Previous 0 - 8
In response to:

Mass Casualties in Obama's War on War

Free Man3 Wrote: Aug 21, 2014 3:53 AM
Sorry friend, but it was people just like you that assured that WWII would result in 20,000,000 deaths because they didn't have the balls to confront the evil when it would have cost far less. I fully expect Obama and those of your ilk to assure us that we will have peace in our times by capitulating to that evil. Liberals never learn from history, guaranteeing that it will be repeated. No wonder rational people hate them. Freedom isn't free and becomes far more expensive when Liberals are involved.
Good old just Jesse brought back a few gallon jugs of some fresh run slightly cloudy Kentucky aging required. Yep, they still do it. Rot gut stuff that you cease to worry about after the 2nd glass mixed with Coca-Cola. Good stuff to have with you at all can run your car on it if you run out of gas. That way you not only avoid the Federal Tax on Alcohol but the Fed and State Tax on road fuel tax. Just keep in mind that any shortage you might encounter is not market driven, but is artificially induced by the Feds.
golidlocks you said Obamacare was a conservative idea… was a bad idea thrown against the wall and didn’t stick. It never went anywhere because it was….well… a totally unconstitutional bad idea. It took an idiot and abusive Progressive President with an idiot and abusive Progressive Democrat Congress to resurrect it from the dust bin of history where intelligent people had consigned it two decades earlier, to shove it down the throats of an unwilling populace. And, now the perpetrators are stupid enough to say “It was a conservative idea” as if they had nothing to do with shoving, what they adopted as their own becoming a chunk of Democrat Excrement, down the throats of the People. Intellectually dishonest and disingenuous bold faced lying worthless hacks that they are. goldilocks you are their poster child.
Why now would any sane person tell their doctor they have a gun in the house? The doctors no longer work for the patient, they work for and are representatives of the Federal Government regardless if they want to be or not.
Interesting that the defense of Obama is only in the extent of his corruption and not assertions of a total lack of his corruption.
In no nation whose people are actually processed of individual freedom and liberty would a government use the power of the State to coerce its citizens through force of law to make such gut wrenching choices. Freedom to make the economic choices each believes to be in their own best interest within a free market with the freedom to respond with products that meet customer needs and demand are part and parcel of being a free people. It is not a free market when businesses cannot respond to their customers declared needs with products that satisfy those needs, but must instead offer only those products designed and approved by government that serve government’s ends, not the customer’s needs. Call it what it is: It is the classic Fascist Control Model of allowing privately owned businesses, but allowing access to the government controlled market for only those businesses which are managed per government dictates that further the government’s goal which in this case is a Socialist redistribution of wealth with the businesses acting as their agents in that redistribution. Mussolini would have smiled at the method of control and Marx would have agreed with the goal. The government chains around our ankles are getting shorter even as their weight is getting heavier.
In response to:

More Obamacare Exemptions for Unions

Free Man3 Wrote: Nov 23, 2013 11:47 AM
We slay one beast at a time. Take down the largest most aggressive beast that is on its own hunt to tear out your heart and eat it, and then we can move on to the next, but smaller beast. Feel free to submit in order of importance, your list of beasts that need to be taken down while we work on the big one. If we are successful, he won’t eat you and we can take a look at your list.
While watching the video of Gruber, I was struck with the realization that I was watching a benign looking and benign sounding thief rationalizing a justification for theft of his neighbor’s earnings. It really doesn’t matter if he steals from 1 , 4 million, or 68million citizens. The unavoidable bottom line is that the reality of theft is not dependent on the number of people being abused by it.
RE: Jay Hakett's comment on the phallus of gun owners: Since I first encountered the anti-gunner's assertion that the size of gun owner's firearm is inversely proportional to the size of his phallus, (phallus lacking female owns guns must carry a Howitzer to compensate), I have puzzled just how they went about gathering the statistical data which supporting the assertion, coming to the conclusion that they have none. There must be something else at work. My hypothesis is that anti-gun men secretly, view themselves as a vagina. The more a man is intimidated by the possession of firearms, the more he demonstrates a perverse need to view himself as a vagina, casting himself in the role of a sexual submissive about to be violated, where we are told “size makes a difference”, thus his abnormal obsession with the size of the phallus of the intimidating gun owner. Keep it in mind when the next vagina man starts obsessing on the size of the gun owner's phallus.
Previous 0 - 8