# Oboma wants to ban fishing?



## abps1 (Feb 11, 2006)

I am not a "the sky is falling" type of guy, but this is a little eye opening.

http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762


----------



## whitehunter2 (Sep 14, 2009)

abps1 said:


> I am not a "the sky is falling" type of guy, but this is a little eye opening.
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762


man you need to get a life? OOOhhh did you hear he wants to put a ban on stepping on bugs too!!!


----------



## Timber's Edge (Jan 18, 2010)

I'm telling you guys. People don't understand what's going on in D.C.? Would I think Obama wants to ban fishing? No probably not, do I think some of the environmental kooks that are on various committees in his administration want to ban fishing, in a new york minute! It's not just fishing, it is anything that has anything to do with harming a living creature as defined by organizations like PETA. PETA is probably the most reknown organization but no where near the only one who has lobbyists and people representing their cause in Washington. I agree with them on animal cruelty however these groups are constantly trying to redefine animal cruelty to make it a much broader definition, which eventually will encompass hunting and fishing. This has already happened in places around the world and to think that it can't happen here is foolish. There are a lot of wheels turning in Washington that were put into place a long time ago just waiting to get the right people into the right positions of authority. I'm not saying its Obama, but who really knows what favors he owes or promised to certain individuals. It's all about politics, cutting deals, and power. These kind of laws don't happen overnight in one swoop. It's piece by piece over time eventually exposing a greater purpose. A poster in another thread mentions a guy named Cass Sunstein and that he wants a system where animals can be represented by an attorney in court. As ridiculous as that sounds it is a true statement that Sunstein actually made. Crazy? Yes! Far-fetched? Don't hold your breath! It's a new age guys. We have to keep a concious eye on what our senators and represenatives are doing. This isn't the health care bill so don't expect this issue to get t.v. time.


----------



## illinoislandog (Jan 20, 2010)

Timber's Edge said:


> I'm telling you guys. People don't understand what's going on in D.C.? Would I think Obama wants to ban fishing? No probably not, do I think some of the environmental kooks that are on various committees in his administration want to ban fishing, in a new york minute! It's not just fishing, it is anything that has anything to do with harming a living creature as defined by organizations like PETA. PETA is probably the most reknown organization but no where near the only one who has lobbyists and people representing their cause in Washington. I agree with them on animal cruelty however these groups are constantly trying to redefine animal cruelty to make it a much broader definition, which eventually will encompass hunting and fishing. This has already happened in places around the world and to think that it can't happen here is foolish. There are a lot of wheels turning in Washington that were put into place a long time ago just waiting to get the right people into the right positions of authority. I'm not saying its Obama, but who really knows what favors he owes or promised to certain individuals. It's all about politics, cutting deals, and power. These kind of laws don't happen overnight in one swoop. It's piece by piece over time eventually exposing a greater purpose. A poster in another thread mentions a guy named Cass Sunstein and that he wants a system where animals can be represented by an attorney in court. As ridiculous as that sounds it is a true statement that Sunstein actually made. Crazy? Yes! Far-fetched? Don't hold your breath! It's a new age guys. We have to keep a concious eye on what our senators and represenatives are doing. This isn't the health care bill so don't expect this issue to get t.v. time.


Its just a bunch right wing extremist crap fed to people like you who'll "get the word out"


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

Timber's Edge said:


> I'm telling you guys. People don't understand what's going on in D.C.? Would I think Obama wants to ban fishing? No probably not, do I think some of the environmental kooks that are on various committees in his administration want to ban fishing, in a new york minute! It's not just fishing, it is anything that has anything to do with harming a living creature as defined by organizations like PETA. PETA is probably the most reknown organization but no where near the only one who has lobbyists and people representing their cause in Washington. I agree with them on animal cruelty however these groups are constantly trying to redefine animal cruelty to make it a much broader definition, which eventually will encompass hunting and fishing. This has already happened in places around the world and to think that it can't happen here is foolish. There are a lot of wheels turning in Washington that were put into place a long time ago just waiting to get the right people into the right positions of authority. I'm not saying its Obama, but who really knows what favors he owes or promised to certain individuals. It's all about politics, cutting deals, and power. These kind of laws don't happen overnight in one swoop. It's piece by piece over time eventually exposing a greater purpose. A poster in another thread mentions a guy named Cass Sunstein and that he wants a system where animals can be represented by an attorney in court. As ridiculous as that sounds it is a true statement that Sunstein actually made. Crazy? Yes! Far-fetched? Don't hold your breath! It's a new age guys. We have to keep a concious eye on what our senators and represenatives are doing. This isn't the health care bill so don't expect this issue to get t.v. time.


You won't hear a peep from the MSM either...

http://bigjournalism.com/rtrzupek/2010/03/15/obama-to-ban-fishing-not-yet-but-give-the-regulators-time/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BigJournalism+(Big+Journalism)&utm_content=My+Yahoo


----------



## emtwizard (Nov 1, 2009)

Let them ban hunting and fishing. Theythink we are in a ressession now. Go ahead and ban hunting and fishing and watch the unemployment go through the roof over night. There is way too much money and votes in it for them to ban hunting and fishing. Could law and regulations change maybe but a total ban think not.


----------



## illbowhunter (Mar 18, 2005)

It could happen tho. Just look at what they did with the health bill. The country was against it but they still pushed it through. They could do the same with banning fishing, hunting, guns, bows, knives.....


----------



## badomen (Jan 7, 2010)

illinoislandog said:


> Its just a bunch right wing extremist crap fed to people like you who'll "get the word out"


You can judge a man by the people closest to him and the company he keeps... People who care about the future of this country and the future of my freedom and yours are farm from being "extremists" The above post mentions Cass Sunstein... just do your own research on this guy and come back and tell me this is someone you want advising the president and setting regulations for this country. All the best to ya brother! :darkbeer:


----------



## wolfkiller (Mar 23, 2010)

badomen said:


> You can judge a man by the people closest to him and the company he keeps... People who care about the future of this country and the future of my freedom and yours are farm from being "extremists" The above post mentions Cass Sunstein... just do your own research on this guy and come back and tell me this is someone you want advising the president and setting regulations for this country. All the best to ya brother! :darkbeer:


you need to get out some:wink:


----------



## TPG (Dec 2, 2009)

illbowhunter said:


> It could happen tho. Just look at what they did with the health bill. The country was against it but they still pushed it through. They could do the same with banning fishing, hunting, guns, bows, knives.....


How you're equating the health care bill to the ban of fishing etc. is amazing.

You really need to get out more.


----------



## garrickt (Mar 30, 2008)

No he doesn't.


----------



## bansh-eman (Aug 24, 2009)

TPG said:


> How you're equating the health care bill to the ban of fishing etc. is amazing.
> 
> You really need to get out more.


How exactly? It makes perfect sense. Something that the majority doesn't want got pushed through and passed. I can see exactly where it has correlation.


----------



## burdog (Aug 3, 2008)

TPG said:


> How you're equating the health care bill to the ban of fishing etc. is amazing.
> 
> You really need to get out more.


I wish you liberals would go away...


----------



## wolfkiller (Mar 23, 2010)

bansh-eman said:


> How exactly? It makes perfect sense. Something that the majority doesn't want got pushed through and passed. I can see exactly where it has correlation.


how are you figuring the majority didnt want health care reform, at very best it was a 50/50 split, and that was on fox news, and 20 % of the people who disapproved only did so because the bill contained no public option?????DUH
and by the way why would any president base any major decisions on what carefully worded polls on fox news have to show.....

brace yourself, PRESIDENT OBAMA ran his campaign on the promise that he was going to REFORM OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!!!!!(did you hear that) and the VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY voted him in to do that job, and now he has delivered on his promise.........just face it, you were outvoted and never thought Obama would ever deliver like the polititions you have voted for in the past and now it's cryin time fer ya...all i can say is we are all BLESSED to live in "AMERICA"!!!!!!!and have a pres who finally is putting big biz in it's place when it comes to Americas health!!!!!!!!!GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!


----------



## fxdwgkd (Oct 6, 2009)

wolfkiller said:


> how are you figuring the majority didnt want health care reform, at very best it was a 50/50 split, and that was on fox news, and 20 % of the people who disapproved only did so because the bill contained no public option?????DUH
> and by the way why would any president base any major decisions on what carefully worded polls on fox news have to show.....
> 
> brace yourself, PRESIDENT OBAMA ran his campaign on the promise that he was going to REFORM OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!!!!!(did you hear that) and the VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY voted him in to do that job, and now he has delivered on his promise.........just face it, you were outvoted and never thought Obama would ever deliver like the polititions you have voted for in the past and now it's cryin time fer ya...all i can say is we are all BLESSED to live in "AMERICA"!!!!!!!and have a pres who finally is putting big biz in it's place when it comes to Americas health!!!!!!!!!GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!



I love how people think that the pres/gov should run big business. Are you guys insane? Why would you want the gov to run health care? What do you mean "putting big biz in it's place"? Forget not, the first and foremost part of business is to be profitable. When someone starts a business it is not to create jobs. It is to get them out of working for someone else. If people can not see the relationship between the two then you are a fool. Just because it is something that does not seem really possible, why can't it happen. Ask Jewish people if they ever thought Hitler would massacre them, it seemed unlikely that some one would do something like that but it happened. There are still plenty of evil people out there that want to control us. Why give them any more control than they have?


----------



## wolfkiller (Mar 23, 2010)

fxdwgkd said:


> I love how people think that the pres/gov should run big business. Are you guys insane? Why would you want the gov to run health care? What do you mean "putting big biz in it's place"? Forget not, the first and foremost part of business is to be profitable. When someone starts a business it is not to create jobs. It is to get them out of working for someone else. If people can not see the relationship between the two then you are a fool. Just because it is something that does not seem really possible, why can't it happen. Ask Jewish people if they ever thought Hitler would massacre them, it seemed unlikely that some one would do something like that but it happened. There are still plenty of evil people out there that want to control us. Why give them any more control than they have?


yea and look how many young family men who gave up on their dreams of starting a small business because they can't get health insurance for their families..so if a person can't see the relationship there you may be the fool one of the biggest things holding back entrepreneurship today is the impossible task of getting insurance, and i'm not talking for your employees but for yourself!!!

and i wouldnt worry about the Jewish people being massacred in our great land. GOD BLESS AMERCA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wolfkiller (Mar 23, 2010)

heydya hear he wants to ban sunday frog speerin in most states tooo


----------



## fxdwgkd (Oct 6, 2009)

wolfkiller said:


> yea and look how many young family men who *gave up *on their dreams of starting a small business because they can't get health insurance for their families..so if a person can't see the relationship there you may be the fool one of the biggest things holding back entrepreneurship today is the impossible task of getting insurance, and i'm not talking for your employees but for yourself!!!
> 
> and i wouldnt worry about the Jewish people being massacred in our great land. GOD BLESS AMERCA!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yes they can. They may not want to pay the price for it but they can. There is a difference between CAN and CAN NOT! and giving up when you come to a hurdle.

I never said that they would be massacred in our country. That was a simple comparison of how people with control can do evil things.


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

wolfkiller said:


> how are you figuring the majority didnt want health care reform, at very best it was a 50/50 split, and that was on fox news, and 20 % of the people who disapproved only did so because the bill contained no public option?????DUH
> and by the way why would any president base any major decisions on what carefully worded polls on fox news have to show.....
> 
> brace yourself, PRESIDENT OBAMA ran his campaign on the promise that he was going to REFORM OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM!!!!!!(did you hear that) and the VOTERS OVERWHELMINGLY voted him in to do that job, and now he has delivered on his promise.........just face it, you were outvoted and never thought Obama would ever deliver like the polititions you have voted for in the past and now it's cryin time fer ya...all i can say is we are all BLESSED to live in "AMERICA"!!!!!!!and have a pres who finally is putting big biz in it's place when it comes to Americas health!!!!!!!!!GOD BLESS AMERICA!!!!


dude, you might want to stop eating that spoon fed crap you hear on msnbc. healthcare wasn't even close to a 50/50 split. check out rasmussen...http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/55_favor_repeal_of_health_care_bill
next time do a bit of research. the country overwhelmingly did not support the bill. they support reform as most of us do, but we did not support an entitlement solely bent on taking from one group and giving to another. speaking of entitlements...can you name me one government entitlement that truly works? just one...
btw, here is a quote from senator baucus (the crook that wrote the majority of the senate's version)...too bad he didn't have the balls to say this before the bill passed. “Too often, much of late, the last couple three years, the mal-distribution of income in American is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy and the middle income class is left behind,” he said. “Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”


----------



## TPG (Dec 2, 2009)

bansh-eman said:


> How exactly? It makes perfect sense. Something that the majority doesn't want got pushed through and passed. I can see exactly where it has correlation.


Perfect sence in the "omg obama isn't a citizen omg socialism omg i lost my marbles 20 years ago omg i should stop believing everything i read on the interwebs" universe maybe.

And considering fishing is one of the biggest sporting industries in the country, fat effin chance.
But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of bats**t theories.


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

TPG said:


> Perfect sence in the "omg obama isn't a citizen omg socialism omg i lost my marbles 20 years ago omg i should stop believing everything i read on the interwebs" universe maybe.
> 
> And considering fishing is one of the biggest sporting industries in the country, fat effin chance.
> But hey, lets not let facts get in the way of bats**t theories.


same inflammatory rhetoric...you libs are so predictable its nauseating. the healthcare bill is an entitlement - a form of socialism...just like social security, medicaid and medicare. you are taking from one class and giving to another. both baucus and dean have admitted it.


----------



## TPG (Dec 2, 2009)

fap1800 said:


> same inflammatory rhetoric...you libs are so predictable its nauseating. the healthcare bill is an entitlement - a form of socialism...just like social security, medicaid and medicare. you are taking from one class and giving to another. both baucus and dean have admitted it.


"waaah predictable" nice brushoff.

Ok, prove me wrong.
No OpEds. Just straight hard fact.
Rush "little girls and oxy" Limbaugh is not fact btw.


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

TPG said:


> "waaah predictable" nice brushoff.
> 
> Ok, prove me wrong.
> No OpEds. Just straight hard fact.
> Rush "little girls and oxy" Limbaugh is not fact btw.


can you have a debate without resorting to insults? or are you really that immature? 

go read my post above (#19). i reference baucus' quote. he had an integral part in writing the senate version. here's another fact. to offset the cost of this $2.4 trillion entitlement, taxes on those who earn $200,000 ($250,000 for families) or more will increase to pay for free health care for those that can't pay for it. its a form of medicaid, which btw will be broke in less than ten years. here's another admission straight from the horse's mouth...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4o9BfrcOWgQ&feature=player_embedded 

this time when you rebut try to act your age.


----------



## TPG (Dec 2, 2009)

fap1800 said:


> can you have a debate without resorting to insults? or are you really that immature?


Can you have a debate without resorting to blatantly false information? 



> to offset the cost of this $2.4 trillion entitlement, taxes on those who earn $200,000 ($250,000 for families) or more will increase to pay for free health care for those that can't pay for it.


So you're saying its only purpose is to give out free healthcare? Thats your only argument?

What about subsidies for small businesses?
What about closing all the loopholes in medicare that allow doctors to scam it to the tune of *BILLIONS* of *YOUR* dollars?
What about fixing medicare and drugs to allow people to get affordable perscriptions when they retire?

I suppose those are meaningless and you'd rather doctors continue to rob you blind while small business who actually give a damn about their employees instead of the bottom line get ripped off for insurance. And I suppose after you have a heart attack you want to continue paying hundreds of dollars for drugs that are manufactured in such quantities that there's just zero justification other than lining pockets for their prices?


You're more concerned with what some worthless talking head on tv has told you than reality. You're stuck on the words "socialism" and "communism" which I'd guess you have zero concept of what they even mean!

Cut off your head to spite the face. Its classy.

I'm still waiting for you to pose facts that support banning fishing.


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

TPG said:


> What about subsidies for small businesses?


Of course they have to provide subsidies...they're forcing small businesses to offer health care to their employees. Your problem is that you think health care, whether "affordable" or "free" is a right! Its not...its a privilege just like owning a home or a car. I suppose I should pay for someone's mortgage as well after all having a roof over your head is a right too I suppose. 

You think doctors rob you blind? Get real. The day of the single doctor practice is over chief...they need to group together in order to afford malpractice insurance. And who is that courtesy of...the trial lawyers that are in bed with the democrat party. 

you want real health reform...then tort reform is the answer and if you're too brainless to see that then that's your problem. portability is also a common sense solution. i should be able to keep my plan regardless of who my employer is. creating another bureaucracy and entitlement program to mismanage taxpayer money is hardly the answer. stop pinning this bill to the small businesses that are toiling. they're toiling because they're over taxed as it is. i helped run my father's small business for nearly 15 years and i can tell you the healthcare costs were not what brought it to its knees.

and don't insult me with the socialism/communism argument.


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

i'd also like to know what in my argument is "blatantly false." you are taxing one class and giving to another. that's an entitlement. if you disagree with that then tell me why. i backed up my argument with two quotes from prominent dems that willingly admit that the bill is a form of "redistribution" i.e. an entitlement. refute those points and tell me how "blatantly false" they are. 

you on the other hand have yet to offer one fact. you're all rhetoric. btw, go check out your "certification of birth" link from snopes...i refuted that as well. i'm not aware of one credible journalist (and i use that term loosely) that uses snopes as a reference. good luck.


----------



## TPG (Dec 2, 2009)

fap1800 said:


> Of course they have to provide subsidies...they're forcing small businesses to offer health care to their employees. Your problem is that you think health care, whether "affordable" or "free" is a right! Its not...its a privilege just like owning a home or a car. I suppose I should pay for someone's mortgage as well after all having a roof over your head is a right too I suppose.


I suppose you should, yet again, read for once on your own. You're still spewing the same talking head BS.

Seriously. Everyone has heard the "ITS JUST LIKE OWNING A CAR OR HOME". You didn't come up with that, some ****** on TV came up with that. And lied to you. Did Hannity or Rush come up with that?



> You think doctors rob you blind? Get real. The day of the single doctor practice is over chief...they need to group together in order to afford malpractice insurance. And who is that courtesy of...the trial lawyers that are in bed with the democrat party.


Funny, every surgeon and doctor doesn't care about the healthcare plan, infact they welcome it. Including one who was a corpsman! He must be a traitor or something right?

But lets back on subject: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source...oq=medicaid+scam&gs_rfai=&fp=25bac56246434a91

Let me know how much that is costing you every year.




> you want real health reform...then tort reform is the answer and if you're too brainless to see that then that's your problem. portability is also a common sense solution. i should be able to keep my plan regardless of who my employer is. creating another bureaucracy and entitlement program to mismanage taxpayer money is hardly the answer. stop pinning this bill to the small businesses that are toiling. they're toiling because they're over taxed as it is. i helped run my father's small business for nearly 15 years and i can tell you the healthcare costs were not what brought it to its knees.


I hate to say this but your business plan sucked if it was healthcare costs that "brought it to its knees." I've been working for one company for just over 6 years now. We started with 10 people. We're at over 400 now. We've always had healthcare.

Would you like to explain that?



> and don't insult me with the socialism/communism argument.


Don't insult me or waste my time with trying to sidetrack the argument or make claims without facts to back them up! Also still waiting for your brilliant fact based parallel from healthcare to fishing being banned.


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

your proving my point! medicare sucks...so does medicaid and so does this healthcare bill! with the government's track record what gives you confidence that this new buearcracy is going to be anymore efficient. i'm supposed to believe you and your ilk that the bill is going to fix medicare (the feds original f up) and solve all the healthcare worries of 32 million americans? get real dude. and yes it is just like owning a home or a car! its a monthly payment, a bill. something that everyone should account for...i don't want to pay for someone else's anything. is that so hard for you to understand? social security, medicare, medicaid, public option, bank bailout, tarp, stimulus, unemployment, welfare, food stamps, etc. 

however, you still have yet to refute my entitlement argument. you provided a link to a bunch of articles that show just how poorly a gov't run program is, which i believe is validating my point. 

you need to go back and read. i said healthcare costs were not the result of my father's decision to sell his business. an congratulations for working for such a great company. i work for one too that has provided me with healthcare for six years. yipee! 

and i never claimed that this had anything to do with banning fishing genius. i merely posted a link to a blog that was referring to the op's link to espn. the topic took a turn when wolfkiller so intelligently claimed that the country was split 50/50.


----------



## TPG (Dec 2, 2009)

He's actually right.
If you tally up all the polls, its pretty much a straight up tie.

One example: http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Pop...ll-Americans-actually-like-health-care-reform

More are "for" than "against" in one, yet another shows more "against".
Funny how that works huh?

But obviously the "for" poll is the only slanted one and obviously what the magic box tuned into Fox tells you is true.

The reality of it all is you support the party of "no".
You want the same old [email protected]#t thats been packed down our throats for the past god knows how many years.

Its sad that it has to be done this way to get some changes through.
But too effin bad.

Those of us who didn't support Iraq (I support the troops, not ******ed conflicts) had that shoved down our throats.
Door swings both ways.


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

TPG said:


> He's actually right.
> If you tally up all the polls, its pretty much a straight up tie.
> 
> One example: http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Pop...ll-Americans-actually-like-health-care-reform
> ...


you're citing the examiner as a credible source? wow. why don't you go pull something off of hufpo. you must really had to dig to find that one. i'll give you credit though. the fact remains that rasmussen is the most accurate pollster in the country. +14% are against. if my memory serves me correct he's been the closest in predicting the the last three presidential elections. zogby would be a close second. i'll refrain from giving my opinion on gallup. and its not funny how it works...its actually quite easy. see, when you take a poll of 1,000 phone respondents from the boston, nyc, la metro areas you're going a lot more "fors" than against. so no its really not funny. its deceptive. 

dude, i never stated there shouldn't be health reform and neither have the republicans. if you actually believe the "party of no" bs then i feel sorry for you. both the house and senate versions were written and negotiated behind closed doors WITHOUT any republican support. what was that term obama and the dems used during the campaign...something called transparency? 

and don't compare the iraq war to this bill! that's a joke. the declaration of war was overwhelmingly supported by both parties in both chambers. your party had to pull a bs tactic to avoid a filibuster to pass the hc bill. despite how stupid you think us here "wingnuts" are we are at least somewhat intelligent enough to know when we're getting the what for by a group of eletists that think they know what's best for the greater good of the country. 

you're argument in this debate has been shallow. you've produced nothing except a bunch of links to articles that show how f'd medicare is and a link to the philadelphia examiner, the lamest lib rag in this city. you're pathetic and i'm done...


----------



## rn3 (Jan 4, 2008)

fap1800 said:


> you're citing the examiner as a credible source? wow. why don't you go pull something off of hufpo. you must really had to dig to find that one. i'll give you credit though. the fact remains that rasmussen is the most accurate pollster in the country. +14% are against. if my memory serves me correct he's been the closest in predicting the the last three presidential elections. zogby would be a close second. i'll refrain from giving my opinion on gallup. and its not funny how it works...its actually quite easy. see, when you take a poll of 1,000 phone respondents from the boston, nyc, la metro areas you're going a lot more "fors" than against. so no its really not funny. its deceptive.
> 
> dude, i never stated there shouldn't be health reform and neither have the republicans. if you actually believe the "party of no" bs then i feel sorry for you. both the house and senate versions were written and negotiated behind closed doors WITHOUT any republican support. what was that term obama and the dems used during the campaign...something called transparency?
> 
> ...


There was no declaration of war. Congress was mislead into going to Iraq by the Bush admin.


----------



## Hornsgalore (Jan 27, 2007)

The Gov is supposed to work FOR us. WE are not supposed to work for them....BUT.........The gov will do whatever it wants to, if they think they will make money at it and tax the middle class to get there!!!!
Just look at what has happened in the last 10 years...heck, last 5 years!
We are headded in the wrong direction. I really hate what the future holds for my children..votes don't count for crap anymore.
Just how free are we anymore?


----------



## fap1800 (Aug 9, 2004)

rn3 said:


> There was no declaration of war. Congress was mislead into going to Iraq by the Bush admin.


forgive me...a resolution to use military force. i know...george bush is satan. we get it.


----------



## Otter5 (Jan 28, 2007)

Hornsgalore said:


> The Gov is supposed to work FOR us. WE are not supposed to work for them....BUT.........The gov will do whatever it wants to, if they think they will make money at it and tax the middle class to get there!!!!
> Just look at what has happened in the last 10 years...heck, last 5 years!
> We are headded in the wrong direction. I really hate what the future holds for my children..votes don't count for crap anymore.
> Just how free are we anymore?


Exactly. If they ever did ban fishing, or hunting for that matter, well, I 'd still hunt + fish. And I'm not learning Spanish.


----------

