Who do you support for Governor in New York in 2010?

<>LNHU

como is a homo

jesus as king

Anyone BUT Cuomo

tasder wrote:

youtube.com/watch?v=Oi2cHDW9Wd U ……… Get over it vote Bush

Let's Go Mets !!!

Cuomo is a bigger Liberal then his old man, and that is saying something, and both are nothing but Lib scumbags. As for who should be Gov. Is David Duke running?

Majority of Americans feel blacks are more racist than whites and Hispanics...

http://dailycaller.com/2013/07/03/majority-of...

Too many liberals in NY, nose candy Andy will do it again.

I'm voting for Sath Dhanda.

Dhanda in 2013!!!!!!!!

If Carl Paladino legalizes pot, repeals the SAFE NY gun law, and also promises NOT to rescind SSM, then I WILL vote for him and not Kristin Davis again.

In short, a conservative is just a liberal who once got mugged, and a libertarian is just a conservative with a triple-digit IQ !!!

Will it really make much diffrence.Its all false promises.Gun laws do need sorted out and the sooner the better.Why does everyone need a gun? Only people who need guns are the police and the army.Still living in the old wild west days? Move forward and drop the guns.Britain dont need guns so why do Americans.

Abbs, I don't own a military-styled "assault" rifle myself and don't feel the need for one, but your statement is simply false and common sense dictates that the police and even military can't possible be everywhere to protect everybody "24/7".

Personally, I think those pro-gunners who specifically maintain that civilian guns can prevent governmental tyranny in this day-and-age are downright silly: Even fully-automatic hand-held firearms in civilian hands (which have been illegal in the U.S. since the 1930s, BTW) could not stand-up to military heavier artillery, so how could a semi-auto-only one do so?

However, even though I have not hunted in several years I'm still reticent to "pound my shotgun into a plowshare" because of two other factors: The modern-day Dicks and Perrys of "In Cold Blood" fame ... i.e. violent burglars and "A Clockwork Orange"-type home invasions, and the possible anarchic breakdown of civil order. There is NO other weapon short of a firearm - not even the deadliest Samurai sword - that could deter a rioting CIVILIAN mob from making one's home a victim of a Molotov cocktail.

Finally, I DON'T consider the basic right of self-defense and the "stand your ground" mentality when dire to be an "American" right, I consider it to be a HUMAN one in the exact same way that actor Rupert Everett claimed he was not part of the 'gay community', but rather the human community!

Abbs wrote:

Will it really make much diffrence.Its all false promises.Gun laws do need sorted out and the sooner the better.Why does everyone need a gun? Only people who need guns are the police and the army.Still living in the old wild west days? Move forward and drop the guns.Britain dont need guns so why do Americans.

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.
Thomas Jefferson

Bernard Continelli wrote:

Abbs, I don't own a military-styled "assault" rifle myself and don't feel the need for one, but your statement is simply false and common sense dictates that the police and even military can't possible be everywhere to protect everybody "24/7".
Personally, I think those pro-gunners who specifically maintain that civilian guns can prevent governmental tyranny in this day-and-age are downright silly: Even fully-automatic hand-held firearms in civilian hands (which have been illegal in the U.S. since the 1930s, BTW) could not stand-up to military heavier artillery, so how could a semi-auto-only one do so?
However, even though I have not hunted in several years I'm still reticent to "pound my shotgun into a plowshare" because of two other factors: The modern-day Dicks and Perrys of "In Cold Blood" fame ... i.e. violent burglars and "A Clockwork Orange"-type home invasions, and the possible anarchic breakdown of civil order. There is NO other weapon short of a firearm - not even the deadliest Samurai sword - that could deter a rioting CIVILIAN mob from making one's home a victim of a Molotov cocktail.
Finally, I DON'T consider the basic right of self-defense and the "stand your ground" mentality when dire to be an "American" right, I consider it to be a HUMAN one in the exact same way that actor Rupert Everett claimed he was not part of the 'gay community', but rather the human community!

I remind you that the worlds' greatest military power was defeated by the will of farmers and merchants who were rebelling against Tyranny, armed only with their personal weapons, and their love of Liberty.

... And what year was this? Was it the time when farmers, merchants, AND the military carried the SAME type of muskets?!

Bernard Continelli wrote:

... And what year was this? Was it the time when farmers, merchants, AND the military carried the SAME type of muskets?!

The love of Liberty is timeless in human history.

Abbs wrote:

Will it really make much diffrence.Its all false promises.Gun laws do need sorted out and the sooner the better.Why does everyone need a gun? Only people who need guns are the police and the army.Still living in the old wild west days? Move forward and drop the guns.Britain dont need guns so why do Americans.

Where there are rights, "needs" is not relevant. Why do the police need guns? Old west days? What do YOU know about the Old West days? Britains don't need guns? Is that what the subjects said, or is that what their rulers told them?

Bernard Continelli wrote:

... And what year was this? Was it the time when farmers, merchants, AND the military carried the SAME type of muskets?!

Same time that movable type; the quill & parchment; and the spoken word were the only forms of free speech. Point?

What do you know fullstop..who needs a gun or they poop their pants? haha