That's a rather whimsical argument to make. Anon just pointed to direct cases in which Scalia and Santorum (both Republicans) are trying to limit (limit) your (your) actual freedoms (freedoms), and your response is:
I think it's just easiest to side with the Republicans because they at least pay lip-service to freedom.
Then you go:
The Dems don't even give us that. But we shouldn't forget that both sides are horrible.
False equivocation.
Is your thinking process so utterly broken that you're saying you'd rather side with the party that is more forthright about taking away your liberties and choices rather than the party that obviously must be taking away your freedom because they support a lot of rules on businesses but you can't explain any direct correlation but it must be true because you read it on some blog somewhere?
That's a rather whimsical argument to make. Anon just pointed to direct cases in which Scalia and Santorum (both Republicans) are trying to limit (limit) your (your) actual freedoms (freedoms), and your response is:
Then you go:
False equivocation.
Is your thinking process so utterly broken that you're saying you'd rather side with the party that is more forthright about taking away your liberties and choices rather than the party that obviously must be taking away your freedom because they support a lot of rules on businesses but you can't explain any direct correlation but it must be true because you read it on some blog somewhere?