angelofdeath Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 sure banning weapons is unconstitutional. if you want to ban a bazooka, then pass a constitutional amendment. atleast use the proper procedure, it shouldnt be that hard right? you all probably believe in a right to a jury trial, or right to confront your accuser, or a right not to testify against yourself, or the right to free speech, or the right to habeus corpus, or the right to unlawful searches and seizures? why not support all the bill of rights instead of just a few? if it wasnt for the 2nd, all the others wouldnt be protected by the bill of rights because we would still be ruled by imperial britian. the american revolution started when the army of a tyrant, came door to door searching for 'militia weapons.' the nuclear weapon argument is rediculous. i just chuckle when i hear it. when arms is mentioned, it is generally thought of as military small arms and artillery. cannons were and still are legal to own, just as they were in the revolution. in 1775 military arms were flintlock muskets and rifles, today they are full auto m4's and m14's. if nuclear weapons were 'legal' the cost would successfully prohibit damn near every one except for .0000000000000000000000000001 of the population. shit, most governments cant even afford them and they have unlimited tax powers. besides, the US is the only country to ever use a nuclear bomb. so governments can be trusted to not use them? that is fine and good if you say the constitution is outdated. i dont think liberty can ever be outdated, but whatever. if you want to change the constitution and change its meaning with the times, it should be hard at all to change it by the proper channels if it is so obvious to everyone that it is outdated. but i guarandamntee you if guns, en masse are ever forcefully confiscated you will witness a ruthless guerilla war like you have never seen. and because the .gov cannot win, they will most likely not try to attempt a full on confiscation. they prefer the frog in boiling water approach and use crisis, to assert new powers over the people and take away their freedom. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 what i would like to see spoken about in terms of gun policy is the sell of arms to foreign countries. fuck all this internal policy speak. i think we can all agree arms packages for other countries in volatile regions is just a bad idea. just throwin that out there. MRL- any knowledge on Obama's position on this type of foreign policy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WORDISM45 Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 so AOD you would be cool with giving up your arms if there was a constitutional amendment making them illegal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 14, 2008 Share Posted January 14, 2008 Hitler 'campaigned as an ardent anti-Bolshevik, then signed a treaty with Stalin, and convinced Neville Chamberlain as well as Western pacifists that he was a champion of peace while busily (and openly) arming for war.' If you know your history, back then a lot of people found the above not suspicious at all. Then look what the happened. From Obama's website. "Expand the Military: We have learned from Iraq that our military needs more men and women in uniform to reduce the strain on our active force. Obama will increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines." "Ending the War in Iraq: blah blah blah blah blah" Must I mention the instable connection that United States and Western Civilization has with the Muslim Communities and Governments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 "so AOD you would be cool with giving up your arms if there was a constitutional amendment making them illegal?" no, i wouldnt give them up. but i would be much happier with my servants if they followed their procedures. i believe that rights are natural and God given and cannot be taken away legitimately. constitution or not. the constitution is only great in that it is supposed to curb government power and proposes to protect our natural rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iloveboxcars Posted January 15, 2008 Share Posted January 15, 2008 "his POOR illinois state senate voting and attendace records may be disclosed. The records show that he did not vote (abstained), and just showed present in the senate during the voting. That means, he did not take a stand on issues, so that he does not have to defend them at a later date." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 By quoting someone with no source and an emphasis on POOR I have a hard time seeing a point. I have no way of knowing who the person is nor what their motivations are, and thus it isn't credible in my eyes. Here is his actual record in the US senate. He has a lot of "no votes" while on the campaign trail, but Paul and Clinton have a parallel record of no votes over the past 6 months or so too. Otherwise, the info is there to review... http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490 I wouldn't be surprised if some of Obama's voting choices in Illinois were intentionally softened (via no vote) by political aspirations. I haven't seen anything like what I just provided showing a specific trend though - anyone have anything that isn't a bloggers opinion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iloveboxcars Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 it wasnt a bloggers opinion, i forget where i got it from and wasnt really trying to be against obama i was just putting that in here because it involved obama. it said his voting record isnt even released yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 From the NY Times: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 A good article: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/01/17/politics/main2369157.shtml "Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator who reflected the views of voters in his Chicago district. He helped reform the state death penalty system and create tax breaks for the poor while developing a reputation as someone who would work with critics to build consensus." "He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives. " "Such hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor. Gibbs noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously. Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation." "Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation. " ...and there is a lot more from the article. Give it a read, it's pretty insightful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Obama is as much of a fascist as President Wilson, and Obama's supporters are as much of opportunists/sensationalists/idiots as the then coming President Roosevelt. Do I even have to mention Hillary Clinton? Bitch is the anti-Christ.. - Huge military - Using war and myth as a method of change - Hostility towards individualism - Big government - Big brother - Compulsory public schooling - Non-Marxist socialism Well, some of Obama's real supporters think alike him - progressive, wilsonian, liberal... I doubt most do. Big names when it comes to liberal fascism: Herbert Croly... William James, Josiah Royce, George Santayana. I guess Dewey and all the Pragmatist knuckleheads too. <-- All progressives who believed the world should and will become run through Despotism and Caesarism forms of management. My Rotting Liver, do you want a war with Iran? Shit, if it a President Obama even mentioned a plan to.. thousands of people will be at the steps of Washington. But why elect a president who wants to anyways? Obama does not give a fuck about your views on the world, he is liberal. He thinks the world should be governed his way, and he'll manipulate you into thinking you want his way -- politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 I'd rather rely on his record and his stances than you for how he will govern. You must really think highly of yourself and poorly of everyone else with this continuing tirade of yours. Dropping names and book titles the way you do does not make you an expert, it shows that the validity of your opinions needs to be propped up by the rep of great men because your opinions can't stand alone. Ironically I am the one always yelling about people not using enough legit references, but all you do is offer your vague opinion, then drop an Economist or Politicians name and use them as if though the huge accusation you just offered is some how reinforced. A good example of this is above where you imply that Obama some how will lead us to a "Despotism and Caesarism forms of management" and "liberal fascism" but really didn't say anything. You didn't show how his policies or acts run in the same vein as the predictions of those men, you didn't offer any rational motivation that might drive Obama in that direction, nor did you even prove that any of those men truly felt that despotism is the best choice for government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I gave you a list of his stances you doofus, go to his website. And history will tell you that those are the traits of a progressive/liberal/fascist. His record? First you should know that intelligent politicians don't go along as it comes along. They have their own ideology about government and bureaucrats behind them that control their actions to fulfill an agenda. That being said, to understand his record or his motives, you should understand his party/influence/beliefs. I gave you a list of people who shape Obama's beliefs so you can make better decision. Yeah it is vague. Though I'm not sure how to explain to you 200 years of history.. It takes many books to cover this. If you want me to, I'll elaborate. Remember when Mussolini said that President Wilson was "one of us". And remember how Wilson was a progressive liberal? /sigh.. you don't even support the dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 19, 2008 Author Share Posted January 19, 2008 I posted his website on another page here so I've been there. Political liberal is not synonymous with fascist. I don't mind if that is your opinion, but your list or continued statements did nothing to back up the connection from what I can see. I don't need a civics lesson from you about politicians either. I get it, I have no illusions, and yet I feel that Obama is the best in the field with aims to change the system at hand. Ron Paul is a politician too yet you support him and his plans. I also don't need 200 years of history. Maybe a concrete illustration of how Obama's points of view: 1) Coincide with a succinct and still legitimate forecast of the mutation of democracy into fascism. 2) How his stances differ from past presidents in a way that is so dramatic, and so novel, that it could be considered a starting point for some sort of "Despotism" or otherwise non-democratic government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 20, 2008 Author Share Posted January 20, 2008 Hilary took Nevada but Obama is still in the lead: Obama 38 Hillary 36 Edwards 18 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660914 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 He threatened Iran, wants a large army. Do you agree with that? answer plzkty. 1. First, Like Hitler and his peers who called themselves National Socialists instead of National Fascists, Obama is not going to say he is a fascist. I already gave you a list dawg, you gonna read it? 2. His stances don't differ from past presidents, they are very alike. This kinda of progressive-ish presidency came with the Wilson administration.Roosevelt, and Kennedy, and Johnson, and Bush, and Clinton, and Bush, and and Clinton. Though, past presidents who are very unlike Obama and his certain group would certainly not approve of him. Study Hillary Clinton, that bitch is a thousand page book about the liberal story. The reason why it is believed that this liberal kinda of government cannot be democratic is because superior efficiency and democracy does not flow well. I do support Dr. Paul's (lol) plans too. I don't believe you support Obama's. 'Liberalism is a culture and a dogma, much as conservatism is. Individual liberals may think they've reached their conclusions through careful deliberation -- and no doubt many have -- but there is no escaping the undertow of history and culture. Ideas and ideology are transmitted in more ways than we can count, and ignorance about where our ideas come from doesn't mean they don't come from somewhere.' - jonah goldberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Conservatives: State Rights may lead to Jim Crow Conservatives would say, in no way do I support Jim Crow.. If that scenario occurs, it would be one of the times when federal government should step in. Liberals: Federal Government may lead to Fascism Liberals would say, WTF YOU CONSERVATIVE BITCHEZ ARE THE FASCISTS, LIKE SRSLY. Why would the say this and avoid a logical answer? Well because big federal government and fascism has no checks and balances; you'll all do as told -- thats the intent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 Ahahaha conservatism and corporatism? The military-industrial-complex doesnt give two shits about what party you rep. Its a bureaucracy, you either go cold turkey or not. In Portugal it was the liberals that rose along corporatism. Its liberal opportunists that support corporatism in real life anyhoo.... http://greenchange.live.radicaldesigns.org/article.php?id=1013 [the hillarity about the peru deal is awesome, remember Obama and Clinton signing the climate tax? ahaha. they just don't give a fuck] You guys are getting played. You dont read my links, tellurian. I show you the science to shit, and you come up with 30 year old articles that dont even have any data. And I argue like a fascist? I'm just a regular everyday normal guy. Nothin' special about me, motherfucker... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 http://greenchange.live.radicaldesig...le.php?id=1013 "I asked Todd Tucker, research director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch, who really stands to benefit from the deal. He didn't hesitate before rattling off a dozen multinationals including Citigroup, Occidental Petroleum and Wal-Mart, all of whom, according to Tucker, have "put their full might into getting the Peru deal passed, including showering millions in congressional campaign donations since January alone." Tucker told me their wish list includes "privatized social security systems for Citi, rainforest-destroying oil extraction for Occidental, and a push to Wal-Mart's efforts to buy out Peru's retail sector, just as they did in Central America just days after Bush signed [the Central American Free Trade Agreement]." In addition, General Mills, (and the Grocery Manufacturers Association PAC, which supports it) wants the deal to go through because it grows most of its canned veggies in Peru (decimating onion, asparagus and pea farmers in the United States) and is now moving its processing facilities down there. Citibank, along with other financial services firms, wants the deal because it would allow the firm to sue the Peruvian government for damages if progressive activists succeed in reversing a disastrous social security privatization scheme that's screwed over millions of Peruvian retirees." Is it safe to say that logic has disowned tellurian? MMMMyes. "the Peru Agreement puts the interests of the big multinational corporations first, ahead of the interests of American workers and communities." - John Edwards Obama said that he'd vote for the Peru deal because "it contained the labor and environmental standards sought by groups like the AFL-CIO." AFL-CIO released a statement saying that, because of "several issues of concern to working families," the AFL-CIO "is not in a position to support the Peru FTA." ahahahahahahahahahahahah... haha.. ha Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00009 Corporations are supreme people? Well Obama agrees.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 Your point is so scattered I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Is Obama (and the Democratic party) ultra liberal and/or without flaw? No, but I knew that. Have you proven anything about this conspiracy of yours or the inevitability of politically liberal ideas leading to fascism? No, but you act like you did. Equating him to Hitler shows the naievity of your points and how under developed your ideas are. You drop a bunch of names, tell me to study this or read that, and than put your opinion after it and imply that you've reinforced a point. You didn't. Feel free to post the links you have been, some are actually good reads. Regarding all of your liberal conspiracy and Obama is the anti-christ stuff, I think it would be best if you stick to the Ron Paul thread. "What makes McCarthyism so hard to discuss is that McCarthy behaved like a jerk, but he was also right." - Jonah Goldberg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thinksmall Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 Did you read jonah's book? And is that jonah quote spose to reinforce your argument or mine.. lol. Anyways.. Liberalism doesn't really become fascism. It is. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. President Wilson. I didnt equate Obama to Hitler.. it was more of an analogy. And you still didnt answer my question, do you support engaging a war with Iran? "He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." Martin Luther King Jr. MLK Jr. believed fascism could, would, and is being tried in America, what he is just stupid? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 Wow. :rolleyes: Just chill and go to the Ron Paul thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 http://infowars.com/articles/ps/vote_fraud_nh_08_huge_diebold_disparities_uncovered.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Qawee Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 the lesser of two evils is still evil. to quote eugene debs "its better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want, and get it" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SheepOrDie Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 RON PAUL OR DIE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LIVERWURST* Posted January 21, 2008 Author Share Posted January 21, 2008 There is going to be some sad people in Crossfire..and in your case, a corpse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the.crooked Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 man, that people like thinksmall are voting are exactly why i think voting has lost or never really had any real strong positive impact on things. you guys are fuckin crazy. props to MRL for not being batshit insane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kindafresh Posted January 21, 2008 Share Posted January 21, 2008 A writer round table on politics...Now this is entertainment!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.