Obama
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,040
Likes: 0
From: Winter Springs, Fl.
Originally Posted by xupthree60,May 23 2008, 06:51 PM
everyone knows the US didnt invent aids to kill black people... they invented aids to kill gay people! they invented crack to kill black people. everyone knows that.
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
btw i havnt heard trigger happy say it wrote that wrong or anything... u really think obama supports post-birth abortions? u do realize post means after and thus ur saying he suports after-birth abortions, as in after the baby as come out of the mother and is ya konw outside and like breathing air and stuff.
hopefully u just didnt understand what the word post means cuz i already know ur stupid but id be scared to go to anymore meets if ur really that crazy too.
hopefully u just didnt understand what the word post means cuz i already know ur stupid but id be scared to go to anymore meets if ur really that crazy too.
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 82,468
Likes: 1,193
Originally Posted by xupthree60,May 24 2008, 09:43 AM
btw i havnt heard trigger happy say it wrote that wrong or anything... u really think obama supports post-birth abortions? u do realize post means after and thus ur saying he suports after-birth abortions, as in after the baby as come out of the mother and is ya konw outside and like breathing air and stuff.
hopefully u just didnt understand what the word post means cuz i already know ur stupid but id be scared to go to anymore meets if ur really that crazy too.
hopefully u just didnt understand what the word post means cuz i already know ur stupid but id be scared to go to anymore meets if ur really that crazy too.
In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term abortions.
Member
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 82,468
Likes: 1,193
[QUOTE=xupthree60,May 23 2008, 10:13 PM] increase spending...
with out an illegitimate war, we will have money to pay for things that been neglected.
higher taxes...
u mean all those billionairs will have to go back to paying what they were pre-bush? and that all those large coporations that got tax brakes for sending jobs overseas and even the oil companies will have to start paying taxes again?
harboring illegal imigrants...
u mean instead of allowing them to be here as slaves?
post birth abortion...
what?
against sanctions on terrorist nations...
who told you this? i think u might have this confused with wanting to talk to our "enemys", im not sure how u are suposed to settle differences without war if u refuse to talk to people.
for reduced jail terms on violent criminals and gang members...
u mean after better programs to re-abilitate them?
selling america's sovernty...
he is going to sell the power to govern us over to somone else? who?
gun controll...
i thought gun control was a good thing, it keeps crazy people like u from having them.
profit regulation & re-distribution of wealth (communism)...
umm.... what?
energy dpendence...
i know its hard for some to understand but just cuz u dont want to destroy alaska doesnt mean u want to keep us energy dependent. sometimes u dont wanna destroy alaska for good reasons, and sometimes u also want to actually find better and cleaner energy.
his friends are criminals...
u mean like all the ones bush and McCain know that will go on trial soon for war crimes?
his spiritual advisor (s?) hate america...
nothing ive heard from write seems to say he hates america, infact unlike some people that went awall and did lots of drugs instead of fullfilling their dutties in the armed forces write actually was in the usmc. or how about the fact that the guy McCain said was his spiritual leader said hitler was brought by god. and thats not a miss quote or him qouting someone else, thats what he actually thinks. oh and he also thinks that jews hate jesus who happens to be a profit if their religion.
his wife hates america...
i dont believe ive ever heard her say this, she messed up her words once but i didnt think anyone but painkiller rush thought that was proof she hates america.
20 more years of terrorism...
i actually wanna bring a point up here. now im not saying im right or wrong but im just wanting to get this out there. hamas supports obama right? would it really be a bad thing to make people that want to kill us a little less pissed off at us rather than give them more reason to want to kill us? if u want more years of terrorism vote for McCain cuz he will continue bush's plan of terrorizing us from the inside.
also about ur media bias...
im pretty sure
with out an illegitimate war, we will have money to pay for things that been neglected.
higher taxes...
u mean all those billionairs will have to go back to paying what they were pre-bush? and that all those large coporations that got tax brakes for sending jobs overseas and even the oil companies will have to start paying taxes again?
harboring illegal imigrants...
u mean instead of allowing them to be here as slaves?
post birth abortion...
what?
against sanctions on terrorist nations...
who told you this? i think u might have this confused with wanting to talk to our "enemys", im not sure how u are suposed to settle differences without war if u refuse to talk to people.
for reduced jail terms on violent criminals and gang members...
u mean after better programs to re-abilitate them?
selling america's sovernty...
he is going to sell the power to govern us over to somone else? who?
gun controll...
i thought gun control was a good thing, it keeps crazy people like u from having them.
profit regulation & re-distribution of wealth (communism)...
umm.... what?
energy dpendence...
i know its hard for some to understand but just cuz u dont want to destroy alaska doesnt mean u want to keep us energy dependent. sometimes u dont wanna destroy alaska for good reasons, and sometimes u also want to actually find better and cleaner energy.
his friends are criminals...
u mean like all the ones bush and McCain know that will go on trial soon for war crimes?
his spiritual advisor (s?) hate america...
nothing ive heard from write seems to say he hates america, infact unlike some people that went awall and did lots of drugs instead of fullfilling their dutties in the armed forces write actually was in the usmc. or how about the fact that the guy McCain said was his spiritual leader said hitler was brought by god. and thats not a miss quote or him qouting someone else, thats what he actually thinks. oh and he also thinks that jews hate jesus who happens to be a profit if their religion.
his wife hates america...
i dont believe ive ever heard her say this, she messed up her words once but i didnt think anyone but painkiller rush thought that was proof she hates america.
20 more years of terrorism...
i actually wanna bring a point up here. now im not saying im right or wrong but im just wanting to get this out there. hamas supports obama right? would it really be a bad thing to make people that want to kill us a little less pissed off at us rather than give them more reason to want to kill us? if u want more years of terrorism vote for McCain cuz he will continue bush's plan of terrorizing us from the inside.
also about ur media bias...
im pretty sure
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,341
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by zdave87,May 24 2008, 06:22 AM
Spending? As much as you hate the war-it will end, not unlike the half century plus of welfare etc that is still going on, with no end in sight.
Higher taxes? Hmm, John, you do realize that any 'tax' that is placed on a company, is directly passed on to you, the person who buys that company's product? Companies do not pay taxes. (and those rich people? pssst-they are the ones that can afford race car racing as a hobby, allowing you to have a job at Skip Barbour).
Illegal immigrants? All we're asking is that the next President enforce the laws that are already in the books.
Post-birth? Read my post above.
Sanctions against terrorist nations? You settle differences by negotiating from a position of strength, not weakness (aka The Cold War)-no wars broke out between the US & USSR, and we won.
Reduced jails tems? I'm in favor of additional ESOL classes, but only after they have finished their jail sentences.
Selling America's sovereignty?
Gun control? You might want to discuss that with Bandiscoot. I'm sure he's not crazy.
Profit regulation/re-distribution of wealth? It's called 'higher taxes', of which Obama is for.
Energy independence? You do realize that the area of ANWR that is to be drilled, is about the size of a dollar bill (when you scale down the entire ANWR to a football field). hardly 'destroying' Alaska.
His friends are criminals? Do a little research on Rezko, Ayers, Khalidi and Auchi.
Spiritual advisor hates America? "God Damn America"
Wife hates America? "For the first time in my life, I am proud of America" so-you weren't proud of the 1980 US Hockey team, proud of America putting men on the moon, proud of the education you got as a result of being an American etc etc?
20 more years of terrorism? Let's vote for FDR, Hitler supports him!
Media bias?
ABC/PBS/NPR/CBS/NBC/CNN etc are more 'liberal' than FOX. You don't like FOX/Rush/Hannity/Boortz? Don't focking watch/listen to them, just sit in your own little world.
Higher taxes? Hmm, John, you do realize that any 'tax' that is placed on a company, is directly passed on to you, the person who buys that company's product? Companies do not pay taxes. (and those rich people? pssst-they are the ones that can afford race car racing as a hobby, allowing you to have a job at Skip Barbour).
Illegal immigrants? All we're asking is that the next President enforce the laws that are already in the books.
Post-birth? Read my post above.
Sanctions against terrorist nations? You settle differences by negotiating from a position of strength, not weakness (aka The Cold War)-no wars broke out between the US & USSR, and we won.
Reduced jails tems? I'm in favor of additional ESOL classes, but only after they have finished their jail sentences.
Selling America's sovereignty?
Gun control? You might want to discuss that with Bandiscoot. I'm sure he's not crazy.
Profit regulation/re-distribution of wealth? It's called 'higher taxes', of which Obama is for.
Energy independence? You do realize that the area of ANWR that is to be drilled, is about the size of a dollar bill (when you scale down the entire ANWR to a football field). hardly 'destroying' Alaska.
His friends are criminals? Do a little research on Rezko, Ayers, Khalidi and Auchi.
Spiritual advisor hates America? "God Damn America"
Wife hates America? "For the first time in my life, I am proud of America" so-you weren't proud of the 1980 US Hockey team, proud of America putting men on the moon, proud of the education you got as a result of being an American etc etc?
20 more years of terrorism? Let's vote for FDR, Hitler supports him!
Media bias?
ABC/PBS/NPR/CBS/NBC/CNN etc are more 'liberal' than FOX. You don't like FOX/Rush/Hannity/Boortz? Don't focking watch/listen to them, just sit in your own little world.also its something to think about that when the constitution was written it took a minute or 2 to reload b/w shots, i didn't read anywhere in the constitution where it says everyone in america is entitled to a semi automatic hand gun or a fully automatic assault rifle.
u do realize that the tax breaks they are getting now is for not hiring americans? companies are making record profits and their ceo's are making record salaries and bonuses at the expense of all of us. its time we were protected instead of the ceo's. and if the economy wasnt so efed up then the rich woudlnt be the only ones with enough money to go to racing school.
all i ask is that u make strict punishment for hiring illegal imagrents, if no one hired them then they wouldn't come. but instead u want to protect the people taht hire them cuz they make too much money doing so.
im sorry if im a little more evolved then my wang is bigger than ur wang and sometimes like to settle my difference without the threat of violence. its also worth stating that theres a difference b/w negotiating and not even attempting it before we attack.
with taxes so low it gets expensive to hold all those poeple in jail, so u decide what u wanna do here. u cant have it both ways. and before u say we are too good to them... remember to judge a country by its jails, we are not china, we are better than that.
again im sorry but taxes were u guessed it higher during clinton but im pretty confident that only the hardcore of republicans would say the average person is better off financially now then they were then.
the statement of a dollar to a football feild is borderline retarded. and again oil and coil are not the fuel of tomorrow no matter how bad u want them to be.
as stated "god damn america" was a quote of the Iraqi ambassador and not his own words. and the first time in my life thing was as stated not the words she meant, im sure everything u have ever said in ur life came out exactly like u meant it to. obviously this was not the first time she was ever in her life proud of america and again im very surprised anyone but painkiller rush actually believes that to be her real thoughts. how big of u to try to confuse people with something u know to not be true but that how u people run things i guess fear and lies.
yes all those channels are more liberal than fox, cuz it would be impossible to be as conservative as them. if u really think that all those channels are far left and fox is "fair and balanced" than u need clinical help. its just the thing u guys always do just cuz u call something one thing doesn't mean its not the opposite no matter how much u say it.
i watch all news channels some, and that includes sometimes switching over to fox to see how the neocons spin it. however i cant bring myself to watch or listen to oxxy rush. i dont even understand how he even believes what he is saying.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,040
Likes: 0
From: Winter Springs, Fl.
I really don't want to fan the flames, but there actually is a legitimate constitutional question about the scope of the Second Amendment which seems to be a point your two have gone back and forth on.
Going from recollection because I do not have the citation right at my fingertips, the Supreme Court decided a case in the 1920's or 1930's, U.S. v. Miller, which was the first time the Second Amendment was construed by the Court. The case is about 85 or 90 years old. In that decision, the Court had dicta which suggested that the Second Amendment was a collective right as opposed to an individual right.
Legally and historically, the argument would be that the Amendment was added as part of the Bill of Rights, and the language about a well-regulated militia was used, because Article I of the Constituion authorized the Congress to establish an army and navy. The states were concerned about their loss of their traditional sovereignty since they had hirthto established individual state militias. (Remember that even the Continental Army during the Revolution was established by the Continental Congress, not by any constitution--hence the states were the primary repositiories of legal authority for its estabishment.) To placate the states' concerns, Madison included the Second Amendment. That being the case, the Second Amendment could be deemed historically a collective right, not an individual right. If it is collective, then jurisprudentially the states would have the greater inherent authority to regulate individual ownership of firmarms than if the Second Amendment were deemed to protect an individual right.
This issue is now squarely before the Supreme Court which is construing Washington D.C.'s virtual ban on hand guns. My guess is that notwithstanding the legal and constitutional arguments, the Court likely will conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right merely because of the more conservative composition of the Court.
There are two lessons one can take from this. One should never read a specific amendment or provision of the constitution or any statute in isolation. Rather it should always be read with reference to the entire text, and that reference should include an appreciation of the historical context of the constitutional or statutory provision being interepreted. The second lesson is that the first lesson really doesn't matter because, irrespective of the law, the Supreme Court is often likely to make decisions based on the political or policy perspective of the majority.
Going from recollection because I do not have the citation right at my fingertips, the Supreme Court decided a case in the 1920's or 1930's, U.S. v. Miller, which was the first time the Second Amendment was construed by the Court. The case is about 85 or 90 years old. In that decision, the Court had dicta which suggested that the Second Amendment was a collective right as opposed to an individual right.
Legally and historically, the argument would be that the Amendment was added as part of the Bill of Rights, and the language about a well-regulated militia was used, because Article I of the Constituion authorized the Congress to establish an army and navy. The states were concerned about their loss of their traditional sovereignty since they had hirthto established individual state militias. (Remember that even the Continental Army during the Revolution was established by the Continental Congress, not by any constitution--hence the states were the primary repositiories of legal authority for its estabishment.) To placate the states' concerns, Madison included the Second Amendment. That being the case, the Second Amendment could be deemed historically a collective right, not an individual right. If it is collective, then jurisprudentially the states would have the greater inherent authority to regulate individual ownership of firmarms than if the Second Amendment were deemed to protect an individual right.
This issue is now squarely before the Supreme Court which is construing Washington D.C.'s virtual ban on hand guns. My guess is that notwithstanding the legal and constitutional arguments, the Court likely will conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right merely because of the more conservative composition of the Court.
There are two lessons one can take from this. One should never read a specific amendment or provision of the constitution or any statute in isolation. Rather it should always be read with reference to the entire text, and that reference should include an appreciation of the historical context of the constitutional or statutory provision being interepreted. The second lesson is that the first lesson really doesn't matter because, irrespective of the law, the Supreme Court is often likely to make decisions based on the political or policy perspective of the majority.
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 6,040
Likes: 0
From: Winter Springs, Fl.
^Barry, I have no interest in starting or contributing to arguments over politics. Everyone has to make his or her own decision and let that decision be ruled by conscience. At the end of the day, I can disagree with someone's politics and argue politics, but I don't want to risk writing something that can be construed as a personal attack against someone's candidate.