Remember that baby photo you posted?

njnancy

unsung said:

njnancy said:

Since you've started to sound like my abusive ex, I'll do what I should have done then, remove myself from the insanity. Going outside to stand guard in front of the tomatoes.

Don't be so thin-skinned. If you can't hang it's no big deal.

Thin-skinned, I am not. And it's not if i CAN or CAN'T hang but if i CHOOSE to 'hang'. You have twice now quoted me ONLY when i have chosen to leave the thread - not because I do not have the intelligence or research & communication skills to continue to 'hang', but because you do not post anything that forwards the discussion and you are very condescending. I have been torn apart in debates and not left. I will continue to vigorously debate anyone who is willing to show respect and an interest in what i have taken time to post. I do not leave because I'm scared or outsmarted; I have dealt with much worse than demeaning sarcasm in life, it's actually a minor blip compared to being punched or kicked because i chose to voice my opinion - so please don't think that you make me run away crying. I walk away with my head held high and i will continue to debate where there is an actual debate taking place.

unsung

I'm sorry that I don't always respond to what you have to say, I generally try to stay on topic, but when the counterpoint is accusing me of being paranoid, not to mention being compared to an abusive ex, well your response doesn't deserve mine. That isn't debating.

You want to debate the topic of the NSA continually spying on people then let's do it, if you want to "debate" me by insulting me well then my level of respect shrinks.

And seriously, how does having a permit or not stop a ten year old from doing something? Good Lord.

Bentleyspop

njnancy said:

Since you've started to sound like my abusive ex, I'll do what I should have done then, remove myself from the insanity. Going outside to stand guard in front of the tomatoes.

Do you have a permit for those tomatoes??!!

Halifax2TheMax

unsung said:

I live in Illinois, they get a $6 tax on an inner tube if you want to take in down river. If your tube goes flat you have to pay another $6 to use your new one. All of the above has actually happened, it isn't a conspiracy, do some research.

http://www.pantagraph.com/news/state-and-regional/illinois/with-state-funds-dwindling-dnr-forced-to-raise-fees/article_ddb2096c-5f84-11e2-a3b4-0019bb2963f4.html

ILLINOIS: If it floats, it’s taxed !

Saturday, July 27, 2013 1:05

www.Before It's News.com

It now costs $6 to Kayak, Canoe or Tube in Illinois

As of July 1, 2013 non-motorized watercraft, such as canoes, kayaks, even inner tubes, are required to have a valid “Water Usage Stamp” to float on Illinois lakes, streams and rivers.

State vendors, any business which offers hunting and fishing licenses, will sell the $6 stamp — also referred to as a “Paddle Pass” — plus a 50 cent service fee. Failure to buy one can result in a $120 fine, but it won’t be imposed right away. Owners buying stamps for more than three boats at the same time will only be charged $3 for the fourth and subsequent stamps.

The new fee is part of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources sustainability bill, which also included the $2 annual auto license plate fee hike added to help restore $18 to $20 million per year of the $50 million per year the agency had lost to recent state budget cuts.

The requirement is new for inner tube floaters, but for other non-powered watercraft like row boats and kayaks, this stamp replaces the need to apply for titles and registration in the state. The fee and sticker also are mandatory for out-of-state floating watercraft.

Not having a stamp could result in a $120 fine.

Chicago, meet Detroit. Detroit, Chicago.

I thought you were all for austerity?

http://www.change.org/petitions/state-of-illinois-keep-rivers-free-of-the-water-use-regulation

Victory

Haley Blackburn: Only only a couple days after the petition began, thousands of supporters had added their signatures. We got our word out there and the Illinois Department of Natural Resources started to notice. A few news stations wanted to cover the story, and I, Haley Fox-Blackburn, was interviewed by 13 WREX Rockford. Good news came four days after the petition was created when the Illinois DNR posted on their own facebook wall with this message "The Illinois Department of Natural Resources (DNR) reviewed the inclusion of innertubes in the Water Usage Stamp, and has decided to submit rule changes to the legislature to eliminate that requirement of the program." We had victory! Since the post was created, several more news stories have surfaced. All news links will be posted below!

So which is it? Tyranny or a successful redress of grievances? Seriously, I don't think you know how our government works. Maybe you're just so blinded by your contempt and hatred?

And you preceded this post I'm replying to with:

unsung said:

I swear you people beg for government to control your every move.

Talk about engaging debate. Yea, "you people" beg for government to control your every move. You people? Seems you've truly separated yourself from most of us already Unsung. No point in debating that kind of mentality. You people. Why don't you let us know what you meant by, "you people?" I think I know but I'd rather read your explanation so I can better understand where you're coming from but I think I already know the answer to that as well. You people. Them. You people. Nice.

Peace.

Halifax2TheMax

Speaking of the NSA and your desire to debate, the republican controlled house could pass a bill anytime they wanted regarding all of the NSA privacy violations. With such a slim margin in the senate, they could pressure the democrats to pass it and Obama would be likely to sign it. But where is the republican house? Oh yea, investigating Benghazi.

One role of congress is to pass legislation or amend existing legislation to redress a grievance, in this case alleged warrantless spying on Americans. If this were such a burning issue, the republicans and their supporters would be clamoring for this. But, they don't want to give Obama anything that even remotely resembles a legislative victory and the tea party and republican contingent doesn't want to be branded soft on terrorism. If Rand Paul had any balls or brains, he'd be quietly lobbying his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find common ground and reform the current policy. For him, its politically expedient to continue to blame Obama for something the Bush Administration implemented and took to this level. I asked you in another thread to point out where Obama had taken the NSA spying to another level and you never answered. So if you want a debate, debate, but don't pretend the sky is falling and "us people beg for the government to control our every move."

Peace.

Byrnzie

Godfather. said:

1) For Illegally Changing Obamacare: It doesn't matter if the Affordable Care Act is called "Obamacare;" Barack Obama doesn't have the authority to unilaterally change the law. Changes to the law have to be made by Congress and then signed into law by the President. Barack Obama has broken the law repeatedly by making at least 23 unilateral changes to the law. Saying, "The Republicans won't work with us," or more disturbingly, "It's politically convenient," is not an excuse for overriding the Constitution of the United States.

2) Engaging In An Illegal War In Libya: While the President is the Commander-in-Chief, the Constitution gives Congress the ability to declare war. In the modern era, that has just meant an authorization of force from Congress, which Obama did not pursue. Additionally, we've tended to give Presidents the benefit of the doubt when American lives are at stake. However, in Libya, Obama didn't seek the permission of Congress and we had no national security interest in Libya. In other words, Obama's real justification for bombing that country and overthrowing its government was that HE FELT LIKE IT. Using the exact same precedent, the next President could bomb Mexico or Cuba without Congressional authorization. Incidentally, bombing either of those nations would probably make more sense than bombing Libya, although that's not saying much since our intervention there has been a complete disaster.

3) Lying To Sell Obamacare To The American People: When Barack Obama told the public if they liked their plan, they could keep their plan, he was lying. When he told Americans if they liked their doctor, they could keep their doctor, he knew it wasn't so. When he told Americans Obamacare would cut costs by $2,500 for the average family, he was deliberately misleading the public. For a President of the United States to PERSONALLY spend months telling deliberate falsehoods to the American people in order to convince them to support something as massive as a government takeover of the health care system is beyond the pale. If the willful lies Barack Obama told to sell Obamacare don't merit impeachment, then there are no lies that a President could tell to the American people big enough to merit impeachment.

4) Violating Immigration Law And Illegally Implementing The DREAM ACT: Simply put, Barack Obama has ceased to enforce most immigration law. As Senator Jeff Sessions has noted, “at least 99.92% of illegal immigrants and visa overstays without known crimes on their records did not face removal.” In other words, we've already stopped deporting anyone other than SOME hardcore criminals and gang members. Additionally, when the DREAM ACT didn't make it through Congress, Obama simply implemented it ANYWAY. Not only is he explicitly telling illegal aliens they can stay in the United States, he's illegally giving them work permits that he has zero right to offer. Even if Congress is too split on the issue to unify and put a stop to what Obama's doing, that doesn't change the fact that it’s flatly illegal. If this is allowed to stand, tell me ANY LAW on the books that the President is obligated to enforce?

5) Releasing 5 Taliban Terrorists In Exchange For Deserter Bowe Bergdahl: Barack Obama was legally required to alert Congress 30 days before he released terrorists from Gitmo. Not only did he fail to do so, but more seriously he released five high level terrorists who he knew were likely to help kill Americans in the future. One of the terrorists has ALREADY SAID he intends to go back to Afghanistan to fight America. Barack Obama spent a lot of time bragging about getting Bin Laden, but he just released five Bin Ladens back into the world and a lot of Americans who didn't desert their country are likely to die because of it.

You forgot to mention that he's black.

Godfather.

unsung said:

So does anyone believe that it is ok for the NSA to do this?

hell no !....this whole deal got kicked into high gear because of terrorist from the middle east and when I go the airport guess who gets pulled into inspection ?
once my disabled sister n law in a wheel chair got pulled in after a group of middle easterner's covered head to toe walked passed......wtf ??? was that all about ?

Godfather.

unsung

Halifax2TheMax said:

Speaking of the NSA and your desire to debate, the republican controlled house could pass a bill anytime they wanted regarding all of the NSA privacy violations. With such a slim margin in the senate, they could pressure the democrats to pass it and Obama would be likely to sign it. But where is the republican house? Oh yea, investigating Benghazi.

One role of congress is to pass legislation or amend existing legislation to redress a grievance, in this case alleged warrantless spying on Americans. If this were such a burning issue, the republicans and their supporters would be clamoring for this. But, they don't want to give Obama anything that even remotely resembles a legislative victory and the tea party and republican contingent doesn't want to be branded soft on terrorism. If Rand Paul had any balls or brains, he'd be quietly lobbying his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find common ground and reform the current policy. For him, its politically expedient to continue to blame Obama for something the Bush Administration implemented and took to this level. I asked you in another thread to point out where Obama had taken the NSA spying to another level and you never answered. So if you want a debate, debate, but don't pretend the sky is falling and "us people beg for the government to control our every move."

Peace.

Actually the Thomas Massie amendment passed the House, it's in Reid's hands now. Let's see what he does.

unsung

Halifax2TheMax said:

And you preceded this post I'm replying to with:

unsung said:

I swear you people beg for government to control your every move.

Talk about engaging debate. Yea, "you people" beg for government to control your every move. You people? Seems you've truly separated yourself from most of us already Unsung. No point in debating that kind of mentality. You people. Why don't you let us know what you meant by, "you people?" I think I know but I'd rather read your explanation so I can better understand where you're coming from but I think I already know the answer to that as well. You people. Them. You people. Nice.

Peace.

Yeah, you people. Big government statists against those of us that aren't. Don't like it? Don't be a statist and apologist. Keep repeating it, it creates such a dramatic environment for the reader.

Halifax2TheMax

unsung said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

Speaking of the NSA and your desire to debate, the republican controlled house could pass a bill anytime they wanted regarding all of the NSA privacy violations. With such a slim margin in the senate, they could pressure the democrats to pass it and Obama would be likely to sign it. But where is the republican house? Oh yea, investigating Benghazi.

One role of congress is to pass legislation or amend existing legislation to redress a grievance, in this case alleged warrantless spying on Americans. If this were such a burning issue, the republicans and their supporters would be clamoring for this. But, they don't want to give Obama anything that even remotely resembles a legislative victory and the tea party and republican contingent doesn't want to be branded soft on terrorism. If Rand Paul had any balls or brains, he'd be quietly lobbying his colleagues on both sides of the aisle to find common ground and reform the current policy. For him, its politically expedient to continue to blame Obama for something the Bush Administration implemented and took to this level. I asked you in another thread to point out where Obama had taken the NSA spying to another level and you never answered. So if you want a debate, debate, but don't pretend the sky is falling and "us people beg for the government to control our every move."

Peace.

Actually the Thomas Massie amendment passed the House, it's in Reid's hands now. Let's see what he does.

Why yes, yes it did. With bi-partisan support. Something you were just railing against as being bad for everyone or just screws us all. So, which is it? Authoritarian or Libertarian?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/19/house-nsa_n_5513642.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/01/nsa-surveillance-loophole-americans-data

So, will Rand Paul reach across the aisle to his senate colleagues and work to pass a bi-partisan senate version of Massie's amendment to the Defense Authorization Act or will he politicize it to set Harry Reid and the democrats up for failure? Will Harry Reid allow it to come up for a vote and work for its passage? I'm going to guess that there is a lot of "other" stuff in that bill that both sides might not like and may use as political cover to deny its passage. It'll be interesting to watch and follow.

Peace.

unsung

Yes, great, you are correct. I will celebrate big government saving us from big government.

Rand reaches across the aisle on quite a bit, nobody works with Cory Booker more than Rand. It's up to Harry Reid to do the right thing, and I have little confidence that he will since he wouldn't bring up Ron Paul's Audit the Fed when it passed the House with bi-partisan support.

Cosmo

unsung said:

...
I apologise for not getting this... but, isn't this things an anarchist says?

unsung

No, it is the things that are said by someone who doesn't beg government for permission to do everything.

Cosmo

unsung said:

No, it is the things that are said by someone who doesn't beg government for permission to do everything.

...
That sounds like an Anarchist. They want the freedom to do whatever they want, when they want. They don't want permits or licenses to tell them they can drive a car or truck or bulldozer where ever they want... or permits to hunt and fish in in any forrest, lake, river they want... and in any quantities they want.
If they want to burn a stack of tires in their front yard... they should have the freedom to do so. Shoot off fireworks from their rooftops any time of the day... any day of the year... that is 'freedom'.
...
That's where my confusion is founded... where does your neighbor's freedom to set up a firing range and practice shooting his M-60 at 03:17 on a Tuesday end? Are you going to stand in the way of his freedom? What if he doesn't like the things you do? Where do your rights end?
...
it is anarchy. Everyone gets to do whatever they want... Anarchy=Freedom

unsung

No it isn't. That's lawlessness.

I can't speak for anarchists because I'm not one, however the line is drawn on how much "freedom" one can have when it harms others. In other words I can't build a shed that crosses onto my neighbors property. I can't shoot my neighbor if he is minding his own business. I can drive my car into his house. I really think you understand that and you realize I don't advocate lawlessness, ok?

Cosmo

unsung said:

No it isn't. That's lawlessness.

I can't speak for anarchists because I'm not one, however the line is drawn on how much "freedom" one can have when it harms others. In other words I can't build a shed that crosses onto my neighbors property. I can't shoot my neighbor if he is minding his own business. I can drive my car into his house. I really think you understand that and you realize I don't advocate lawlessness, ok?

...
Okay... so, who gets to make the laws... you... or your neighbor?
What if, in his pursuit of income, he decides turn his back yard into a barn yard? Is that okay? What if he wants to build a 6 story house that covers the entirety of his property and puts your home in pertetual shade? as long as it is inside his property line, it's his property... he should be able to build whatever he wants there, right? And come to think of it, who enforces the proerty lines? What's to say you are 3 feet over on his property?
...
The reason WHY there are laws is because of people. People who think they shouldn't have to take a test to drive their SUVs on the same roads you use to drop your kids off at school. There are licenses on hunting to stop people from just going out and killing wildlife... or fishing licenses so people don't just catch 100s of fish only to leave them rotting on the shore. The same reason WHY your neighbor has to seek permission to build that monstrosity on his property and raise chickens in the basement.
Everything on that list you posted is done because people have abused things in the name of freedom. everything on that list sounds like it comes from a person who does not like to obey laws. Someone... like an Anarchist.
...
Except plant a vegetable garden. That's on the list, really? I suppose it depends on the vegetable garden, right? Is it to grow and eat your own.. or to barter or sell the produce at the market? Because, if it is the latter, then you would think you would want protection from buying home grown vegetables, laced with DDT to keep the Gypsy moths away.
Other than that, i wonder how many persecuted Americans are imprisoned for growing tomatoes on their patios.

Cosmo

The list got me thinking... the extreme ends of the poltical spectrum seem like they meet. They are mirror images of the same thing.
The Anarchists on the exreme ends of the left want no governments, no laws. Every man for himself.
On the right end are the 'Free Republic' types that want no governments... but, want to write their own laws. Every man for himself (as long as it is okay with me).
The anarchists want to destroy all government and leave all decisions to the individual.
The right wants to destroy the current government in order to become the government (they supposedly hate) and make others bend to their rules. They become the very thing they most hate.
So, I suppose, the true freedom lovers are Anarchists. The extreme right just want to replace the current government... with their own government... a government where they are in charge and where they make the rules and enforce them.

unsung

Cosmo, that picture talks about collecting rainwater and growing a garden for food. These things people have been punished by government for doing. Chill out.

Cosmo

unsung said:

Cosmo, that picture talks about collecting rainwater and growing a garden for food. These things people have been punished by government for doing. Chill out.

...
I know people that have home gardens and people who have downspouts that feed storage bins for the collection of rain water and they have not been questioned or searched or kidnapped, beaten, stolen from, had their homes broken into or thrown into a cage for any amount of time. Where is this happening? What part of America do you live in?
...
Back to the question.. who gets to make the laws in your world... you... or your neighbor?

Cosmo

I did some checking and found out the following:
In Florida, a couple was told they could not grow a vegetable garden in their entire front yard. There was no restrictions, other then plant height, about growing in their back yard. They chose not to plant in their back yard because of the lack of sunshine. The restriction was placed one them at the local level, based upon residents complaints and the resale values of neighorboring properties.

Colorado recently relaxed rain water collection systems. The bans on water collections originated in territorial days of mostly western state. The laws are in place because of large scale operations that uitilzed concrete lined colllection ponds and/or the diversion of river and stream waters into catch basins.

So, yes.. there are laws against growing corn stalks on your front yard in suburbia... and building a 700,000 gallon catch basin on your property. Laws that had to be created because of the actions of people who did things like that.
Don't worry, the S.W.A.T. team is not kicking down doors because you are growing tomatoes and peppers on you porch or collecting rain from your roof into 55 gallon barrels as long as you are not breeding mosquitoes in them.