In response to:

53% Say the Federal Government Threatens their “Rights and Freedoms”

semihardrock Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:23 PM
Would love to see the demographics of this study...... I would bet a million dollars that ALL the minorities who claim to be "held back" OR "pushed down" by the Almighty Whitey for the past 200 years of American History.....NOW "feel" Free because they elected their King. Am willing to bet that THEY make up the majority of the 43%.......the rest come from South of the Border and are escaping Dictators and corrupt Governments who STEAL their money.....HEY WAIT A MINUTE!
AmericanObserver Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:27 PM
We do not have a 'King' nor a 'Dictator.' We have a freely elected President. You have a right not to like him abd his policies. What you don't have a right to do, however, is make false and misleading comparisons to other forms of government that do not apply to our Democracy; nor do you have a right to make up statistics based on race that are both irrelevant and wrong.
Dat1guy Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:31 PM
Your question on What liberties has been answered. I want to know if you still can't see it, even with our examples.
psydoc Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:32 PM
So, AO, since I gave you a partial list, you want to shred semihardrock's 1st amendment rights, too?
AmericanObserver Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:38 PM
I answered below. The LAST thing I would ever want to do is take away anyone's 1st Amendment's rights and I was certainly NOT suggesting that. As I said, he has a right to say anything he wants, including mis-representing 'facts.' Now that I think about it, I wish I would have re-phrased the second part of my comments. I guess he does have a 'right' to misrepresent. Sorry.
psydoc Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:44 PM
You said, "What you don't have a right to do, however...". Yes, if in his opinion that is what he thinks, he does have that right.
scrow Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:47 PM
Actually people have a right to do that too. All part of the First Amendment.

I don't think "right" means what you think it means.
scrow Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:49 PM
So what? Vis a vis the Republican Presidents, as Hillary Clinton noted, what does that have to with anything now?
Dat1guy Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:52 PM
Not my list - you only attempted to refute #4. The other three are really difficult to refute and so I do not blame you. However, if you wish to focus on #4 - Let's take a look at them:
http://1461days.blogspot.com/2009/01/current-list-of-president-obamas.html
Here are the ones most bothersome:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/a-comprehensive-list-of-obamas-worst-executive-orders/
READ THEM - do they not feel like Freedom limitting Executive Orders?
Shieldwolf Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 2:54 PM
American's 1st Amendment rights are already in jeopardy. DHS has released profiling reports in 2009 and 2011 identifying Conservative causes as terrorist activity. Now days all it takes is an accusation of terrorism to strip an individual of their rights.
Mike4166 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:04 PM
Really, AmericanObutthole? Let's see, tossing established bankruptcy law and giving GM to his union buddies and Chrysler to the Italians, giving out 100's of billions in grants and loan guarantees to companies that aren't now and never were solvent, most of which are now bankrupt, in reward for their senior officers being great Oblahblah bundlers, the NDRPA, NDAA, and a whole host of additional EO's crafted in secret and signed at midnight on a friday, billions spent by SSA, ATF, FEMA, etc. on armored vehicles, combat supplies, weapons and ammunition? What's so false and misleading about us characterizing him as something other than a freely elected president, that certainly isn't how he's behaving.
Drifter33 Wrote: Feb 01, 2013 3:31 PM
A-O whines that "it's always the president's fault..."

EXACTLY, pinhead. That is the way it works. Your hero Obama had plenty of time in 4 years to tidy up the messes left behind by congress' misuse of its authority. He didn't do that. Ergo, he didn't do his job and it IS the president's fault.

The president’s second inaugural address was what Charles Krauthammer and Charles R. Kessler, respectively, called an “ode to big government” and a “[reinterpretation of] American principles.” It was, in many ways, unapologetic and decidedly to the left of any inaugural oration delivered in modern American history -- and a far cry from the Lincolnian ideal. Ironically, however, while the American public evidently endorsed the status quo (i.e., trillion dollar plus-deficits, more bureaucracy, and bigger government) by re-electing the president, more Americans than ever believe that the federal government threatens their “