Obama goes far Commie !

[Yssup Rider]

The last time The Washington Examiner got it right was about Bigfoot.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by rioseco

What is the deal with Nau's Drug Store ?

Nau's Drug Store is LLIdiot's feeble attempt to be relevant!

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Who (what) are you cursing?

Since you asked, I would imagine he is cursing the Patriarch of the Idiot Klan, errr Clan.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by rioseco

Tell more.
What is the deal with Nau's Drug Store ? Does SpermGut AssPup really hang out there.
Is that an analogy for something else ?
Do a lot of folks go there, if so what is the attraction ?

Did you know that you can enter the color blue at the beginning of a paragraph and then close it at the end and it will still be blue?

Regarding Nau's and Clarksville, I suggest you Google it. Otherwise, quit going far Commie!

Ignorant fuck.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by i'va biggen

Two of our dimer members who can't read the part that said on this board fucking retards.

I will now refer you to post #53. It is in response to an attack by Yssup but it applies to idiots everywhere. Idiots just like you.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Did you know that you can enter the color blue at the beginning of a paragraph and then close it at the end and it will still be blue?

Regarding Nau's and Clarksville, I suggest you Google it. Otherwise, quit going far Commie!

Ignorant fuck.

Wow......I just asked the man a few questions and you go all stupid over it.
See post #53 AssHat

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by rioseco

I will now refer you to post #53. It is in response to an attack by Yssup but it applies to idiots everywhere. Idiots just like you.

Funny coming from someone as intellectually challenged as you. Refer you to #40.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by rioseco

Typical desperate tactic. If you can't beat them with facts then accusations and slander will prove you the better loser everytime !

What the fuck does this mean?

What are you trying to say?

You have presented NO facts, Cornholio. You just quoted an article from a DC area survival store cash register tabloid which has about as much credibility as YOU!

Where are the FACTS you claim to have presented?

The only FACT you've posted is that you're supporting Vladimir Putin and his military industrial complex, which will inevitably result in more dead American men, women and children.

I think you've gone FAR COMMIE!

Oh yeah, and it ain't slander if it's true, dipshit!

[UnderConstruction]

To be fair, the Examiner is a rag.

[Yssup Rider]

Worse than the Times.

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Goddamn, I never said I thought I had no rights. I said that they weren't granted by a superhero. Then you go off on this tangent about how I said I had no rights. The reason it didn't work is right in your diatribe. The duty of government is to protect its citizens' rights, from government. What happens when you put a fox in charge of the hen house? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Man got a taste of the power and he never looked back.

UnderCunt you said "fully automatic" twice. You are a lying Ozombie and a Domestic Enemy of the US Constitution.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

UnderCunt you said "fully automatic" twice. You are a lying Ozombie and a Domestic Enemy of the US Constitution.

According to YOU?

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAAA!

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

UnderCunt you said "fully automatic" twice. You are a lying Ozombie and a Domestic Enemy of the US Constitution.

So? What exactly does that have to do with the quote of mine you used? It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the second amendment gives the states the right to defend themselves against a federal entity and does not give the individual the right to bear arms. It's so accepted that it even has a name, the collective rights theory. Your view is labeled the individual rights theory. So if I have a different viewpoint than you, I'm an enemy of the constitution, is that right? Legal scholars, lawyers and even SCOTUS have debated this for YEARS, but I'm supposed to believe that YOU are the end all and be all on the subject?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

So? What exactly does that have to do with the quote of mine you used? It's perfectly reasonable to conclude that the second amendment gives the states the right to defend themselves against a federal entity and does not give the individual the right to bear arms. It's so accepted that it even has a name, the collective rights theory. Your view is labeled the individual rights theory. So if I have a different viewpoint than you, I'm an enemy of the constitution, is that right? Legal scholars, lawyers and even SCOTUS have debated this for YEARS, but I'm supposed to believe that YOU are the end all and be all on the subject?

The "Bill of Rights" address "individual" rights, you "#Grubered" Odumbo Minion; hence, the Second Amendment applies to "individuals" every bit as much as the other nine.

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? The point the Founders were trying to make is that our rights are inherent simply because we exist. They used the terms "Creator" and "Providence", as well as others to point to the great mystery of why we are here. Simply saying "I don't believe in God, so I have no natural rights, so the Declaration of Independence and other documents don't apply to me" is ignorance at its finest. Stating that rights emanate from government is basic to tyranny. The Founders were adamant that rights are NOT granted by government and arise from a source greater than government, thereby DENYING the authority of government to abrogate or or otherwise limit those rights without a damned good reason.


You can call that Source God, the Universe or simply yourself. That's good enough. You are here. You have those rights, as does everyone else. The duty of government is to protect those rights, especially from government. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. It was designed to keep human ambition from gaining power. It didn't work, which is why our government has abandoned the Constitution in favor of sweet sounding lies and corruption. Unfortunately, as your ilk gains power, liberty recedes. It's almost gone, and you can't even see it, nor understand your complicity in its death.

entirely correct!

its about the left's control

the operative word in gun CONTROL is CONTROL

and if rights come from another man or a government of men and are not innate as your birth right what are they worth?

redefining words to confuse the masses are their stock in trade as is a "living" constitution such that no one really may be secure in any right and new rights can be discovered to further their control

the sad and deflating thing about discourse in here is the intransigence of the left in clinging to their idiocies in the face of fact and truth and common sense

they are saddled with the constitution, and rail about it or ignore it by turns.
the constitution is the bane of their existence

I shudder to think of where we would be without its protections, though the left assaults it constantly and it requires the slow drudgery of court action to restore only some of that which is lost

its humorous in a galling way to read some of these imbecilic democrats in here turn truth and reality on its head with remarks such as I have read recently in here "if you don't like America you should leave" and other things they say that are 180 degrees off the mark.

don't they know its Obama who doesn't like America? who pledged to fundamentally change it? and michelle who never was proud of America? and ruth bader Ginsberg who wouldn't recommend our constitution to anyone? and its democrat policies which cut away at America as intended?

how can one be in love with someone but wish to fundamentally change her?

Obama's love for America is limited to some of its people, perhaps he likes the beauty of some of the lands, he surely doesnt like the list of "negative rights" as he calls them, which limit government and his control

so yes we don't like him and then they say if you don't like America, you can leave? how imbecilic is that?

AAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!! !!

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

entirely correct!

its about the left's control

the operative word in gun CONTROL is CONTROL

redefining words to confuse the masses are their stock in trade as is a "living" constitution such that no one really may be secure in any right and new rights can be discovered to further their control

the sad and deflating thing about discourse in here is the intransigence of the left in clinging to their idiocies in the face of fact and truth and common sense

they are saddled with the constitution, and rail about it or ignore it by turns.
the constitution is the bane of their existence

I shudder to think of where we would be without its protections, though the left assaults it constantly and it requires the slow drudgery of court action to restore only some of that which is lost

its humorous in a galling way to read some of these imbecilic democrats in here turn truth and reality on its head with remarks such as I have read recently in here "if you don't like America you should leave" and other things they say that are 180 degrees off the mark.

don't they know its Obama who doesn't like America? who pledged to fundamentally change it? and michelle who never was proud of America? and ruth bader Ginsberg who wouldn't recommend our constitution to anyone?

how can one be in love someone but wish to fundamentally change her?

Obama's love for America is limited to some of its people, perhaps he likes the beauty of some of the lands

so yes we don't like him and then they say if you don't like America, you can leave? how imbecilic is that?

AAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGG GGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!! !!

So you don't agree with a living constitution but you contend it gives you the rights to an assault rifle? Am I correct in assuming that? In the original constitution, women and african americans had no rights. In fact, they couldn't vote and african americans were 2/3 a person. Are you saying that's the way it should still be? Because if you don't believe in a living constitution, it should still be the same, yes? Are you proud of everything America has done as a country? There are certainly many things that have been done in the name of this country that I'm not particularly proud of. It's not about hating anything, it's about being intellectually honest about our past. No country is perfect, least of all this one. First you say Obama doesn't like america. Then you say he does, but it's limited to some of the people or lands. What's wrong with change? Ignorance and fear go hand in hand. Anything different is bad and we should resist any change, no matter that it might actually benefit us?