en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/750293 Comments by z80kid http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/12/26/exclusive-ron-paul-in-2009-i-wouldnt-risk-american-lives-to-end-the-holocaust/#IDComment253095041 No. You are a mind number RINO. Under the twisted logic of "At least he's not Obama" or "At least he's not a Democrat", you will go on voting for "Republicans" that speak conservative to you while they go on implementing the same big government that the Democrats favour, only at a slower pace. You are the one voting for Obama - in the sense that you are voting for his totalitarian America. You are just voting to take the slow boat to get there. Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:02:02 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/12/26/exclusive-ron-paul-in-2009-i-wouldnt-risk-american-lives-to-end-the-holocaust/#IDComment253095041 http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/12/26/exclusive-ron-paul-in-2009-i-wouldnt-risk-american-lives-to-end-the-holocaust/#IDComment248505376 No. You are. Tue, 27 Dec 2011 13:15:16 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jsshapiro/2011/12/26/exclusive-ron-paul-in-2009-i-wouldnt-risk-american-lives-to-end-the-holocaust/#IDComment248505376 http://biggovernment.com/babramson/2011/12/19/stopping-online-piracy-one-way-or-another/#IDComment242600332 Grow up. Everyone knows that ideas are not property. You know it too, you're just too lazy to support your position. So instead you throw around ridiculous unproven assertions like "copying = theft" the same way a lib tosses around "tax cuts = racism". As for your assertion above that copyright is in the Constitution, maybe you should read it. The *right* of the feds to institute copyright is in the Constitution. Copyright itself is not. And the Constitution says that copyright must be "for a limited time". That sure doesn't sound like ownership to me. Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:48:47 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/babramson/2011/12/19/stopping-online-piracy-one-way-or-another/#IDComment242600332 http://biggovernment.com/babramson/2011/12/19/stopping-online-piracy-one-way-or-another/#IDComment241952920 Hay "Taxpayer12345" - I built my house before you did. So I own the concept of building a house. You need to pay me every year as long as you intend to live there. There's a huge difference between owning a car and "owning" the right to build a car. Copyrights and patents are not natural rights like speech, religion, and assembly. Those things exist until government infringes on them. Copyrights and patents only exist by the hand of government. Mon, 19 Dec 2011 19:15:42 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/babramson/2011/12/19/stopping-online-piracy-one-way-or-another/#IDComment241952920 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/12/15/insider-trading-ban-advances-in-senate-over-gop-opposition/#IDComment238625311 Umm, re-read for comprehension this time :) My objection is that they broke existing law. Passing another law to make it "doubly illegal" is redundant. No, I haven't read the law. But if it really makes Congressional insider trading illegal, then all that means is that they will be breaking two laws next time they do it. If that happens, should they make a third law that makes it "triply illegal"? But then you'd probably be objecting to the fact that I haven't read the third law.... Thu, 15 Dec 2011 23:30:47 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/12/15/insider-trading-ban-advances-in-senate-over-gop-opposition/#IDComment238625311 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/12/15/insider-trading-ban-advances-in-senate-over-gop-opposition/#IDComment238266357 Actually as Coburn points out - the bill wasn't created to hold our representatives to the law. It was created to cover for the fact that our representatives *already* broke the law. By saying that they are fixing the problem with this new law, they are distracting the public from the fact that they are not being prosecuted for breaking an existing law. Thu, 15 Dec 2011 15:06:00 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/12/15/insider-trading-ban-advances-in-senate-over-gop-opposition/#IDComment238266357 http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/12/02/meghan-mccain-is-still-talking-about-sarah-palin/#IDComment232225982 “For me as a Republican woman, character is a big part of how I vote for someone" Huh? As an inflatable woman, I didn't think she knew what character was! Sat, 3 Dec 2011 17:14:55 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/pjsalvatore/2011/12/02/meghan-mccain-is-still-talking-about-sarah-palin/#IDComment232225982 http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2011/12/01/in-defense-of-trickle-down-economics/#IDComment231194953 > I don't get this ... he claims "Obama" prevents saving, and proves this by showing us > the MASSIVE amount companies have saved up!?!? He specifically referred to "saving and investing". These companies have saved, but they aren't investing it in anything. They are just sitting on it. Is the distinction that hard to understand? Thu, 1 Dec 2011 18:25:25 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/dmitchell/2011/12/01/in-defense-of-trickle-down-economics/#IDComment231194953 http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/11/23/newt-gingrich-is-right-on-illegal-immigration/#IDComment226815661 Enforce the law. If the law is wrong, then change it through the democratic process. But whatever the law is, enforce it. I'm sick of the attitude of the 'elites' in this country that says that if the people won't vote to let us change the law to do what we want, then we'll just leave the law as is and do what we want anyway. If we're not going to stick with the Constitution and the will of the voters, then lets just end the expensive charade and bring the monarchy back. Thu, 24 Nov 2011 20:02:03 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jjmnolte/2011/11/23/newt-gingrich-is-right-on-illegal-immigration/#IDComment226815661 http://biggovernment.com/bhealy/2011/11/17/doctors-in-wisconsin-fake-sick-note-scam-get-wrists-slapped/#IDComment223498590 One wonders if an enterprising lawyer could start a civil action against some of these doctors on behalf of businesses that paid sick days based on these fraudulent letters. It would be fun to see employers receiving class action notices informing them that "sick notes" written by certain doctors on certain days are fraudulent, and that and employees that turned in such documents got them from the OWS protest. That could have the added benefit of opening up some jobs for the 53%... Thu, 17 Nov 2011 18:50:59 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bhealy/2011/11/17/doctors-in-wisconsin-fake-sick-note-scam-get-wrists-slapped/#IDComment223498590 http://biggovernment.com/jerikson/2011/10/11/topeka-to-stop-prosecuting-domestic-violence-continue-to-fun-skate-parks-and-senior-olympics/#IDComment206030520 Yeah amazing, isn't it? A whole category of crimes ranging from theft to assault will not be prosecuted. But you'd have to read carefully to realize that anyone is being affected other than the contrived political class "victims of domestic violence". Yes, I said "political class". Assault is assault and violence is violence, regardless of what relationship the perpetrator and victim may or may not have. "Domestic violence" is a left wing media crusade, just like "hate crimes". Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:15:20 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/jerikson/2011/10/11/topeka-to-stop-prosecuting-domestic-violence-continue-to-fun-skate-parks-and-senior-olympics/#IDComment206030520 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/09/28/poll-shock-obama-39-cain-34/#IDComment200798234 You've hit the nail on the head. Before the Florida "straw poll" news, I wasn't even aware of who he was. Now I've read up on him, and I'm a supporter. I suspect that most outside of the Republican party haven't heard of him yet either. Thu, 29 Sep 2011 12:11:40 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/09/28/poll-shock-obama-39-cain-34/#IDComment200798234 http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/09/17/government-burning-family-tree-at-both-ends/#IDComment195908848 What does studying English have to do with noticing that you made the first comment in the thread? I referred to "this sort of atrocity" - the atrocity detailed in the article to which we both refer. You fired back with some nonsense about killing babies of prostitutes. It's out of context. You should really see your doctor about these raging hysterics, honey. Maybe you need some hormone supplements or something. Lithium - it does a body good. Tue, 20 Sep 2011 19:24:22 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/09/17/government-burning-family-tree-at-both-ends/#IDComment195908848 http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/09/17/government-burning-family-tree-at-both-ends/#IDComment195442739 "This type" of atrocity. Not "any and all" atrocities. Try to stay in context. Mon, 19 Sep 2011 22:12:35 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/09/17/government-burning-family-tree-at-both-ends/#IDComment195442739 http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/09/17/government-burning-family-tree-at-both-ends/#IDComment195240165 I disagree. This sort of atrocity can only happen in a so-called "modern society". More "primitive" societies generally don't allow for this level of government involvement in family affairs. Mon, 19 Sep 2011 12:17:08 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/bmccarty/2011/09/17/government-burning-family-tree-at-both-ends/#IDComment195240165 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/11/spokesman-gov-rick-perry-running-for-president/#IDComment182453329 > He is oddly compared to the Founding Fathers but sorry they were religious men and dont think they would be pro drugs and prostitution. That's exactly why George Washington started the war on drugs, right? Oh wait - our founding fathers never made laws addressing those things. They left that up to local communities. You know, like Paul would. You seem to be implying that if one doesn't support a law against something, then one must approve of it. False choice. Fri, 12 Aug 2011 12:03:41 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/publius/2011/08/11/spokesman-gov-rick-perry-running-for-president/#IDComment182453329 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170821272 That's exactly what people forget - the jury is being intentionally manipulated by the "justice system", in order to keep them from being manipulated by the media. In other words - what they saw and heard is NOT what the rest of us saw and heard. There can be solid evidence that they are not allowed to hear. And the rest of us hear a lot of speculation and innuendo that they didn't hear. And you're right - it's the prosecution, the judge, AND the jury. You can't blame them without seeing what the prosecution presented and what the judge allowed as evidence. Maybe the jury did their job and it's the cops, the DA, or the judge who didn't. Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:27:13 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170821272 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170814267 Most states do have a pretty high standard for the death penalty. It's not automatic. In fact, in many states the jury has to specifically approve it. Yeah, I know how I'd feel if a family member was wrongly convicted. The same way I'd feel if someone jumped the center line and hit their car head on. We could save a lot more people by abolishing cars. Of course, cars save lives too. So does the death penalty. We do the best we can managing both. Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:12:57 +0000 http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/ggraham/2011/07/07/casey-anthony-the-burden-of-proof-in-a-law-and-order-world/#IDComment170814267 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/06/29/sound-bite-for-the-day-girl-fight/#IDComment168362933 Oh great. I just read this and pictured bikini-clad Palin and Bachmann going at it in a wading pool of mud, and now I've got more leg tingles than Chris Matthews at an all day Obama rally... Thu, 30 Jun 2011 15:49:55 +0000 http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/06/29/sound-bite-for-the-day-girl-fight/#IDComment168362933 http://biggovernment.com/dapaterno/2011/06/28/scotus-pulls-at-least-one-nanny-state-finger-off-the-family/#IDComment168127856 I'm afraid this is the latest in a long line of bad SC decisions. Before I go any further, I am Libertarian minded. I don't necessarily think that this law is a good idea. BUT what protects our liberties is the Constitution. And so I argue for sticking to that, and amending it (instead of ignoring it) as necessary. Please read the first Amendment, and think about how many peripheral leaps you have to take to get to this decision: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Leap #1: "Congress shall make no law". Through a ridiculous misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, the court decided that meant "the states shall make no law". Leap #2: "Speech" for 150 years was understood to meant to refer to political ideals. Liberals always remind us that "you can't shout fire in a crowded theatre". And yes, that is not a political idea. Neither is a photograph of a couple having sex. Nor is a video game. [ Libertarian sideline - yes, we SHOULD be able to do some of those things. But do we amend or do we ignore and do what we want? If we can ignore the Constitution for our Libertarian ideals, why can't the socialists ignore it for their Utopian ideals? ] Leap #3: Children have the same rights as adults. How does the Supreme Court decide that it's ok to keep children from buying "Hustler", but it's not alright to keep children from buying "Grand Theft Auto"? As I pointed out before, the Court's job is to decide if the State or the Feds (or nobody) gets to regulate what kids see and hear. The court basically said that "Well, we don't find this sufficiently objectionable" - meaning that THEY decided to determine what kids can see and hear. They are WAY out of line on this one. I'm truly not arguing for or against the ban. If you REALLY think about it, the ban itself is silly. When I was 13 I had cigarettes and porno magazines. I'm sure many 13 year olds today do too. The ban itself isn't the point. The real question is whether this is a state or federal matter. And the Supreme Court just said that is goes by their federal standards. Wed, 29 Jun 2011 23:50:03 +0000 http://biggovernment.com/dapaterno/2011/06/28/scotus-pulls-at-least-one-nanny-state-finger-off-the-family/#IDComment168127856