Smoking deaths

Judged:

2

2

1

azmac wrote:

<quoted text>
A good disagreement you can learn from if you have an open mind. It makes you look up information to prove the other person right or wrong.

Judged:

1

1

1

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Life is a learning experience. No one is 100% correct. While people like Deb trash our form of government I challenge her and others that are better that have withstood the test of time!

Judged:

1

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>Life is a learning experience. No one is 100% correct. While people like Deb trash our form of government I challenge her and others that are better that have withstood the test of time!

Judged:

3

2

2

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>I yield to the wisdom of our forefathers. I agree that rights are God given but depending on your lot it life and where you were born you may not be politically granted those rights. The forefathers had the wisdom to know that government is necessary to preserve individual rights, they also had the wisdom to know that government had to be limited to prevent an overpowering government from stripping those rights. As far as your comment "People should be in charge any where but one guy with a gun can control many people." That is the entire premise of the second amendment. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There are the liberals that would say that those arms should be limited to hunting weapons. There are also those that would argue that the term "militia" is satisfied by the National Guard. But if you look at the meaning of militia at the time the Constitution. Militia were armed citizens not an organized state sponsored entity. While people like Deb may demonize the founding fathers for some of the phraseology and limitations put upon the government that made woman's suffrage and the civil rights possible. John Kennedy put it eloquently when he said "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You!" He understood that all of the problems of the world would be cured by the people and not government.
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
The Constitution puts limits on the role of government granting everyone the right to aspire to anything. But the modern liberal takes rights to a new level. They not only want the right to live life the way they want, they want the government to fund that lifestyle but who is the government other then we the people.
Now Obama as much as he likes to pretend to be the black John Kennedy. Perhaps a black Carl Marx but he is not Jack. Click on the youtube on this blog.
http://veritasvincitprolibertate.wordpress.co...

Judged:

2

1

Deborah-- grey box wrote:

<quoted text>
Did I trash our form of government? I don't think there is a better form of government than ours. So I'm not sure why I'm getting the anti-american rap just because I believe we are not perfect and I am sympathetic to the plights of other countries.

Deborah-- grey box wrote:

<quoted text>
"I believe human rights are more important than individual rights based on gender, race or nationality"
If I remember correctly this was in reference to immigration and it is my personal opinion that regardless of your gender, race or where you were born- there are some basic human rights that should be protected.

Judged:

3

2

2

Free_America wrote:

<quoted text>I am glad to hear you say that. None of your previous posts even implied that you supported our form of government. You made the statement;
<quoted text> To which I replied;
What human right are you referring to that aren't covered by individual right. Are you implying that groups because they are in a minority have collective rights that don't apply to the individual! You did not reply to that post. If you look at the countries that you have sympathy for do they have a constitution that allow the individual rights that brought about woman's suffrage or civil rights. When it comes to immigration can you show that the policies have been racially or gender biased? Like our country I have parts of my past that I am ashamed of. Self preservation is a mighty force. I was in College in the final years of the Vietnam war. I actually was a victim of reverse discrimination. While I was in college I was a part of NROTC That is the navy ROTC. Well they did not meet their quota in minorities and the Vietnam war was winding down so they did not need officers so I was not going to get funding. My last year at the U of Mn I was given a Hmong lab partner and labs were a third of our grade. After a week of my lab partner not saying a word I bitched to the professor about this ahole that can't even speak English and a third of my grade was dependent on his participation. I confronted him I was pissed you can speak English and you are just jerking me off. When he started talking he informed me how unfair our system was. The liberal groups were bringing in the criminal element into our country en mass. The churches were bringing in the criminal element in by the hundreds but they did not defend people like him. He was correct. At the time our government gave preferential treatment to the liberal causes. Yes Hung Ngo my lab partner worked for our signal corps and his family sat in a french refugee camp while the liberal element of our country was busy bringing in the criminal element in. My lab partner had obtained a masters degree in Vietnam and had far more education then me and yet the liberals that were in control would rather bring in the criminal element in en mass and force those that supported our cause to be gainfully employed in order to bring their family's in. So while your liberal compatriots would like to claim the moral high ground the only ones that they want to help are those illegals on the government teat and willing to vote accordingly. I was prejudiced against a Hmong because it might affect my grade which was on my dime. but what does that say about the liberals that want to bring in deadbeat voters in on my dime?