User Profile: Cavallo


Member Since: October 05, 2011


123 To page: Go
  • February 26, 2015 at 5:11pm

    Too bad our first lady isn’t that good looking.

  • [5] February 26, 2015 at 5:02pm

    “So what’s next? Ban all rifle ammo?”
    Don’t think they aren’t headed in that direction. Any chance they can get to limit the ability of citizens to stay armed, they will take it.

  • [15] February 26, 2015 at 4:46pm

    Unelected bureaucrats seize control of the internet and you don’t have a problem with it, Snow? No debate on the language of the regulation, no election or vote by our representatives… nope.. just.. we want it so we now have it.

  • [6] February 26, 2015 at 3:58pm

    How about something that is voted on in broad daylight? Rather than something that is done in the dark and in back rooms and has the force of law instituted by unelected bureaucrats.
    Probably too much to ask of totalitarians.

  • [5] February 26, 2015 at 3:42pm

    A fate WORSE than death. You’re a cold man. :P

  • [12] February 26, 2015 at 3:14pm

    I’ve got a .300 Win Mag that will go through a vest like a hot knife through butter, so will most of my rifle rounds.

  • [4] February 26, 2015 at 3:02pm

    Also, that paper I don’t think is from the People’s State of Illinois. I think The Blaze got the wrong Springfield.

  • [22] February 26, 2015 at 2:53pm

    “Christie said. ”Sometimes people need to be told to sit down and shut up.”
    Good advice Chrissy… now SIT DOWN AND SHUT THE F UP and go back to eating pie you worthless two faced proglodyte con artist huckster. Better yet.. take a long walk off one of your NJ piers.

    Responses (4) +
  • [18] February 26, 2015 at 2:49pm

    We live in an oligarchy of Bureaucratic Agency. At what point will soldiers actually fight for our freedom? I’m probably shouldn’t hold my breath while our current men at arms labors under a lie.

  • [18] February 26, 2015 at 2:35pm

    They’ll nominate a RINO to run for office that will keep things business as usual.

  • [18] February 26, 2015 at 2:20pm

    The FCC doesn’t have control over cable TV, nor internet… oh.. wait.. NOW THEY DO.
    I am quite sure they will be just as fair and just as the IRS.. Oh Wait…
    You fascists need to be hit by a bus… that’s riding on a train.. that’s on fire…

  • [30] February 26, 2015 at 2:18pm

    It’s not a bill. It’s a regulation. Concocted by unelected bureaucrats.
    We live in an oligarchy of unelected Bureaucratic Agency. There is no reprieve from them, there is no petitioning them, there is nothing to stop them.

  • [16] February 26, 2015 at 2:15pm

    Here’s hoping that AT&T, Verizon, Google, etc etc all sick their lawyers on the FCC.

  • [15] February 26, 2015 at 2:02pm

    If she was doing this on the “court house steps” I’d have a problem with what they’re doing. But she’s doing to people who are on their private property so she needs to have a little decorum. It’d be the same if someone was blasting the Muslim call to prayer from the street outside her church on Sunday. Do unto others kind of thing.

    Responses (3) +
  • [29] February 26, 2015 at 1:31pm

    The government can now decide through regulation what gets what bandwidth. What taxes are levied, and what is “reasonable” for them to fine and regulate on the internet. The FEC is talking about regulating political speech on the internet.
    Expect prices to go up universally, and quality to decrease universally as is the history of government meddling.
    Look at what happened to Europe’s bandwidth, and it’ll be much worse here.

  • [11] February 26, 2015 at 1:26pm

    I have a deep affection for dogs and pets. However I have to side with the landowner on this one. Letting your pets roam around to become feral is horrible. If this was just some dog that briefly escaped a back yard, I’d feel different. That doesn’t seem to be the case in this instance. These appeared to be problem animals, and assuming he was truthful, his neighbors were warned.

  • [171] February 26, 2015 at 1:18pm

    Headline should read, “Feds seize control of the internet.” might as well skip to the ultimate conclusion.

    Responses (3) +
  • [7] February 26, 2015 at 1:06pm

    @Zap, you mean that secret list that no one is allowed to know who is on or not? Secret government lists on who is allowed to have rights and who isn’t. That doesn’t sound a bit spooky, totalitarian, or Orwellian to you?

  • February 26, 2015 at 12:58pm

    @Max, I don’t think that is correct. I think the rule is “under” indictment. Meaning you are going to trial, or it has been remanded to the prosecutor to take you to trial. Once the court ruling is done, you are no longer “under” indictment.
    The “good intention” behind that is that they’re worried some guy will snap and go “I’ll be damned if they try me..” and go shoot up the court. It’s not like if you’re going to shoot up the court that you wouldn’t just get one illegally anyway.

  • [3] February 26, 2015 at 12:53pm

    Suspected. You are barred from XYZ not because of a court conviction, but just because we think you might be suspicious, and that doesn’t sound a damn bit fascist to you?
    As far as the NSA, and the Patriot Act, etc etc…
    Fool me once shame on you…
    Never $#@ing again.

123 To page: Go
Restoring Love