When has he said that? Unless he was talking about rewriting it back to being accurate since it’s been hijacked by liberals with the goal of making America look bad at all costs.
July 29, 2015 at 12:38pm
You have 3 minutes to correct a word. In fact, I initially put “4 minutes” when I wrote the first sentence and then went back and corrected it to “3 minutes” after I posted it and saw the time.
 July 29, 2015 at 12:34pm
Come on, you know your logic is flawed.
1) If you get rid of murder laws more people would be murdered.
2) If you increase gun laws then the percentage of criminals having guns vs. potential victims having guns would go up (i.e. fewer people would be able to defend themselves against criminals). Which turns into more innocent people being murdered.
You know as well as I that your ultimate goal is the confiscation of all guns since that is the only way to truly lower gun violence. Additional gun restrictions/laws other than total confiscation will do no good, and will most likely increase gun violence…and there is no way we’re going to let the gov’t confiscate our guns.
A primary reason for the 2nd Amendment was to prevent the gov’t from having total control over the population, but I agree that scenario is unlikely (not impossible, though). The primary reason for it now is to help the weak and the innocent protect themselves from criminals, and there is a lot of evidence that happens all the time.
 July 28, 2015 at 7:48pm
I like at the end of the video where the cops tell the guy that the longer he stays there talking to them the more trouble he’ll probably be in when it’s the jerk detective who is the one still shoving his foot in deeper every time he opens his mouth.
 July 28, 2015 at 1:11pm
Which scientists? The ones that say man is causing the earth to warm, and that it’s going to cause armageddon or the ones that say we don’t know if we’re warming, and if so what’s the cause or the end result?
 July 25, 2015 at 2:37pm
Ignoring the made-up 204 number – Do you honestly think liberals/progressives would allow us to “stigmatize” people with mental illnesses by keeping track of them?
Liberals want gun control but don’t want to do anything about the actual people who commit these types of crimes while conservatives have been arguing for a long time that the problem isn’t with the guns but with mental illness.
The liberal talking point about conservatives wanting to allow the mentally ill access to guns is a total crock.
July 23, 2015 at 3:00pm
sheep – you know that term was started by liberals on sites like HufPo calling conservatives that name, right?
July 22, 2015 at 1:46pm
It tells me they’re thinking Hillary is going to win. Let’s pray they’re wrong!
 July 22, 2015 at 1:43pm
rob – I agree the main problem is with the gov’t, but parenting is also part of the problem. Good parenting should include teaching your child the way the world really works, which often contradicts what is taught in schools.
Unfortunately, too many parents today completely believe all the crap being taught.
 July 22, 2015 at 1:34pm
He says the terrorists aren’t true Muslims, but they say the same thing about people like him.
And how many time have I read that "so and so isn't a REAL christian" on this forum? A whole bunch....
 July 22, 2015 at 1:24pm
That’s funny Carnival. You think universities are accepting of opposing viewpoints.
 July 22, 2015 at 1:11pm
What? That is a joke reply, right? You can’t be that stupid.
 July 13, 2015 at 10:37pm
Liberals – the pathetic worthless people are those that justify their hatred and incivility towards others in the name of tolerance.
 July 13, 2015 at 10:33pm
Snow – The Constitution has been perverted to mean all citizens have to receive equal treatment. The real meaning was that the government has to provide equal treatment. No where in the Constitution is there anything that says it’s the government’s job to make sure private citizens provide equal treatment to other private citizens…and one reason that’s not in the Constitution is because that’s not possible.
Now, before you say anything about the business not being a private individual because it’s a business licensed by the government – that’s a whole different argument about the imposition of government on private businesses…which I believe they’ve way overstepped their bounds as well.
I have red hair and believe a privately owned business (i.e. a non-government business) should have the right to refuse service to me just because of my hair color.
 July 13, 2015 at 10:20pm
I hate to tell you this, but as long as there are people in the world there will always be discrimination.
 July 13, 2015 at 2:06pm
Sounds to me like the liberal bumper stickers have had an affect on you.
 July 13, 2015 at 1:43pm
@snowblown – I believe that is the fight we’re having right now…and it’s occurring the same way most liberal causes occur…through the courts.
 July 13, 2015 at 1:32pm
J-Mo – That’s a pretty broad reading of the 9th. So, “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” to you means that any right the courts make up trump the Constitution?
I think a big part of the issue here is what the Supreme Court has deemed a right, and whether or not that right actually does trump the Constitution.
 July 13, 2015 at 1:22pm
As you full well know, this case is about the Constitutionality of a law that tells a private business owner who, or what, it must serve…especially a law that goes directly against the First Amendment.
 July 9, 2015 at 1:11pm
“Well, that’s just splitting hairs, isn’t it?”
No, that’s not splitting hairs Snow. There is a distinct difference between the two. The fact that they had served those customers before should have been the only clue needed for you to determine your “splitting hairs” comment was wrong.