Hey Whistler is back after a brief absence. It is as if you never left.
Last edited:
Obama' Dream
- Thread starter layoutshooter
- Start date
Hey Whistler is back after a brief absence. It is as if you never left.
Their fries are better than their burgers but neither would hold up in a hunker.
(I have a sense of humor!)
Last edited:
Feel free to pack up and leave, or even just leave, for Cuba or Somalia or Laos or anywhere else you'll be happier and more comfortable since you don't like what you find here.
Honestly sounds like you dont have much respect yourself.
Sent from my Fisher Price - ABC 123
Really? How so?
Actually, that's not too dissimilar to someone lumping each and every Founding Father into a group called "a bunch" and then stating, as fact, that all of them were drunken, syphilis infested, slave owning ego maniacs, except the former is a wild-haired belief about the future from someone who truly can't see any differences between the US today and the Soviet Union, and the latter is a blatant lie of historical fact.
Incidentally, the Constitution is outdated, archaic, and almost obsolete only in the context of those who wish to do away with or ignore it. To everyone else it more or less accurately describes, by definition, the fundamental political principles on which the state is governed, especially when considered as embodying the rights of the subjects of the state.
Well, except for "hate speech" and pretty much anything that anyone finds offensive. Everyone is so sensitive these days.
As for most people of the world save the Middle East enjoying the freedom of speech, you really need to do some homework on that one.
There is no clear correlation between legal and constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and actual practices among Asian nations. Freedom of speech is non-existent in Myanmar, North Korea and most Central Asian Republics. Free speech is either non-existent or inconsistently applied in almost every country on the African continent. In Pakistan, Malaysia and others, you have free speech, as long as it doesn't blaspheme Islam or in any way be speech that the Prophet Muhammad would disapprove.
The Peoples Republic of China.
In South Korea you can say whatever you want, as long as it's not favorable to North Korea or communism. In Thailand the government restricts freedom of expression to preserve national security, maintain public order, preserve the rights of others, protect public morals, and prevent insults to Buddhism. It is a crime to insult or criticize any member of Thailand royalty. Ireland, Italy and Malta you have freedom of speech, as long as it doesn't disparage the Catholic Church in any way. In Greece it's the same, except it's any and all religions recognized by the state. You also can't insult the President of Greece, even in humor.
In Brazil you can say whatever you want, however you cannot remain anonymous while you say it. From the Brazilian Constitution, "the expression of thought is free, anonymity being forbidden." Get caught publishing something or posting to the Internet under a pseudonym (like the screen names here on EO, for example), and you're in deep trouble.
You mean Civil War II when those intent on abolishing the Constitution finally go too far and either live free elsewhere or die here like all good enemies both foreign and domestic?
What is this "change" you see coming? I hope it has nothing to do with "hope and change". We see how well that has been working.
Last edited:
Yeah Yeah, blah blah... First let me compliment your ability to successfully execute a Google search. Secondly, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is far more inclusive and far more represents what I believe in.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
No, that's not what I mean at all. First off, the idea of a second Civil War is ridiculous. There are nowhere near enough citizens willing to take up arms against the Government or anyone else. I am talking about democracy in action, whether it be representative or individual. The people will get what the people want. What I am saying is that what the people want is more progressive and less repressive than what you want.
The U.N.? Talk about corruption. They are a joke. They have done such a GREAT job in places like Korea etc. I LOVE their attempts to usurp our rights with the small arms treaty. What business is it of their's, or any government for that matter, what I may or may not own? Maybe the can sell some more oil for food or something. That is one mess that needs cleaned out, even more that our own government.
Ok. So then you are willing to go on record as saying you do not support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights... correct?
There doesn't need to be millions of citizens fighting the government. A few dozen taking out the loudest mouthed most annoying will work and there are certainly more than a few dozen who are sick of hearing loud mouthed blabber from people who should just move to Korea or Somalia or Tibet or wherever either the U.N. are deified or peaceful meditation reigns or whatever suits them. Rather than attempting to ruin our country they should just go elsewhere that's already ruined.
Is this your answer?
My idea of gun control? As I mentioned earlier I do not have an ideas about gun control. Guns are not important to me. In my mind the second amendment is not directly related to the issues being put forth today in the gun debate.
Obama's government, the government of the United States is repressive and becoming more so. NOTHING that is being done enhances freedom, they are only taking it away.
It is nothing new, it has been going on since Lincoln started his war on states rights. It is just accelerating now. All the pieces for the coup are in place.
FINE, forget gun control, for now. It would seem you know little about it.
Use health care then. IF it such a good idea, why was force needed to implement it? Seems to me that IF it were a good idea most people would JUMP on it with rings on their fingers and bells on their toes. I wonder if THAT was put up as an amendment, as it should have been, if it would have passed, I doubt that too.
Why is it that you like a large, overseeing federal government? I don't understand? Why do you feel that things like redistribution of wealth is good idea? How does redistribution NOT infringe on my right to own private property, which wages are? Explain please.
It is nothing new, it has been going on since Lincoln started his war on states rights. It is just accelerating now. All the pieces for the coup are in place.
FINE, forget gun control, for now. It would seem you know little about it.
Use health care then. IF it such a good idea, why was force needed to implement it? Seems to me that IF it were a good idea most people would JUMP on it with rings on their fingers and bells on their toes. I wonder if THAT was put up as an amendment, as it should have been, if it would have passed, I doubt that too.
Why is it that you like a large, overseeing federal government? I don't understand? Why do you feel that things like redistribution of wealth is good idea? How does redistribution NOT infringe on my right to own private property, which wages are? Explain please.