eldirector
Grandmaster
Good gravy. My wife does 6 times past the same point in 2 hours, easily, just running errands.
Good gravy. My wife does 6 times past the same point in 2 hours, easily, just running errands.
Good gravy. My wife does 6 times past the same point in 2 hours, easily, just running errands.
I'd go with the standard "rights aren't determined by need", and follow that up with "Nevertheless 'need' isn't determined by you. You're not qualified."Hmmm.
So want to use that in a Facebook argument.
But then I wouldn't "convince" him.
Not that that seems possible.
I'd go with the standard "rights aren't determined by need", and follow that up with "Nevertheless 'need' isn't determined by you. You're not qualified."
I've tried that. It doesn't work online.
You're missing the point. If you make the law stupid enough and restrictive enough, you can set up a situation in which it is not possible to tell the .gov to **** off because you are not doing anything wrong, as it is virtually impossible to not be doing *something* wrong, therefore, you are free of retribution at the .gov's pleasure rather than exempt from it by virtue of your proper behavior. This allows the .gov to impose completely arbitrary control over most everyone who is not comatose.
I wish that our president thought and spoke this way. This is a great man.
[video=youtube;7FBqTgNb5MA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FBqTgNb5MA[/video]
Goshen on the 1980s....who remembers?
Kind of sounds like Laporte in the 80's