PhilipM

If taken literally the phrase is rather redundant. Linguistically however, it has a targeted allegorical meaning that is not very precise. Generally it means: I am going to have my way and there is nothing you can do about, a punctuation mark of sorts; or, a contentious way of conveying inflexibility. It can also be said in a raising of the eyebrow whimsical way, indicting philosophical disagreement, but tolerance. I think it is said most often in response to when someone suggests that one does or does not do something in a certain way. It is then that one feels that a certain line was crossed and responds tersely "It's a free country". The emotional conveyance is thus translated: I am going to do it no matter what you say so get off my back.

I think the best response to it would be: "That's your opinion" ... well, DUH!

Lack of a major third party. But if you really think about our system of 'the separation of powers', then it could very well be possible that we are stuck here for reasons of our own making. All that 'separation', all that duality etc - is what we are left with in the end. It could be worse.

Charge each politician with a something or other misdemeanor the minute he or she is sworn into office. This way if they ever contemplate doing something illegal, the fact that they already have a record may be a deterrent for further corruption.

A serious attempt at strengthening independents into a more formidable party.

Should people have to pass a test to be able to vote?

All I need to sit on a jury is citizenship? Really? How does being a lay person add to the professionalism of legal practice and jurisprudence; 'especially' as it relates to determining "guilt" or "innocence"?