "ass".


----------



## paulitician

Charles_Main said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely not. Just because I support our Right to Own Guns does not mean I think the Government can Force someone to buy one.
> 
> This is an incredibly Lame Thread.
Click to expand...


Jillian drinking & posting again. She's still celebrating her Dear Leader's Mandate/Tax travesty. But wait till she realizes Big Brother now owns & controls her body. That should sober her up a bit. Or not. Who knows? She ain't all that bright.


----------



## Rinata

I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!


----------



## P@triot

BDBoop said:


> Rottweiler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic here is so severely flawed, I don't know where to begin. Why do you insist on making stupid arguments that embarass yourself?
> 
> First of all, people can _choose_ not to drive. They can take a cab. Take a bus. Walk. Ride a bike. Get a lift from a friend or co-worker. You cannot choose _*not*_ to be born, stupid. So there is no corelation between the two, stupid. You are being forced to carry insurance just for existing under Obamacare.
> 
> Second, the federal government does not mandate auto-insurance. Those decisions are done legally at the state level. Obamacare would be legal at the state level, as seen with what Romney did in Massachusetts. However, it is completely unconstitutional at the federal level.
> 
> I don't see how you could claim to be an attorney and be this stupid as to confuse choosing to drive and being forced just because you exist, and the difference between state and federal. You're either lying through your missing teeth on being an attorney, or you are hands down the _worst_ attorney in the history of the world. Considering you can't even make an argument at the most basic level on this site leads me to believe you can't possibly be an attorney. You guys are supposed to be well trained on making an argument and finding loopholes. Instead, all you do is mention things that have no relevance to the issue (like auto insurance ) and then follow that with a really weak insult like a box of tissues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lemmesee if I can translate.
> 
> Ad hom, ad hom.
> 
> Stupidity, ad hom ad hom.
> 
> Yet more stupidity, more ad hom,
> 
> Snerk, snark.
> 
> xoxo,
> 
> Dog who haz webz
Click to expand...


What's "Ad hom" about pointing out facts? I mean, I know you hate the truth because it completely destroys your Communist/Marxist/Socialist ideology. But you've got to do a better job than just screaming "ad hom" every time you get annihilated in a debate .

I just completely broke down why Jillian's comparison of mandated auto-insurance by the state to mandated health-insurance by the federal government was an apples to cell phone (can't even say oranges, because at least those are both fruit - her comparison has _*no*_ correlation on any level) comparison and since you *can't* deny what I said was accurate, you just stoop to stupid little snarky remarks.

Just out of curiousity, why is that? Is it like a "get-it-off-my-chest" type of release for you when you realize you can't take your side of the argument any further and you've been defeated? It's such an odd quirk of yours.

Don't get me wrong, I add insults to people as stupid as you in my posts. But that's only when I include an actual sound argument based on reason and facts. Just typing "ad hom" and crying like a little girl seems like such a waste of time (unless it just makes you feel bettter to "get it off your chest").


----------



## daws101

jillian said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
Click to expand...

what about seat belts  
public safety 
clean air and water 
speed limits 
food laws 
sanitation ..just to name a few.


all have been mandated.
if you so called free thinking indahviguals....had your way 
the air would be worse than it is 
there would be gunfights at grocery stores where infected rotten food is sold ,washing it would not help because of the raw sewage in it 
the roads would go un repaired .
just because you don't like mandates.


----------



## WillowTree

Rinata said:


> I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!



there's a hell of a lot you don't understand, that's why it's dangerous for you ilk to be in charge.


----------



## WillowTree

daws101 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about seat belts
> public safety
> clean air and water
> speed limits
> food laws
> sanitation ..just to name a few.
> 
> 
> all have been mandated.
> if you so called free thinking indahviguals....had your way
> the air would be worse than it is
> there would be gunfights at grocery stores where infected rotten food is sold ,washing it would not help because of the raw sewage in it
> the roads would go un repaired .
> just because you don't like mandates.
Click to expand...


we love mandates, we love the mandate that allows us to probe Jillian's uterus.


----------



## daws101

WillowTree said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> 
> 
> what about seat belts
> public safety
> clean air and water
> speed limits
> food laws
> sanitation ..just to name a few.
> 
> 
> all have been mandated.
> if you so called free thinking indahviguals....had your way
> the air would be worse than it is
> there would be gunfights at grocery stores where infected rotten food is sold ,washing it would not help because of the raw sewage in it
> the roads would go un repaired .
> just because you don't like mandates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we love mandates, we love the mandate that allows us to probe Jillian's uterus.
Click to expand...

SO you are a lesbian!


----------



## Rinata

WillowTree said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there's a hell of a lot you don't understand, that's why it's dangerous for you ilk to be in charge.
Click to expand...


Oh yeah, somebody like you really needs a gun.


----------



## logical4u

Rinata said:


> I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!



Millions of Americans (law-abiding) carry every single day.  Most of them never need to use the weapon (occasionally, they show it to a trouble maker and trouble STOPS).  It must seem amazing to you (someone that believes if you are no threat, the aggressive and the bullies will ignore you), that there are that many people carrying with no incidences, day after day after day.  You would think if they were the "fools" you judge them to be, there would be hundreds of shootings every day, and some places would be having shootouts at the parking lot (corral).  Just goes to show that you, yes you, can be wrong about some things.  Just think if you are that wrong about law-abiding citizens carrying weapons, what other areas have you misjudged?


----------



## jillian

WillowTree said:


> I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.



And you really should probably see someone about it.


----------



## PixieStix

Freewill said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I heard Obama make the same comparision, is there federal mandated car insurance?
Click to expand...



He cannot with any real honesty make that comparison.  "Life" is in the Bill of rights, driving is not


----------



## jillian

Skull Pilot said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support the government mandating anyone's behavior.
Click to expand...


I can respect that. But don't you think that from a societal perspective, it's better when certain types of behavior are mandated?


----------



## logical4u

daws101 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one should be mandated to carry a gun or buy health insurance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what about seat belts
> public safety
> clean air and water
> speed limits
> food laws
> sanitation ..just to name a few.
> 
> 
> all have been mandated.
> if you so called free thinking indahviguals....had your way
> the air would be worse than it is
> there would be gunfights at grocery stores where infected rotten food is sold ,washing it would not help because of the raw sewage in it
> the roads would go un repaired .
> just because you don't like mandates.
Click to expand...


With the execption of the FDA, those are pretty much "state gov't" standards.  Some places allow septic fields, others do not/ some allow wells, others do not, speed limits can be set by local communities.

Please list one other area that gov't is regulating that:
gives the gov't your bank account
sends the IRS as a "debt collector"
taxes every retirement account (disguised as "capital gains" on the rich tax)
changes the definition of femine hygiene products and toothbrushes to "medical devices" to tax them at a higher rate (talk about a war on women....)
etc, etc, etc


----------



## Conservative

jillian said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support the government mandating anyone's behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can respect that. But don't you think that from a societal perspective, it's better when certain types of behavior are mandated?
Click to expand...


who gets to decide what social behavior is mandated? The party in power at the time? What happens when the power changes hands? Social mandates change too?


----------



## Conservative

BTW, in regards to the actual thread subject and poll?

I am a card carrying NRA member... and I voted no. I believe I have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That, in my mind, does not translate into a 'requirement' to do so.


----------



## logical4u

jillian said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support the government mandating anyone's behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can respect that. But don't you think that from a societal perspective, it's better when certain types of behavior are mandated?
Click to expand...


Do you mean, you think it would be good if the gov't mandated that all citizens were Christians (that is sarcasm, BTW)?  But if that, the best way to live, is deplorable to "mandate" so is anything (ANYTHING) else totally wrong to madate.


----------



## jillian

Conservative said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't support the government mandating anyone's behavior.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can respect that. But don't you think that from a societal perspective, it's better when certain types of behavior are mandated?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> who gets to decide what social behavior is mandated? The party in power at the time? What happens when the power changes hands? Social mandates change too?
Click to expand...


Well, as you can see, things always change when the party in power changes. So, yes, it's that. And in part, it's societal mores, which are always changing


----------



## Contumacious

Rinata said:


> ]I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!



Well, if you never understood the need to carry a gun before you should clearly understand it now after reading about the new Roberts Tax.

The SCOTUS is supposed to be the bulwark of liberty instead is has been steamrolling over our Constitutional rights!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can respect that. But don't you think that from a societal perspective, it's better when certain types of behavior are mandated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who gets to decide what social behavior is mandated? The party in power at the time? What happens when the power changes hands? Social mandates change too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, as you can see, things always change when the party in power changes. So, yes, it's that. And in part, it's societal mores, which are always changing
Click to expand...

Even more reason why the Founders valued individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.


----------



## Dr Grump

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> who gets to decide what social behavior is mandated? The party in power at the time? What happens when the power changes hands? Social mandates change too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as you can see, things always change when the party in power changes. So, yes, it's that. And in part, it's societal mores, which are always changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even more reason why the Founders valued individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.
Click to expand...


It's finding a place to draw the line, though, huh?


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative said:
> 
> 
> 
> who gets to decide what social behavior is mandated? The party in power at the time? What happens when the power changes hands? Social mandates change too?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as you can see, things always change when the party in power changes. So, yes, it's that. And in part, it's societal mores, which are always changing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even more reason why the Founders valued individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but a good number of the people whining about individual liberties are perfectly fine with infringing on the liberty of the people they don't agree with


----------



## Si modo

Dr Grump said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as you can see, things always change when the party in power changes. So, yes, it's that. And in part, it's societal mores, which are always changing
> 
> 
> 
> Even more reason why the Founders valued individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's finding a place to draw the line, though, huh?
Click to expand...

I almost always draw the line at preserving individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.  And, our Constitution was designed to limit such authorities of the government on individual liberties.


----------



## Contumacious

jillian said:


> *Yeah, but a good number of the people whining about individual liberties are perfectly fine with infringing on the liberty of the people they don't agree with*




I see, you have the right to enslave me, force me to feed you,  cloth you and pay for your pap smears.

And I have the right to roll over and play dead.

.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, as you can see, things always change when the party in power changes. So, yes, it's that. And in part, it's societal mores, which are always changing
> 
> 
> 
> Even more reason why the Founders valued individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, but a good number of the people whining about individual liberties are perfectly fine with infringing on the liberty of the people they don't agree with
Click to expand...

Then again, and as government is made of people, thank goodness the Constitution was designed to limit government's power to do so. 

It's pretty simple: no matter what, follow the Supreme Law of the Land and things remain as fair as they can remain.


----------



## Dr Grump

Si modo said:


> I almost always draw the line at preserving individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.  And, our Constitution was designed to limit such authorities of the government on individual liberties.



I think most people are like that.

But let's look at this argument. You live in a nice, peaceful neighbourhood. Average houses in a nice surrounds. Everybody has a nice garden, there are hills as a backdrop. Not much going on here. One day, some dude turns up, builds a three storey house that is painted fluorescent pink and green with swirly patterns.

Do residents of the street have a say in that dude's sense of decor? Yes or no...


----------



## jillian

Si modo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more reason why the Founders valued individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, but a good number of the people whining about individual liberties are perfectly fine with infringing on the liberty of the people they don't agree with
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then again, and as government is made of people, thank goodness the Constitution was designed to limit government's power to do so.
> 
> It's pretty simple: no matter what, follow the Supreme Law of the Land and things remain as fair as they can remain.
Click to expand...


You didn't respond to my point.

Was the government designed to be limited? 

If it was, then why would e have a geneal welfare clause? And why would we ever have moved away from the articles of confederation?

Again, if one supports a purportedly small government,newby would one think it ok to govern reproductive choice? Or to do something as abhorrent as interfere with the ability to make end of life decisions?

Small government shouldn't mandate unnecessary, unwarranted medical procedures not requested by a woman's doctor in order to govern morality

Seems that small government thing is quite selective


----------



## BDBoop

Contumacious said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, but a good number of the people whining about individual liberties are perfectly fine with infringing on the liberty of the people they don't agree with*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you have the right to enslave me, force me to feed you,  cloth you and pay for your pap smears.
> 
> And I have the right to roll over and play dead.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


It's more like this.


----------



## Si modo

Dr Grump said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I almost always draw the line at preserving individual liberties, choices, and freedoms.  And, our Constitution was designed to limit such authorities of the government on individual liberties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think most people are like that.
> 
> But let's look at this argument. You live in a nice, peaceful neighbourhood. Average houses in a nice surrounds. Everybody has a nice garden, there are hills as a backdrop. Not much going on here. One day, some dude turns up, builds a three storey house that is painted fluorescent pink and green with swirly patterns.
> 
> Do residents of the street have a say in that dude's sense of decor? Yes or no...
Click to expand...

Of course, IF we were wise enough to have our 'hood have standards.  And, the dude with the odd choices has to make a choice before he buys - does he forgo his pink house or does he buy property elsewhere.

Stupid persons do not inform themselves before purchase.  We all have choices.


----------



## Contumacious

BDBoop said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, but a good number of the people whining about individual liberties are perfectly fine with infringing on the liberty of the people they don't agree with*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you have the right to enslave me, force me to feed you,  cloth you and pay for your pap smears.
> 
> And I have the right to roll over and play dead.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like this.
Click to expand...


Well, that doesn't apply to me . I have brown skin, kinky hair and talk funny.

.


----------



## daveman

BDBoop said:


> My next move is ignoring sigs.



"If you will not look, then you cannot see"

Ironic post is ironic.


----------



## copsnrobbers

So who are the moochers Jillian?


----------



## BDBoop

daveman said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> My next move is ignoring sigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you will not look, then you cannot see"
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
Click to expand...


Yup. I cannot see the  sign. Twice. There's really something to comprehend there, no?


----------



## The T

*Rep. West Mocks Mandate: Lets Force Everyone to Buy a Glock 9mm*



> What will be next? If you dont buy a certain type of green car, they will tax you. If you dont buy a certain type of food, they will tax you, Rep. West said.
> Well, I got a great idea: I believe for personal security, every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm. And if you dont do it, well tax you. Now, I wonder how the liberals will feel about that one, he added.


 


[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6W4_mgATjHQ"]Allen West: "Every American should have to go out and buy a Glock 9mm" - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## daveman

BDBoop said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> My next move is ignoring sigs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "If you will not look, then you cannot see"
> 
> Ironic post is ironic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. I cannot see the  sign. Twice. There's really something to comprehend there, no?
Click to expand...


None are so blind as he who will not etc.


----------



## daveman

Rinata said:


> I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!


----------



## Freewill

Contumacious said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> [/B]
> 
> I see, you have the right to enslave me, force me to feed you,  cloth you and pay for your pap smears.
> 
> And I have the right to roll over and play dead.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's more like this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, that doesn't apply to me . I have brown skin, kinky hair and talk funny.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


You type nice.


----------



## Rinata

logical4u said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans (law-abiding) carry every single day.  Most of them never need to use the weapon (occasionally, they show it to a trouble maker and trouble STOPS).  It must seem amazing to you (someone that believes if you are no threat, the aggressive and the bullies will ignore you), that there are that many people carrying with no incidences, day after day after day.  You would think if they were the "fools" you judge them to be, there would be hundreds of shootings every day, and some places would be having shootouts at the parking lot (corral).  Just goes to show that you, yes you, can be wrong about some things.  Just think if you are that wrong about law-abiding citizens carrying weapons, what other areas have you misjudged?
Click to expand...


I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.


----------



## The Professor

jillian said:


> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
Click to expand...


The town that required gun ownership is Kennesaw, Ga (Google it).  

I don't approve of mandatory gun ownership or mandatory health insurance.


----------



## WillowTree

BDBoop said:


> Contumacious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah, but a good number of the people whining about individual liberties are perfectly fine with infringing on the liberty of the people they don't agree with*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see, you have the right to enslave me, force me to feed you,  cloth you and pay for your pap smears.
> 
> And I have the right to roll over and play dead.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's more like this.
Click to expand...


Just more fucking racist bullshit from poop a loop


----------



## WillowTree

jillian said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you really should probably see someone about it.
Click to expand...


you gonna pay for it?


----------



## Dr Grump

WillowTree said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think "someone" is having a meltdown. Sad realy realy sad.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you really should probably see someone about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you gonna pay for it?
Click to expand...


Are you ever happy? Even for five minutes a day? A week even?


----------



## WillowTree

Dr Grump said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you really should probably see someone about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you gonna pay for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you ever happy? Even for five minutes a day? A week even?
Click to expand...


Are you?


----------



## The T

WillowTree said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> you gonna pay for it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ever happy? Even for five minutes a day? A week even?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you?
Click to expand...

 
You hafta pardon Grump...his sheep have been turning him down lately...


----------



## JWBooth

Heck no. I am not for mandated anything. I would support unlimited open carry.


----------



## jillian

The T said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you ever happy? Even for five minutes a day? A week even?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You hafta pardon Grump...his sheep have been turning him down lately...
Click to expand...


Drinking again, tommy?


----------



## BDBoop

jillian said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You hafta pardon Grump...his sheep have been turning him down lately...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drinking again, tommy?
Click to expand...


I was thinking "still." Has he ever been here sober?


----------



## logical4u

Rinata said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans (law-abiding) carry every single day.  Most of them never need to use the weapon (occasionally, they show it to a trouble maker and trouble STOPS).  It must seem amazing to you (someone that believes if you are no threat, the aggressive and the bullies will ignore you), that there are that many people carrying with no incidences, day after day after day.  You would think if they were the "fools" you judge them to be, there would be hundreds of shootings every day, and some places would be having shootouts at the parking lot (corral).  Just goes to show that you, yes you, can be wrong about some things.  Just think if you are that wrong about law-abiding citizens carrying weapons, what other areas have you misjudged?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
Click to expand...


At what point do liberals think you have a "right" to defend yourself?  When you are jumped from the bushes?  When you are being beaten?  When someone is pounding your head on the concrete?  When your brains start spilling from your broken skull?  Please answer the questions.

When is it "worth" it?  When you have enough money to hire bodyguards (that carry)?  When the only people with guns are those subjugating the population?  When someone with a gun is protecting you or your family?  When a rabid dog is going after a child?

I get that "you" are against guns.  Please wear a sign that says "I don't believe guns are necessary", and see how that works out for you.  You seem to really enjoy the freedoms that gun ownership has provided for you, but now, you think it is okay to take away others' freedom (when you take away guns, liberty is the next to go).  Take a serious look at history and how civilizations are taken down (first you disarm the population, and then when the gov't uses violence against the "subjects", there is no way to stop them).


----------



## daveman

logical4u said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans (law-abiding) carry every single day.  Most of them never need to use the weapon (occasionally, they show it to a trouble maker and trouble STOPS).  It must seem amazing to you (someone that believes if you are no threat, the aggressive and the bullies will ignore you), that there are that many people carrying with no incidences, day after day after day.  You would think if they were the "fools" you judge them to be, there would be hundreds of shootings every day, and some places would be having shootouts at the parking lot (corral).  Just goes to show that you, yes you, can be wrong about some things.  Just think if you are that wrong about law-abiding citizens carrying weapons, what other areas have you misjudged?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At what point do liberals think you have a "right" to defend yourself?  When you are jumped from the bushes?  When you are being beaten?  When someone is pounding your head on the concrete?  When your brains start spilling from your broken skull?  Please answer the questions.
> 
> When is it "worth" it?  When you have enough money to hire bodyguards (that carry)?  When the only people with guns are those subjugating the population?  When someone with a gun is protecting you or your family?  When a rabid dog is going after a child?
> 
> I get that "you" are against guns.  Please wear a sign that says "I don't believe guns are necessary", and see how that works out for you.  You seem to really enjoy the freedoms that gun ownership has provided for you, but now, you think it is okay to take away others' freedom (when you take away guns, liberty is the next to go).  Take a serious look at history and how civilizations are taken down (first you disarm the population, and then when the gov't uses violence against the "subjects", there is no way to stop them).
Click to expand...

You're talking to people who believe it's morally superior to get raped and/or murdered than to kill with a gun in self-defense.


----------



## koshergrl

And who think babies are better off dead than being born to single mothers.


----------



## BDBoop

koshergrl said:


> And who think babies are better off dead than being born to single mothers.



Actually, that seemed to be somebody's point in the Adele thread.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

This poll was for right wingers why are so many non right wingers voting?
And why are those who support a government mandate of buying healthcare voting no the government should not mandate people buy a gun or conceal carry?


----------



## Zoom-boing

Rinata said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will never understand the need of right wing nut buckets to carry a gun. I've said this many times. It would be like giving dynamite to a fool!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans (law-abiding) carry every single day.  Most of them never need to use the weapon (occasionally, they show it to a trouble maker and trouble STOPS).  It must seem amazing to you (someone that believes if you are no threat, the aggressive and the bullies will ignore you), that there are that many people carrying with no incidences, day after day after day.  You would think if they were the "fools" you judge them to be, there would be hundreds of shootings every day, and some places would be having shootouts at the parking lot (corral).  Just goes to show that you, yes you, can be wrong about some things.  Just think if you are that wrong about law-abiding citizens carrying weapons, what other areas have you misjudged?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
Click to expand...



Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?


----------



## WillowTree

bigrebnc1775 said:


> This poll was for right wingers why are so many non right wingers voting?
> And why are those who support a government mandate of buying healthcare voting no the government should not mandate people buy a gun or conceal carry?



Jillian hasn't trained them well yet.


----------



## jillian

Apparently, the always irascible Allen West says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.

Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question? 


Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Hey Jillian why are non right wingers voting in your poll? They are giving a false number when they do that. became half of those voting no about carry cancel would vote yes about obamacare.


----------



## BDBoop

jillian said:


> Apparently, the always irascible Allen West says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.
> 
> Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question?
> 
> 
> Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich



You're telepathetic!!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> Apparently, the always irascible Allen West says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.
> 
> Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question?
> 
> 
> Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich



http://www.usmessageboard.com/5566810-post1.html


----------



## BDBoop

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the always irascible Allen West says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.
> 
> Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question?
> 
> 
> Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/5566810-post1.html
Click to expand...


She knows. That's why she didn't start another thread. It's just ironic this thread was all melty, and then one of your very own Teabagging reps hypothesized the same thing.


----------



## jillian

BDBoop said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the always irascible Allen West says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.
> 
> Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question?
> 
> 
> Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're telepathetic!!
Click to expand...


Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one.

And as I suspected, a good many would be perfectly fine with the glock mandate. And they'd be fine with a state mandate. I'm 99 44/100% certain, they'd have been fine with it if bush signed the heritage foundation plan into law and would have said it gave leeches "personal responsibility". 

Which proves my point that the offense the right is feeling is because it was signed by this president.


----------



## Si modo

jillian said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the always irascible Allen West says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.
> 
> Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question?
> 
> 
> Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're telepathetic!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one.
> 
> And as I suspected, a good many would be perfectly fine with the glock mandate. And they'd be fine with a state mandate. I'm 99 44/100% certain, they'd have been fine with it if bush signed the heritage foundation plan into law and would have said it gave leeches "personal responsibility".
> 
> Which proves my point that the offense the right is feeling is because it was signed by this president.
Click to expand...

The difference is West is being tongue-in-cheek about a mandate.  Obama wasn't.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't think anyone takes the concept of a glock mandate seriously, including west.

It's just silliness to make a point, and the point was made. But naturally the left is going to pretend it's all serious and shit.


----------



## jillian

koshergrl said:


> I don't think anyone takes the concept of a glock mandate seriously, including west.
> 
> It's just silliness to make a point, and the point was made. But naturally the left is going to pretend it's all serious and shit.



As my thread was intended to make a point. Yet it threw some of the wingier people into a tizzy

I would also point out that there are eight people honest enough to acknowledge in my poll that they'd be fine with a gun mandate.

Now where is Two Thumbs? He said I couldn't find two conservatives who would say a gun mandate is ok.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone takes the concept of a glock mandate seriously, including west.
> 
> It's just silliness to make a point, and the point was made. But naturally the left is going to pretend it's all serious and shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As my thread was intended to make a point. Yet it threw some of the wingier people into a tizzy
> 
> I would also point out that there are eight people honest enough to acknowledge in my poll that they'd be fine with a gun mandate.
> 
> Now where is Two Thumbs? He said I couldn't find two conservatives who would say a gun mandate is ok.
Click to expand...

Let's be honest you say? how many of those who voted no were right wingers and how many of those who voted no also supported obamacare mandate?


> heck yes
> buckeye45_73, Contumacious, copsnrobbers, cutter, Google, Leweman, NLT, WidowsSon32
> 
> heck no
> AmericanFirst, amrchaos, Avatar4321, Avorysuds, Baltbelieve, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Charles_Main, Clementine, Conservative, daveman, daws101, dblack, Desperado, Dick Tuck, Dr.Drock, Dreadnaught1968, elvis, Ernie S., flacaltenn, Freewill, Full-Auto, Gem, Grampa Murked U, hjmick, hortysir, Intense, Jroc, JWBooth, Kevin_Kennedy, Mad Scientist, Meister, midcan5, NBarnes12, Nosmo King, paulitician, Pheonixops, PredFan, Rinata, salem.hills, The Professor, Two Thumbs, WillowTree, Zander, Zoom-boing



That is if honesty is what it's all about?


----------



## Abatis

jillian said:


> Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one.



I skipped much of the middle pages here but I agree that it is a reasonable question especially as certain defenders of the individual mandate cited the Militia Act of 1792 as an instance of the federal government compelling private citizens to "buy" something, . . . to  engage in commerce.

As I see it, without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self.


----------



## jillian

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone takes the concept of a glock mandate seriously, including west.
> 
> It's just silliness to make a point, and the point was made. But naturally the left is going to pretend it's all serious and shit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As my thread was intended to make a point. Yet it threw some of the wingier people into a tizzy
> 
> I would also point out that there are eight people honest enough to acknowledge in my poll that they'd be fine with a gun mandate.
> 
> Now where is Two Thumbs? He said I couldn't find two conservatives who would say a gun mandate is ok.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let's be honest you say? how many of those who voted no were right wingers and how many of those who voted no also supported obamacare mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> heck yes
> buckeye45_73, Contumacious, copsnrobbers, cutter, Google, Leweman, NLT, WidowsSon32
> 
> heck no
> AmericanFirst, amrchaos, Avatar4321, Avorysuds, Baltbelieve, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Charles_Main, Clementine, Conservative, daveman, daws101, dblack, Desperado, Dick Tuck, Dr.Drock, Dreadnaught1968, elvis, Ernie S., flacaltenn, Freewill, Full-Auto, Gem, Grampa Murked U, hjmick, hortysir, Intense, Jroc, JWBooth, Kevin_Kennedy, Mad Scientist, Meister, midcan5, NBarnes12, Nosmo King, paulitician, Pheonixops, PredFan, Rinata, salem.hills, The Professor, Two Thumbs, WillowTree, Zander, Zoom-boing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is if honesty is what it's all about?
Click to expand...


All of the people voting yes are conservatives. That's more the point.


----------



## koshergrl

I find it interesting that you think if people aren't for a gun mandate, they're being dishonest because you know they REALLY are for a gun mandate.

If the truth doesn't conform to your bias, I guess you're not in error...it's the people  you are trying to demonize who are "dishonest".


----------



## The Rabbi

koshergrl said:


> I find it interesting that you think if people aren't for a gun mandate, they're being dishonest because you know they REALLY are for a gun mandate.
> 
> If the truth doesn't conform to your bias, I guess you're not in error...it's the people  you are trying to demonize who are "dishonest".



When the facts and Jillian's opinion disagree, so much for the facts.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I skipped much of the middle pages here but I agree that it is a reasonable question especially as certain defenders of the individual mandate cited the Militia Act of 1792 as an instance of the federal government compelling private citizens to "buy" something, . . . to  engage in commerce.
> 
> As I see it, without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self.
Click to expand...


How about supreme court ruling lewis vs. u.s. or miller vs. u.s.?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

jillian said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> As my thread was intended to make a point. Yet it threw some of the wingier people into a tizzy
> 
> I would also point out that there are eight people honest enough to acknowledge in my poll that they'd be fine with a gun mandate.
> 
> Now where is Two Thumbs? He said I couldn't find two conservatives who would say a gun mandate is ok.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest you say? how many of those who voted no were right wingers and how many of those who voted no also supported obamacare mandate?
> 
> 
> 
> heck yes
> buckeye45_73, Contumacious, copsnrobbers, cutter, Google, Leweman, NLT, WidowsSon32
> 
> heck no
> AmericanFirst, amrchaos, Avatar4321, Avorysuds, Baltbelieve, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Charles_Main, Clementine, Conservative, daveman, daws101, dblack, Desperado, Dick Tuck, Dr.Drock, Dreadnaught1968, elvis, Ernie S., flacaltenn, Freewill, Full-Auto, Gem, Grampa Murked U, hjmick, hortysir, Intense, Jroc, JWBooth, Kevin_Kennedy, Mad Scientist, Meister, midcan5, NBarnes12, Nosmo King, paulitician, Pheonixops, PredFan, Rinata, salem.hills, The Professor, Two Thumbs, WillowTree, Zander, Zoom-boing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is if honesty is what it's all about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of the people voting yes are conservatives. That's more the point.
Click to expand...


And those voting no, how many of them are not conservatives and supported obamacare, MY POINT.


----------



## BDBoop

jillian said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the always irascible Allen West says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.
> 
> Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question?
> 
> 
> Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're telepathetic!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one.
> 
> And as I suspected, a good many would be perfectly fine with the glock mandate. And they'd be fine with a state mandate. I'm 99 44/100% certain, they'd have been fine with it if bush signed the heritage foundation plan into law and would have said it gave leeches "personal responsibility".
> 
> Which proves my point that the offense the right is feeling is because it was signed by this president.
Click to expand...


Yup!


----------



## Dot Com

jillian said:


> bdboop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> apparently, the always irascible allen west says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.
> 
> Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question?
> 
> 
> allen west response to obamatax: Everyone should buy a glock 9mm or we'll tax you - katie pavlich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you're telepathetic!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one.
> 
> And as i suspected, a good many would be perfectly fine with the glock mandate. And they'd be fine with a state mandate. I'm 99 44/100% certain, they'd have been fine with it if bush signed the heritage foundation plan into law and would have said it gave leeches "personal responsibility".
> 
> Which proves my point that the offense the right is feeling is because it was signed by this president.
Click to expand...


bingo!!!


----------



## ConservaDerrps

jillian said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, the always irascible Allen West says that if we have to pay for health care, we should have to buy glocks.
> 
> Now where are all the geniuses who didn't quite understand the analogy or my question?
> 
> 
> Allen West Response to ObamaTax: Everyone Should Buy a Glock 9mm or We'll Tax You - Katie Pavlich
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're telepathetic!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one.
> 
> And as I suspected, a good many would be perfectly fine with the glock mandate. And they'd be fine with a state mandate. I'm 99 44/100% certain, they'd have been fine with it if bush signed the heritage foundation plan into law and would have said it gave leeches "personal responsibility".
> 
> Which proves my point that the offense the right is feeling is because it was signed by this president.
Click to expand...


Very well put.


----------



## Rinata

logical4u said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans (law-abiding) carry every single day.  Most of them never need to use the weapon (occasionally, they show it to a trouble maker and trouble STOPS).  It must seem amazing to you (someone that believes if you are no threat, the aggressive and the bullies will ignore you), that there are that many people carrying with no incidences, day after day after day.  You would think if they were the "fools" you judge them to be, there would be hundreds of shootings every day, and some places would be having shootouts at the parking lot (corral).  Just goes to show that you, yes you, can be wrong about some things.  Just think if you are that wrong about law-abiding citizens carrying weapons, what other areas have you misjudged?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At what point do liberals think you have a "right" to defend yourself?  When you are jumped from the bushes?  When you are being beaten?  When someone is pounding your head on the concrete?  When your brains start spilling from your broken skull?  Please answer the questions.
> 
> When is it "worth" it?  When you have enough money to hire bodyguards (that carry)?  When the only people with guns are those subjugating the population?  When someone with a gun is protecting you or your family?  When a rabid dog is going after a child?
> 
> I get that "you" are against guns.  Please wear a sign that says "I don't believe guns are necessary", and see how that works out for you.  You seem to really enjoy the freedoms that gun ownership has provided for you, but now, you think it is okay to take away others' freedom (when you take away guns, liberty is the next to go).  Take a serious look at history and how civilizations are taken down (first you disarm the population, and then when the gov't uses violence against the "subjects", there is no way to stop them).
Click to expand...


Wow. What a typical right wing response. I was born and raised in Hollywood and have lived here all my life. I have never been robbed or assaulted. I don't put myself at risk and I've been okay. But if I had had an incident of some kind and shot someone, there is no gurantee that I would not end up in jail. You see it all the time. 

Let law enforcement carry the guns. Lock your doors and windows and don't run around dangerous places in the middle of the night. That still doesn't mean nothing will happen, but you'll have a better chance at not having to, "defend yourself". I am more afraid of people like you with your itchy trigger finger than I am of someone trying to rob me.


----------



## Rinata

daveman said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do liberals think you have a "right" to defend yourself?  When you are jumped from the bushes?  When you are being beaten?  When someone is pounding your head on the concrete?  When your brains start spilling from your broken skull?  Please answer the questions.
> 
> When is it "worth" it?  When you have enough money to hire bodyguards (that carry)?  When the only people with guns are those subjugating the population?  When someone with a gun is protecting you or your family?  When a rabid dog is going after a child?
> 
> I get that "you" are against guns.  Please wear a sign that says "I don't believe guns are necessary", and see how that works out for you.  You seem to really enjoy the freedoms that gun ownership has provided for you, but now, you think it is okay to take away others' freedom (when you take away guns, liberty is the next to go).  Take a serious look at history and how civilizations are taken down (first you disarm the population, and then when the gov't uses violence against the "subjects", there is no way to stop them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're talking to people who believe it's morally superior to get raped and/or murdered than to kill with a gun in self-defense.
Click to expand...


That is just plain stupid right wing thinking.


----------



## Rinata

Zoom-boing said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> Millions of Americans (law-abiding) carry every single day.  Most of them never need to use the weapon (occasionally, they show it to a trouble maker and trouble STOPS).  It must seem amazing to you (someone that believes if you are no threat, the aggressive and the bullies will ignore you), that there are that many people carrying with no incidences, day after day after day.  You would think if they were the "fools" you judge them to be, there would be hundreds of shootings every day, and some places would be having shootouts at the parking lot (corral).  Just goes to show that you, yes you, can be wrong about some things.  Just think if you are that wrong about law-abiding citizens carrying weapons, what other areas have you misjudged?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?
Click to expand...


How would you know??? Are you a criminal???


----------



## ConservaDerrps

Rinata said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know??? Are you a criminal???
Click to expand...


OH SNAP! 

Boom goes the dynamite.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rinata said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do liberals think you have a "right" to defend yourself?  When you are jumped from the bushes?  When you are being beaten?  When someone is pounding your head on the concrete?  When your brains start spilling from your broken skull?  Please answer the questions.
> 
> When is it "worth" it?  When you have enough money to hire bodyguards (that carry)?  When the only people with guns are those subjugating the population?  When someone with a gun is protecting you or your family?  When a rabid dog is going after a child?
> 
> I get that "you" are against guns.  Please wear a sign that says "I don't believe guns are necessary", and see how that works out for you.  You seem to really enjoy the freedoms that gun ownership has provided for you, but now, you think it is okay to take away others' freedom (when you take away guns, liberty is the next to go).  Take a serious look at history and how civilizations are taken down (first you disarm the population, and then when the gov't uses violence against the "subjects", there is no way to stop them).
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking to people who believe it's morally superior to get raped and/or murdered than to kill with a gun in self-defense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is just plain stupid right wing thinking.
Click to expand...


Stupid left wing thinking is " the government knows how to take better care of me than I do."


----------



## daws101

logical4u said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> i appreciate your consistency.
> 
> but auto insurance is ok?
> 
> 
> 
> what about seat belts
> public safety
> clean air and water
> speed limits
> food laws
> sanitation ..just to name a few.
> 
> 
> all have been mandated.
> if you so called free thinking indahviguals....had your way
> the air would be worse than it is
> there would be gunfights at grocery stores where infected rotten food is sold ,washing it would not help because of the raw sewage in it
> the roads would go un repaired .
> just because you don't like mandates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> With the execption of the FDA, those are pretty much "state gov't" standards.  Some places allow septic fields, others do not/ some allow wells, others do not, speed limits can be set by local communities.
> 
> Please list one other area that gov't is regulating that:
> gives the gov't your bank account
> sends the IRS as a "debt collector"
> taxes every retirement account (disguised as "capital gains" on the rich tax)
> changes the definition of femine hygiene products and toothbrushes to "medical devices" to tax them at a higher rate (talk about a war on women....)
> etc, etc, etc
Click to expand...

can you say missed the point completely ......I knew you could!


----------



## daws101

The Professor said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mad Scientist said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a city in Utah (I think) that mandates gun ownership for those that can legally carry. Waiver for those who can't aford a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and you're ok with that?
> 
> how does it differ from having to buy health insurance so you're not a moocher?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The town that required gun ownership is Kennesaw, Ga (Google it).
> 
> I don't approve of mandatory gun ownership or mandatory health insurance.
Click to expand...

having the first almost grantees a need for the second.


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's be honest you say? how many of those who voted no were right wingers and how many of those who voted no also supported obamacare mandate?
> 
> 
> That is if honesty is what it's all about?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of the people voting yes are conservatives. That's more the point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And those voting no, how many of them are not conservatives and supported obamacare, MY POINT.
Click to expand...

off topic!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of the people voting yes are conservatives. That's more the point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And those voting no, how many of them are not conservatives and supported obamacare, MY POINT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> off topic!
Click to expand...


The whole fucking thread from the beginning is off topic.




> A Question for Rightwingers
> Would you support mandated concealed carry?
> 
> heck no
> AmericanFirst, amrchaos, Avatar4321, Avorysuds, Baltbelieve, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Charles_Main, Clementine, Conservative, daveman, daws101, dblack, deaddogseye, Desperado, Dick Tuck, Dr.Drock, Dreadnaught1968, elvis, Ernie S., flacaltenn, Freewill, Full-Auto, Gem, Grampa Murked U, hjmick, hortysir, Intense, Jroc, JWBooth, Kevin_Kennedy, Mad Scientist, Meister, midcan5, NBarnes12, Nosmo King, paulitician, Pheonixops, PredFan, Rinata, salem.hills, The Professor, Two Thumbs, WillowTree, Zander, Zoom-boing



WHEN DID YOU OR ANY OF THE HIGHLIGHTED BECOME RIGHT WINGERS?


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And those voting no, how many of them are not conservatives and supported obamacare, MY POINT.
> 
> 
> 
> off topic!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole fucking thread from the beginning is off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Question for Rightwingers
> Would you support mandated concealed carry?
> 
> heck no
> AmericanFirst, amrchaos, Avatar4321, Avorysuds, Baltbelieve, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Charles_Main, Clementine, Conservative, daveman, daws101, dblack, deaddogseye, Desperado, Dick Tuck, Dr.Drock, Dreadnaught1968, elvis, Ernie S., flacaltenn, Freewill, Full-Auto, Gem, Grampa Murked U, hjmick, hortysir, Intense, Jroc, JWBooth, Kevin_Kennedy, Mad Scientist, Meister, midcan5, NBarnes12, Nosmo King, paulitician, Pheonixops, PredFan, Rinata, salem.hills, The Professor, Two Thumbs, WillowTree, Zander, Zoom-boing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHEN DID YOU OR ANY OF THE HIGHLIGHTED BECOME RIGHT WINGERS?
Click to expand...

please show me were on this thread it states right wingers only....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> off topic!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole fucking thread from the beginning is off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A Question for Rightwingers
> Would you support mandated concealed carry?
> 
> heck no
> AmericanFirst, amrchaos, Avatar4321, Avorysuds, Baltbelieve, bigrebnc1775, bripat9643, Charles_Main, Clementine, Conservative, daveman, daws101, dblack, deaddogseye, Desperado, Dick Tuck, Dr.Drock, Dreadnaught1968, elvis, Ernie S., flacaltenn, Freewill, Full-Auto, Gem, Grampa Murked U, hjmick, hortysir, Intense, Jroc, JWBooth, Kevin_Kennedy, Mad Scientist, Meister, midcan5, NBarnes12, Nosmo King, paulitician, Pheonixops, PredFan, Rinata, salem.hills, The Professor, Two Thumbs, WillowTree, Zander, Zoom-boing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHEN DID YOU OR ANY OF THE HIGHLIGHTED BECOME RIGHT WINGERS?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please show me were on this thread it states right wingers only....
Click to expand...

The title of the thread you moron. 
A Question for Rightwingers


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The whole fucking thread from the beginning is off topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHEN DID YOU OR ANY OF THE HIGHLIGHTED BECOME RIGHT WINGERS?
> 
> 
> 
> please show me were on this thread it states right wingers only....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The title of the thread you moron.
> A Question for Rightwingers
Click to expand...

wrong if that were true it would have read  a question for right wingers only....
here'S an IDEA ask the OP before assuming


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> please show me were on this thread it states right wingers only....
> 
> 
> 
> The title of the thread you moron.
> A Question for Rightwingers
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wrong if that were true it would have read  a question for right wingers only....
> here'S an IDEA ask the OP before assuming
Click to expand...


The question was for right wingers are you a right winger?


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of the thread you moron.
> A Question for Rightwingers
> 
> 
> 
> wrong if that were true it would have read  a question for right wingers only....
> here'S an IDEA ask the OP before assuming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was for right wingers are you a right winger?
Click to expand...

dodge!
ask the op....


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong if that were true it would have read  a question for right wingers only....
> here'S an IDEA ask the OP before assuming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was for right wingers are you a right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dodge!
> ask the op....
Click to expand...


That was the first thing I commented on, in fact you dodged it the first time.


----------



## Rinata

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The title of the thread you moron.
> A Question for Rightwingers
> 
> 
> 
> wrong if that were true it would have read  a question for right wingers only....
> here'S an IDEA ask the OP before assuming
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was for right wingers are you a right winger?
Click to expand...


Damn!!! Quit whining, you big baby!!! Nobody seems to care but you.


----------



## BDBoop

Rinata said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> wrong if that were true it would have read  a question for right wingers only....
> here'S an IDEA ask the OP before assuming
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The question was for right wingers are you a right winger?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn!!! Quit whining, you big baby!!! Nobody seems to care but you.
Click to expand...


Lil Deb is emotionally stunted to age 5.


----------



## koshergrl

So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?

Got it.

Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.


----------



## freedombecki

Gun laws shouldn't be politicized so. We got firepower from the Constitution to ensure that government was not acting like King George of England during Revolutionary War times. 

Our founders thought too much federal power would be a stink that would never go away.

Why bring it back on with strong-arm politics? 

We'd be right back where we started from at the time of the Boston Tea Party. 

That's plumb dopey.  

Oh, and I do not own a gun. I get enough protection just by talking. I even talked a home invader into leaving my house immediately, no harm no foul.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't think there's any question that rightwingers aren't pro-mandated heat packing.

It's just a bait thread. 

And I imagine the ppl who voted yes did so tongue in cheek, or aren't really right wingers at all.


----------



## daveman

ConservaDerrps said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can CHOOSE not to buy health coverage.
> 
> Then you'll pay a tax.
> 
> OH THE FUCKING CONUNDRUM CONSERVATIVES ARE IN NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?
> 
> By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
Click to expand...

News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.

Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.

Give it a shot!


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.


more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.
no one posed as anything and the votes were not pretend. no where did the op infer or announce that this thread was for right wingers only.


----------



## daws101

daveman said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?
> 
> By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.
> 
> Give it a shot!
Click to expand...

it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

daveman said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not really a choice when one alternative is punished by the government, is it?
> 
> By that logic, making abortion illegal is still freedom of choice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.
> 
> Give it a shot!
Click to expand...


Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?


----------



## koshergrl

If there's any sucking to be done, we will cede that privilege to you, conservaterds. I hear it means a lot to you.


----------



## daveman

daws101 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> 
> 
> News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.
> 
> Give it a shot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.
Click to expand...

Really?  Let's examine this, shall we?

Derrps can't understand why conservatives don't support an idea that a conservative think tank came up with -- a common talking point on the left.  This shows that:

1.  He can't think for himself (as evidenced by his mindless repetition of a talking point).

2.  He can't understand that conservatives can (as evidenced by disagreeing with a conservative think tank).

Now, would you like to talk about your support of Derrp in this matter?


----------



## daveman

ConservaDerrps said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> 
> 
> News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.
> 
> Give it a shot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?
Click to expand...

Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.  

Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.

Writing for the courts majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Exactly. But the majority didnt stop there.​No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).


----------



## logical4u

Rinata said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At what point do liberals think you have a "right" to defend yourself?  When you are jumped from the bushes?  When you are being beaten?  When someone is pounding your head on the concrete?  When your brains start spilling from your broken skull?  Please answer the questions.
> 
> When is it "worth" it?  When you have enough money to hire bodyguards (that carry)?  When the only people with guns are those subjugating the population?  When someone with a gun is protecting you or your family?  When a rabid dog is going after a child?
> 
> I get that "you" are against guns.  Please wear a sign that says "I don't believe guns are necessary", and see how that works out for you.  You seem to really enjoy the freedoms that gun ownership has provided for you, but now, you think it is okay to take away others' freedom (when you take away guns, liberty is the next to go).  Take a serious look at history and how civilizations are taken down (first you disarm the population, and then when the gov't uses violence against the "subjects", there is no way to stop them).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow. What a typical right wing response. I was born and raised in Hollywood and have lived here all my life. I have never been robbed or assaulted. I don't put myself at risk and I've been okay. But if I had had an incident of some kind and shot someone, there is no gurantee that I would not end up in jail. You see it all the time.
> 
> Let law enforcement carry the guns. Lock your doors and windows and don't run around dangerous places in the middle of the night. That still doesn't mean nothing will happen, but you'll have a better chance at not having to, "defend yourself". I am more afraid of people like you with your itchy trigger finger than I am of someone trying to rob me.
Click to expand...


Nice dodge!  Now try and answer the question.  At what point should you defend yourself?  You want to lock your doors and windows, when do you defend yourself?  When they break into your house?  When they threaten you?  When they rape you?  When they are in the process of murdering you?  Just when do you, "Rinata", put up a fight, and defend yourself?

As for being afraid of someone like me... you probably work with me and don't give me a thought.  I am one of the quiet ones, that comes to work, does my job, and goes home.  I don't get in other people's face.  I might ask them some common sense questions, as I have asked you.  Like you, most will not answer (you see they are barely worth having a serious conversation with, unless you want to "parrot" everything they say).  I do not believe in encouraging bullies (you know, not fighting back, either physically or verbally), and it is usually easy to tell those that are frauds, and those that are real bullies.


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.
> 
> Give it a shot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.
> 
> Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV
> 
> Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.
> 
> Writing for the courts majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Exactly. But the majority didnt stop there.​No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).
Click to expand...


Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?


----------



## logical4u

Rinata said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know??? Are you a criminal???
Click to expand...


How many victims in giving police reports say they fought their attackers?


----------



## logical4u

daws101 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's still a choice, is it not? And considering that the alternative to paying the tax is affordable health care coverage, what's there to really bitch about? Seriously, why are Conservatives so against the individual mandate when it was a Conservative think tank idea?
> 
> 
> 
> News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.
> 
> Give it a shot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.
Click to expand...


A self-proclaimed "deep thinker"?  Please in all your great thought processes can you demonstrate where another country that has no "Bill of Rights" is as great as this one?  It must be really easy, all you that live in fear of "guns", and want to see them banned, to just show these great societies that top the USA in freedom and productivity.


----------



## daveman

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?
> 
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.
> 
> Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV
> 
> Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.
> 
> Writing for the courts majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Exactly. But the majority didnt stop there.​No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes, with some gymnastics from the majority.

It's still in effect -- for the moment.


----------



## daveman

Rinata said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am wrong about some things. Who isn't?? But not this. Too many accidents happen and I just don't think it's worth it. Also, I don't get the feeling that people that just insist on carying guns are worried about protection. Look at Zimmerman. I just get the sense that he was not going to be happy until he shot someone. Look at his behavior!!! And I'm sure that there are plenty more like him. These are the fools I mentioned. Lastly, families have used a gun on each other in moments of extreme rage. And you don't get to go back and make a different decision. I'm against guns for many reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you know??? Are you a criminal???
Click to expand...

I see you're unfamiliar with a simple concept called "common sense".


----------



## logical4u

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?
> 
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.
> 
> Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV
> 
> Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.
> 
> Writing for the courts majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Exactly. But the majority didnt stop there.​No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?
Click to expand...


It was re-defined as a "TAX".  Along with several other taxes in the obama care bill, it will hurt the middle class that this President has claimed to "protect".  It will hurt women when they discover their "femine hygiene" products are now "taxed" as medical devices (wasn't this the team that was accusing the other side of a war against women?  Now the gov't will pay for your birth control, but the "poor" will not be able to afford napkins and tampons).  Vote the fraud in again, he hasn't "bilked" the taxpayer out of enough money.  Bernie Madoff is probably thinking he should have been a politician instead of investment banker, then he would have gotten away with it, just like the fraud in the white house.


----------



## USMCSergeant

A mandate forcing concealed carry is nonsense.  It's a personal choice to own a firearm, and a choice to carry concealed.

I think an abortion is a horrific, disgusting act.. BUT, it is their choice and I will support the right to choose.  Individual liberty is an amazing thing.

A mandate to buy health insurance is different than buying car insurance.  How are these two compared?
Each state has their own insurance laws, requiring you to have insurance coverage while operating a vehicle.  Owning a car is optional.  In large cities there are many people that use public transportation or walk, take a taxi, bike to their destinations.  

Some people own scooters or mopeds and most states depending on the cc's of the engine do not require them to carry insurance.  Your auto insurance quote depends more on your individual driving record and experience, along with the type of vehicle you drive.  You are not require by law to have auto insurance.  You are not required to own a vehicle.  If you own a vehicle, you are not required to drive it.  You could choose at any time to park it in your garage and turn the tags in and cease paying insurance for it.  You have options.  Obamacare gives you no options.  If you're born, you will either buy insurance or pay a tax.

I hear people say, usually liberals, that this will lower healthcare costs.  I can't refute that because I'm not in the healthcare industry.  Let's hope this has a positive affect.  I'm very skeptical anytime our government gets involved with anything due to waste, fraud, and inefficiency.  Can anyone here name a government program that is efficient and saves money?


----------



## jillian

logical4u said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.
> 
> Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV
> 
> Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.
> 
> Writing for the courts majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Exactly. But the majority didnt stop there.​No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was re-defined as a "TAX".  Along with several other taxes in the obama care bill, it will hurt the middle class that this President has claimed to "protect".  It will hurt women when they discover their "femine hygiene" products are now "taxed" as medical devices (wasn't this the team that was accusing the other side of a war against women?  Now the gov't will pay for your birth control, but the "poor" will not be able to afford napkins and tampons).  Vote the fraud in again, he hasn't "bilked" the taxpayer out of enough money.  Bernie Madoff is probably thinking he should have been a politician instead of investment banker, then he would have gotten away with it, just like the fraud in the white house.
Click to expand...


It was defined as a tax by one justice. The others concurred in the result.

As for the rest of your rant.... *yawn*


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> How about supreme court ruling lewis vs. u.s. or miller vs. u.s.?



Not following the significance of those cases to the topic of the thread or my reply (unless I missed some drift along the way).


----------



## Abatis

logical4u said:


> Rinata said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know that criminals prefer their victims unarmed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How would you know??? Are you a criminal???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many victims in giving police reports say they fought their attackers?
Click to expand...


In 1994 the US Dept. of Justice puts the number of persons defending themselves against crime of violence with a firearm averages 62,000 annually plus 20,000 stopping property crimes.

"During the same period an estimated annual average of 62,000 violent crime victims . . . used a firearm in an effort to defend themselves. In addition, an annual average of about 20,000 victims of theft, household burglary or motor vehicle theft attempted to defend their property with guns. -- U.S. Department of Justice - Office of Justice Programs - Bureau of Justice Statistics: Crime Data Brief Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft, April 1994, *NCJ-147003*​

That 62,000 annual average is certainly higher now; the number of citizens that now possess CCW permits number in the millions. Given that, 62,000 remains an impressive number though; that is 170 people a day that defended their lives and person from bodily harm.

Interestingly, those who use a firearm to defend themselves are the least likely group to sustain injuries in the incident. They were even less likely to be injured than those who offered no resistance.

"At a minimum, victims use guns to attack or threaten the perpetrators in . . . about 70,000 times per year--according to NCVS data for recent years. These victims were less likely to report being injured than those who either defended themselves by other means or took no self-protective measures at all. Thus, while 33 percent of all surviving robbery victims were injured, only 25 percent of those who offered no resistance and 17 percent of those who defended themselves with guns were injured. For surviving assault victims, the corresponding injury rates were, respectively, 30 percent, 27 percent, and 12 percent. -- National Institute of Justice - *Firearms and Violence*. by Jeffrey A. Roth​

Those armed citizens have an impact on criminal behavior.

"Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been "scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim"; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either "often" or "regularly" worried that they "[m]ight get shot at by the victim"; and 57% agreed with the statement, "Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." -- Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms (1986). See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as *61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596* (1994).​


----------



## ConservaDerrps

jillian said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ConservaDerrps said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Well, it would seem that the Constitution is up for some interpretation, and according to the Conservative majority court, the mandate IS constitutional. So I guess...suck it?
> 
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.
> 
> Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV
> 
> Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.
> 
> Writing for the courts majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Exactly. But the majority didnt stop there.​No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?
Click to expand...


Hahaha! Exactly. Sorry Daveman, but the whole point of the ruling was that the mandate is Constitutional.


----------



## ConservaDerrps

Oh, and the ACA is actually a tax break for the Middle Class, despite what RW rhetoric says.


----------



## 007

Concealed carry shouldn't be mandated OR require some permit. It should simply be legal, as it is in Alaska, Arizona, Vermont and Wyoming.

12 states on path to guns with no permits


----------



## logical4u

jillian said:


> logical4u said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was re-defined as a "TAX".  Along with several other taxes in the obama care bill, it will hurt the middle class that this President has claimed to "protect".  It will hurt women when they discover their "femine hygiene" products are now "taxed" as medical devices (wasn't this the team that was accusing the other side of a war against women?  Now the gov't will pay for your birth control, but the "poor" will not be able to afford napkins and tampons).  Vote the fraud in again, he hasn't "bilked" the taxpayer out of enough money.  Bernie Madoff is probably thinking he should have been a politician instead of investment banker, then he would have gotten away with it, just like the fraud in the white house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was defined as a tax by one justice. The others concurred in the result.
> 
> As for the rest of your rant.... *yawn*
Click to expand...


It cannot be "enforced", except as a TAX.

As for the "yawn", typical lib.... "I didn't KNOW that was happening" (it was because you shut your eyes real tight, put your fingers in your ears and made funny noises at anyone that tried to warn you.  Once, you feel the pain, it will be "pity me, I didn't know they meant to hurt everyone, I just thought the "rich" would be hurt".  

There is a difference between WISDOM and intellect.  You have shown wisdom eludes you.


----------



## logical4u

ConservaDerrps said:


> Oh, and the ACA is actually a tax break for the Middle Class, despite what RW rhetoric says.



How about the taxes increased on "medical devices" (to include femine hygiene products and toothbrushes)?  How about the increased taxes on retirement accounts (capital gains)?  How about the other taxes included in this bill that the public is largely unaware are there?  Do you think those are going to bother the "rich", or do you think those taxes are going to hurt the middle and lower class?


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.
> 
> 
> 
> more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.
> no one posed as anything and the votes were not pretend. no where did the op infer or announce that this thread was for right wingers only.
Click to expand...


Who said it did? My statement was addressing the fact that the poll QUESTION was identified as FOR RIGHTWINGERS...as was established in the  THREAD TITLE. Where it says "A QUESTION FOR RIGHTWINGERS."

The funny thing is, I think you really believe you're intelligent.


----------



## USMCSergeant

jillian said:


> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?



Actually according to you, your household also has a gun thing going on..... Not that there is anything wrong with that.


----------



## daveman

USMCSergeant said:


> A mandate forcing concealed carry is nonsense.  It's a personal choice to own a firearm, and a choice to carry concealed.
> 
> I think an abortion is a horrific, disgusting act.. BUT, it is their choice and I will support the right to choose.  Individual liberty is an amazing thing.
> 
> A mandate to buy health insurance is different than buying car insurance.  How are these two compared?
> Each state has their own insurance laws, requiring you to have insurance coverage while operating a vehicle.  Owning a car is optional.  In large cities there are many people that use public transportation or walk, take a taxi, bike to their destinations.
> 
> Some people own scooters or mopeds and most states depending on the cc's of the engine do not require them to carry insurance.  Your auto insurance quote depends more on your individual driving record and experience, along with the type of vehicle you drive.  You are not require by law to have auto insurance.  You are not required to own a vehicle.  If you own a vehicle, you are not required to drive it.  You could choose at any time to park it in your garage and turn the tags in and cease paying insurance for it.  You have options.  Obamacare gives you no options.  If you're born, you will either buy insurance or pay a tax.
> 
> I hear people say, usually liberals, that this will lower healthcare costs.  I can't refute that because I'm not in the healthcare industry.  Let's hope this has a positive affect.  I'm very skeptical anytime our government gets involved with anything due to waste, fraud, and inefficiency.  Can anyone here name a government program that is efficient and saves money?


ACA lower healthcare costs?

Let's just see.

Millions of people will now be covered.  However, there are no more health care providers than there were before.  In other words, health care suddenly got scarcer.

What happens to the price of a commodity when it becomes less available?


----------



## daveman

ConservaDerrps said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is NOT constitutional.
> 
> Tortured reasoning transforms an unconstitutional mandate into law » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV
> 
> Last week U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy in correctly identifying the individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as unconstitutional. That is what the Supreme Court is expected to do: follow the original intent of the authors, who created a document to protect America from over-reaching government actions like this one.
> 
> Writing for the courts majority, Chief Justice Roberts said: The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. He continued, correctly identifying the chaos that would result from finding the mandate constitutional: Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Exactly. But the majority didnt stop there.​No, SCOTUS decided the government can tax you for doing nothing (not buying health insurance).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except the mandate is still in effect...so it's constitutional, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hahaha! Exactly. Sorry Daveman, but the whole point of the ruling was that the mandate is Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Having trouble reading, are you?

It wasn't Constitutional as a mandate.  It is as a tax for doing nothing.


----------



## daveman

USMCSergeant said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually according to you, your household also has a gun thing going on..... Not that there is anything wrong with that.
Click to expand...


Hers is different.  Somehow.  It just is.

Right, jillian?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about supreme court ruling lewis vs. u.s. or miller vs. u.s.?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not following the significance of those cases to the topic of the thread or my reply (unless I missed some drift along the way).
Click to expand...


In both case they ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment were those of military grade and had to be bought kept and maintained by the individual.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

koshergrl said:


> So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.



My point exactly.


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> In both case they ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment were those of military grade and had to be bought kept and maintained by the individual.



I don't agree with that, especially about _Lewis_.  The body of the _Lewis_ opinion refers to "a/the firearm" or "a/the gun" . . .   A descriptor of the type of firearm (pistol/shotgun/rifle/revolver) is never offered and Lewis' gun's conformance or lack thereof to the _Miller_ "rule" is never alluded to. Many legal scholars have questioned why the quote of _Miller_ appears in footnote 8 or the citation of _Miller_ happens at all; _Miller_ had nothing to say about felony disablement of the right to arms.  Footnote 8 has never been cited as deliberative in any other case, the only people who regularly cited it were anti-gunners . . .  Why? I can't say other than they want to make the ridiculous argument that because felon disablement does not violate the 2nd Amendment, every gun control law they ever wanted to enact also passes constitutional muster.

The only thing that stood in the way of George Calvin Lewis, Jr. freely owing a gun was his prior felony conviction.  The Court makes the point a couple times that he could have used the remedies within the law that created the felony disability to remove the disability and then own the firearm legally (if he were successful in those appeals). 

As an aside, I have always noted when discussing _Lewis_ with anti-gunners, (who have always claimed _Lewis_ for their -collective right- side), that the Court never says Mr. Lewis, if he were successful in his appeals to have his conviction expunged, would *still need to join his state's militia* to have his right to keep and bear arms restored.  I could never figure out how that little detail escaped them . . .

Even for _Miller_, the correct way to read the Court's 'suitable for militia use' (paraphrase) criteria is to always restrain government not the citizen.  The Court is telling us *that* type of firearm *always* enjoys the highest degree of exemption from governmental impact.  If one were to take a "you're not allowed to have that" from _Miller_ you would need to refer back to _Aymette_ and its "dangerous or unusual" threshold.  But that, in and of itself, is NOT a criteria to trigger governmental action to restrain civilian action.  

Under _Aymette_, the ownership of a dangerous or unusual weapon could be protected if it meets the criteria that renders government impotent.  They are, if the weapon is of the type "as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment" or that it could be "employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens".  

In _Miller_, there was nobody there to represent Miller's side so there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that "_a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length_" met any of those standards, thus it was deemed dangerous and unusual and the federal government was legitimately empowered to restrict its ownership via the taxing authority.

And with all that I still don't see the connection to the topic of the thread or my post.


----------



## jillian

daveman said:


> USMCSergeant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of you have a gun thing going on...
> 
> how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually according to you, your household also has a gun thing going on..... Not that there is anything wrong with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hers is different.  Somehow.  It just is.
> 
> Right, jillian?
Click to expand...


doesn't have anything to do with my question. 

and my husband isn't complaining about people having to buy health insurance.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In both case they ruled the only weapons protected by the second amendment were those of military grade and had to be bought kept and maintained by the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that, especially about _Lewis_.  The body of the _Lewis_ opinion refers to "a/the firearm" or "a/the gun" . . .   A descriptor of the type of firearm (pistol/shotgun/rifle/revolver) is never offered and Lewis' gun's conformance or lack thereof to the _Miller_ "rule" is never alluded to. Many legal scholars have questioned why the quote of _Miller_ appears in footnote 8 or the citation of _Miller_ happens at all; _Miller_ had nothing to say about felony disablement of the right to arms.  Footnote 8 has never been cited as deliberative in any other case, the only people who regularly cited it were anti-gunners . . .  Why? I can't say other than they want to make the ridiculous argument that because felon disablement does not violate the 2nd Amendment, every gun control law they ever wanted to enact also passes constitutional muster.
> 
> The only thing that stood in the way of George Calvin Lewis, Jr. freely owing a gun was his prior felony conviction.  The Court makes the point a couple times that he could have used the remedies within the law that created the felony disability to remove the disability and then own the firearm legally (if he were successful in those appeals).
> 
> As an aside, I have always noted when discussing _Lewis_ with anti-gunners, (who have always claimed _Lewis_ for their -collective right- side), that the Court never says Mr. Lewis, if he were successful in his appeals to have his conviction expunged, would *still need to join his state's militia* to have his right to keep and bear arms restored.  I could never figure out how that little detail escaped them . . .
> 
> Even for _Miller_, the correct way to read the Court's 'suitable for militia use' (paraphrase) criteria is to always restrain government not the citizen.  The Court is telling us *that* type of firearm *always* enjoys the highest degree of exemption from governmental impact.  If one were to take a "you're not allowed to have that" from _Miller_ you would need to refer back to _Aymette_ and its "dangerous or unusual" threshold.  But that, in and of itself, is NOT a criteria to trigger governmental action to restrain civilian action.
> 
> Under _Aymette_, the ownership of a dangerous or unusual weapon could be protected if it meets the criteria that renders government impotent.  They are, if the weapon is of the type "as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment" or that it could be "employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens".
> 
> In _Miller_, there was nobody there to represent Miller's side so there was no evidence presented to demonstrate that "_a double barrel 12-gauge Stevens shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches in length_" met any of those standards, thus it was deemed dangerous and unusual and the federal government was legitimately empowered to restrict its ownership via the taxing authority.
> 
> And with all that I still don't see the connection to the topic of the thread or my post.
Click to expand...


Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra, as "the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have 'some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia'" (emphasis added) -- that Miller had focused upon the type of firearm. Further, Lewis was concerned only with whether the provision of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons (codified in 18 U.S.C. 922(g) in 1986) violated the Second Amendment. Thus, since convicted felons historically were and are subject to the loss of numerous fundamental rights of citizenship -- including the right to vote, hold office, and serve on juries -- it was not erroneous for the Court to have concluded that laws prohibiting the possession of firearms by a convicted felon "are neither based upon constitutionally suspect criteria, nor do they trench upon any constitutionally protected liberties."

U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). This is the only case in which the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to apply the Second Amendment to a federal firearms statute. The Court, however, carefully avoided making an unconditional decision regarding the statute's constitutionality; it instead devised a test by which to measure the constitutionality of statutes relating to firearms and remanded the case to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing (the trial court had held that Section 11 of the National Firearms Act was unconstitutional). The Court remanded to the case because it had concluded that:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
Thus, for the keeping and bearing of a firearm to be constitutionally protected, the firearm should be a militia-type arm.

The case also made clear that the militia consisted of "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" and that "when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." In setting forth this definition of the militia, the Court implicitly rejected the view that the Second Amendment guarantees a right only to those individuals who are members of the militia. Had the Court viewed the Second Amendment as guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms only to "all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense," it would certainly have discussed whether, on remand, there should also be evidence that the defendants met the qualifications for inclusion in the militia, much as it did with regard to the militia use of a short-barrelled shotgun.


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra,  . . . <snip>



Sigh . . . 

Never mind.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra,  . . . <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh . . .
> 
> Never mind.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought you would say. To protect my guns I have to be watchful of all second amendments cases and be very knowledgeable on the second amendment.


----------



## daws101

daveman said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.
> 
> Give it a shot!
> 
> 
> 
> it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Let's examine this, shall we?
> 
> Derrps can't understand why conservatives don't support an idea that a conservative think tank came up with -- a common talking point on the left.  This shows that:
> 
> 1.  He can't think for himself (as evidenced by his mindless repetition of a talking point).
> 
> 2.  He can't understand that conservatives can (as evidenced by disagreeing with a conservative think tank).
> 
> Now, would you like to talk about your support of Derrp in this matter?
Click to expand...

well lets see, Conservative think tank is an oxymoron...
talking points are a Conservative's  only argument .
the statement "he can't think for himself" is  from my pov, a euphemism for" every one who doesn't  think the way I want them too is dangerous."
I've already given my  opinion on the op.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Let's examine this, shall we?
> 
> Derrps can't understand why conservatives don't support an idea that a conservative think tank came up with -- a common talking point on the left.  This shows that:
> 
> 1.  He can't think for himself (as evidenced by his mindless repetition of a talking point).
> 
> 2.  He can't understand that conservatives can (as evidenced by disagreeing with a conservative think tank).
> 
> Now, would you like to talk about your support of Derrp in this matter?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well lets see, Conservative think tank is an oxymoron...
> talking points are a Conservative's  only argument .
> the statement "he can't think for himself" is  from my pov, a euphemism for" every one who doesn't  think the way I want them too is dangerous."
> I've already given my  opinion on the op.
Click to expand...


And you use democratic talking points. WTF don't think the bullshit you use to defend obama is based on facts.


----------



## manifold

Oddball said:


> Why would any _*leftist*_ goombah be against it?
> 
> Y'all think you're the boss of every fucking thing else.



^ Claims to be non-partisan.


----------



## daws101

logical4u said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> News flash:  It's a bad idea no matter who came up with it.  Well, at least to anyone who values the Constitution.
> 
> Meanwhile, some people can think for themselves and don't need their opinions dictated to them by a think tank or talking head or the media.
> 
> Give it a shot!
> 
> 
> 
> it's funny how the people who scream think for yourself rarely do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A self-proclaimed "deep thinker"?  Please in all your great thought processes can you demonstrate where another country that has no "Bill of Rights" is as great as this one?  It must be really easy, all you that live in fear of "guns", and want to see them banned, to just show these great societies that top the USA in freedom and productivity.
Click to expand...

let's play count the bogus assumptions!
 I never proclaimed TO BE "a deep thinker"( bogus assumption #1.)
  countries that have no bill of rights have a vastly different Ideology  then the U.S.A.
comparing them to us is meaningless.(bogus assumption#2.) 
great is subjective ,we are great at some things, terrible at others,proclaiming the U.S.A IS GREAT AT EVERYTHING ALL THE TIME IS IGNORANT.( bogus  assumption #3.)

"all you that live in fear of "guns", and want to see them banned,"logical 4u..
"ALL" assumes facts not in evidence.
I have no fear of guns, I grew up in  a military family .
banning guns would be just about as effective the war on drugs.
but you go head and make those bogus assumptions you have that right!


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Let's examine this, shall we?
> 
> Derrps can't understand why conservatives don't support an idea that a conservative think tank came up with -- a common talking point on the left.  This shows that:
> 
> 1.  He can't think for himself (as evidenced by his mindless repetition of a talking point).
> 
> 2.  He can't understand that conservatives can (as evidenced by disagreeing with a conservative think tank).
> 
> Now, would you like to talk about your support of Derrp in this matter?
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, Conservative think tank is an oxymoron...
> talking points are a Conservative's  only argument .
> the statement "he can't think for himself" is  from my pov, a euphemism for" every one who doesn't  think the way I want them too is dangerous."
> I've already given my  opinion on the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you use democratic talking points. WTF don't think the bullshit you use to defend obama is based on facts.
Click to expand...

off topic


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So...the question isn't really for rightwingers...it's okay for people posing as rightwingers to pretend vote?
> 
> Got it.
> 
> Pretty much the way dems run elections, too.
> 
> 
> 
> more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.
> no one posed as anything and the votes were not pretend. no where did the op infer or announce that this thread was for right wingers only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said it did? My statement was addressing the fact that the poll QUESTION was identified as FOR RIGHTWINGERS...as was established in the  THREAD TITLE. Where it says "A QUESTION FOR RIGHTWINGERS."
> 
> The funny thing is, I think you really believe you're intelligent.
Click to expand...


----------



## koshergrl

daws101 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> more proof of your tenuous grip on reality.
> no one posed as anything and the votes were not pretend. no where did the op infer or announce that this thread was for right wingers only.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it did? My statement was addressing the fact that the poll QUESTION was identified as FOR RIGHTWINGERS...as was established in the  THREAD TITLE. Where it says "A QUESTION FOR RIGHTWINGERS."
> 
> The funny thing is, I think you really believe you're intelligent.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The thread title states it's a question for rightwingers, which you  apparently missed given your retarded statement that "nowhere did the OP infer"  blah blah blah. Just admit you're an idiot and we can move on.


I don't see you doing that, since it seems it's your MO to pretend that uncomfortable truths don't exist or are "off topic".

Leftist loon.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it did? My statement was addressing the fact that the poll QUESTION was identified as FOR RIGHTWINGERS...as was established in the  THREAD TITLE. Where it says "A QUESTION FOR RIGHTWINGERS."
> 
> The funny thing is, I think you really believe you're intelligent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The thread title states it's a question for rightwingers, which you  apparently missed given your retarded statement that "nowhere did the OP infer"  blah blah blah. Just admit you're an idiot and we can move on.
> 
> 
> I don't see you doing that, since it seems it's your MO to pretend that uncomfortable truths don't exist or are "off topic".
> 
> Leftist loon.
Click to expand...

my mo? been watching  too many old cop movies have we?
when will you reveal an actual uncomfortable truth?

the uncomfortable truths posted by people with misfiring neurons like yourself always  turn out to be fleeting and imaginary.


----------



## koshergrl

So do you belong to the  80 percent of Dem Underground who lives with mental illness on a daily basis?


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lewis recognized -- in summarizing the holding of Miller, supra,  . . . <snip>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh . . .
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's what I thought you would say. To protect my guns I have to be watchful of all second amendments cases and be very knowledgeable on the second amendment.
Click to expand...


That you consider your straight cut and paste as demonstrative of "knowledge" is what's dangerous to gun rights.

_Lewis_ and _Miller_ don't have any significance in this discussion and now you double down on it with this completely irrelevant plagiarism.  That you don't know when it is appropriate to cite them shows you don't understand the first thing about the text you stole.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh . . .
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I thought you would say. To protect my guns I have to be watchful of all second amendments cases and be very knowledgeable on the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That you consider your straight cut and paste as demonstrative of "knowledge" is what's dangerous to gun rights.
> 
> _Lewis_ and _Miller_ don't have any significance in this discussion and now you double down on it with this completely irrelevant plagiarism.  That you don't know when it is appropriate to cite them shows you don't understand the first thing about the text you stole.
Click to expand...


So? it proved you wrong.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> well lets see, Conservative think tank is an oxymoron...
> talking points are a Conservative's  only argument .
> the statement "he can't think for himself" is  from my pov, a euphemism for" every one who doesn't  think the way I want them too is dangerous."
> I've already given my  opinion on the op.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you use democratic talking points. WTF don't think the bullshit you use to defend obama is based on facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> off topic
Click to expand...


If it went off topic it because you placed it there with your post. So shut the fuck up you stupid fucking bitch.


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> So? it proved you wrong.



In reply to the OP's question, "_how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?_" and her later comment (which I quoted), "_Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one._" . . .  I said:



Abatis said:


> I skipped much of the middle pages here but I agree that it is a reasonable question especially as certain defenders of the individual mandate cited the Militia Act of 1792 as an instance of the federal government compelling private citizens to "buy" something, . . . to  engage in commerce.
> 
> As I see it, without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self.



So, have at it, this I would like to hear . . .


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? it proved you wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reply to the OP's question, "_how many of you would support the idea of mandated concealed carry?_" and her later comment (which I quoted), "_Not withstanding the torrent of abuse heaped on me by certain trolls, the question was a reasonable one._" . . .  I said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> I skipped much of the middle pages here but I agree that it is a reasonable question especially as certain defenders of the individual mandate cited the Militia Act of 1792 as an instance of the federal government compelling private citizens to "buy" something, . . . to  engage in commerce.
> 
> As I see it, without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, have at it, this I would like to hear . . .
Click to expand...


You don't need  an active militia act  The 1980 court ruled on Lewis v. United States concurred with miller vs. U.S. 1939


----------



## bigrebnc1775

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xjep1VCsyRk]Obama Seeks Congressional Ratification of UN Gun Control Treaty.avi - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Never heard so much stammering and around about answers. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emFOX9CbrEY]Obama&#39;s Nuance on Gun Control - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You don't need  an active militia act  The 1980 court ruled on Lewis v. United States concurred with miller vs. U.S. 1939



Under the Militia Act of 1792 all males obligated to perform militia service (and that did not constitute the entire adult male population) were mandated to "provide himself" with a suitable weapon and accessories and to appear with that weapon when mustered.

The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the various Militia Acts of the early 20th Century beginning with the Dick Act in 1903.  Presently there is no legal structure to compel a private citizen to "provide himself" with any sort of firearm, let alone mandate that every citizen go about their daily business armed (as was the premise of the OP's question).

So, as I said before, "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."

And again, _Lewis_ and _Miller_ have absolutely no bearing on that legal truth.

Can you point to any of the "_second amendments cases_" that you have been "_watchful of_" that speaks to the condition of a citizen being compelled by government to be armed? 

Does it completely escape you that since it is a "right" to be armed means that an individual can, according to his or her own conscience, choose to be armed or not?


----------



## Samson

jillian said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> I fully support the right to bear arms and am against every law that infringes on it.
> 
> Freedom is not forced.
> 
> anyone that supports that is a full blown buffoon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok. you're consistent. fair enough.
> 
> now how are you on reproductive choice since we're talking about individual liberty?
Click to expand...


So, the actual point of the thread was to debate a woman's "right" to abortion using a mandated handgun?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need  an active militia act  The 1980 court ruled on Lewis v. United States concurred with miller vs. U.S. 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Militia Act of 1792 all males obligated to perform militia service (and that did not constitute the entire adult male population) were mandated to "provide himself" with a suitable weapon and accessories and to appear with that weapon when mustered.
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the various Militia Acts of the early 20th Century beginning with the Dick Act in 1903.  Presently there is no legal structure to compel a private citizen to "provide himself" with any sort of firearm, let alone mandate that every citizen go about their daily business armed (as was the premise of the OP's question).
> 
> So, as I said before, "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."
> 
> And again, _Lewis_ and _Miller_ have absolutely no bearing on that legal truth.
> 
> Can you point to any of the "_second amendments cases_" that you have been "_watchful of_" that speaks to the condition of a citizen being compelled by government to be armed?
> 
> Does it completely escape you that since it is a "right" to be armed means that an individual can, according to his or her own conscience, choose to be armed or not?
Click to expand...


And the 1980 supreme court ruling? What of that?


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need  an active militia act  The 1980 court ruled on Lewis v. United States concurred with miller vs. U.S. 1939
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Militia Act of 1792 all males obligated to perform militia service (and that did not constitute the entire adult male population) were mandated to "provide himself" with a suitable weapon and accessories and to appear with that weapon when mustered.
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the various Militia Acts of the early 20th Century beginning with the Dick Act in 1903.  Presently there is no legal structure to compel a private citizen to "provide himself" with any sort of firearm, let alone mandate that every citizen go about their daily business armed (as was the premise of the OP's question).
> 
> So, as I said before, "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."
> 
> And again, _Lewis_ and _Miller_ have absolutely no bearing on that legal truth.
> 
> Can you point to any of the "_second amendments cases_" that you have been "_watchful of_" that speaks to the condition of a citizen being compelled by government to be armed?
> 
> Does it completely escape you that since it is a "right" to be armed means that an individual can, according to his or her own conscience, choose to be armed or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And the 1980 supreme court ruling? What of that?
Click to expand...


It is now your turn to rebut what I have said.  I have stated that _Lewis_ has nothing to offer in this discussion about whether, at a minimum, the individual can be compelled to posses a firearm and to the OP's premise that he can be mandated to carry it. 

You're the expert . . . Wow me.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Under the Militia Act of 1792 all males obligated to perform militia service (and that did not constitute the entire adult male population) were mandated to "provide himself" with a suitable weapon and accessories and to appear with that weapon when mustered.
> 
> The Militia Act of 1792 was superseded by the various Militia Acts of the early 20th Century beginning with the Dick Act in 1903.  Presently there is no legal structure to compel a private citizen to "provide himself" with any sort of firearm, let alone mandate that every citizen go about their daily business armed (as was the premise of the OP's question).
> 
> So, as I said before, "without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."
> 
> And again, _Lewis_ and _Miller_ have absolutely no bearing on that legal truth.
> 
> Can you point to any of the "_second amendments cases_" that you have been "_watchful of_" that speaks to the condition of a citizen being compelled by government to be armed?
> 
> Does it completely escape you that since it is a "right" to be armed means that an individual can, according to his or her own conscience, choose to be armed or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the 1980 supreme court ruling? What of that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is now your turn to rebut what I have said.  I have stated that _Lewis_ has nothing to offer in this discussion about whether, at a minimum, the individual can be compelled to posses a firearm and to the OP's premise that he can be mandated to carry it.
> 
> You're the expert . . . Wow me.
Click to expand...

Just because you say so does not make it so. You're arguing one thing that I am not arguing nor have attempt to argue for. Government mandating you buy a gun. The mandate was if you were part of the militia you would buy your own equipment. The 1939 ruling said weapons of the time.
I guess you could equate to a DL if you have a car you get insurance.


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You're arguing one thing that I am not arguing nor have attempt to argue for. Government mandating you buy a gun.



You can't be serious. 



bigrebnc1775 said:


> The mandate was if you were part of the militia you would buy your own equipment.



No shit Sherlock and that limited mandate (+/-20% of the general population) has not existed since 1903.  

And, to repeat my first post in this thread one more time: "_without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self._"

That's the ONLY thing I said in this thread until you showed up with your _Lewis _and _Miller_ idiocy, "proving me wrong" LOL.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're arguing one thing that I am not arguing nor have attempt to argue for. Government mandating you buy a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't be serious.
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The mandate was if you were part of the militia you would buy your own equipment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No shit Sherlock and that limited mandate (+/-20% of the general population) has not existed since 1903.
> 
> And, to repeat my first post in this thread one more time: "_without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self._"
> 
> That's the ONLY thing I said in this thread until you showed up with your _Lewis _and _Miller_ idiocy, "proving me wrong" LOL.
Click to expand...




> No shit Sherlock and that limited mandate (+/-20% of the general population) has not existed since 1903.



Dumb ass the court rulings come after 1903.
1939 and 1980


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Dumb ass the court rulings come after 1903.
> 1939 and 1980



You are an idiot and an embarrassment to the gun rights side.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the court rulings come after 1903.
> 1939 and 1980
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot and an embarrassment to the gun rights side.
Click to expand...


How the fuck so dumb ass? Explain yourself? We've had court rulings since 1903 that said the only gun protected by the second amendment are those of military grade weapons and would only be used by the military, and they would be bought by people who were part of the militia. 
And as we all know the militia is the American citizen.


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumb ass the court rulings come after 1903.
> 1939 and 1980
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot and an embarrassment to the gun rights side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How the fuck so dumb ass? Explain yourself? We've had court rulings since 1903 that said the only gun protected by the second amendment are those of military grade weapons and would only be used by the military, and they would be bought by people who were part of the militia.
> And as we all know the militia is the American citizen.
Click to expand...


And nothing changes . . . Not a syllable of anything you have written in reply to me has anything to do with what I said.  You are a constitutional dyslexic, not a scholar and as a watchdog, you only bark at imagined intrusion . . .  Worse than useless..


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are an idiot and an embarrassment to the gun rights side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How the fuck so dumb ass? Explain yourself? We've had court rulings since 1903 that said the only gun protected by the second amendment are those of military grade weapons and would only be used by the military, and they would be bought by people who were part of the militia.
> And as we all know the militia is the American citizen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And nothing changes . . . Not a syllable of anything you have written in reply to me has anything to do with what I said.  You are a constitutional dyslexic, not a scholar and as a watchdog, you only bark at imagined intrusion . . .  Worse than useless..
Click to expand...


You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on.


----------



## ConservatvMedia

I would not. Not everyone wants a gun, and I wouldn't force them to get one.


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on.



Once again, my first post in this thread (that you believe is "wrong"): "_without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."_

So, a government mandate for citizens to buy guns, can it be said to exist now?

If yes, please explain including how such a mandate is constitutional . . .

If no, is it, _a)_ because there's no law in force now that establishes the structure for the organization, training and command for the militia including the provision that citizens liable for duty to provide themselves with an appropriate arm.

or _b)_ _Lewis_ and _Miller_ (please explain).

or _c)_ something that hasn't been stated yet (state it and explain it). . .

or _d)_ URADUMBASS


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, my first post in this thread (that you believe is "wrong"): "_without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a federal mandate to arm ones self."_
> 
> So, a government mandate for citizens to buy guns, can it be said to exist now?
> 
> If yes, please explain including how such a mandate is constitutional . . .
> 
> If no, is it, _a)_ because there's no law in force now that establishes the structure for the organization, training and command for the militia including the provision that citizens liable for duty to provide themselves with an appropriate arm.
> 
> or _b)_ _Lewis_ and _Miller_ (please explain).
> 
> or _c)_ something that hasn't been stated yet (state it and explain it). . .
> 
> or _d)_ URADUMBASS
Click to expand...


For crying out fucking loud. 

You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Can you see it now??


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Once again, my first post in this thread (that you believe is "wrong"): "_without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a *federal mandate to arm ones self*."_

So, a government mandate for citizens to buy guns, can it be said to exist now?

If yes, please explain including how such a mandate is constitutional . . .

If no, please explain.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to talk about the militia act of 1903 it's moot since we have court rulings since then on the second amendment. Now if you continue with the butt hurt feeling I don't care continue on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, my first post in this thread (that you believe is "wrong"): "_without active militia law (at least along the lines of the 1792 Act) there could be no constitutional legitimacy for a *federal mandate to arm ones self*."_
> 
> So, a government mandate for citizens to buy guns, can it be said to exist now?
> 
> If yes, please explain including how such a mandate is constitutional . . .
> 
> If no, please explain.
Click to expand...


I can do this bullshit also are you fucking stupid? I am not I repeat I am not saying theirs a mandate from the government to buy guns. but when you say go back to the militia act I say look to the 1938 and 1980 supreme court rulings the militia act is moot at this time.


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I am not I repeat I am not saying theirs a mandate from the government to buy guns.



And why isn't 'their' a mandate to buy guns and why am I "wrong"?



bigrebnc1775 said:


> but when you say go back to the militia act I say look to the 1938 and 1980 supreme court rulings the militia act is moot at this time.



But those cases have no bearing on militia law.  The mandate that *did *exist, did so with the legitimate exercise of Art I, § 8, cl 16 powers through the Militia Act of 1792.  That the 1792 Act was superseded and thus extinguished by the 1903 Act (with the mandate being eliminated) has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or SCOTUS cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment or the right to arms.  

The 1792 Militia Act or a future Act could mandate and make provisions for the citizen to acquire an arm that is not protected by the 2nd Amendment (i.e., a full auto M-16) *for his militia duty* . . .   The right of the *private* citizen to keep and bear his* personal *arms and the powers of government to regulate the manner of arms acquisition for the *organized, enrolled militia* are two separate things, with no interrelationship or dependency. 

For you to inject _Lewis _and _Miller_ when the discussion was the the _then_ legitimate power to compel a citizen to acquire a firearm (and the extinguishment of that mandate by later legislative act) demonstrates that you have no understanding of the concepts of powers and rights and the differences between them. 

It is clear that the answer you have chosen from my previous post is, d) URADUMBASS.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not I repeat I am not saying theirs a mandate from the government to buy guns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And why isn't 'their' a mandate to buy guns and why am I "wrong"?
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but when you say go back to the militia act I say look to the 1938 and 1980 supreme court rulings the militia act is moot at this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But those cases have no bearing on militia law.  The mandate that *did *exist, did so with the legitimate exercise of Art I, § 8, cl 16 powers through the Militia Act of 1792.  That the 1792 Act was superseded and thus extinguished by the 1903 Act (with the mandate being eliminated) has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or SCOTUS cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment or the right to arms.
> 
> The 1792 Militia Act or a future Act could mandate and make provisions for the citizen to acquire an arm that is not protected by the 2nd Amendment (i.e., a full auto M-16) *for his militia duty* . . .   The right of the *private* citizen to keep and bear his* personal *arms and the powers of government to regulate the manner of arms acquisition for the *organized, enrolled militia* are two separate things, with no interrelationship or dependency.
> 
> For you to inject _Lewis _and _Miller_ when the discussion was the the _then_ legitimate power to compel a citizen to acquire a firearm (and the extinguishment of that mandate by later legislative act) demonstrates that you have no understanding of the concepts of powers and rights and the differences between them.
> 
> It is clear that the answer you have chosen from my previous post is, d) URADUMBASS.
Click to expand...




> But those cases have no bearing on militia law.



This is the only thing I will comment on, because the rest of your post is super stupid . Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment which was weapons you would find in the militia and they had to be purchased by the one who carried them. The end.


----------



## Samson

bigrebnc1775 said:


> This is the only thing I will comment on, because the rest of your post is super stupid . Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment which was weapons you would find in the militia and they had to be purchased by the one who carried them. The end.



After 40 pages, the same could be said of the entire thread.

Somehow an argument has germinated among abortionists that the individual rights of a woman to have an abortion is comprable to the second amendment, and an individual's right to bear arms.

While the comparison is possible, it has no popular support:

Despite whatever the minority may wish there is not enough suppport among Americans to pass any amendment allowing the individual rights that abortionists claim, while there IS SUPPORT to maintain the 2nd ammendment rights, including that for individuals to bear arms.

Thus, the only way abortion remains legal is through legislative inaction (cowardice) and through liberal judicial constitutional interpretation.

*Our congress is filled with the most spinless individuals we could choose to slither under the doors of those chambers: Our country deserves better. Competing amendments to the constitution should be carried, and one should pass, allowing an unabmiguous decision about the matter to stand, one way or the other.*


----------



## Abatis

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment



Which has *nothing* to do with the citizen liable to perform militia duty being compelled to provide a weapon for themselves.  The mandate is what is at issue, the pivotal thing here, not the general protection of ownership (without regard to one's militia connection) once the person possesses the gun.  

There is zero 2nd Amendment interest / involvement /impact in the government mandating arms ownership for *enrolled militia members*, thus _Lewis_ and _Miller_ offer nothing in this discussion.  You are the one putting restrictions on the right to arms by chaining the 2nd Amendment to the powers conferred to government for controlling the militia in Art I, § 8, cl 16 and codified by the Militia Act of 1792.

Powers are powers and rights are rights and the two do not mingle.



bigrebnc1775 said:


> which was weapons you would find in the militia and they had to be purchased by the one who carried them. The end.



But the 2nd Amendment protects the personal arms owned by private citizen without any regard as to the citizen's militia status.  Yes, the type of arm protected by the Amendment is the type that would be useful *if* the citizen were called, but the protection doesn't depend on the person being called.  

Again. the compelled acquisition of the weapon by enrolled militia members to perform their militia service is not an issue for the 2nd Amendment . . .  the Amendment could be claimed to protect the ownership of the weapon_ later_ but that protection exists regardless of _why_ the gun was acquired (defense, sport, hunting, collecting or to fulfill one's militia obligation).



bigrebnc1775 said:


> The end.



Christ on a Pink Pony, we can hope that someday you will understand.


----------



## daws101

koshergrl said:


> So do you belong to the  80 percent of Dem Underground who lives with mental illness on a daily basis?


dem underground? 
you tell me as your are the reigning Queen of mental illness.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Abatis said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has *nothing* to do with the citizen liable to perform militia duty being compelled to provide a weapon for themselves.  The mandate is what is at issue, the pivotal thing here, not the general protection of ownership (without regard to one's militia connection) once the person possesses the gun.
> 
> There is zero 2nd Amendment interest / involvement /impact in the government mandating arms ownership for *enrolled militia members*, thus _Lewis_ and _Miller_ offer nothing in this discussion.  You are the one putting restrictions on the right to arms by chaining the 2nd Amendment to the powers conferred to government for controlling the militia in Art I, § 8, cl 16 and codified by the Militia Act of 1792.
> 
> Powers are powers and rights are rights and the two do not mingle.
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> which was weapons you would find in the militia and they had to be purchased by the one who carried them. The end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But the 2nd Amendment protects the personal arms owned by private citizen without any regard as to the citizen's militia status.  Yes, the type of arm protected by the Amendment is the type that would be useful *if* the citizen were called, but the protection doesn't depend on the person being called.
> 
> Again. the compelled acquisition of the weapon by enrolled militia members to perform their militia service is not an issue for the 2nd Amendment . . .  the Amendment could be claimed to protect the ownership of the weapon_ later_ but that protection exists regardless of _why_ the gun was acquired (defense, sport, hunting, collecting or to fulfill one's militia obligation).
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ on a Pink Pony, we can hope that someday you will understand.
Click to expand...


I can't help stupid, ignorant yes but stupid no.
You've tried every way to invalidate the supreme court rulings of of 1938 and 1980. 
1. They ruled that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of use for military standards. They also ruled to be part of the militia you had to have weapons of the day and owned by the one who would be carrying them.


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those supreme court ruling deal with the second Amendment, and what weapons were protected by the second amendment
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which has *nothing* to do with the citizen liable to perform militia duty being compelled to provide a weapon for themselves.  The mandate is what is at issue, the pivotal thing here, not the general protection of ownership (without regard to one's militia connection) once the person possesses the gun.
> 
> There is zero 2nd Amendment interest / involvement /impact in the government mandating arms ownership for *enrolled militia members*, thus _Lewis_ and _Miller_ offer nothing in this discussion.  You are the one putting restrictions on the right to arms by chaining the 2nd Amendment to the powers conferred to government for controlling the militia in Art I, § 8, cl 16 and codified by the Militia Act of 1792.
> 
> Powers are powers and rights are rights and the two do not mingle.
> 
> 
> 
> But the 2nd Amendment protects the personal arms owned by private citizen without any regard as to the citizen's militia status.  Yes, the type of arm protected by the Amendment is the type that would be useful *if* the citizen were called, but the protection doesn't depend on the person being called.
> 
> Again. the compelled acquisition of the weapon by enrolled militia members to perform their militia service is not an issue for the 2nd Amendment . . .  the Amendment could be claimed to protect the ownership of the weapon_ later_ but that protection exists regardless of _why_ the gun was acquired (defense, sport, hunting, collecting or to fulfill one's militia obligation).
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The end.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ on a Pink Pony, we can hope that someday you will understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't help stupid, ignorant yes but stupid no.
> You've tried every way to invalidate the supreme court rulings of of 1938 and 1980.
> 1. They ruled that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of use for military standards. They also ruled to be part of the militia you had to have weapons of the day and owned by the one who would be carrying them.
Click to expand...

an intelligent person would conceded the argument....reply in 5....4....3....2...1


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abatis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which has *nothing* to do with the citizen liable to perform militia duty being compelled to provide a weapon for themselves.  The mandate is what is at issue, the pivotal thing here, not the general protection of ownership (without regard to one's militia connection) once the person possesses the gun.
> 
> There is zero 2nd Amendment interest / involvement /impact in the government mandating arms ownership for *enrolled militia members*, thus _Lewis_ and _Miller_ offer nothing in this discussion.  You are the one putting restrictions on the right to arms by chaining the 2nd Amendment to the powers conferred to government for controlling the militia in Art I, § 8, cl 16 and codified by the Militia Act of 1792.
> 
> Powers are powers and rights are rights and the two do not mingle.
> 
> 
> 
> But the 2nd Amendment protects the personal arms owned by private citizen without any regard as to the citizen's militia status.  Yes, the type of arm protected by the Amendment is the type that would be useful *if* the citizen were called, but the protection doesn't depend on the person being called.
> 
> Again. the compelled acquisition of the weapon by enrolled militia members to perform their militia service is not an issue for the 2nd Amendment . . .  the Amendment could be claimed to protect the ownership of the weapon_ later_ but that protection exists regardless of _why_ the gun was acquired (defense, sport, hunting, collecting or to fulfill one's militia obligation).
> 
> 
> 
> Christ on a Pink Pony, we can hope that someday you will understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help stupid, ignorant yes but stupid no.
> You've tried every way to invalidate the supreme court rulings of of 1938 and 1980.
> 1. They ruled that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of use for military standards. They also ruled to be part of the militia you had to have weapons of the day and owned by the one who would be carrying them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> an intelligent person would conceded the argument....reply in 5....4....3....2...1
Click to expand...

Maybe he should concede


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't help stupid, ignorant yes but stupid no.
> You've tried every way to invalidate the supreme court rulings of of 1938 and 1980.
> 1. They ruled that the only weapons protected by the second amendment are those of use for military standards. They also ruled to be part of the militia you had to have weapons of the day and owned by the one who would be carrying them.
> 
> 
> 
> an intelligent person would conceded the argument....reply in 5....4....3....2...1
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe he should concede
Click to expand...

you've just proved my point!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> an intelligent person would conceded the argument....reply in 5....4....3....2...1
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he should concede
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you've just proved my point!
Click to expand...


He hasn't made his point that is relevant. But your support of irrelevant statements is not shocking. You're stupid that way.


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe he should concede
> 
> 
> 
> you've just proved my point!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He hasn't made his point that is relevant. But your support of irrelevant statements is not shocking. You're stupid that way.
Click to expand...

right ! your ass should be sore as much as it has been kicked .


----------



## bigrebnc1775

daws101 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you've just proved my point!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He hasn't made his point that is relevant. But your support of irrelevant statements is not shocking. You're stupid that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right ! your ass should be sore as much as it has been kicked .
Click to expand...


Not surprised you saying stupid shit but don't let me stop you. Do you even know what has been discussed?


----------



## Mr.Nick

The Second Amendment is pretty clear given the intent of the other 9 Amendments of the Bill of Rights - not to mention the history of the United States and what we _allegedly (presently)_ stand for and fought against - or opposed.

The Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms to coup the government if it gets too tyrannical. Because after all this is a nation built by the people for the people and made up by the people.

The Bill of Rights or more specifically the Second Amendment authorizes coups...


----------



## daws101

bigrebnc1775 said:


> daws101 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He hasn't made his point that is relevant. But your support of irrelevant statements is not shocking. You're stupid that way.
> 
> 
> 
> right ! your ass should be sore as much as it has been kicked .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not surprised you saying stupid shit but don't let me stop you. Do you even know what has been discussed?
Click to expand...

do you? it started out as a comparison then turned in to my gun is bigger then your gun nra fest.
then you got your ass handed to you ....is that about right?


----------



## 1not2nvu

Our fore fathers had enough insight to give Americans the right to defend themselves when the stood up against something that was logically unsound... a criminal doesn't apply for a permit, we do...A criminal doesn't pay taxes on a firearm, we do...A criminal doesn't have to apply for a Class III permit, we do... see where this is going. We have perverted the simple ,thought barren, virtues from an era of great Thinkers. Those men were not consumed on capitalistic virtues, only how to revise the government they fought against........


----------



## 1not2nvu

Or should we amend it to create new jobs and stimulate economy, perhaps to appease a political group as a means to say "you owe me one "


----------

