obama is spending like crazy

[wtf]

your right, but maybe there is a reason for missing the two, as they were in a virtual dead lock possibly

but the overall demographics cannot be denied

also, if voting was done on along racial line obama would have lost huge, 99% blacks voted for him

[daggerkobe]

He wouldn't have to spend any money had Dumbya done 3 simple things....

1. Listened to his senior anti-terrorism expert who warned him of al Qaeda's plan to hijack planes. Ignored & demoted.

2. Listened to Fannie Mae regulator who warned him of the dangers of GSE and subprime lending. Ignored & fired.

3. Listened to the CIA who warned him that the intelligence report on Iraq was faulty and not to be trusted. Ignored & invaded.

[Shortstop]

Shortstop thinks there are 48 states.

I don't know what's so funny. Two states were dead locked even. It's called a "push" in the gambling world.

[Hotdiggity11]

I don't know what's so funny. Two states were dead locked even. It's called a "push" in the gambling world.

Um, first of all, electoral votes go to a candidate regardless of how close it is. Secondly, Obama won 28 states, not 19. That is a *FACT.*


Maybe, before calling shit "facts" and demeaning other people for your stupidity, you will do a little research yourself dipshit.

[daggerkobe]

I always note right-wingers are always showing off chain letters as fact. Like the one that said Obama was sworn in on a Koran in 2004 [It was Keith Ellison, not Obama]. Of course, this chain letter thought there were 48 states so what can you do?




I wonder if I should stick around for an apology...

I guess I shouldn't be so shocked. Brainwashed sheep are always the easiest to dupe.

[reno cool]

So you've discovered that people living in urban areas are more likely to vote Democrat. truly shocking.
Also neither the poor or minorities have any use for right wing reactionaries, those who love to exploit them and deny them basic necessities. Another tremendous discovery.

[Shortstop]

It is entirely too easy to get under the skin of you liberals. You all pounced on this thread like it was a free hand out from Obama. You all really need to take your high blood pressure meds and relax. I love getting you guys all fired up and frustrated. Have a great week!

[wtf]

yea and they start the name calling, since they have these lame arguments

keep playing the violins as america slowly sinks into mediocrity

[andywend]

He wouldn't have to spend any money had Dumbya done 3 simple things....

1. Listened to his senior anti-terrorism expert who warned him of al Qaeda's plan to hijack planes. Ignored & demoted.

2. Listened to Fannie Mae regulator who warned him of the dangers of GSE and subprime lending. Ignored & fired.

3. Listened to the CIA who warned him that the intelligence report on Iraq was faulty and not to be trusted. Ignored & invaded.

DaggerKobe, you must have these "3 simple things" copied and pasted to your browser because you keep posting them over and over again.

Even if Bush was given the EXACT details of how Al Qaida was planning on carrying out the 9/11 tragedy, what would you have proposed he do?

If liberal organizations like the ACLU were threatening lawsuits against airport security teams for profiling young Muslim men shortly after the 9/11 tragedy, how would they have reacted if this profiling was done BEFORE 9/11?

SOOOO... how did Obama win??? Amazing !!!!


Interesting Statistics:


Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law,

St. Paul, Minnesota, points out facts of 2008 Presidential election:



Number of States won by:

Democrats: 19

Republicans: 29


Square miles of land won by:

Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000


Population of counties won by:

Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million


Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1



Professor Olson adds:

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans

was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.


Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off various forms of

government welfare.



Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere

between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's

definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's

population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.

If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to
the USA in fewer than five years.

Shortstop, these figures you quoted are accurate but they pertained to the 2000 election when Bush beat Gore.

You'll notice that DaggerKobe did NOT respond to my post about providing a chart showing what happened to the deficit when the democrats controlled congress as compared to when republicans were in charge of the purse strings.

That is what democrats do. They will rant and rant and as soon as someone provides hard evidence that puts democrats in a bad light, they either ignore you or completely change the subject.

According to the lunacy that is the democratic party, they blast Bush for the rising deficits that occurred shortly after the 9/11 tragedy and in the very next breath say that Obama is justified in spending so much money due to 9/11 even though it occurred over 7 1/2 years ago.

[Hotdiggity11]

It is entirely too easy to get under the skin of you liberals. You all pounced on this thread like it was a free hand out from Obama. You all really need to take your high blood pressure meds and relax. I love getting you guys all fired up and frustrated. Have a great week!

Dude, just because you got caught being full of shit, doing the good old "It was to make you mad" backtracking won't help your cause.

[Hotdiggity11]

yea and they start the name calling, since they have these lame arguments

keep playing the violins as america slowly sinks into mediocrity

When people flat out lie to support their propaganda, name calling is appropriate.

[Ganchrow]

SOOOO... how did Obama win??? Amazing !!!!


Interesting Statistics:


Professor Joseph Olson of Hemline University School of Law,

St. Paul, Minnesota, points out facts of 2008 Presidential election:

Number of States won by:

Democrats: 19

Republicans: 29


Square miles of land won by:

Democrats: 580,000
Republicans: 2,427,000


Population of counties won by:

Democrats: 127 million
Republicans: 143 million


Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by:
Democrats: 13.2
Republicans: 2.1



Professor Olson adds:

"In aggregate, the map of the territory Republican won by Republicans

was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.


Democrat territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in
government-owned tenements and living off various forms of

government welfare.



Professor Olson believes the United States is now somewhere

between the "complacency and apathy" phase of Professor Tyler's

definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation's

population already having reached the "governmental dependency" phase.



If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal
invaders called illegal's and they vote, then we can say goodbye to
the USA in fewer than five years.

See http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/athenian.asp.

[daggerkobe]

DaggerKobe, you must have these "3 simple things" copied and pasted to your browser because you keep posting them over and over again.

Even if Bush was given the EXACT details of how Al Qaida was planning on carrying out the 9/11 tragedy, what would you have proposed he do?

If liberal organizations like the ACLU were threatening lawsuits against airport security teams for profiling young Muslim men shortly after the 9/11 tragedy, how would they have reacted if this profiling was done BEFORE 9/11?

Do you have this tattooed to your forehead? Because you keep repeating it like it's fact, when it's nothing more than delusions of a neonitwit.

Not that this answers my question on what did Dumbya do to prevent 9/11 (answer: NOTHING)... but what president would give a flying fvck what ACLU thinks when his country is under enemy attack and thousands of his people are being murdered?

The FBI knew all the names of the hijackers and what flight schools they were enrolled at. All Dumbya had to do was meet with his senior anti-terrorism expert (who had been begging for a face to face meeting for 8 months!!!!!!!) and order the FBI to monitor them. But no, he was too busy jogging in hot weather and riding his little Huffy bicycle to be bothered with the worst terrorist attack on American soil.... which would've been prevented had he even done minimal work.

Shortstop, these figures you quoted are accurate but they pertained to the 2000 election when Bush beat Gore.

You'll notice that DaggerKobe did NOT respond to my post about providing a chart showing what happened to the deficit when the democrats controlled congress as compared to when republicans were in charge of the purse strings.

That is what democrats do. They will rant and rant and as soon as someone provides hard evidence that puts democrats in a bad light, they either ignore you or completely change the subject.

According to the lunacy that is the democratic party, they blast Bush for the rising deficits that occurred shortly after the 9/11 tragedy and in the very next breath say that Obama is justified in spending so much money due to 9/11 even though it occurred over 7 1/2 years ago.

Typical neonitwit..... when a Democrat president balances the budget, it was the Republican congress that did it. If a Republion president quadruples the national deficit, it was the Democrat congress that is the guilty party.

Who controlled the senate while Reagan quadrupled the national deficit?

So it was the Republicon congress that raised taxes during Clinton presidency, which led to balancing the budget and record surplus? I thought the Republicons were against raising taxes....

[daggerkobe]

Dude, just because you got caught being full of shit, doing the good old "It was to make you mad" backtracking won't help your cause.

Typical neonitwit response.

Fall for a hoax and when called on it, claim that they did it just to get under "liberal" skin. Yeah, make yourself look like a complete moron to make the "liberals" laugh at your ignorance. Good plan.

I'll bet if I located all the hoaxes ever posted on SBR, 99% of the authors are neonitwits. Like when BBD and ms72001/raiders72002/pizzaboy posted hoaxes during the election, believing them like the clueless suckers they are.

[pico]

well at least obama is doing a good gesture on pimping out the white house

The Obamas are using their own money to redecorate the White House residence and Oval Office, forgoing the $100,000 in federal funds that is traditionally allotted to new presidents for such renovation projects.

The first couple — who made well over $2 million in 2008, largely fom from book revenues — is also turning down money from the White House Historical Association, the organization that financed a $74,000 set of china for the Bushes.

New presidents have traditionally undertaken extensive redecoration efforts to their personal quarters reflect their own tastes, with a new Oval Office rug tradition ringing in as the priciest item. Former President George W. Bush spent over $60,000 on a new cream carpet designed by Laura Bush in 2000 to replace the deep blue rug that covered the space during the Clinton administration. Obama aides have said the president likes the Bush rug, and does not plan to replace it.

The decision to forgo federal funds, confirmed by the White House Monday, is the president's latest belt-tightening move amid the sagging economy and widespread outrage over corporate excesses. Late last month, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced the administration had put an order on hold for a fleet of new helicopters that will cost at least $11 billion.

But it remains unclear just how much money the couple plan to spend on redecorations. In January, the Obamas tapped high-profile interior designer Michael Smith to spearhead the project.

In accepting the position, Smith said affordability would be one of the "guiding principles."

"The family's casual style, their interest in bringing 20th Century American artists to the forefront and utilizing affordable brands and products will serve as our guiding principles as we make the residence feel like their home," he said.

[jon101]

Well we owe the chinese more money thanks to Obama, and hes screwing us worse than ever.
Liberals are ok when they vote correct, when they vote for Lieberman(SP?) I can handle it, when they vote for the resident coon I can't.

[losturmarbles]

He wouldn't have to spend any money had Dumbya done 3 simple things....

1. Listened to his senior anti-terrorism expert who warned him of al Qaeda's plan to hijack planes. Ignored & demoted.

2. Listened to Fannie Mae regulator who warned him of the dangers of GSE and subprime lending. Ignored & fired.

3. Listened to the CIA who warned him that the intelligence report on Iraq was faulty and not to be trusted. Ignored & invaded.

if only bush had done these three things then obama wouldnt have to spend, er i mean "invest" money. yeah, right.

lame attempt to get off topic. but since youre there, i'd be interested to know what liberal blog you get your info from to regurgitate over and over. or care to be more specific, or post some links.

1. we get it. bush was behind 9/11.
3. ditto
2. so youre for or against GSE's??

[losturmarbles]

So you've discovered that people living in urban areas are more likely to vote Democrat. truly shocking.
Also neither the poor or minorities have any use for right wing reactionaries, those who love to exploit them and deny them basic necessities. Another tremendous discovery.

really? how do they do that?

[CS-MARIO]

Ok dipshit, show me where Obama only won 19 states. Here is your chance.

[murphy]

it would be interesting if there where no labels, but just arguments about the consequences of each possible approach the president could use to settle the current financial crisis based not on previous approaches but current models that tell us what the outcome will be if the current economic crisis were to be handled using each party's approach, then the most promising one is used. The future seems to look even darker with the possibility of massive inflation and also the massive deficits that keep piling up with with massive reduction in manufacturing. I am feeling that the country is being sold to foreign debtors bit by bit then sooner or later, the debtors may try to use their leverage against the US, incidents like that of the standoff between Chinese vessel and American vessels will become more and more common place, that may because what happened to the soviet Union is also happening to these beloved states.

There can be no superpower whose economy is controlled by foreign debtors

[reno cool]

really? how do they do that?

in a very simple sense by opposing any program that benefits the poor.

welfare
healthcare
minimum wage
unions

but the right wingers love
prisons
guns
police
moral pontificating

So again, in the very simple sense, in the context of our system the right wingers like to keep people poor and desperate, which often leads to becoming a victim of the penal system, further perpetuating the cycle.
The only thing that makes the Dems slightly better is their apparent belief that people deserve basic necessities such as a barely livable wage, healthcare, shelter, food, education.

[losturmarbles]

in a very simple sense by opposing any program that benefits the poor.

welfare
healthcare (you mean FREE healthcare)
minimum wage
unions
...

lol so basically democrats appeal to people who are afraid to accept responsibility for their own lives?

btw most right wingers are for these things, so i fail to see how they "exploit them and deny them basic necessities".

...

but the right wingers love
prisons
guns
police
moral pontificating

so prisons, guns, and police are bad? sorry i dont know what moral pontificating is, (im government educated).

and what does this have to do with exploiting and denying basic necessities?

...

So again, in the very simple sense, in the context of our system the right wingers like to keep people poor and desperate, which often leads to becoming a victim of the penal system, further perpetuating the cycle.
The only thing that makes the Dems slightly better is their apparent belief that people deserve basic necessities such as a barely livable wage, healthcare, shelter, food, education.

lol victim of the penal system? so it's the right wingers fault that poor people are poor, and poor people commit crimes.

so now dems are "slightly better" because they believe in the using the force of government to take property away from people who earn it and give it to people who do not?

sorry reno, but poverty in this country, is a choice.

If it is wrong for you to take money from someone else who earned it, to take their money by force for your own needs, then it is certainly just as wrong for you to demand that the government step forward and do this dirty work for you. - Neal Boortz

[reno cool]

I'm simply telling you why poor people prefer Democrats in general. There is little reason for debate here.

Now if you want to argue about what's right that's another story. I will suggest simply that all those that have money didn't earn it, and those that are poor aren't so due to character flaws. In fact usually the opposite is true.
One more thing. The government does many things to ensure the rich prosper, however when the govt does the smallest thing for the benefit of the poor you claim it's taking someone else's money. The absurdity of this idea is staggering

[Igetp2s]

I'm simply telling you why poor people prefer Democrats in general. There is little reason for debate here.

Now if you want to argue about what's right that's another story. I will suggest simply that all those that have money didn't earn it, and those that are poor aren't so due to character flaws. In fact usually the opposite is true.
One more thing. The government does many things to ensure the rich prosper, however when the govt does the smallest thing for the benefit of the poor you claim it's taking someone else's money. The absurdity of this idea is staggering

It's pretty simple why the poor vote Democrat. It's because the Democrats promise them the most, without the poor having to do anything to actually earn it. It's like the high school elections where you pay $5 a person to vote for you. It's pandering to the lowest degree to give something to someone for nothing.

The government does absolutely nothing to make sure the rich prosper. The rich prosper (at least a large majority of them) due to strenuous education, hard work, self-sacrifice, and personal risk taking.

To claim the government isn't "taking someone else's money" by taxation requires the preposterous assumption that any money earned really belongs to the government, and that they are kind enough to return some of it the person who actually earned it. Way too many liberals operate under this ridiculous assumption, including yourself. The absurdity of your thought process is staggering.

[losturmarbles]

I'm simply telling you why poor people prefer Democrats in general. There is little reason for debate here.

Now if you want to argue about what's right that's another story. I will suggest simply that all those that have money didn't earn it, and those that are poor aren't so due to character flaws. In fact usually the opposite is true.
One more thing. The government does many things to ensure the rich prosper, however when the govt does the smallest thing for the benefit of the poor you claim it's taking someone else's money. The absurdity of this idea is staggering

i never disputed that poor people prefer democrats.

i only responded to YOUR assertion that right wing reactionaries "love to exploit them and deny them basic necessities".
which is foolish socialistic dogma.

now you post more foolishness:

"those that have money didn't earn it"??
"The government does many things to ensure the rich prosper"??

please enlighten me on these two gems of wisdom.

"...when the govt does the smallest thing for the benefit of the poor you claim it's taking someone else's money. The absurdity of this idea is staggering"

how is it absurd?
where does government get the money at?
better yet where does government get the authority at?

[reno cool]

It's pretty simple why the poor vote Democrat. It's because the Democrats promise them the most, without the poor having to do anything to actually earn it. It's like the high school elections where you pay $5 a person to vote for you. It's pandering to the lowest degree to give something to someone for nothing.

The government does absolutely nothing to make sure the rich prosper. The rich prosper (at least a large majority of them) due to strenuous education, hard work, self-sacrifice, and personal risk taking.

To claim the government isn't "taking someone else's money" by taxation requires the preposterous assumption that any money earned really belongs to the government, and that they are kind enough to return some of it the person who actually earned it. Way too many liberals operate under this ridiculous assumption, including yourself. The absurdity of your thought process is staggering.

I suppose one could have this opinion if one never encounters reality. But why should one deal with reality when there's such a wonderful world of fairy tales and propaganda to explore.

[reno cool]

i never disputed that poor people prefer democrats.

i only responded to YOUR assertion that right wing reactionaries "love to exploit them and deny them basic necessities".
which is foolish socialistic dogma.

now you post more foolishness:

"those that have money didn't earn it"??
"The government does many things to ensure the rich prosper"??

please enlighten me on these two gems of wisdom.

"...when the govt does the smallest thing for the benefit of the poor you claim it's taking someone else's money. The absurdity of this idea is staggering"

how is it absurd?
where does government get the money at?
better yet where does government get the authority at?

whoever posted the original breakdown of the wrong election apparently was surprised.

But you seem to miss the basic premise that every child should know. That is we live in a society. To keep a society functioning we have laws. Laws=government. Government (in theory the public) decides what kind of behavior is encouraged. Your denial of this fact is not an example of entrepreneurship but simple ignorance.

[andywend]

Do you have this tattooed to your forehead? Because you keep repeating it like it's fact, when it's nothing more than delusions of a neonitwit.

Not that this answers my question on what did Dumbya do to prevent 9/11 (answer: NOTHING)... but what president would give a flying fvck what ACLU thinks when his country is under enemy attack and thousands of his people are being murdered?

The FBI knew all the names of the hijackers and what flight schools they were enrolled at. All Dumbya had to do was meet with his senior anti-terrorism expert (who had been begging for a face to face meeting for 8 months!!!!!!!) and order the FBI to monitor them. But no, he was too busy jogging in hot weather and riding his little Huffy bicycle to be bothered with the worst terrorist attack on American soil.... which would've been prevented had he even done minimal work.



Typical neonitwit..... when a Democrat president balances the budget, it was the Republican congress that did it. If a Republion president quadruples the national deficit, it was the Democrat congress that is the guilty party.

Who controlled the senate while Reagan quadrupled the national deficit?

So it was the Republicon congress that raised taxes during Clinton presidency, which led to balancing the budget and record surplus? I thought the Republicons were against raising taxes....

What happened on 9/11 took everybody by surprise. I wouldn't be suprised if Clinton received over 100 legitimate threats saying Al Qaida was planning a major attack against the U.S.

After the tragedy of 9/11 happened, Bush implemented many different measures of which the democrats were opposed to all. He promised that another attack would NOT happen under his watch and it never did even though the threats kept coming in and were indeed carried out in other countries across the globe.

While Bush's overall performance in the White House was questionable, he did an incredible job keeping our country safe and I sure hope Obama does the same.

Your comment that 9/11 could have been prevented with minimal work on Bush's part is pure bullshit.

Why can't you understand the simple fact that its congress that decides how money is spent and NOT the president?

The retroactive tax increase that went through during the Clinton administration was passed when democrats controlled both houses of congress.

I challenge you to make a chart showing our country's deficit and the effect democratic controlled congress's had on it as compared to republican controlled congress's. You won't do it because you know it confirms what I have been saying all along. Democrats waste taxpayer money far worse than republicans.

[andywend]

It's pretty simple why the poor vote Democrat. It's because the Democrats promise them the most, without the poor having to do anything to actually earn it. It's like the high school elections where you pay $5 a person to vote for you. It's pandering to the lowest degree to give something to someone for nothing.

The government does absolutely nothing to make sure the rich prosper. The rich prosper (at least a large majority of them) due to strenuous education, hard work, self-sacrifice, and personal risk taking.

To claim the government isn't "taking someone else's money" by taxation requires the preposterous assumption that any money earned really belongs to the government, and that they are kind enough to return some of it the person who actually earned it. Way too many liberals operate under this ridiculous assumption, including yourself. The absurdity of your thought process is staggering.

Igetp2s, while liberal democrats will never admit this in the light of day, that is EXACTLY what they believe.

Obama and the democratic congress are spending TRILLIONS and driving our country into debt quicker than Bush ever did.

The scary thing is they are stupid enough to believe that soaking the rich via future tax increases will pay for all this wasteful spending. They just refuse to understand that the rich will make whatever adjustments are necessary to offset the increased tax burden that will be forced upon them. Tax revenue will NOT necessarily increase when tax rates are raised.

[jss]

I'm simply telling you why poor people prefer Democrats in general. There is little reason for debate here.

The reason poor people prefer Democrats is because either they sold their loyalty to the party for a monthly welfare check or they grew up listening to their dad talking about how he votes democrat just like his dad did and so on. I mean...if the family over the generations were too dumb to get out of poverty then they'd obviously would be too dumb to think on their own to come up with an informed decision on who to vote for. And besides...the Democrats were a complete different party 50 years ago. The stupidity of people really saddens me at times. I sometimes catch myself feeling sorry for them so I guess I do have a heart.

[wtf]

what makes me ill is watching the dems pander to all those special interests, like the child who screams the loudest gets their milk first

[murphy]

The reason poor people prefer Democrats is because either they sold their loyalty to the party for a monthly welfare check or they grew up listening to their dad talking about how he votes democrat just like his dad did and so on. I mean...if the family over the generations were too dumb to get out of poverty then they'd obviously would be too dumb to think on their own to come up with an informed decision on who to vote for. And besides...the Democrats were a complete different party 50 years ago. The stupidity of people really saddens me at times. I sometimes catch myself feeling sorry for them so I guess I do have a heart.

there are a large portion of democrats that are highly educated and the intellectual backbone of this country and the reason they vote democratic over and over again is because they subscribe to a somewhat Marxist ideals where money is no longer earned by talent and hard work but is the right of every individual. This is also the same with the whole idea of a government run health care.

[jon101]

Mccain wasn't much of a choice though, with him the government would have been in disarray.
Obama won by default, not a big choice when you compare the two.

[reno cool]

The reason poor people prefer Democrats is because either they sold their loyalty to the party for a monthly welfare check or they grew up listening to their dad talking about how he votes democrat just like his dad did and so on. I mean...if the family over the generations were too dumb to get out of poverty then they'd obviously would be too dumb to think on their own to come up with an informed decision on who to vote for. And besides...the Democrats were a complete different party 50 years ago. The stupidity of people really saddens me at times. I sometimes catch myself feeling sorry for them so I guess I do have a heart.

aren't you full of yourself. Unfortunately your last sentence fits well with the other fairy tales right wingers have to believe to justify their bogus views. This is your perfect slogan.

I can also add that it is the "conservatives" that insist on the dogma of their parents. Progressives are by definition forward thinking.

[losturmarbles]

aren't you full of yourself. Unfortunately your last sentence fits well with the other fairy tales right wingers have to believe to justify their bogus views. This is your perfect slogan.

I can also add that it is the "conservatives" that insist on the dogma of their parents. Progressives are by definition forward thinking.

as opposed to legit views like:
right wingers "love to exploit" poor people and "deny them basic necessities"
or how bout "those that have money didn't earn it"
or "The government does many things to ensure the rich prosper"
????

and youre calling other people fairy tales and propaganda?

you make illogical foolish claims with no support and then have the nerve to criticize conservative views? if progressive means that you subscribe to the creed of karl marx (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need), then you my friend are fooling yourself if you think thats "forward thinking".

...

But you seem to miss the basic premise that every child should know. That is we live in a society. To keep a society functioning we have laws. Laws=government. Government (in theory the public) decides what kind of behavior is encouraged. Your denial of this fact is not an example of entrepreneurship but simple ignorance.

so basically your idea of government is mob rule?

laws exist from individual rights. you are born with natural rights. you have the right to defend (by force) your life, your liberty, and your property. laws are no more than the substitution of a common force for these individual forces.

do yourself a favor and read The Law by Frederick Bastiat.

http://www.constitution.org/law/bastiat.htm

The law becomes perverted when it punishes one's right to self-defense in favor of another's acquired right to plunder.

"simple ignorance" ? coming from you?