Better yet how about we ban drinking liberals.

How many people are killed by drunk drivers including politicains. Chapaquidic ring a bell anyone...


I bet more are killed by drunk drivers. Right Uncle ted.. Oh ya he is down for I dirt nap.

Hey you libs lets just ban boozing all together.

Oh wait you wouldn't be abe to drink your white zin or your pino vino. I bet you wouldn't like that would you.

Hands off my weapon and I'll keep my hand off yours.

Reply to post by Rocky Black

I was going to say the gov tried that and it didnt work but I remembered we tried the guns thing too and that didnt work.

Just because it failed miserably once doent mean it will fail miserably again. lol

What's the great nanny-state battle cry? "This time it'll be different!"


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Rocky Black


Does your post have any other point besides politically trolling?


Drunk driving IS...I repeat...IS...already illegal.

But I guess you are suggesting that only liberal drink and drive

I'm not seeing your point

reply to post by Rocky Black


I never drink and have never had anything to do with weapons.

So maybe i can speak. You people are sick, and gov and police are just sick loons.

Originally posted by Rocky Black
How many people are killed by drunk drivers including politicains. Chapaquidic ring a bell anyone...


I bet more are killed by drunk drivers. Right Uncle ted.. Oh ya he is down for I dirt nap.

Hey you libs lets just ban boozing all together.

Oh wait you wouldn't be abe to drink your white zin or your pino vino. I bet you wouldn't like that would you.

Hands off my weapon and I'll keep my hand off yours.

How bout you you stop mixing Thunderbird with your Koolaide???

And maybe wait until noon before you get started?

reply to post by Janky Red


Oh your funny.

No my point is how about we bans something you like.

I love my beer and consume it daily. I woukld never want it banned period.

Just trying to point out to libs just because they think it should be banned doesn't mean it should be.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Rocky Black

 

Just because it failed miserably once doent mean it will fail miserably again. lol

What's the great nanny-state battle cry? "This time it'll be different!"

Like deregulating Wall Street?

Oh I forgot that is the great Corpo-state battle cry

IT will work this time!

Originally posted by Rocky Black
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Oh your funny.

No my point is how about we bans something you like.

I love my beer and consume it daily. I woukld never want it banned period.

Just trying to point out to libs just because they think it should be banned doesn't mean it should be.

Noone is going to ban anything, calm down -

People are grumbling because they are upset, but that does not change the 2nd or the fact that America
is fascinated with guns in general. I am a liberal and I would not stand for anyone banning guns, my family
collectively has an arsenal. We are good man,

Reply to post by Janky Red

If you want to really get into it that "deregulation" wasnt true deregulation. It was based in all sorts of twisted half-laws, crooked politicking and a hundred years of Monopoly currency.

There hasnt been any real free-market without interference deregulation anywhere as long as Ive been alive.

But that's all another thread.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Rocky Black


Ban drinking liberals? You mean ban liberals from drinking? Or Ban people from doing a soylent green and actually *drinking* liberals? I'm sure you're not just some silly political doofus is why I ask

Originally posted by Rocky Black
How many people are killed by drunk drivers including politicains. Chapaquidic ring a bell anyone...


I bet more are killed by drunk drivers. Right Uncle ted.. Oh ya he is down for I dirt nap.

Hey you libs lets just ban boozing all together.

Oh wait you wouldn't be abe to drink your white zin or your pino vino. I bet you wouldn't like that would you.

Hands off my weapon and I'll keep my hand off yours.

This has to be the dumbest argument I read on ATS today!!! By far!!

First of all, drunk driving is already outlawed...and why do you only wanna outlaw liberal drunk drivers. How incredibly brainwashed are you??

Seriously, the stupidity in this thread is strong

Reply to post by MrXYZ

First of all, drunk driving is already outlawed...

That's kinda the point.

Assault, murder, threatening, brandishing, are all already outlawed too.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

reply to post by Rocky Black


I like "liberal" amounts of scotch. Their politics?
Not so much.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere

What's the great nanny-state battle cry? "This time it'll be different!"

ROTFLMAO

That is SOOoooo true.

That is because from the point of view of the progressives, liberals, socialists, the left or whatever you wish to call them there is no absolute knowledge, there is no objective science and there exists no objective morality.

If truth is very "fluid" then it is impossible to learn from past mistakes. so "This time it'll be different!" makes complete sense.

As Professor Nikolaus Lobkowicz a Marxist Scholar stated:

...Marxism.. maintain[s] a theory of truth which radically contradicts the tradition of the occidental world. Truth, according to this theory, is a function of Progress..... if it [a claim, a theory or a philosophy] does not contribute to it [Progress], it [truth] is false, no matter how empirical, scientific or lofty it may be.

This amounts to saying that, according to Marxism, objective truth is nothing but a bourgeois trick.... Marxism is an ideology which makes of its bias a precondition of truth. It explicitly admits that it is one-sided and partial, indeed party-minded, yet it claims that this is the only way in which reality may be grasped as it should.

Whatever serves it is true and good; whatever hinders it is false and evil. There exists no objective morality and there cannot exist any disinterested pursuit of truth. As one of my Marxist students at the University of Munich once put it: "As long as you do not grant that Marxism, including its partiality, is true, you have not understood what it is about."

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Reply to post by Janky Red

 

If you want to really get into it that "deregulation" wasnt true deregulation. It was based in all sorts of twisted half-laws, crooked politicking and a hundred years of Monopoly currency.

There hasnt been any real free-market without interference deregulation anywhere as long as Ive been alive.

But that's all another thread.

 

Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

 

Good - tell the politicians you vote for that, because they keep pushing for exactly what you stated above.

Do you understand?

You either have really good rules or NONE

not this in between stuff that are literally just loopholes for raiders

take care

reply to post by Janky Red


Ive been voting for "none" my whole life. Havent won an election yet.

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
reply to post by Janky Red

 

Ive been voting for "none" my whole life. Havent won an election yet.

Fine... You should also understand how taking out key provisions in a legal structure can create avenues
for what would otherwise be considered criminal fraud. You guys keep being sold this by your politicians
and it appears many of you do not make the distinction as you first said, they are not the same thing.
This is a real blind spot for modern conservatism... Imagine if you took 2 inches off one leg on a table?

Reply to post by Janky Red

I'm not going to defend "modern conservatism." I dont have any dog in that pointless fight.

I dont move through life as a unit of a greater mass.

All I want is liberty. With all it's rewards and all it's consequences.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com