Posted on 03/16/2012 6:29:39 PM PDT by marktwain
Exactly. She says she’s fiscally conservative. I don’t believe it for a minute.
Heh, see my response at post #17. After my first post, I just stopped freezing and thought about it a bit, and yes.
The ARE mutually exclusive.
The student is ignorant.
/johnny
Using your same logic it is not possible to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal. Yet we have Santorum.
If you had a brain you would, Alissa. Let's put it this way; if someone told you that you didn't have a right to wear clothes around men and further suggested that your clothing choices should be limited, limited to G-strings in fact, would that be OK with you? Would you have any suspicion at all as to why we wanted you naked at all times, Alissa?
Boy, you nailed it. I think it might have something to do with this (Though perhaps as much as the one below it! I wanted to post the liberal brain diagram, and the website I found it at had the conservative brain diagram, which I had never seen. Being a conservative, I said: "Yeah...that's about right. I don't think a liberal looking at their diagram would honestly say the same!)
She must have meant viscerally conservative. Either could apply. Proud of their lack of intellect aren’t they?
4.
characterized by or proceeding from instinct rather than intellect: a visceral reaction.
5.
characterized by or dealing with coarse or base emotions; earthy; crude: a visceral literary style.
LOL...now what does that say? Ya think old Calvin Coolidge might have been the last President who was a true adherent and proponent of self-reliance?
The bridge that spans your cleavage is selfishness. A person can support fiscal conservatism because they don’t want to get hurt financially and social liberalism because they want what they want baby’s lives be damned. Personal responsibility never enters into it for them.
From the article: “The case concerned not the Second Amendment itself, but its scope which the judge substantially broadened by declaring: The Court finds that the right to bear arms is not limited to the home.”
Therein lies the faulty logic of the writer. The notion that the judge broadened the scope of the Second Amendment by his declaration that the right is not limited to the home clearly shows this college student doesn’t know a thing about the Amendment, apart from the mental pablum he’s been fed in the government schools.
May God help us all...
True, but the deer taste better.
So who can tell me what scene from SEMI-TOUGH leaps to mind ?
My personal opinion is that the Second Amendment did make reference to citizen militias, rather than personal ownership of firearms. This is because the right to own a gun was on a par with the right to breathe, and a gun was indeed a necessity of life for many, at that time. I believe this right is more properly covered by the Ninth Amendment, concerning “other rights retained by the people”.
Painful.
Oh my - college is really educating them, isn't it? I can see why she also says "ignoring the Constitution" because I've never seen the clause that talks about criminal/drug addict/psycho when saying the right to bear arms will not be infringed. She obviously only knows what her "perfessers" told her about the Constitution.
This might be the whole point of this rant - the leftists would have us believe that the Constitution is outdated.
Of course, it is implied that they are the only ones who are enlightened enough to decide what parts are outdated. Their liberal education (isn't that an oxymoron???) obviously didn't teach them that there is a mechanism for changing the Constitution - it's not by concensus of some self-exalted group of liberals, but by agreement of two-thirds of both Houses of Congress and two-thirds of the states.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.