>>> WTH has the Democrats done for this country
>>> except slowly strip us of our constitutional>>> WTH has the Democrats done for this country
>>> except slowly strip us of our constitutional
>> Freedoms
>
>> OK, you're on: List Some which have been
>> "stripped", as you so quaintly put it.

>Take it as you will...

>link

"Illegal to protest where the Secret Service is present". Calling this an assault on our Bill or Rights etc. is one of the most wildest stretches yet. If it hadn't said "where the Secret Service is present" then you'd be right. However, it doesn't. In Loncoln's day, office seekers were allow into the White House corridors. Are you sugeesting we should go back to that? What happens if it lead to the assassination of your Pet Prezzy?

>link

Military Commissions act of 2006, signed by Presbush of the Rumsfeld-Cheny-Bush administration. These guys were closet Dems?????? WHAT have you been smoking?

>link

Strip searches upheld by the Supremes (and I don't mean Diana Ross). Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, was appointed by Ronne Ray-gun. Ronnie Popular was a Dem??? I've been a Republicant since 1968, and I /NEVER/ voted for him, as Governor nor as Prezzy.

>link

[Calif gun owners] "reverse any decisions made by the California courts that have been enacted illegally". This is an oxymoron because court decisions aren't "enacted", legislation is. "Decisions" are obeyed. Th article claims "unconstitutional searches" but fails to cite examples and supporting reasoning. This reduces the entire thing to " hype".

>link

So let me see now, it's OK for Chick-fila-A to engage in unconstitutional practices and policies but not OK for others?

>link

Faux news has long been recognized as nothing more than infotainment catering to your insecurities.

>link

"Excessive" IRS scrutiny of certain so-called 502C4 organization. I'm, sure they are paragons of the whiteness of the driven snow.

>The Bill of Rights is under attack.

Has been for at least 200 years, you Johnny-Come-Lately. Thank goodness for the Supremes (and once again, I don't mean Diana Ross).

Let's see now, Constitutional assaults: Republicants: 3, Democraps: 1, Other:1. I fail to see your original point.

>Whether you are willing to give up certain rights that you feel does not apply to you. Just remember other may feel the need to give up rights you may cherish. Very slippery slope indeed.

Yes, it is slippery. However, you have to figure out whether and to where you are sliding. I was never more alarmed than during the first several years of the Bush II administration because curing it, the news media read just like the first two chapters of William L. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.

>> Freedoms
>
>> OK, you're on: List Some which have been
>> "stripped", as you so quaintly put it.

>Take it as you will...

>link

"Illegal to protest where the Secret Service is present". Calling this an assault on our Bill or Rights etc. is one of the most wildest stretches yet. If it hadn't said "where the Secret Service is present" then you'd be right. However, it doesn't. In Loncoln's day, office seekers were allow into the White House corridors. Are you sugeesting we should go back to that? What happens if it lead to the assassination of your Pet Prezzy?

>link

Military Commissions act of 2006, signed by Presbush of the Rumsfeld-Cheny-Bush administration. These guys were closet Dems?????? WHAT have you been smoking?

>link

Strip searches upheld by the Supremes (and I don't mean Diana Ross). Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, was appointed by Ronne Ray-gun. Ronnie Popular was a Dem??? I've been a Republicant since 1968, and I /NEVER/ voted for him, neother for Califoamia Governor nor for USA Prezzy.

>link

[Calif gun owners] "reverse any decisions made by the California courts that have been enacted illegally". This is an oxymoron because court decisions aren't "enacted", legislation is. "Decisions" are obeyed. Th article claims "unconstitutional searches" but fails to cite examples and supporting reasoning. This reduces the entire thing to " hype".

>link

So let me see now, it's OK for Chick-fila-A to engage in unconstitutional practices and policies but not OK for others?

>link

Faux news has long been recognized as nothing more than infotainment catering to your insecurities.

>link

"Excessive" IRS scrutiny of certain so-called 502C4 organization. I'm, sure they are paragons of the whiteness of the driven snow.

>The Bill of Rights is under attack.

Has been for at least 200 years, you Johnny-Come-Lately. Thank goodness for the Supremes (and once again, I don't mean Diana Ross).

Let's see now, Constitutional assaults: Republicants: 3, Democraps: 1, Other:1. I fail to see your original point.

>Whether you are willing to give up certain rights that you feel does not apply to you. Just remember other may feel the need to give up rights you may cherish. Very slippery slope indeed.

Yes, it is slippery. However, you have to figure out whether and to where you are sliding. I was never more alarmed than during the first several years of the Bush II administration because curing it, news media stories read just like the first two chapters of William L. Shirer's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.