Wrong. Liberty is not a 2 way street. Liberty is about freedom from government...one direction. The US Constitution (your country's laws will vary) was written to limit government to the powers stated within. There is nothing, repeat, nothing in the constitution that allows government to limit the liberty of the individual without cause and due process. Conversely, an individual police officer *is* a free citizen as well as a law-enforcement agent. If said officer is charged with a crime (in this case using more force than is allowed for the situation, etc), then they have the right to defend themselves in court as would any other citizen.

Oh I don't know...some dudes named Rockefeller, Carnegie, Ford and Pulitzer might have a thing or two to say about that whole forgotten business man thing.

Outlawing a product that is in high demand will simply drive up the price and put it on the black market. See Prohibition Era. It didn't work then (it led to a massive spike in violent crime that disappeared virtually overnight when the ban was overturned) and it won't work now. What the ban on alcohol did not do was reduce alcohol consumption. It just drove people who consumed underground and into doing it illegally. It's not the government's job to tell free citizens what they can and can't put into their body. They can educate. They can advise. They can tax. But they have no right nor power granted in the constitution to force free citizens *not* to consume something. This country is so twisted around and has forgotten what made it great...Freedom. Pure and Simple.

Yeah..but it would be utterly polarizing... ;-P

The constitution doesn't give you a choice. It clearly states that power not explicitly delegated to the federal government must be relegated to the states or the people. You don't like it? Amend the constitution.

Do you realize how many every day objects you use that utterly rely on the oil industry? Most all plastics for starters...I'm not condoning illegal activity but be very careful when making broad statements condemning an entire industry.

Your statement is over-broad. In general, you might be correct but what if, for example, that teacher has kids that are best friends with a student in the school s/he teaches in? What if that teacher is something like a scout-master and interacts w/ students that way outside of school? What if they wish to use social media in those ways? Why would that be wrong all of a sudden? I could go on all day with examples...

The problem here is in defining a non-harmful action (in this case friending someone through social media) as criminal simply because it *might* lead to a harmful criminal action (inappropriate physical/sexual relationship). This entire line of thinking has handcuffed American society for decades and taken away freedoms constantly. The government should not interfere (at any level, fed, state or local) with citizens lives unless harm has been done to a citizen by another citizen (that harm can take many forms...financial, physical, sexual, etc).

Your ignorance of history is astounding. Even if you choose not to follow what it teaches, the Bible has taught Monogamy for several thousand years. The Apostle Paul's letters on the subject date back to the first century and the Ten Commandments(Do not commit adultery) to before 1000 BC.

Lawyers on both sides of cases pick morons off the street and have intelligent jurors removed on purpose because morons can be manipulated far more easily. The easiest way to get thrown off a jury is to be intelligent.

At least you figured out that voting 3rd party is worthwhile. That said, I personally disagree with your choice of 3rd party but hey, it's a free country... I prefer voting for those who cherish freedom and are willing to abide by the constitution. As you say, R's and D's for the most part have long since stopped doing that and Socialists by definition can't possibly abide by the constitution as their philosophy is diametrically opposed to the protections in the constitution. The US constitution sets limits on the powers of the Federal government and Socialism removes all those limits.

I simply don't get this comment. Bush is not in power nor is he up for any election. The FBI currently is taking orders from a Democrat and you blame Bush? This is just ludicrous whatever you might think of Bush's presidency.

If Obama was the god of freedom that Leftists claim, he would have overturned the over-extending post-911 policies of the Bush Administration such as the Patriot Act instead of reveling in them and expanding them like many non-liberals warned that he would.

Obama promised to uphold the constitution. Look where that's gotten us. He's violated it more times than I can count and he's not done yet.

An excellent question. The political machine on the left has brainwashed their constituency into thinking any non-Democrat vote means the end of the world...it's simply not true. Ron Paul would have made an excellent President and set this country back on the path to prosperity.

Back in the mid 1990s, I knew a fellow student in my CS classes that worked at Best Buy. One of them was telling a story to the class about how Best Buy was marketing power strips as Windows 95 compatible. We were all rolling in our seats laughing. It seemed so ludicrous that anyone would believe that a simple run-of-the-mill power strip cared what was plugged into it and yet the student said they were flying off the shelves compared to other power strips. All we could do was shake our heads.

you "...trusted the system..." (direct quote from the article)