Dave Champion Show – January 15, 2010

Nations raising terror alert (comedy gag).
Question: Could Danny Glover be the world’s biggest idiot?
Can you help Dave with Wikipedia?
Dave discussed the GOP’s “Sarah Palin blackout”.
Gov’t willing to discuss all aspects of the Fort Hood incident – except how to save the lives of U.S. military personnel next time.
Dave explains why “property rights” cannot be used to divest Americans of their right of self-preservation.
Charles Schumer [scumbag extraordinaire] uses a sexual act to describe a conservative candidate for senate seat of Ted Kennedy [thankfully now deceased and residing in Hell].


Download MP3

2 Responses to “Dave Champion Show – January 15, 2010”

  1. adventurous1 says:

    Hi Dave –

    Generally we see eye to eye. However I have to disagree with you on two key issues of this segment.

    Dave, if you believe you have the Right to exercise one of your inalienable Rights as a guest on my private property (eg. the Right to carry a gun), over my objections then do you have the Right to exercise all of your Rights while on my property?

    Do you have the Right to procreate and have wild sex on my lawn over my objections? Do you have the Right of speech over my objections while a guest on my private property? Do you have the Right to exercise your Right to travel across my private property over my objections? Do you have the Right to preach religion on my private property over my objections?

    Obviously you see where this is going. I personally have no problem with you or other’s like you carrying a gun on my property – however, for those homeowners who do not wish to have guns on their property – it is their Right.

    Second point Dave. You said in one of your past shows, something to the effect that you were glad to see cars and trucks parked on people’s lawns when you drove around some of your Nevada neighborhoods. Not so much that you thought it was a pristine neighborhood but just the fact that people were excising their Right to do whatever they wanted to their property. The city didn’t have all those silly housing codes.

    However, in today’s show, you say people can do whatever they want with their private property, ‘as long as it’s not a nuisance’. Who’s to decide what a nuisance is? Isn’t a homeowner who parks lots of cars all over his front lawn a nuisance to the neighbors?

    If it’s my private property, don’t I have the Right to have a horse it? Don’t I have the Right to have an Olympic size swimming pool in my back yard and charge kids to swim in the summer? Don’t I have the Right to let females use my home to charge men for sex? Don’t I have the Right to grow cannabis on my private property? Don’t I have the Right to do auto body work in my garage and charge for it? Don’t I have the Right to let 10 kids come to my house so my wife can charge for day care?

    If you believe people have the Right to park cars and trucks all over the yards of their property, then shouldn’t we be allowed to use our home as we see fit?

    Lastly, thanks for sharing your forum, your comments, your thoughtful provoking years of wisdom and naturally giving me the opportunity to share my views of your show. By the way, nice work on tweeking your web page. The links are an excellent touch. Your insightful words on your ‘Welcome page” are very well crafted. Succinct and to the point.

    As the phenomenal motivation speaker Jim Rohn used to say: “For effective communication, use brevity.” Your welcome age did just that!

  2. i18rabbit says:

    Gosh Dave! I can’t believe what I heard on your Jan-15 show! Let me get this straight: there is nothing more important to you than property rights, except “self-preservation”, according to you.

    But if I raise some hogs for food on my land (for self-preservation of course), then I am violating the property rights of others, and I have no such right to raise food for myself to survive? How does that make sense?

    Also, if you are trespassing on my property, and you are threatening to my life, according to you, you have every right to “self-preserve” yourself, equal to my rights to defend myself on my own property?

    This makes very little sense. I rarely disagree with you, but I seriously think this subject requires further thought. It seems to me that the correct analysis is as follows: Anybody has a right to do whatever is required to sustain their life on their property, and no such acts can be considered a violation of the property rights of others, unless direct damage is inflicted to the property of others, and this would include unnaturally polluting the waters.

    If someone doesn’t want to smell hogs, they can go buy enough land so that they are not offended by the acts of others sustenance. And as well: your right to self-preservation is severely diminshed if you are trespassing.