Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on January 09, 2013, 11:16:19 AM
-
-
We interrupt this program with a special bulletin:
America is now under marshal law.
All constitutional rights have been suspended.
Stay in your homes.
Do not attempt to contact loved ones, insurance agents, or attorney's.
Shut up.
Do not attempt to think or depression may occur.
Stay in your homes.
Curfew is at 7 PM sharp after work.
Anyone caught outside of gates of their subdivision sector after curfew,
will be shot.
Remain calm, do not panic.
Your neighborhood watch officer will be by to collect urine samples in
the morning.
Anyone caught interfering with the collection of urine samples, will be
shot.
Stay in your homes. Remain calm.
The number one enemy of progress is question.
National security is more important than individual will.
All sports broadcasts will proceed as normal.
No more than two people may gather anywhere without permission.
Use only the drugs prescribed by your boss or supervisor.
Shut up. Be happy.
Obey all orders without question.
The comfort you demanded is now mandatory.
Be happy.
At last everything is done for you.
-
***
take is up with Jello Biafra and Ice T - their lyrics not mine.
-
take is up with Jello Biafra and Ice T - their lyrics not mine.
yet you're the one who choose to start a thread and post them
do you believe it?
-
fear mongering at its lowest common denominator.
Still waiting for the sky to fall from 4 years of OB.
its always something.
Time for whining conservatives to build a bridge and get over it.
OB won.
-
So that means OB can do whatever the fuck he wants via EO right?
::) ::)
fear mongering at its lowest common denominator.
Still waiting for the sky to fall from 4 years of OB.
its always something.
Time for whining conservatives to build a bridge and get over it.
OB won.
-
Epic thread backfire. All delusions, no substance.
-
So that means OB can do whatever the fuck he wants via EO right?
::) ::)
No, it doesn't mean that. Stop acting like a chicken little.
-
No, it doesn't mean that. Stop acting like a chicken little.
Did you read what Biden said OB plans on doing via EO?
Is that ok w you?
-
Just wait until Obama creates an internet tax using the EO. Anything over 5 posts per day will be taxed.
How much are you going to cry then?
-
Did you read what Biden said OB plans on doing via EO?
Is that ok w you?
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."
Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
Read it over and over until you can understand what it means.
-
Come on Ozmo, you that that 333 doesn't bother reading anything and even when he does it's moot because he just pretends it says whatever it is he wants to believe. Same goes for audio and video
This is one of those indicators that there is something misfiring inside that brain
-
Executive Order is not meant to alter a constitutional right.
We have checks and balances for a reason and the reason OB is going this route is because the representive of the people want no part of what he is pushing and he knows it.
This is why we are supposed to be a representative republic, not a dictatorship.
"The president is going to act," said Biden, giving some comments to the press before a meeting with victims of gun violence. "There are executives orders, there's executive action that can be taken. We haven't decided what that is yet. But we're compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required."
Biden said that this is a moral issue and that "it's critically important that we act."
Biden talked also about taking responsible action. "As the president said, if you're actions result in only saving one life, they're worth taking. But I'm convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of americans and take thousands of people out of harm's way if we act responsibly."
Read it over and over until you can understand what it means.
-
hope this helps:
we
[wee] Show IPA
plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us.
1.
nominative plural of I.
2.
(used to denote oneself and another or others): We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
3.
(used to denote people in general): the marvels of science that we take for granted.
4.
(used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party, etc., that includes the speaker or writer): We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.
5.
Also called the royal we. (used by a sovereign, or by other high officials and dignitaries, in place of I in formal speech): We do not wear this crown without humility.
have·n't
[hav-uh nt] Show IPA
contraction of have not.
de·cid·ed
[dih-sahy-did] Show IPA
adjective
1.
in no way uncertain or ambiguous; unquestionable; unmistakable: a decided victory.
2.
free from hesitation or wavering; resolute; determined: a decided approach to a problem.
what
[hwuht, hwot, wuht, wot; unstressed hwuh t, wuh t] Show IPA
pronoun
1.
(used interrogatively as a request for specific information): What is the matter?
2.
(used interrogatively to inquire about the character, occupation, etc., of a person): What does he do?
3.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the origin, identity, etc., of something): What are those birds?
4.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the worth, usefulness, force, or importance of something): What is wealth without friends?
5.
(used interrogatively to request a repetition of words or information not fully understood, usually used in elliptical constructions): You need what?
that
[th at; unstressed th uh t] Show IPA pronoun and adjective, plural those; adv.; conj.
pronoun
1.
(used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): That is her mother. After that we saw each other.
2.
(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, referring to the one more remote in place, time, or thought; opposed to this ): This is my sister and that's my cousin.
3.
(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, implying a contrast or contradistinction; opposed to this ): This suit fits better than that.
4.
(used as the subject or object of a relative clause, especially one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which ): the horse that he bought.
5.
(used as the object of a preposition, with the preposition standing at the end of a relative clause): the farm that I spoke of.
is
[iz] Show IPA
verb
1.
3rd person singular present indicative of be.
yet
[yet] Show IPA
adverb
1.
at the present time; now: Don't go yet. Are they here yet?
2.
up to a particular time; thus far: They had not yet come.
3.
in the time still remaining; before all is done: There is yet time.
4.
from the preceding time; as previously; still: He came here on a vacation 20 years ago, and he is here yet.
5.
in addition; again: The mail brought yet another reply.
-
Executive Order is not meant to alter a constitutional right.
We have checks and balances for a reason and the reason OB is going this route is because the representive of the people want no part of what he is pushing and he knows it.
This is why we are supposed to be a representative republic, not a dictatorship.
Keep re-reading it.
hope this helps:
we
[wee] Show IPA
plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us.
1.
nominative plural of I.
2.
(used to denote oneself and another or others): We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
3.
(used to denote people in general): the marvels of science that we take for granted.
4.
(used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party, etc., that includes the speaker or writer): We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.
5.
Also called the royal we. (used by a sovereign, or by other high officials and dignitaries, in place of I in formal speech): We do not wear this crown without humility.
have·n't
[hav-uh nt] Show IPA
contraction of have not.
de·cid·ed
[dih-sahy-did] Show IPA
adjective
1.
in no way uncertain or ambiguous; unquestionable; unmistakable: a decided victory.
2.
free from hesitation or wavering; resolute; determined: a decided approach to a problem.
what
[hwuht, hwot, wuht, wot; unstressed hwuh t, wuh t] Show IPA
pronoun
1.
(used interrogatively as a request for specific information): What is the matter?
2.
(used interrogatively to inquire about the character, occupation, etc., of a person): What does he do?
3.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the origin, identity, etc., of something): What are those birds?
4.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the worth, usefulness, force, or importance of something): What is wealth without friends?
5.
(used interrogatively to request a repetition of words or information not fully understood, usually used in elliptical constructions): You need what?
that
[th at; unstressed th uh t] Show IPA pronoun and adjective, plural those; adv.; conj.
pronoun
1.
(used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): That is her mother. After that we saw each other.
2.
(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, referring to the one more remote in place, time, or thought; opposed to this ): This is my sister and that's my cousin.
3.
(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, implying a contrast or contradistinction; opposed to this ): This suit fits better than that.
4.
(used as the subject or object of a relative clause, especially one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which ): the horse that he bought.
5.
(used as the object of a preposition, with the preposition standing at the end of a relative clause): the farm that I spoke of.
is
[iz] Show IPA
verb
1.
3rd person singular present indicative of be.
yet
[yet] Show IPA
adverb
1.
at the present time; now: Don't go yet. Are they here yet?
2.
up to a particular time; thus far: They had not yet come.
3.
in the time still remaining; before all is done: There is yet time.
4.
from the preceding time; as previously; still: He came here on a vacation 20 years ago, and he is here yet.
5.
in addition; again: The mail brought yet another reply.
-
Come on Ozmo, you that that 333 doesn't bother reading anything and even when he does it's moot because he just pretends it says whatever it is he wants to believe. Same goes for audio and video
This is one of those indicators that there is something misfiring inside that brain
^^
This.
That.
And the GOP wonders why it lost a "Landslide"
-
For 333333
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henny_Penny)
-
Keep re-reading it.
I have read it - Obama is not going through the normal legislative process why?
He is trying to do an end run around congress since they want nothing to do w his radical extremist agenda.
And that is how it is supposed to work. President is supposed to enforce existing law, nothing else.
-
I have read it - Obama is not going through the normal legislative process why?
He is trying to do an end run around congress since they want nothing to do w his radical extremist agenda.
And that is how it is supposed to work. President is supposed to enforce existing law, nothing else.
if that was how it was supposed to work NO PRESIDENT WOULD EVER USE EO
so don't lecture me on how it is supposed to work. ::)
-
if that was how it was supposed to work NO PRESIDENT WOULD EVER USE EO
so don't lecture me on how it is supposed to work. ::)
LOL - this is an EO directly affecting a right enumerated in the BOR, not designating some 1000 acre corner in WY a wildlife refuge
Big Difference
-
I have read it - Obama is not going through the normal legislative process why?
He is trying to do an end run around congress since they want nothing to do w his radical extremist agenda.
And that is how it is supposed to work. President is supposed to enforce existing law, nothing else.
I gotta agree with 3333 on this.
For one thing, the president will not be able to reverse the supreme court on the 2nd so if he's planning on rounding up guns with an executive order, lol... The supreme court is one avenue for overturning executive order. So if it's already against the court's ruling, then uh, nope he can't do that.
But anyway Obama promised that he would not use signing statements as an end run around congress. The video is on youtube. Signing statements are what the president changes with legislation before signing into law. He's already broke his promise on that.
Now with executive order, it sounds like he's looking to go around congress on an issue that congress should absolutely deal with. That's breaking the spirit of the promise he made with signing statements even worse.
Congress can cancel his executive orders but they'll be pussies and won't.
-
I gotta agree with 3333 on this.
For one thing, the president will not be able to reverse the supreme court on the 2nd so if he's planning on rounding up guns with an executive order, lol... The supreme court is one avenue for overturning executive order. So if it's already against the court's ruling, then uh, nope he can't do that.
But anyway Obama promised that he would not use signing statements as an end run around congress. The video is on youtube. Signing statements are what the president changes with legislation before signing into law. He's already broke his promise on that.
Now with executive order, it sounds like he's looking to go around congress on an issue that congress should absolutely deal with. That's breaking the spirit of the promise he made with signing statements even worse.
Congress can cancel his executive orders but they'll be pussies and won't.
But what is he actually doing? What has he said he will do?
Until then it doesn't mean much IMO.
PS: your inbox is full.
-
LOL - this is an EO directly affecting a right enumerated in the BOR, not designating some 1000 acre corner in WY a wildlife refuge
Big Difference
All EO's have been trivial? ::)
-
hope this helps:
we
[wee] Show IPA
plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us.
1.
nominative plural of I.
2.
(used to denote oneself and another or others): We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
3.
(used to denote people in general): the marvels of science that we take for granted.
4.
(used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party, etc., that includes the speaker or writer): We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.
5.
Also called the royal we. (used by a sovereign, or by other high officials and dignitaries, in place of I in formal speech): We do not wear this crown without humility.
have·n't
[hav-uh nt] Show IPA
contraction of have not.
de·cid·ed
[dih-sahy-did] Show IPA
adjective
1.
in no way uncertain or ambiguous; unquestionable; unmistakable: a decided victory.
2.
free from hesitation or wavering; resolute; determined: a decided approach to a problem.
what
[hwuht, hwot, wuht, wot; unstressed hwuh t, wuh t] Show IPA
pronoun
1.
(used interrogatively as a request for specific information): What is the matter?
2.
(used interrogatively to inquire about the character, occupation, etc., of a person): What does he do?
3.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the origin, identity, etc., of something): What are those birds?
4.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the worth, usefulness, force, or importance of something): What is wealth without friends?
5.
(used interrogatively to request a repetition of words or information not fully understood, usually used in elliptical constructions): You need what?
that
[th at; unstressed th uh t] Show IPA pronoun and adjective, plural those; adv.; conj.
pronoun
1.
(used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): That is her mother. After that we saw each other.
2.
(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, referring to the one more remote in place, time, or thought; opposed to this ): This is my sister and that's my cousin.
3.
(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, implying a contrast or contradistinction; opposed to this ): This suit fits better than that.
4.
(used as the subject or object of a relative clause, especially one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which ): the horse that he bought.
5.
(used as the object of a preposition, with the preposition standing at the end of a relative clause): the farm that I spoke of.
is
[iz] Show IPA
verb
1.
3rd person singular present indicative of be.
yet
[yet] Show IPA
adverb
1.
at the present time; now: Don't go yet. Are they here yet?
2.
up to a particular time; thus far: They had not yet come.
3.
in the time still remaining; before all is done: There is yet time.
4.
from the preceding time; as previously; still: He came here on a vacation 20 years ago, and he is here yet.
5.
in addition; again: The mail brought yet another reply.
Bitch slapped into next week. Or 10,000 posts. Whichever comes first.
-
All EO's have been trivial? ::)
Most are on minor shit - not having to deal w altering an enumerated right in the BOR.
When was the last time you ever heard of a POTUS issuing a EO on Free Speech rights, Freedom of Assembly, Search and Seizure, etc?
Never.
-
Most are on minor shit - not having to deal w altering an enumerated right in the BOR.
When was the last time you ever heard of a POTUS issuing a EO on Free Speech rights, Freedom of Assembly, Search and Seizure, etc?
Never.
He hasn't issued anything yet.
Could just be another AWB or variation of it stricter or looser.
Until then, no need to be subject to the spin.
-
He hasn't issued anything yet.
Could just be another AWB or variation of it stricter or looser.
Until then, no need to be subject to the spin.
Biden said today this is route OB is taking.
-
Biden said today this is route OB is taking.
so?
Have you ever read "Beast in the Garden"?
-
so?
Have you ever read "Beast in the Garden"?
What does that have to do w Biden today? Nothing
-
What does that have to do w Biden today? Nothing
about as much as spinning nothing into Facism does which is what you are doing along with Drudge getting all the retards excited.
-
about as much as spinning nothing into Facism does which is what you are doing along with Drudge getting all the retards excited.
Yeah - lets not take Biden seriously when Menino said Obama told him something would happen by the end of this month, there is no support for gun control in the congress for this, and Obama's only avenue which he promised is dictatorial fiat.
::) ::)
-
Yeah - lets not take Biden seriously when Menino said Obama told him something would happen by the end of this month, there is no support for gun control in the congress for this, and Obama's only avenue which he promised is dictatorial fiat.
::) ::)
No, until something is actually done NOTHING can be done. EO is within laws. Get over it and stop acting like chicken little which what you do with almost everything.
So i suggest you re-read it again:
we
[wee] Show IPA
plural pronoun, possessive our or ours, objective us.
1.
nominative plural of I.
2.
(used to denote oneself and another or others): We have two children. In this block we all own our own houses.
3.
(used to denote people in general): the marvels of science that we take for granted.
4.
(used to indicate a particular profession, nationality, political party, etc., that includes the speaker or writer): We in the medical profession have moral responsibilities.
5.
Also called the royal we. (used by a sovereign, or by other high officials and dignitaries, in place of I in formal speech): We do not wear this crown without humility.
have·n't
[hav-uh nt] Show IPA
contraction of have not.
de·cid·ed
[dih-sahy-did] Show IPA
adjective
1.
in no way uncertain or ambiguous; unquestionable; unmistakable: a decided victory.
2.
free from hesitation or wavering; resolute; determined: a decided approach to a problem.
what
[hwuht, hwot, wuht, wot; unstressed hwuh t, wuh t] Show IPA
pronoun
1.
(used interrogatively as a request for specific information): What is the matter?
2.
(used interrogatively to inquire about the character, occupation, etc., of a person): What does he do?
3.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the origin, identity, etc., of something): What are those birds?
4.
(used interrogatively to inquire as to the worth, usefulness, force, or importance of something): What is wealth without friends?
5.
(used interrogatively to request a repetition of words or information not fully understood, usually used in elliptical constructions): You need what?
that
[th at; unstressed th uh t] Show IPA pronoun and adjective, plural those; adv.; conj.
pronoun
1.
(used to indicate a person, thing, idea, state, event, time, remark, etc., as pointed out or present, mentioned before, supposed to be understood, or by way of emphasis): That is her mother. After that we saw each other.
2.
(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, referring to the one more remote in place, time, or thought; opposed to this ): This is my sister and that's my cousin.
3.
(used to indicate one of two or more persons, things, etc., already mentioned, implying a contrast or contradistinction; opposed to this ): This suit fits better than that.
4.
(used as the subject or object of a relative clause, especially one defining or restricting the antecedent, sometimes replaceable by who, whom, or which ): the horse that he bought.
5.
(used as the object of a preposition, with the preposition standing at the end of a relative clause): the farm that I spoke of.
is
[iz] Show IPA
verb
1.
3rd person singular present indicative of be.
yet
[yet] Show IPA
adverb
1.
at the present time; now: Don't go yet. Are they here yet?
2.
up to a particular time; thus far: They had not yet come.
3.
in the time still remaining; before all is done: There is yet time.
4.
from the preceding time; as previously; still: He came here on a vacation 20 years ago, and he is here yet.
5.
in addition; again: The mail brought yet another reply.
-
Most are on minor shit - not having to deal w altering an enumerated right in the BOR.
When was the last time you ever heard of a POTUS issuing a EO on Free Speech rights, Freedom of Assembly, Search and Seizure, etc?
Never.
The Emancipation Proclamation was an EO
So was de-segregation of the military
and, as Ozmo pointed out we have zero details on exactly what (if anything) Obama will do
I seriously doubt it will be anything near as sweeping at the two items I just mentioned
-
The Emancipation Proclamation was an EO
So was de-segregation of the military
and, as Ozmo pointed out we have zero details on exactly what (if anything) Obama will do
I seriously doubt it will be anything near as sweeping at the two items I just mentioned
Was there anything in the those two examples given that in any way challenged the Constitution? If anything the two examples you just gave fit perfectly the powers granted to the executive allowing for executive orders in the first place. The purpose of executive order is to make sure shit is carried out as indended by congress or the judicial. On this issue now, it's dealing with a constitutional amendment which is a much bigger thing to be crossing with an executive order.
And that's true, we don't have any details on what Obama is going to do. There's a reason they toss options like this out. They're putting a feeler out and they've put a few out over this issue recently. This isn't anything new, presidents have been doing this for a while although more easily with the internet. That means the time to talk about it is now, not after they see nobody gives a shit.
-
Was there anything in the those two examples given that in any way challenged the Constitution? If anything the two examples you just gave fit perfectly the powers granted to the executive allowing for executive orders in the first place. The purpose of executive order is to make sure shit is carried out as indended by congress or the judicial. On this issue now, it's dealing with a constitutional amendment which is a much bigger thing to be crossing with an executive order.
Are we talking about using an EO to overrule an amendment?
Lincoln felt his EP wasn't enough to last, hence he politiced for the 13th amendment.
And that's true, we don't have any details on what Obama is going to do. There's a reason they toss options like this out. They're putting a feeler out and they've put a few out over this issue recently. This isn't anything new, presidents have been doing this for a while although more easily with the internet. That means the time to talk about it is now, not after they see nobody gives a shit.
Would you agree however, that to certain extent, there is a great deal of fear mongering going here in the spin?
Nothing has been said, it could be a AWB of some sort, more registration, BG checks.
Shouldn't we reserve outrage until something actually is said?
PS: your inbox is full
-
Are we talking about using an EO to overrule an amendment?
Lincoln felt his EP wasn't enough to last, hence he politiced for the 13th amendment.
Would you agree however, that to certain extent, there is a great deal of fear mongering going here in the spin?
Nothing has been said, it could be a AWB of some sort, more registration, BG checks.
Shouldn't we reserve outrage until something actually is said?
PS: your inbox is full
If the president is going to put out feelers on this issue without exact clarifications he gets what he asked for. People are going to toss this shit back and forth like we're doing. Various people reading or debating this stuff across country will send mail to the white house. They'll take a sampling of those and Obama will have his feeler results. He'll also get some feedback to how the media responds along with any possible warning or worries from the legal community and shit like the aclu etc...
This is the time to guess and debate the worst and what should or shouldn't be done. If this wasn't what Obama wanted, he would have been more specific. Bush and Clinton did this shit bigtime.
And this is like the 2nd or 3rd feeler in the last few weeks around this from Obama so this tells me they're pretty worried how they should proceed.
-
Are we talking about using an EO to overrule an amendment?
If Obama thought that he had the public support for it and the full support of his party, that's very possible. Congress couldn't cancel it without 2/3 vote so it would be left to the supreme court. It could be possible for him to word an executive order in a way that effectively castrates the 2nd while still leaving it there.
-
Was there anything in the those two examples given that in any way challenged the Constitution? If anything the two examples you just gave fit perfectly the powers granted to the executive allowing for executive orders in the first place. The purpose of executive order is to make sure shit is carried out as indended by congress or the judicial. On this issue now, it's dealing with a constitutional amendment which is a much bigger thing to be crossing with an executive order.
And that's true, we don't have any details on what Obama is going to do. There's a reason they toss options like this out. They're putting a feeler out and they've put a few out over this issue recently. This isn't anything new, presidents have been doing this for a while although more easily with the internet. That means the time to talk about it is now, not after they see nobody gives a shit.
The EP didn't actually free the slaves until the 13th amendment outlawed slavery
Obama is not going to ban private ownership of all "arms" and we already have restrictions on what types of "arms" a private citizen can possess so I seriously doubt there will be any constitutional issue with whatever he decides to do
-
The EP didn't actually free the slaves until the 13th amendment outlawed slavery
I didn't say it did and that wasn't my question was it?
Obama is not going to ban private ownership of all "arms" and we already have restrictions on what types of "arms" a private citizen can possess so I seriously doubt there will be any constitutional issue with whatever he decides to do
You can't say if there will be a constitutional issue until we see what he does and how it is challenged. He's clearly wanting feedback from the public putting out feelers like this. All we're doing now is debating on it.
What I do know is that there are plenty of people like you out there that think we shouldn't be allowed to have anything beyond a one shot manual muzzle loaded musket. ::) And this is our time in the political debate to tell people with that opinion to go fuck themselves, hopefully in a loud enough way that our message is heard too--louder than yours.
-
I didn't say it did and that wasn't my question was it?
You can't say if there will be a constitutional issue until we see what he does and how it is challenged. He's clearly wanting feedback from the public putting out feelers like this. All we're doing now is debating on it.
What I do know is that there are plenty of people like you out there that think we shouldn't be allowed to have anything beyond a one shot manual muzzle loaded musket. ::) And this is our time in the political debate to tell people with that opinion to go fuck themselves, hopefully in a loud enough way that our message is heard too--louder than yours.
We have to allow Obama to pass a Executive Order first so we can see whats in it later.
-
:)
-
We have to allow Obama to pass a Executive Order first so we can see whats in it later.
yea, that's a bad idea in this case.
This isn't something you wait for the dust to settle on before talking about. And so far Obama has not come out with what is off limits so you and other pro 2nd advocates are well within bounds to be entertaining the worst possible senerio. Obama wants to see exactly how much he can get away with and he'll push it as far as he can without serious ramifications. If nobody said anything, he'd have a lot more room to push for sure so you're doing the right thing in this case 3333. In my personal opinion!!!!!!
-
yea, that's a bad idea in this case.
This isn't something you wait for the dust to settle on before talking about. And so far Obama has not come out with what is off limits so you and other pro 2nd advocates are well within bounds to be entertaining the worst possible senerio. Obama wants to see exactly how much he can get away with and he'll push it as far as he can without serious ramifications. If nobody said anything, he'd have a lot more room to push for sure so you're doing the right thing in this case 3333. In my personal opinion!!!!!!
I have done this on every issue from Day 1 of this communist wannabe dictator who is little more than a Third World marxist strong man w a smile.
-
I have done this on every issue from Day 1 of this communist wannabe dictator who is little more than a Third World marxist strong man w a smile.
Ok, lets not drag it into all your other issues. I was only commenting on that I think you're right to be commenting on this issue the way you are. If you want my opinion on other issues you've taken on, if might not be so favorable for you lol...
-
:)
you can post the same dumb shit over and over but it's still just as dumb as the first time you posted it
-
Ok, lets not drag it into all your other issues. I was only commenting on that I think you're right to be commenting on this issue the way you are. If you want my opinion on other issues you've taken on, if might not be so favorable for you lol...
This and this coin fiasco are most present. O THUG will try to do this just like MugabeCare.
-
Guest Post: Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?
Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/10/2013 14:20 -0500
Where Does The Hatred Of Constitutionalism Come From?
The Constitution of the United States is an undeniably powerful document. So powerful in fact, that it took establishment elitists with aspirations of globalized governance over a century to diminish the American people’s connection to it. It’s been a long time coming, but in the new millennium, there is now indeed a subsection of the masses that not only have no relationship to our founding roots, they actually despise those of us who do!
There are a number of reasons for this dangerous development in our culture: A public school system that rarely if ever teaches children about the revolution, the founders, constitutional liberty, or the virtues of individualism in general. A mainstream media apparatus that has regurgitated endless anti-constitutional shlock for decades, attacking any person or group that presents a freedom oriented view. And a governmental structure that has become so corrupt, so openly criminal, that they ignore all aspects of constitutional law without regard, rarely feeling the need to explain themselves. As a people, we are surrounded daily by the low droning wash-talk of denigration and disdain for our principled foundations. The wretched ghosts of collectivism and tyranny mumble in our ears from birth to death. It’s truly a miracle that every man and woman in this nation has not succumbed to the mind numbing hypnotism…
However, our propaganda soaked environment is not the ONLY cause of our self destructive society; many people are themselves to blame. Severe character flaws and psychological imbalances have left some open to suggestion, manipulation, and fraud. Their hatred, though fueled in part by the socialization of the establishment, is still theirs to own.
The brutal ignorance on display in mainstream circles against the liberty-minded needs to be addressed. In my view, the American public is being conditioned to see us as a convenient “enemy” which they can use to project all their internal grief and woe. Our country is on the verge of collapse, economically, politically, and philosophically. Corporatized elements of our government and the financial high priests of the international banking sector are behind this calamity, and of course, they don’t plan to take responsibility. Who better to demonize as the catalyst for all the pain that is coming than the only people who have the awareness and the means to stand against the catastrophe?
There is no doubt in my mind that a great conflict is near, between those of us who value liberty and constitutional protections, and those who would destroy them. This battle is unlikely to be solved with words. The anti-constitutionalist rhetoric is becoming so ruthless, so malicious, that it can only lead to a hardening of our own hearts, and an equally forceful response.
Most of us have seen all the mainstream magazines with front page headlines calling for the retirement of the Constitution. Most of us know about the suggestions by media entities and political opportunists (including Joe Biden) for Barack Obama to bypass congress and the Constitution, implementing possible gun restriction, registration, and confiscation through “executive order” like a common dictator. There is an obviously brash and violent effort amongst political players today to mold our government into a godlike entity. But, this is not what concerns me most. What concerns me is the subversive boiling poison that is leaking into our culture at the local level, creating freedom hating zombies. Take, for instance, the anti-constitutionalist crusade by a New Hampshire representative against the New Hampshire Free State Project:
What causes someone to hate freedom-loving people so much that they would destroy their own liberties just to drive us away? Is this not cutting off their own nose just to spite OUR face? Or, do they even see the loss of freedom for themselves as a bad thing?
And how about Marine Corporal Joshua Boston, who after sending a letter to Dianne Feinstein stating he would not comply with unconstitutional gun restrictions, is now receiving death threats because of his membership in the NRA:
What is the source of the hatred towards constitutionalists? Where does it originate? Here are just some of the personal triggers and methodologies within the mind of the anti-freedom advocate which I believe have sullied them beyond repair…
The Anti-Constitutionalist Suffers From An Inferiority Complex
I have found in my role as a Liberty Movement analyst and through literally tens of thousands of debates that anti-constitution advocates are, for the most part, of limited intelligence. These are the average useful idiots who know little of history, politics, economics, etc., but feel the desperate need to appear as though they are experts on everything. This usually results in constant attempts to show off for anyone who will pay attention, usually with sound-bites they heard on the nightly news coupled with remedial attacks against the character of those who dare to step outside the mainstream.
The problem is that deep down, they know they are not very bright. And so, they seek to always travel with the herd on every issue, for if they cannot be smart, they can at least be accepted. Ironically, if constitutionalism was being pushed by the mainstream, they would automatically change their tune.
It is probable that they have run into a Liberty Movement proponent (most of whom are well versed in history, politics, and economics) at least once in their lives, went in for an attack, and were utterly destroyed. Their inferiority exposed, they learn to detest anything associated with constitutionalism.
The Anti-Constitutionalist Does Not Like The Idea Of A Law He Cannot Use To His Advantage
Not all anti-constitutionalists are dense. A limited few are very intelligent, but morally bankrupt. The Constitution is not just a legal document; it is also an emotional and spiritual document. If one does not have a relationship with his own conscience and the concept of natural law, then he will discover little in the founding ideals of America that he agrees with. Some people (usually corrupt politicians and judges) see the law as a weapon to be used against their ideological opponents, whereas constitutionalists see the law as a shield to protect us from such despots. The Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are both designed to protect our Absolute Freedoms. That is, freedoms that are inborn and which no person or government is qualified to give as a gift, or take as if they are a privilege.
Nothing angers those who seek power more than a legal framework which they are not allowed to touch, or shift, or “tweak” to suit their private ambitions.
Constitutional protections are not meant to be subject to the “buts” and “what ifs” common in the lesser legal world. They are not open to debate. Our rights are not subject to the demands of the so-called “majority”. Our rights are eternal, and unchangeable. Anti-constitutionalists attempt to work around the absolutes of the document by implementing subversive law backed by flawed logic. But, a law which destroys previous constitutional rights is not a law which any individual American is required to follow. Even an amendment that undermines our civil liberties is not legally binding. The freedoms put forth in the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are SET IN STONE (and this includes the right to bear arms in common use of the military of our day). They cannot be undone without destroying the very fabric of the republic.
The Anti-Constitutionalist Hates Those Who Go Against The Tide, Even If The Tide Is Drowning Us All
Some people are predisposed to be followers. They do not want to take responsibility for their futures or even their own actions. They do not like questions. They do not like dilemmas. They want to be left to wallow in their own private prisons, where they are comfortably enslaved.
I remember participating in an End The Fed rally in Pittsburgh in early 2008 which was, like most activist rallies, meant to expose the uneducated public to ideas they may not have heard before. I found it interesting that around a quarter of the people who strolled by our picket line automatically sneered, as if by reflex, even though they had probably never heard our position, or even heard of the Fed. It dawned on me that they were not angered by our political or economic views. Instead they were angered by the mere fact that we were there. We were vocal, and defiant, and a disruption to their daily robot-like routine. They hated us because we were ruining their fantasy of disconnectedness.
Constitutionalists are predominantly individualists. We do not cater to collectivist fairy tales. We do not seek to roll with the tide just for the sake of finding our “place” within the machine. We do not care about “fitting in” with the mainstream. This is often confounding and infuriating to those who have labored their whole lives to please “the group”. They accuse us of being “isolationists” in response. What they do not comprehend is that illusion and delusion have isolated THEM, while the truth has brought constitutionalists together.
Constitutionalists Are Not Politically Correct
For the past few decades our society has become engrossed with the idea of “proper language and behavior”. Of course, their idea of “proper” usually involves ignoring the reality of a thing. For a Constitutionalist, a spade is a spade, and we tend to call it like we see it. We don’t bother ourselves with superficial niceties that get in the way of legitimate debate or legitimate change. We are not “pleasant” and tolerant with those who would kill our freedoms. We do not pull punches.
We are direct, and sometimes, brutal in our analysis.
In some parts of the Western world (especially the UK) language has become a game, a game of self censorship and deceit. This game has made its way to the United States in recent years, and Constitutionalists don’t play. We know that every overtly collectivist society begins with the fear of open expression. And so, our blunt honesty rattles those invested in the PC culture. Their ultimate and ideal revenge would be to see us painted as social malcontents; like people who smoke in public, or wear a mullet…
Constitutionalists Are Passionate In Their Beliefs
A large percentage of men and women in this world have never been truly passionate about anything. They simply eat, breath, and defecate their way through life, scrounging about the squalor of a broken system for whatever brief moments of comfort they can find. They have never explored their inner workings or suffered the hardship of individuation. They have never been forced to seek out an inner strength, a personal treasure, which guides them to a greater purpose. Everything they think they believe in has been conditioned into them. Their uniqueness is suppressed, and their characters shallow. They have never loved an idea, or a principle.
Constitutionalists LOVE liberty and the mechanics of freedom. We love the values of a sovereign republic and the opportunities that such a system provides when collectivists are removed from the picture. There is no question or doubt in our minds; we would fight and die to protect the pillars of the Constitution.
When confronted with this kind of passion, the average person is shocked and sometimes appalled. The idea of unshakable will is frightening to them. They are so used to compromising in every aspect of their lives that when they run into an uncompromising man, they reel in horror.
That which they see as “fanaticism” is instead an excitement, a boundless joy, a fervent desire to protect something universal and precious. What they see as “extreme”, we see as essential.
The Anti-Constitutionalist Thinks He Knows What’s Best For All Of Us
Most people who seek to deny and destroy constitutional liberties tend to lean towards a collectivist philosophy. They are usually socialist, or a variation (Marxist, Fascist), and can be professed members of either major political party. They believe that their vision of a perfect cultural system is the “correct” vision. They see the Constitution as “archaic” or “outdated”. They see it as nothing more than an obstacle to progress which must be toppled.
The “perfect world” that the collectivist strives for functions on centralization: the removal of options until there are no choices left for the common man except those which the collectivist wants him to have. This world usually suffers from limited free speech, limited civic participation, zero tolerance for dissent, near zero privacy from government eyes, a completely disarmed populous, unaccountable leadership, and the encouragement of informer networks and betrayal for profit. The goal is to intimidate the whole of a nation into dependence on the system, until every necessity from food to self defense is parceled out by the state.
Collectivists understand one thing very clearly; an America without the Constitution is destined to become a centralized country.
They will, of course, claim this is a gross exaggeration. They will claim that this time will be different. That the collectivist experiments of the past, which produced nothing but destruction and genocide of their own populations, are nothing similar to what they are espousing. They will pretend as if their vision is new, progressive, and far more practical than the vision of the Founding Fathers. In the end though, all they are promoting is a system as old as history; the feudal kingdom. The mercantile oligarchy. The militarized state.
At the height of their vicious sabotage of the republic, they will demonize our very heritage, claiming that it was a sham. That we were never able to “live up to our beliefs anyway”. That we are “hypocrites”, and this somehow negates the reverence we give to the Constitution. Unfortunately for them, we know better. We understand that the principles of the Constitution are not something we grasp at all times, but rather, something to which we aspire to, and grow into as our nation matures. They require patience, and wisdom. They force us to question our own “brilliance”, and our own egos. They anchor us, preventing us from being swept away in the storms of fear.
There has never been and there will never be a better method of law and governance than that method which defends the individualism and freedom of the people. The most fantastic of human accomplishments, in technology as well as in philosophy, spring from the nurturing waters of liberty. Free minds and hearts create. They refuse to be contained, and the Constitution gives us license to ensure that they will never be contained, even to the point of revolution.
To deny constitutionalism, is to endorse oppression. May we forever rebel against the agents of “progress”. May we forever give them something to hate.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-01-10/guest-post-where-does-hatred-constitutionalism-come
-
After Meeting, NRA Says White House Has 'Agenda to Attack the Second Amendment'
4:05 PM, Jan 10, 2013 • By DANIEL HALPER
After meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and Attorney General Eric Holder at the White House today, the National Rifle Association released a statement saying the White House has an "agenda to attack the Second Amendment."
"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of over 4 million moms and dads, daughters and sons, who are involved in the national conversation about how to prevent a tragedy like Newtown from ever happening again. We attended today's White House meeting to discuss how to keep our children safe and were prepared to have a meaningful conversation about school safety, mental health issues, the marketing of violence to our kids and the collapse of federal prosecutions of violent criminals," reads the NRA statement.
"We were disappointed with how little this meeting had to do with keeping our children safe and how much it had to do with an agenda to attack the Second Amendment. While claiming that no policy proposals would be “prejudged,” this Task Force spent most of its time on proposed restrictions on lawful firearms owners - honest, taxpaying, hardworking Americans. It is unfortunate that this Administration continues to insist on pushing failed solutions to our nation's most pressing problems. We will not allow law-abiding gun owners to be blamed for the acts of criminals and madmen. Instead, we will now take our commitment and meaningful contributions to members of congress of both parties who are interested in having an honest conversation about what works - and what does not."