Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzers
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Dunno what your obsession with Glenn Beck is he has ZERO influence on me. My study is based on the works of Milton Friedman and the "Great One" Mark Levin
|
Lyin' Blitzers
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
I don't care who you listen/watch/follow, it's trash how you interpret it. All your interpretations are trash.
Your list is not my list though, just crossed out the ones I consider 0's. Only one on the list I do listen to once or twice a week is Hannity, from his radio program, not from Faux.
Levin == Savage. I've had too many disagreements to bother with Levin. At lest Savage, whom I often disagree with, is entertaining. Though been ages since I listened to him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blitzers
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
Your right I am socially conservative in my own life, but I am libertarian when it comes to everyone else's life. whatever you wanna do with your life is your call not mine. ISLAM is a cult, ISIS is just the enforcement wing of that cult. IRYD I definitely don't want to rule your life. What you Liberals don't understand is that your Rights End where others Begin that's the flaw in modern liberalism. That's where you become the Authoritarian dictator. I know you love Bernie "the democrat socialist".
IRYD what have you done, what makes you so special, what is so spectacular about your existence that you believe the wealth of others should be distributed to you?
Why are YOU entitled to OPM, (other people's money?)
|
But you can't ask that, not after saying "whatever you wanna do with your life is your call not mine. " because that's what she want's to do with her life, man! Who are you then to say she can't? Just like all the Sanders people shouting down and stomping on Donald's freedom of speech claiming they have the freedom of speech to do that, to take his away. So be honest and just say no you can't.
In a civil society, you can't just do whatever you want. It's not just that states should be deciding their stance on say gay marriage, but that the feds should not be deciding on what marriage is in the first place and then trying to regulate it and tax it. If California votes it down (and they did), they should have that right if they want that outcome.
But this isn't about that, it's about who is going to control the big nanny state, and the difference between marriage and civil union is simply used as a sacrificial pawn. You're in the wrong camp, you're probably from the far extreme fringes of the libertarian party.