|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 3:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 24, 2009 5:53 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:27 am
 |
|
|
 |
Lord Bitememan Quote: I'm actually afraid for our country and hoping that at least some people will come to their senses and do something about it, even if it is forming a militia I've been in this game for a long time. I've seen the winning sides of elections, and I've seen the losing sides of them. Calling for taking up arms is so uncalled for in this instance it isn't even funny. This country has had bad presidents before and it's still standing. Buck up, this one has another 3 to 7 years and he's out too.
before or after our country is in ruins? If the government wants to destroy our country because they are power-hungry bastards, they will, because people will let them. They will sit around doing nothing hoping for someone to come along that will fix everything, which, unfortunately, may take longer than they expect. Obama and Congress have already twisted the Constitution in so many ways so that THEY may take advantage of it. If we keep letting them, we'll be in chains and not able to do anything of our free will. Isn't this why we wanted independence in the first place? That's fine if you want to sit around doing nothing and HOPING that someone will come and take us out of this mess, but, with how we are going, I don't think that is possible. Therefore, that is why I said, 'WHEN a militia forms I will join' because I want to stand up for the rights that we have via the CONSTITUTION and not the GOVERNMENT!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:01 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: before or after our country is in ruins?
The country isn't going to end up in ruins. In fact, it will be nowhere near it. Mr. Obama will get what policies he can through, and in two years if he's overreached and met with failure his congressional majorities will disappear. He will be checked for the rest of his term, and everything will be reined in. What he's doing is nothing new or unheard of. He's simply a far left president coming in and driving through a number of large spending priorities. This has happened in so many times and in so many countries (countries who are still very much around, I might add) that this irrational fear you have smacks of paranoia.
Quote: If the government wants to destroy our country because they are power-hungry bastards, they will, because people will let them.
If the government wanted to destroy the country it would take them two minutes, they'd short-launch our nuclear stockpile and detonate at air burst altitude. Short of this, no leader of the US is out to destroy the country.
Quote: They will sit around doing nothing hoping for someone to come along that will fix everything, which, unfortunately, may take longer than they expect.
Wanting people to do something to fix things is what has driven Obama to the programs he is pushing now. Frankly if everyone would have just calmed down and sat back for a few the economy would have naturally corrected itself (it's called the natural business cycle). Calling on people to calm down, put down the AK-47s, and exercise their right to vote will keep us from taking the normal transition from party to party and turning it into Sandanistas vs. Contras America chapter.
Quote: Obama and Congress have already twisted the Constitution in so many ways so that THEY may take advantage of it.
They haven't. I'm sure you're pointing to the supposed "take-over" of the auto-industry and the banks, and even that in no way, shape, or form justifies the statement you've made. Government has exercised functional control of these bodies only as a condition of federal money these institutions have taken. The institutions are free to reject the money and return it at any time, and they will again be free of governmental conditions. Of course, most will go into chapter 11 and cease to be banks in a year, so, that's why they've taken the money.
Quote: If we keep letting them, we'll be in chains and not able to do anything of our free will.
Don't you see a significant logical chasm between tied government appropriations and formal social tyranny?
Quote: Isn't this why we wanted independence in the first place?
We wanted independence for a number of reasons, freedom from congressional budgetary appropriations wasn't one of them.
Quote: That's fine if you want to sit around doing nothing and HOPING that someone will come and take us out of this mess
Nice strawman fallacy. I'm simply advocating the necessary restraint needed for any democracy to function. The inability to sit back and let another party have a crack at running things for a while turns us into any number of African nations, like Liberia, Sierra Leone, or Somalia. Look at those countries. That's what happened when people can't stand the other side winning and go form militias. We enjoy the stability, prosperity, and freedoms of the west precisely because we are patient, level-headed, and don't head for the hills with our weapons. We are the west because when the other side wins we don't turn the streets red with blood, we sit back, drink our coffees, and let the other guys run things till the muck it up somehow. Then we get our crack. The only bad you can do with political hyperbole is actually believe your own hyperbole, that's where nations collapse.
Quote: Therefore, that is why I said, 'WHEN a militia forms I will join' because I want to stand up for the rights that we have via the CONSTITUTION and not the GOVERNMENT!!!
The government has yet to become destructive of those rights. I've read the bill of rights many, many times in my life. We still have free speech, we still have free press, we still have our right to bear arms (which is stronger now than ever thanks to the Roberts court), government still doesn't force us to quarter troops, they still can't search homes without warrant or cause, they still can't compel us to testify against ourselves, we still have the right to trial by jury in both civil and criminal affairs, we are still free from cruel and unusual punishment. Seriously, I defy you, prove that Obama and the new administration have subverted any of these rights. I'm not holding my breath. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 6:49 am
|
|
|
|
On most of your points you seem to know what you are talking about, although, I misused some of my words by saying Obama and Congress have twisted the Constitution around, I was meaning that they have made it so that what people thought they knew about the Constitution has been twisted around to the point that we are in confusion. Obama HAS gone back on the things that he PROMISED us and by doing that he lost the thing that we need most in this country: trust.
Our government has restrained us from second amendment which is the reason for the chains, if we could fight for ourselves, then we wouldn't have to worry so much about our lives all of the time. What worries me the most is that Obama is making it so that we can't LEGALLY own a gun of any sort, but, he is going to let the government own them(meaning police and military), I'm afraid that the "country for the people" idea that Thomas Jefferson tried to put into place has long since vanished and is in no way returning any time soon. Also, take note that this was written early in the morning, my thoughts aren't really coherent at the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:31 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Also, take note that this was written early in the morning, my thoughts aren't really coherent at the time.
Fair enough.
Quote: Our government has restrained us from second amendment which is the reason for the chains, if we could fight for ourselves, then we wouldn't have to worry so much about our lives all of the time.
I'd say, if anything, the opposite has been the case. After a brief flirtation with gun bans, Bush did away with the assault weapons ban and the Supreme Court recent ruled decisively in favor of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right to own firearms. Democrats have built much of their success on pro-gun ownership candidates from red states. I mean, come on, Jim Webb, the Democrat from Virginia, got caught packing heat in the capitol building.
Quote: What worries me the most is that Obama is making it so that we can't LEGALLY own a gun of any sort, but, he is going to let the government own them(meaning police and military), I'm afraid that the "country for the people" idea that Thomas Jefferson tried to put into place has long since vanished and is in no way returning any time soon.
I tried, desperately, to find anything on Obama proposing any gun bans. This is what I found, I kid you not:
An article from the Huffington Post complaining the Obama isn't pushing gun control
Another article from the Huffington Post about how the NRA is claiming Sonya Sotomayor is too anti-gun (it doesn't really make a difference since she's simply replacing a member of the minority opinion in the Heller case)
An article from the Wichita Eagle about the lack of talk about weapons bans after several high profile gun crimes. It contains the following exerpt:
"The nation's first urban Democratic president in a generation, busy with the economy and health care, shows no sign of wanting to press the matter. Asked this spring if Obama might be willing to reinstate the assault weapons ban, spokesman Robert Gibbs said the president believes "there are other strategies that we can take to enforce the laws that are already on the books."
Earlier, Attorney General Eric Holder told CBS News' Katie Couric that the administration would work with the NRA on "commonsense approaches to reduce the level of violence" on the streets. Obama, Holder said, sought policies "that are politically salable and things that will be ultimately effective.""
There's an article from the Examiner about a gun control advocate who claims that guns are the last unregulated industry where health and safety is concerned, but it makes no mention of Obama saying or doing anything.
There's an article from Opposing Views.com where someone calls a State Dept. nominee an anti-gun zealot, but the State Dept. has virtually no domestic power, it is purely a diplomatic dept. (one of the few domestic powers it wields is the ability to issue you a passport).
I'm sorry, but there's just no evidence that Obama is looking to ban any weapons. If you can provide some, I'd be happy to look it over. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:29 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:39 am
|
|
|
|
The only link you provided that actually demonstrates him proposing any gun ban whatsoever is the 3rd link, the ABC article.
1st link: A letter to the editor, someone's opinion, zero facts to back it up.
2nd link: Mainly cites past issues he has supported or endorsed, many of which convey mitigating factors.
4th link: A fear and paranoia site with little in the way of factual support, attribution of quotes, or any balance of any kind in its argument.
So, the ABC article cites Holder as stipulating that Obama is going to reinstate the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. While unfortunate, and probably a full violation of DC. v Heller (which means it will probably not pass judicial review, since Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts are all still on the court), gun ownership went on just fine in the 10 years the ban was actually in place. While I would certainly oppose bringing back the ban (and he's going to have a tough time doing it since so many congressional Dems now are 2nd Amendment advocates), this is a very far cry from your assertion that Obama is completely rescinding the right to own firearms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:51 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 2:14 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jul 25, 2009 2:47 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 20, 2009 10:23 pm
|
|
|
|
*cherry*
I liked Sarah Palin and John McCain. I didn't think they were stupid or anything. The media made it look like it, but they really weren't. I agreed with everything they stood for, (u kno, against gay marriage, pro-life etc.), and wasn't afraid to debate with anyone.
I liekd McCain alot, because he knows milatary strategies. I don't care if the guty wa sold. My grandfather was like that and he lvied to be 96. I bet he would know what to do over in the Middle East. And Sarah Palin would have made a fine Vice President. She was a good Governor. why not Vice President?
Wich brings me to the President. Obama stare I don't really like him, ok, I don't like him at all. He has no milatary strategie, and isn't keeping any of his promises about the war. And I know some of you in this guild weren't big Bush/Cheney fans. But d**k Cheney was always meeting, talking with leaders, and Condelezza Rice was always meeting with people, reporting to Bush. I mean, those people never sleeped! But Obama is always taking vacations with his family, so is Biden, adn Hilary is around touring Africa. Why? They can't help us. Most of those countires are third world countires. Shouldn't she be, oh i don't know, talking with leaders in the Middle East and try to help out with the war? xp
So, in conclusion, I think McCain would have been a better President.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 10:20 am
|
|
|
|
cherrydarlin999 I liked Sarah Palin and John McCain. I didn't think they were stupid or anything. The media made it look like it, but they really weren't. I agreed with everything they stood for, (u kno, against gay marriage, pro-life etc.), and wasn't afraid to debate with anyone.
I don't think you heard that McCain waffled on the issue of abortion, I would have expected him to get anything done on that issue.
Quote: She was a good Governor. why not Vice President?
Alaska was pissed off when she was running as Vice President.
Quote: Wich brings me to the President. Obama stare I don't really like him, ok, I don't like him at all. He has no milatary strategie, and isn't keeping any of his promises about the war.
His promise was to withdraw the troops, I thought that he already settled this issue with the Senate somewhere near his entrance into office. Besides, you were pissed off about healthcare, that was a promise.
Quote: Obama is always taking vacations with his family, so is Biden, adn Hilary is around touring Africa.
Hillary is helping Africa get started on civil rights campaigns. I don't think you realize the chaos that goes on outside America.
As I recall, Bush was one of the presidents to have the most vacations ever!
Quote: Why? They can't help us. Most of those countires are third world countires.
So you're saying we should just sit on our fat lazy asses while other people starve? Yeah, that's good morals there... ban the gays, save the babies, allow the rest to live in utter chaos stare |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 11:42 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: I don't think you heard that McCain waffled on the issue of abortion, I would have expected him to get anything done on that issue.
Many of McCain's purported "wafflings" on the abortion issue stem from statements he made favoring the approach of reducing abortions by reducing the need for them as opposed to outright bans. It's still a pro-life, anti-abortion position to strive towards eliminating them without changing the laws that permit them. McCain could certainly have gotten much done in this front, especially since he would have had a large coalition of centrist Democrats who also share this goal (Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, is one such example).
Quote: Alaska was pissed off when she was running as Vice President.
Sarah Palin enjoyed high approval ratings in Alaska during the Vice Presidential run, and McCain and Palin carried the state with nearly 60% of the vote, even as the state voted to toss it's senior Republican senator.
Quote: He has no milatary strategie, and isn't keeping any of his promises about the war.
Retaining an adequate military presence in Iraq during a transition process so as to ensure a stable Iraqi government IS a military strategy, and a smart one at that.
Quote: Obama is always taking vacations with his family
The president is not just the head of government, he is also the head of state. Many of these trips you allude to are goodwill tours that are a necessary function of state. They build rapport, support, and political capital for the new administration that we will require for the next several years worth of foreign policy. The real travesty is when he goes on "apology tours." We elected him to be leader of the free world, not repenter-in-chief.
That's no big loss. The further Joe Biden is placed from a microphone, the better.
Quote: adn Hilary is around touring Africa.
That's actually not by choice, and it's very strange that the administration is doing this while we have more pressing diplomatic efforts requiring the attention of the State Dept. Instead, Mr. Obama is relying on special envoys to do most of the work, as they report directly to him as opposed to the Sec. of State. If it's his intention to minimize Hillary Clinton, he should never have given her the job in the first place. If he's operating under the unitary executive theory, the Dems owe George W. Bush a huge apology for slagging on the theory while he was in the White House.
Quote: Why? They can't help us. Most of those countires are third world countires.
And you should keep in mind that one of the few places in the world that regards W with any fondness is Africa. Bush helped advance the Africa AIDS initiative and invested a lot in that continent, and as a result it's one of the few places where Bush is certain to have a positive legacy (other areas of policy will be far more in doubt, and are relegated to the "history will vindicate us" sphere). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rainbowfied Mouse Vice Captain
|
Posted: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:21 pm
|
|
|
|
Lord Bitememan Quote: I don't think you heard that McCain waffled on the issue of abortion, I would have expected him to get anything done on that issue. Many of McCain's purported "wafflings" on the abortion issue stem from statements he made favoring the approach of reducing abortions by reducing the need for them as opposed to outright bans. It's still a pro-life, anti-abortion position to strive towards eliminating them without changing the laws that permit them.
When I volunteered at RTL, we had a meeting with the PAC to discuss whether or not we would support him. He had changed to pro-life, when he was pro-choice before, RTL would not support him if he just wanted to "reduce" the amount of abortions, and not make an "pro-life effort"... and as I recall he also flipped on stemcell.
Quote: McCain could certainly have gotten much done in this front, especially since he would have had a large coalition of centrist Democrats who also share this goal (Bob Casey of Pennsylvania, is one such example).
As I recall Cherry's mission isn't decreasing abortions, but attempting making them illegal, decreasing is just a special addition to that. Could does not equal would in that sense |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
