Vice President Clinton

[Variola Major]

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.  

[Mr Savoy]

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

I value my rights over my money.  

[Das Rabble Rouser]

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

I value my rights over my money.

In a nutshell this. If you have the money to make ends meet, but you don't have your rights there's not much point in living. If you're poor but have your rights and freedom you can make your own way.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.  

[Variola Major]

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.  

[Maddness91]

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

she's actually sacrificing a little security for a little... market stability and national surplus money confused  

[Mr Savoy]

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

I don't feel that anyone in Washington is quite so dangerous as to bring about a scenario where I'm struggling to find a roof to put over my head. And even if there was... I still value my rights over my money. Over my health and, in certain cases, my life. And I'll be damned before I ever support someone who believes that it's too dangerous for me to exercise my rights, be they of the first amendment, second, etc.  

[Variola Major]

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

I don't feel that anyone in Washington is quite so dangerous as to bring about a scenario where I'm struggling to find a roof to put over my head. And even if there was... I still value my rights over my money. Over my health and, in certain cases, my life. And I'll be damned before I ever support someone who believes that it's too dangerous for me to exercise my rights, be they of the first amendment, second, etc.

NO president is going to give you everything you want. Clinton won't give me the guns I want, but he'll give me the other things I consider important. Voting for a leader is a matter of compromise and priorities, and there are things I consider higher priority than gun rights, like free speech, gay rights, and the economy.  

[Variola Major]

Variola Major

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

I don't feel that anyone in Washington is quite so dangerous as to bring about a scenario where I'm struggling to find a roof to put over my head. And even if there was... I still value my rights over my money. Over my health and, in certain cases, my life. And I'll be damned before I ever support someone who believes that it's too dangerous for me to exercise my rights, be they of the first amendment, second, etc.

NO president is going to give you everything you want. Clinton won't give me the guns I want, but he'll give me the other things I consider important. Voting for a leader is a matter of compromise and priorities, and there are things I consider higher priority than gun rights, like free speech, gay rights, and the economy.

I also put education, the right to own and run my own business, reducing the power of corporations, healthcare reform, and privacy rights ahead of gun rights. I support the right to own guns, it's just that their are things I consider more important, and if a leader is going to provide those, I'll go for him/her, even if it means a reduction in gun rights. Politics is all about compromise, after all.  

[Das Rabble Rouser]

Variola Major

NO president is going to give you everything you want. Clinton won't give me the guns I want, but he'll give me the other things I consider important. Voting for a leader is a matter of compromise and priorities, and there are things I consider higher priority than gun rights, like free speech, gay rights, and the economy.

Anyone who thinks that a president will give you everything you want is an idiot. In this case it's not what the president was giving that is so important, but rather what he was taking. Money comes and goes. Governments come and go. If it boils down to it and the money/government is gone and you let them take your guns away first then you have neither the economy to help support you or the gun to defend yourself or feed a family.  

[Mr Savoy]

Variola Major

Variola Major

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

I don't feel that anyone in Washington is quite so dangerous as to bring about a scenario where I'm struggling to find a roof to put over my head. And even if there was... I still value my rights over my money. Over my health and, in certain cases, my life. And I'll be damned before I ever support someone who believes that it's too dangerous for me to exercise my rights, be they of the first amendment, second, etc.

NO president is going to give you everything you want. Clinton won't give me the guns I want, but he'll give me the other things I consider important. Voting for a leader is a matter of compromise and priorities, and there are things I consider higher priority than gun rights, like free speech, gay rights, and the economy.

I also put education, the right to own and run my own business, reducing the power of corporations, healthcare reform, and privacy rights ahead of gun rights. I support the right to own guns, it's just that their are things I consider more important, and if a leader is going to provide those, I'll go for him/her, even if it means a reduction in gun rights. Politics is all about compromise, after all.

What I'm getting here, is you're essentially a socialist who likes guns, but not so much that it matters in the least when you choose who/what to vote for. That's not really compromise- that's just one thing that you disagree with when it comes to the mainstream democratic party.

I, on the other hand, am screwed when someone tells me to compromise, because I am a libertarian. Republicans don't want gay marriage to be legal. Democrats want to outlaw all the guns they believe are "too powerful" for the civilians who voted them into office. Clinton will ******** me up the a** with taxes and tell me how to live my life. Palin will ******** me up the a** with debt (and eventually taxes when a democrat gets voted in) and deny me many benefits that I'd be willing to give my money for. Now that we've established that both of the choices suck from my point of view, the only reasonable thing to do is choose the lesser of two evils. Which, in my case, are the Republicans.  

[Das Rabble Rouser]

You sure take it up the a** a lot man...  

[Fresnel]

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

Variola Major

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

I don't feel that anyone in Washington is quite so dangerous as to bring about a scenario where I'm struggling to find a roof to put over my head. And even if there was... I still value my rights over my money. Over my health and, in certain cases, my life. And I'll be damned before I ever support someone who believes that it's too dangerous for me to exercise my rights, be they of the first amendment, second, etc.

NO president is going to give you everything you want. Clinton won't give me the guns I want, but he'll give me the other things I consider important. Voting for a leader is a matter of compromise and priorities, and there are things I consider higher priority than gun rights, like free speech, gay rights, and the economy.

I also put education, the right to own and run my own business, reducing the power of corporations, healthcare reform, and privacy rights ahead of gun rights. I support the right to own guns, it's just that their are things I consider more important, and if a leader is going to provide those, I'll go for him/her, even if it means a reduction in gun rights. Politics is all about compromise, after all.

What I'm getting here, is you're essentially a socialist who likes guns, but not so much that it matters in the least when you choose who/what to vote for. That's not really compromise- that's just one thing that you disagree with when it comes to the mainstream democratic party.

I, on the other hand, am screwed when someone tells me to compromise, because I am a libertarian. Republicans don't want gay marriage to be legal. Democrats want to outlaw all the guns they believe are "too powerful" for the civilians who voted them into office. Clinton will ******** me up the a** with taxes and tell me how to live my life. Palin will ******** me up the a** with debt (and eventually taxes when a democrat gets voted in) and deny me many benefits that I'd be willing to give my money for. Now that we've established that both of the choices suck from my point of view, the only reasonable thing to do is choose the lesser of two evils. Which, in my case, are the Republicans.

Another reason why I always vote Lib. ******** the lesser of two evils, it's that train of thought that FORCES the two evils upon us. I want a dozen evils.  

[OberFeldwebel]

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

OberFeldwebel

Variola Major

I want Bill Clinton back. Best damn president we ever had.

You best be trolling.

That douchebag signed in the AWB.

He could have a heart attack and die for all I care, he's an all 'round douchebag, he and that wife he road in on.

I don't like the AWB any more than you do, but he did wonders for the economy. As much as I like gun rights, the economy is much more important.

Those who sacrifice a little liberty for a little security deserve neither.

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

So wait, you'll be happy and content with anything so long as you have a roof and food?

So you're content by being a pet?


When they 'reduce the power of corporations' they reduce private corporations (businesses) too. None of this bullshit makes it easier for the little man, quite the contrary.
s**t rolls down hill.



Madness;
Eh, just about the same thing.  

[ArmasTermin]

Fresnel

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

Variola Major

Mr Savoy

Variola Major

I ain't ******** Ben Franklin, so I don't care what he said. ALL government sacrifices a bit of liberty for security. Anarchy is the only thing that doesn't, and I would not want to experience anarchy. Besides, I think having a roof over my head and being able to eat is more important than having firearms. If securing my monetary security and having gun rights are my options, and I must choose one or the other, I will choose the monetary security every time. Sure ideally we'd be able to have both, but there is no such thing as the ideal country.

I don't feel that anyone in Washington is quite so dangerous as to bring about a scenario where I'm struggling to find a roof to put over my head. And even if there was... I still value my rights over my money. Over my health and, in certain cases, my life. And I'll be damned before I ever support someone who believes that it's too dangerous for me to exercise my rights, be they of the first amendment, second, etc.

NO president is going to give you everything you want. Clinton won't give me the guns I want, but he'll give me the other things I consider important. Voting for a leader is a matter of compromise and priorities, and there are things I consider higher priority than gun rights, like free speech, gay rights, and the economy.

I also put education, the right to own and run my own business, reducing the power of corporations, healthcare reform, and privacy rights ahead of gun rights. I support the right to own guns, it's just that their are things I consider more important, and if a leader is going to provide those, I'll go for him/her, even if it means a reduction in gun rights. Politics is all about compromise, after all.

What I'm getting here, is you're essentially a socialist who likes guns, but not so much that it matters in the least when you choose who/what to vote for. That's not really compromise- that's just one thing that you disagree with when it comes to the mainstream democratic party.

I, on the other hand, am screwed when someone tells me to compromise, because I am a libertarian. Republicans don't want gay marriage to be legal. Democrats want to outlaw all the guns they believe are "too powerful" for the civilians who voted them into office. Clinton will ******** me up the a** with taxes and tell me how to live my life. Palin will ******** me up the a** with debt (and eventually taxes when a democrat gets voted in) and deny me many benefits that I'd be willing to give my money for. Now that we've established that both of the choices suck from my point of view, the only reasonable thing to do is choose the lesser of two evils. Which, in my case, are the Republicans.

Another reason why I always vote Lib. ******** the lesser of two evils, it's that train of thought that FORCES the two evils upon us. I want a dozen evils.

Which is totally respectable, and I'm starting to call myself Libertarian, albeit still conservative (what's the word for that...? I can't think of it). But the thing is, until a whole lot of people realize that both major parties tend to screw us over all the time, the majority is still going to pick Rep/Dem. And, as sorry as it is to say (on the subject of rights), a vote for a guy that probably won't try to ban guns beats a vote for a guy that definitely won't try to ban guns but will almost surely lose. I mean what percentage of people usually vote Lib? If all the Libs had voted Rep in the last election, would we be free of Obama?

If so, then we probably would have been better off if they'd just picked the standard lesser of two evils. If not, then there's not nearly enough of them anyway.

And this sounds wrong to say--to encourage a person to vote for whom would screw us least, rather than to vote for the man whom they believes would do the best job! I don't like it, I really don't. But I'm sure you all understand what I mean.