Search results

@ poll question: ...depends on your definition of 'republican'. all i see are neoconservative lemmings calling themselves 'republicans' and failing at it. as far as i'm concerned the only leading figures who represent anything close the republican ideal are ron paul and barney frank. to...

*gasping in pain* must........have.............air...................

good question...

"...alive", you forgot to add. he also uses black voodoo magic and consumes their souls.

so the new topic is used cars? thats...random

soon it will be an orgy

the question is not whether you have the right to express an unpopular opinion. it is whether you have the right to shut down a town hall meeting, thus preventing other people from expressing opinions which are not popular to you. i couldn't possibly simplify it any further. again: present a...

whether its been 'beaten to death' is entirely subjective since many here can never seem to get their fill. however it is a brutally overused thread topic.

what a unique topic

dramatic and comical, yet completely fallacious hyperbole? glenn beck? is that you? will i finally get to know what awesome strain you're growing?

no, he didn't.

intentionally misquoting people: just stupid

i was kidding. i'm not german. it was a joke.

hahahaha its ok, i'm allowed to laugh at that. i'm german.

because most of us are not raging murderers who anxiously want to kill at the command of media outlets and special interests groups?

just a general rant: i'm so sick of all the hitler-whoring. how easy it is to get attention and feel right when you just dig up the bones of our old friend adolph. YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED HITLER!!! YOU'RE A NAZI!!! THATS WHAT HITLER WOULD DO!!! HE'S A HITLER...

freedom of speech is not the right to incite harm or violence. you do not have the right to yell 'fire' in a movie theater, you do not have the right to encourage a crowd to riot, and you have no right to attempt to convince an angry mob that the president should be killed.

it frustrates me that you cannot think beyond petty left/right ideology squabbles to see that the exeutive branch has gained too much power for a long time, and with each new president their checks are systematically eliminated.

your conclusion spites the very use and definition of the system/theory. checks and balances in theory and practice can only be sustained with all 3 powers having complete oversight of each other, as with all 3 holding equal powers. its structured this way for the sole purpose of not...

wow...ok....maybe you think i'm saying 'all constitutional rights are inalienable rights'? what i'm saying is all of our inalienable rights are protected from the government via constitutional rights. not all of the amendments directly address inalienable rights, but what's important is that...