User Profile: Freedomrules

Member Since: October 12, 2010

CommentsDisplaying Freedomrules's 10 most recent comments.

  • I love RGIII. He is such a great example for young kids to look up to. Too bad the left will demonize him for failure to conform to their views. I also love how he had to essentially educate the left on the fact that multiple definitions exist for the word. Nicely done RGIII.

  • One of them should get a Romney/Ryan tattoo and see if be follows through on his threat.

  • Interesting. So four years ago, our president went on a world wide apology tour for our past foreign policy decisions. It’s funny now that current terrorist acts are still being blamed for our foreign policy that now they disagree. I don’t agree with or condone the idea that any terrorist act is justified because of our foreign policy (under Bush or Obama). But it is funny that they are now the ones having to defend their policy against such aligations.

  • Sadly, to liberals, it seems more likely that this was the result of Global Warming than Radical Islam.

  • We don’t need stricter gun laws. We just need to tell criminals to stop committing crimes.

  • Amendment V

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,

    ********* nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; ********

    nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    Maybe it’s just my “interpretation”… but dropping a bomb on someone from a drone sounds to me like it might deprive someone of their life… And if they are an American citizen, I’m thinking they didn’t get the required “due process of law”. Well, unless they consider the President’s signature as the due process. But I’m kind of thinking that’s not what the founders meant.

  • Personally, I think congress should just refuse to increase the debt ceiling anymore. That would be the only way we would avoid bankruptcy. That would force the govt to stop spending more than we bring in immediately. And for those who think this would mean we would be forced into default, that isn’t true. Just like anyone of us who suddenly aren’t allowed to borrow anymore, you are forced to prioritize your spending with whatever you have. They can choose to default to create a crisis to blame republicans, and they probably would. But they wouldn’t have too. They could choose to cut spending instead. Either way, default to spending cuts, the nation would be better off in the long run if we put a stop to the madness of their addictive spending. Cut them off cold turkey. Then send them to spending detox and teach them how to be responsible with what revenue they already have coming in.

  • Looks to me like the paper just identified which houses to AVOID if you are a thief.

    It is an obvious attempt at intimidation. Someone should publish the names and addresses of the management at the paper. Fair is fair.

  • Perhaps I missed it, but Belcher didn’t use a semi-automatic weapon. Did he? So typical to use an unrelated argument to try to justify your previous bogus argument.

    I do not think he should be fired for his comments. But he and the liberals should remember that the next time they all call for the firing of a conservative saying something they disagree with.

    As for the semi-automatic argument, there are already limits in place. We can argue all day about which guns should be allowed. But all we are doing is debating limits on the 2nd amendment. Limit it enough, and you can make it meaningless without actually ‘eliminating it’. Kind of like they keep trying to do to our 1st amendment rights.

    I suppose their strategy is, if you can’t get rid of it, water it down as much as possible.

  • Big Jump in Jobless Claims After the Election

    November 15, 2012 at 10:54pm

    Well, let me try to explain the logic here. See, Sandy is causing layoffs, which results in more people filing for unemployment benefits. The Dems have clearly stated in the past that unemployment benefits are “one of the best ways to stimulate the economy”. There you have it. Sandy increases unemployment and helps grow the economy at the same time.

    The fact is, the numbers don’t have to be “fixed” anymore. The election is over. They don’t have to start hiding anything for another 18 months until the next mid-term election starts getting close. Until then, they can just spin it.

    My prediction is we’ll be over 9% unemployment by mid-year 2013. And the “obstructionist Republicans” will be blamed for it.