Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obscene response from AZ State Representative (Response to article All You Democrats, posted below)
Keep and Bear Arms ^ | 11-28-02 | Don Cline/L. Neil Smith

Posted on 11/30/2002 5:44:55 AM PST by SJackson

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last
To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
And you say this based on...what?

Your own imagination, nothing more. You haven't paid any attention to what's ACTUALLY been going on; you have no idea that the wiretapping has to be cleared by a judge--it just streamlines the effort.

You don't have the slightest clue, in other words, what you're talking about. You're speaking ONLY through the nonsense of your own preconceived notion that anything the government does is "bad."

To h*ll with the Constitution unless it is your OWN, PERSONAL conception of the Constitution.

Speaking with people like you makes me VERY happy that REAL adults are in charge now.

21 posted on 11/30/2002 9:42:42 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: A tall man in a cowboy hat
Okay, so you quote (again) some of the articles from the Constitution. So what? What's your point? Which of these are "infringed"?

This may come as a shock to you, but not everyone sees life through the paranoid delusions that you hold.

22 posted on 11/30/2002 9:44:01 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
Call me cynical, but I have a problem with open-ended laws being passed as permanent installations to our legal code.

I tell you this: If it were 60 years ago, this guy would've been under house arrest as a threat to national security. He has no IDEA how bad things can REALLY be, even in a free society, when we're at war.

We're not at war. We have no declaration of war. If we did, we could declare martial law, which I don't have a problem with. We can get out from under martial law when the war has been won. The current approach is a power grab. I don't care how you want to justify it, it's more power to Washington at our expense, at our loss.

The frustrating thing is that it doesn't have to be this way if we had some leaders with a decent pair between their legs. Everyone is so afraid to offend somebody. Sorry about the Japanese thing, but it was arguably necessary at the time. We fought to win. Here, we are fighting not to lose.

23 posted on 11/30/2002 10:18:26 AM PST by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
He has no IDEA how bad things can REALLY be, even in a free society, when we're at war.

Do you have to clean the drool off the keyboard as you go? Or do you just wear a bib to contain the deposits of your salivating glee?

24 posted on 11/30/2002 10:29:39 AM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
We're not at war. We have no declaration of war.

Don't be naive.

Sorry about the Japanese thing, but it was arguably necessary at the time.

Ah, but this time it's about WHITE guys, eh?

25 posted on 11/30/2002 10:30:09 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DAnconia55
I promise ONLY to salivate when we get word that YOU'VE been detained.
26 posted on 11/30/2002 10:30:52 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
4. We as a society are being overrun by a handful of people who look at the rest of us as a "herd" that they can "cull" for their sadistic and perverted pleasure. We're trying to figure out how to handle the fact that, since we know longer just shoot the b*st*rds or hang 'em high when they rape and torture children for their sexual gratification--as earlier generations wisely did--we have to try to prevent them from doing more raping and killing when they are released back into their natural habitat. Sorry if it offends you that these people should be monitored the rest of their lives, but the evidence is overwhelming that they can't be cured, and I consider the well-being of my family, and the families of other Americans, far more precious than the "freedom" of these monsters to destroy more lives.

You are right. I much prefer shooting and hanging sexual predators. I believe only Louisiana still has the death penality as an option for Child rape.

Rape, Crimes Against Nature, Sodomy, and Child Molestation should all be returned to Capital Crimes Status.

I am willing to bet that Mr. Smith is a libertarian.

Libertarians are probably further left than most democrats on Social Issues. Especially on Sexual Perversions. The Libertarian party platform is Pro-Abortion, Pro-Homosexual, Pro-Adultery, Pro-Fornication, Pro-Pornography, Pro-Prostitution, Pro-Sexual Perversion.

Most Libertarians want to be free to have sex with anyone they want. Libertarian members of this very forum have posted that they favor lowering the age of consent, because it is not the government's business who has sex with who or how old they are, They have posted in favor of adultery, fornication, and even bigamy and beastality.

Libertarians are as much a threat to this nation as the democrats and greens.

27 posted on 11/30/2002 10:33:08 AM PST by FF578
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
If you like PATRIOT and Homeland Security under Bush, you'll love it under President Hillary....

Hillary? You mean the New York Senator linked to the Puerto Rican terrorists and Clinton *pardons for bribes* scandals?

Her name's on the list for detention and a new residence in the kennel at Guantanamo.

-archy-/-

28 posted on 11/30/2002 12:08:09 PM PST by archy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: FF578
Most Libertarians want to be free to have sex with anyone they want.

Note to FF: You are free to have sex with anyone you want.

(So long as they are of legal age, and consent)
Ah... now we see the roots of your neurosis.

29 posted on 11/30/2002 12:38:08 PM PST by DAnconia55
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SJackson
Why do you care what a representative in AZ thinks when you are in Illionois (if your profile is correct).

Yes, the guy's a major jerk, but he's our jerk, not yours.

30 posted on 11/30/2002 1:01:15 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FF578
That's why I never call them by that euphemistic label "Libertarian" that they try to claim. They aren't for "liberty," their for license.

So I call 'em "Libertines." That's FAR more accurate.

31 posted on 11/30/2002 2:00:41 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
hunh? What are you talking about? Im naive? Whan was the declaration passed? ANd what is the insinuation behind the white guys comment? please don't retreat into the racism mode... this war is about a death cult religion, not race.
32 posted on 11/30/2002 2:23:58 PM PST by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
"That's FAR more accurate."

Works for me. They're pretty bitchy if you don't agree with them 100%, too.

33 posted on 11/30/2002 5:14:40 PM PST by Cyber Liberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
We have declared war, in an unconventional manner, because it is an unconventional war. Or have you not been listening?

Pres. Bush made it very clear from day one of this struggle, that it was NOT going to be war as we have ever understood it. Often, he said, there would seemingly be nothing going on--then we hear, within a week's time, of the killing of one top al-Qaeda operative and the capture of another.

Yes, war is "declared" because the President went to CONGRESS, and asked their consent, and they gave it.

There are no battle lines on the map, but it is war nonetheless. It is naive to think of it in any other way.

34 posted on 11/30/2002 6:36:00 PM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Illbay
It's unconventional in it's tactics, not it's legality as it applies to the Constitution. We are ignoring the immigration laws, and enacting new laws which restrict the freedom of Citizens. That's my point, and the point of this article is similar. I understand the unconventionality facet of this conflict, don't assume that Im stupid. I also understand the Bill of Rights. We don't need to sacrifice it at the altar of safety or victory, yet the big government types (like you) are telling us it's necessary. Im not buying it.
35 posted on 12/01/2002 5:40:44 AM PST by ovrtaxt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ovrtaxt
We are ignoring the immigration laws, and enacting new laws which restrict the freedom of Citizens.

While I'd agree with you that we do ignore immigration laws--at our peril--I still can't get a firm answer out of anyone as to how these "new laws" (which are really amendments to existing laws, fwiw) are "restricting the freedom of citizens."

If I could only get a logical, thoughtful answer to the question: How are you any less free than you were before? I'd perhaps be more amenable to considering it.

As it is, listening to Rush Limbaugh's analysis the last two weeks has convinced me that we're going after CRIMINALS, not citizens.

36 posted on 12/01/2002 7:12:52 AM PST by Illbay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-36 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson