I think the general term i described covers what you said.
Nudity.
I don't blame the O.G. G Dub for shedding a tear.
"You idiots are about to get globally taxed for carbon!? when TEA was our last straw!?"![]()
I think the general term i described covers what you said.
Nudity.
Ah, so nudity should be outlawed, eh?
And what of the right to shout obscenities? You didn't counter that.
Spending money on an unneeded war-GOOD.
Spending money to keep the economy from totally tanking-BAD.
Republican logic (or lack thereof).
You don't have a right to shout obscenities without recourse, the supreme court has explained that.
And as far as nudity, i didn't say it should be outlawed, just that the cons ution doesn't protect that.
If I handed out a picture of a nude painting, would that not be covered under freedom of expression? Is not art protected by the First Amendment?
Wait, so you're saying that there CAN be Cons utional limits on our amendments? Then you'll understand the hole in your former argument.
So, is anyone is going or not?
That's not my argument, and i'd appeciate if only you'd understand that my argument was that the second ammendment allows for the defense of individuals against govt tyranny.
THis has nothing to do with the first ammendment, a point you brought up. THe first ammendment protects political speech and doesn't speak on nudity or obscenities, beastiality, snuff films which should be the states job to regulate.
btw, i want a show of hands for those for prohibition of arms while for the legalization of drugs and or marijuana.
Oh, but it does. If the words "Congress shall make NO law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ." implies that certain limitations upon speech are nevertheless acceptable, then why aren't there limitations implied into the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Neither amendment includes any textual exception; both state the restrictions on Congress in absolute terms.
Exactly. Just like there can be limits on freedom of speech, there can be limits on the right to bear arms.
Now, me personally, I think we should be able to buy tanks if we want. Just have a registration process, make sure the person's background is clean, and I'm pretty much fine with everything but nukes (since I don't agree with nukes in nearly any situation but an end-of-the-world scenario.)
As a UTSA Student we're having our Tea Party at 6p on April 15 at Joe Mommas Cafe, Bab & 1604 Join US
http://www.joemomas.biz
![]()
Glenn Beck just announced he will be at the Alamo Tea Party.
That man is a wealth of good information, but wow...
What's he on? I'd like some please...
I think he cuts onions on his set.
I'm just too laid back most the time. I can stand to get a little hyper... Just a little... Not like him!
It's a schtick. If you got paid that much, you would find a way to cry regularly.
Keep making that money Beck so you can handle whatever will get thrown your way in the future because of what you say.
Rush, $500 million lulz That can hire plenty of Ninjas to keep the Clintons from getting to you.
Glenn Beck chews the scenery for sure. I would call his on air demeanor slightly tinged with mania and accented by folksy neurosis.
You can own a tank. People do. They are expensive to shoot though, because every round is another $200 to register.
Besides, James Garner had a Sherman Tank in the movie Tank!
yeah. i like beck, but he goes overboard a lot of times and i think that hurts him. he'd be more effective if he'd tone down his antics.
Go America! That's what I'm talking about.![]()
I'm thinking of going to the one in New Orleans. Actually, it's in Metairie (which is mostly red) and not New Orleans (deep, deep blue). But I have a prior committment -- do you think they'll miss me?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)