2BRKnot2B

Actually, leftists have been trying for the downfall of the "true" American Dream, freedom, individuality, equity of attainment, which doesn't necessarily mean equity in outcome, individual sovereignty (we are our own king, our home is our castle), etc. The new paradigm is to accept the globalization, and collectivization, of all people. I have a very funny feeling deep in my gut that there are at least a couple posters in this group who wouldn't have a problem with the Progressive collective American Dream as envisioned by avowed, and unrepentant, communist, Van Jones, and the Barry Hussein (WhoseInsane, or HuJinTau, take your pick) Obama-Soetoro administration.

So, you're saying Hitler's speeches never encouraged the German people to murder tens of millions, Arrowflinger? Now that's just ridiculous of you to make such an absurd statement. Just proves a level of mentality that lacks critical path thinking.

Anyone so interested may delve into UN's Agenda 21, and their HABITAT I & II programs. It'll be an eye opener. Get all the riff raff (commoners) into cities where they can be better "controlled" (see Warsaw ghetto circa WWII), and able to be used as slave labor, with the new elites using the vast empty spaces between as their personal playgrounds. Ever wonder why our federal lands were handed over to the UN during the Clinton administration? http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1448.cfm: This explains the Clinton sell out, and the collusion of the Republican led Senate in its implementation http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/sport/sportandmdgs: Using sport to promote collectivization http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Standard: Promoting green jobs, using green technology in business, etc. There are oodles of info out there on the net about this Agenda 21, and HABITAT I & II. It would take years for any one person to research it all given the vastness, and complexity. But, remember, a whole group, or groups, of people sat around for decades think tanking about this sustainable development, working out how to bring people into the urban areas (inability to travel due to higher oil prices instigated by disallowing of drilling on U.S. soil, and offshore?).

That didn't answer the question, smart ass. Would you have as much trouble with this idea? Most leftists don;t have a problem with registering guns, but they wold have a problem with registering people to speak. Yet, oth are individual rights, both guaranteed by the constitution. But one is treated differently than the other?

I actually found it quite insulting that I would be considered such a numbskull that Virgil would think I had to use Google to determine the number of examples of religion & politics mixed. These all came from memory, and from previous study. No use of Google whatsoever. His arguments are from ignorance, or for propaganda purposes solely. His mind numbed drivel is the same I hear from various leftists on various sites. Same old, same old.

No! That would never happen. ??? ;D

Ruthless as the Russian Soviets were, they could not defeat the Afghans. Our thinking that we could by defeating the Taliban precludes the nature of their Islamicized, Sharia'a law style gov't'al system.

It's shameful what is going on in our executive branch these days. What worries me is I don't think this is a first time thing (Nixon, Lincoln, Madison, Wilson, FDR, LBJ). I think presidents and their officers, have been similarly engaged for a very long time. It's a constant buildup of power. Even the congress has given up way too much of its authority to the office. Time to devolve, deny, disparage this gov't. It's no longer a constitutional republic, but instead has become a socialized democracy.

Yes, I have. Despicable was my first thought.

Why does no one ever ask that an insane person, an idiot, moron, retard, or just plain anti-American have to be registered with the state to speak? Why can't they be precluded based on their mental non-acuity?

Must kill you to read what Gingrich says and realize that it is spot on... tough to argue when the facts keep smacking you in the face huh virgil... no critisizing here just plain common sense observations based on facts... not the "What I think" crap that comes out of your mouth. So lets remove Sarah Palin from the analogy and replace her with any conservative of choice and the point Gingrich makes still stands... your way of shrugging off common sense, facts and reality is what is laughable. You have a hard time understanding things that are laid right out for you... we keep proving our point and you call it laughable.. yet you have yet to show any proof that anything you say or think is true or has any merit to the majority of American people... you're starting to become laughable NY Antler, it's the typical "The end justifies the means." Go to HuffPo sometime to see what they write there. You'll be astounded at the lunacy, and anyone who posts in opposition gets the same thing that Virgil does here. Try the www.taxidermy.net current events section. There are a few on there who hail from the left, keep pushing their leftist philosophy, and then will never address those who disagree with them, or tell them their spelling is atrocious, or ther typo's, or they will simply change the subject as happened in the Islam post herein.

Why is it always only a one way street? Politics, and religion have been intertwined since time immemorial. Ra, the sun god of Egypt was the "king of Egypt.' A politcal/religious figure. Nimrod was a great king, and the author of the Babylonian religion, which later was inculcated into the Roman Catholic religion with some minor changes to "Christianize" the unGodly (see Jeremiah 10) things which God/Jesus denounced in the Pagan/Heathen religions. The Pope was in cahoots with Charlemagne. Successive kings in Europe have always worked for the blessing of the Pope. The Vatican is it's own country within a country, has its own military. History is replete with rulers thought of as gods. The Nipponese(Japanese), and more. The ignorance of the people here astounds me. They are worried about typo's more than education.

King Abdullah was not on vacation. he was in "America" (the U.S.) getting medical treatment he couldn't get in his own country. He didn't travel to Britain, or any other European country, nor to Russia, or China, or Israel, even. He took his medical problem to the U.S. because he knew he would get the most competent, most reliable, care anywhere. Further, he felt no fear that he would not only get bad care, but have his life threatened by coming here. Yet, still many Americans profess ObamaCare as fixing the best system in the world?

I never said that. You did. You made an assumption based on an ignorance of what I said. However, there are some out there being paid to e trolls on these forums, to try to convince people of the rightness of their argument which is averse to our constitutional republican governmental form. They would seek to "fundamentally transform" that gov'tal type to one they more prefer. There are those who work who also believe in this form of socialism, even democratic style socialism. Democracy is merely two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat. If you don;t care about money, that is fine with me. Why do you bother to work, tho? I will not ask about your own giving, because it is none of my business. I have been very lucky in my life, even with the small amount I make. I don;t pretend to support anyone else. I have no pretenses about others, but I do not understand someone who has something being willing to let others decide what to do with what they own/earn. What business is it of there's to take my, or your, money for anything. "What do we mean when we say that first of all we seek liberty? I often wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts. These are false hopes; believe me, these are false hopes. Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it; no constitution, no law, no court can even do much to help it… What is this liberty that must lie in the hearts of men and women? It is not the ruthless, the unbridled will; it is not the freedom to do as one likes. That is the denial of liberty and leads straight to its overthrow. A society in which men recognize no check on their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few — as we have learned to our sorrow. What then is the spirit of liberty? I cannot define it; I can only tell you my own faith. The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which weighs their interests alongside its own without bias; the spirit of liberty remembers that not even a sparrow falls to earth unheeded; the spirit of liberty is the spirit of Him who, near two thousand years ago, taught mankind that lesson it has never learned, but has never quite forgotten; that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered side by side with the greatest." Learned Hand, in "The Spirit of Liberty" - a speech at "I Am an American Day" ceremony, Central Park, New York City (21 May 1944)

[pre]"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." -- Thomas JeffersonThe only thing any of us should have to pay for are those things which aise in Article 1, sec. 8, of our constitution. Anything else should be done under the discretion of the taxpayer, and an opt in, or opt out, at the direction of said taxpayer. Also, one may opt in, but later opt out, but one may never opt out, then in the future opt in.[/pre]

You should apply McDonald, and Chwick arguments to the case. Both argue that a county cannot make laws against the laws of the state, or in addition to it. McDonald makes the claim that even states may not address the issue of infringements of 2A.

So you clowns think some of steal from you?? Maybe you guys should get educations and find better jobs? At Christmas I got a $28,000 bonus from my employer, maybe I can send some money to you fellas? I'd be more than happy to give to the poor. I'd be more than happy to accept. Would 90% be fine? That was the rate for the wealthy when I was a wee lad. To me, you're exceptionally wealthy. I don't make that bonus amount in one year. You are a very blessed, and lucky person. And, no, I don't want your money in reality. But, how is stealing mine to promote someone else to my benefit, and why should I comply, except that force is used to take it from me, and threat of harm to my person, individual liberty & rights is threatened if I don't? How does such advance freedom?

If the felon doesn't have to comply, why should the law abiding citizen. This is a de facto provision to register legal gun owners (those without prior conviction(s)). To what purpose since they are the least likely to commit crimes. Therein lies the argument. How is registration of law abiding citizens going to prevent, limit, preclude, destroy the ability to commit crime? Since all these laws were advanced to promote the "ideal" that they would lessen the incidence, and since they have not, why should we comply? Why should we even support such laws? Why do we not ask our politicians to not support these intrusions, encroachments, inroads, hindrances, violations of the second amendment?

Pope Gregory VIII. If a typing faux pas makes me look ignorant, than being even more irrationally ignorant of history makes you look like what?

I don't see what this has to do with illegal immigration, except that the current faux president (not a constitutionally eligible "natural born citizen"), and past presidents, have not done their job of stopping illegal immigration, nor rounding up, and sending back, those here illegally. As to DOMA, it is not a threat to me, but to all society. If a president can pick & choose which laws to promote, or not, then he can do just about anything he wants. That is anathema to our separation of powers.

NYS has no law, currently, of which I am aware, which requires you to report your gun to an officer when pulled over. Other states do.

Virgil & his pal are most likely paid by the administration to keep hard working folks from their other duties. Protecting our country happens to be something I believe important. Protecting us against further intrusions into our 2A, and other rights starts with being able to have that right. The foolish cannot understand this because their mids are wrapped around a concept other than our constitutional republicanism. they support leftist programs, and denials of right, or even portion of right, so as to advance that agenda. I understand their reasons, i know exactly what they are trying to do. It's trying to get our goat so as to get us mad. Then, they feel they have the moral high ground, because rather than shoot out on the field of battle for their priorities, they have won some major victory in the political, or alliterative, or vocal battlefield. Problem is, I reject their leftist philosophy. I reject their nonsensical admission that they are right, while I am wrong. that they have some superiority by being amoral, then complaining that I am immoral because I wish to give money to those projects I would support instead of the projects they would support. And, worse, their projects proposed, and paid for by the power of the government to tax me to aid them. Socialism is a bad deal, except to the person who receives its benefit. Thus, I can only assume that someone who likes, or is drawn to it, likes taking from others, stealing, in essence, to support their belief. That, is immoral, and against God's commandment that "Thou shalt not steal."

Please do try to follow the conversation. The Pope isn't the current one. The premise is that religion & politics is intermingled. Saying otherwise doesn't make it so, and maks you look ignorant, and ridiculous.

If you read the quote which I used for the supposition of what I said, then mayhaps you would have understood. http://img600.imageshack.us/img600/4254/trollsa.gif

It is not the presidents personal beliefs, or his constitutional interpretations, which should guide his job. His job is as executive, top cop, CinC. Those who serve under him do so at the pleasure of the congress. He has a duty to protect the citizens of this country, and to promote the policies of the laws of the United States. He can't pick & choose which he will, or will not, advocate for, or against. His duty, as is the duty of his AG, to promote the laws whether they be in direct opposition to the constitution, as he sees it, or not. The courts are supposed to make those distinctions. If someone argues against the act, then he must argue for it, regardless of his personal preferences, or beliefs, or the status of his presidency according to polls. If you don;t understand this distinction, then why do you even bother to argue on here?