Our new president (Obama)

[UnholyShadow]

I noticed a couple people talk about the Fairness Doctrine. I think that the Fairness Doctrine is complete BS, since liberals already have mainstream media on their side, and already cause millions of blind, dumb americans to follow them without so much as a question of their policies.

[Monarch_Anor]

You're an utter joke. You sit and rip apart everything you perceive that he is doing but you don't offer YOUR solutions, nor do you seem to even consider for a moment the utter crap he has inherited that would be a VERY tough job for ANYBODY to fix.

 

So yes, you ARE bitching and moaning. What have you done for the country lately?

 

I've nothing more to say to you.

 

Bitter, Bitter Michlo

 

He makes fair arguments and all YOU can do is make personal attacks "an utter joke". I seem to remember when I posted about how I wanted McCain you did the same thing....

[nmilek]

The "patriotism" in this thread is so thick its almost disgusting, get over it you live on a lump of rock its not a special lump of rock its not bigger than other lumps of rocks, it dosent look taste or feel better than other lumps of rocks its just another floating piece of land. Minor irritation out of the way Americas politicans did need to apoligise, not just to your people but to Europe and the rest of the world as long as you want to bandy around the world power label you need to be held accountable for mistakes this is the 20th century not the 14th. You did invade another country without cause, you were responsible for alot of damage in this region, Britain was abondoned and left to clean up and take the ire of other Europeans, Europe is a larger part of the world and is a large financial and militant power loosing it dosent benefit anyone. Not to mention the human rights violations of torturing war prisoners there is alot that needs to be amended. (I say you in the term of politicaly i hold nothing against the american people bar a select few selfrightious groups)

 

And why are you tossing and screaming about amendments concering guns, do you know what americas military could do to a militant force? level it in freaking hours no amount of guns matters in a country that has a pissing contest with nukes. And theres bigger bloody issues, gloabal warming is too much of a danger to EVER ignore or put behind all else I dont like the idea of my childrens generation boiling/drowning to death because some people cant accept change or look past their arses.

[myrmaad]

Puresnipe has never made a coherent argument that I've witnessed.

 

I WAS around for Reagan, and I've seen footage of JFK who definitely had the same element of charisma. I remember when RFK was shot., and his charisma was of the same caliber, but unfortunately he was never able to grace us as leader of the free world. I no longer serve ithe US Military having received my Honorable discharge many years ago.

 

In fact, many people (my grandmother among them) considered GWBush quite charismatic, though I could never see it, until he was safely on his way out the door.

 

To decide he's a bad president because of his charisma is nothing short of lunacy.

 

I'm so grateful that a well-spoken, thoughtful, intelligent person of character is in the white house. What a relief.

 

Thank goodness he had the uncommon sense to use diplomacy and humility in addressing the Europeans.

[humanbean234]

The concept of 'humility' is often very foreign to a lot of folks nowadays, Myrmaad.

Too many people, it would seem to me, don't feel their life is worthwhile if they're unable to endlessly chant "We're number one! We're number one!" and they'll view any suggestion that they might possibly not be number one with great hostility.

Don't hate the player, and don't hate the game... just lean back, laugh at them, and enjoy a glass of wine and the spring breeze while you can. Maybe they'll learn wisdom, eventually.

[PureSnipe]

/snip

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Amendment I

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. (Fairness Doctrine violates this, as does the removal of religious phrases being used in the private sector)

 

And Obama instituted that? No.

 

Amendment II

 

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. (Any gun law violates this, such as the Clinton assault rifle ban that Obama wants to reinstate, along with revoking the bill passed by Bush to allow CHLs to carry in national parks)

 

Again, not Obama and the amendment there says "arms", it does not distinguish ALL types of arms nor does it say they should be readily available to all and sundry to be used accidentally, etc.

 

Amendment X

 

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. (Again, if it isn't said that they can do it, it's up to the states)

 

And what, pray tell yet again, has he done which contradicts this?

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If it isn't stated here that the federal government can do it, then it's up to the States to do it.

I don't see in there that they can buy up the private sector, do you? I do recall a statement made by the current administration that they "owned 80% of AIG"

 

So they were just supposed to throw money at them and let them do what they wanted with it? We've already seen how that goes.

 

And tell me, why the hell should I support something that will put our country another 1.3 trillion dollars in debt, and why should I support Obama printing off another trillion dollars when we don't have the assets to back it?

I'm the generation who is going to be hit the hardest, since I'll still be working in thirty years.

 

You're an utter joke. You sit and rip apart everything you perceive that he is doing but you don't offer YOUR solutions, nor do you seem to even consider for a moment the utter crap he has inherited that would be a VERY tough job for ANYBODY to fix.

 

So yes, you ARE bitching and moaning. What have you done for the country lately?

 

I've nothing more to say to you.

 

What have you done? I have done everything in the power of a normal US citizen to make my thoughts and concerns known by writing senators and representatives, even visiting their offices, while also making my thoughts heard to anyone willing to listen. And even those that don't want to.

 

It seems to me that every time I've seen you post in a political or ethical thread, you resort to making personal attacks and/or insulting a person versus their views. I'll hold my tongue with an insult back, but I find this a bit odd, don't you?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

arm

–noun

Arms. weapons, esp. firearms.

 

fire⋅arm

–noun

a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

 

The dictionary defines arms and the subcategories fairly well. Want to go rewrite the reference to your liking?

 

The phrase "keep and bear arms" is defined as the right to posses, carry and use a weapon. Firearm, as defined by the dictionary. The federal government saying we can't be able to purchase them easily can, and most likely will, be considered an infringement on that right.

 

Currently, a firearm is NOT legally available to all.

As of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which is considered to be Constitutional, anyone meeting one or more of these criteria are unable to own a weapon:

* Those convicted of felonies and certain misdemeanors

* Fugitives from justice

* Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs

* Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution

* Undocumented immigrants

* Citizens who have renounced their citizenship

* Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces

* Minors

* Persons subject to a restraining order

* Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

* Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition

 

I do believe your point is moot now.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do I like what Obama is doing?

Not at all.

Did I say I don't like him?

Again, no.

Try to look through your personal feelings toward a person and think about what someone has written and how it was written, versus taking it on an emotional level and letting that skew your views.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also see no reason as to offer my solutions on here when people like you are just supporting someone and insulting those that don't, but since you seem to need them, here they are.I have a Ron Paul, Libertarian mindset on it all.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With our current reckless spending from the welfare system, the influx of money and the spending will be equal by 2016, and by 2030, we will have no money left for the welfare system. This learned from my government professor a day ago.

 

We need to cut every bit of spending that isn't relevant to helping the country. Over 9000 earmarks were made in this last stimulus bill, and they accounted to close to $18 billion. As ed said, we'll be lucky if even half of the $800 billion isn't a waste.

 

Likewise, we need to cross-reference every bill that is up to be passed with the Constitution, not just say, "Well, I recall it saying...."

 

We also need to listen to what people have to say that went down this road before. If our country as a whole wants a socialist economy, then so be it. The Constitution doesn't say they can't. Just listen to the European socialist countries when they say that this spending will do nothing more than worsen the economy.

 

Obama's claims he'll increase the taxes on the big companies? Let's think about that for a minute. I'll use the petroleum industry for example, along with the cause and effect model.

 

Cause: Increased taxes on company.

Effect 1: Company raises prices on product to cope with tax (Gasoline, jet fuel, diesel, plastic, etc.)

Effect 2: Consumers are forced to pay more for products, and secondary companies that rely on product are forced to increase wares (Trucking companies to distribute goods, manufacturing plants, etc)

Effect 3: Consumers conserve products more, and pay the company less.

Effect 4: Company has less revenue due to decreased sales and increased taxes

Effect 5: Company has less to expand and offer new products

Effect 6: Government gets the same amount, or less than, they were getting with their previous tax rate

Effect 7: Tax brackets are lowered, and eventually the consumer is hit with higher income taxes

 

Also, the Constitution was written to make it so that the federal government has an extremely hard time in quickly passing a bill, and signing it into law.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as to ed's comment of:

Item 2. You support the anarchists right to burn the flag and I'll support Rush's right to keep doing what he does.

 

I do support that. As for the fact that, although I don't agree with it, that the federal government should not outlaw abortion or same-sex marriage, for laws regarding morals are left to states.

 

I apologize on how I worded the original post. I meant more of the seven articles that state the powers of the federal government. Not that we should disregard the Bill of Rights, but that the articles is what I was more of referencing to. The bill of rights is more 'well known' and people are able to recognize when someone is overstepping those bounds. The same can't be said about the articles though.

 

You're one of the few Obama supporters I've run into that is willing to hold him accountable to the structure of government that our founding fathers had created.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And myrmaad: Please quote me where I said Obama was a bad president because he is charismatic.

I didn't.

I said that level of charisma tends to frighten me, for the fact I've never seen it in any other person in my lifetime.

[xdthisusernamelol]

Congratulations to the people who realised that America has been behaving like an international arse for decades now, but you failed to realise that trade is falling, regional powers are rallying against you, you won't escape this recession so 'easily' because Keynesism won't work in the current social structure, et cetera, et cetera.

Now I've got nothing against America being the world's leading power if it can do a good job of it. But wars of extermination, bigotry, and narrow-minded genocide, frankly, is not making a good job of it. Obama is doing the right thing by going back on the BS of the past few generations, and even though he mangles his words at times (Iran's right to be a nation is not administered by America, and neither is any other nation or country, and I am glad they threw the olive branch back in Obama's face for even remotely suggesting that it was) such open-mindedness is a refreshing change from that side of the Atlantic.

 

I'd say Obama has done a reasonable job. Not outstanding, but definately remarkable, and it is a turning point for the better. It's just nationalistic pride that stops people realising that America's fun-running will come to a very sharp (and possibly violent) halt unless Obama continues what he's doing.

He's not changing anything internationally. He's just healing old wounds, albeit in the process making a few new, more minor ones.

[bben46]

This is a political opinion topic. Please respect the opinions of others even as you disagree with them -Even if they are wrong Please, no personal attacks. I don't want to shut this one down.

Bben46, Moderator

[ed8020]

Well, you shot at one 1 of 3 and you missed THAT one.

"I do support that. As for the fact that, although I don't agree with it, that the federal government should not outlaw abortion or same-sex marriage, for laws regarding morals are left to states."

How many times does it have to be said?

You cannot legislate morality.

One of the biggest reasons for the Judicial branch of the federal government is to keep states from discriminating against minorities.

And by minorities I mean ANYBODY that is not in the majority.

The Supreme Court is the very last line of defense in the war on personal freedom.

The only thing that can be legislated is how much what one person does, affects another.

Where you may find that flag burning or gay marriage may be immoral (and I'm just speculating there), I find that prohibitting these actions and even punishing those that do them, to be even more immoral.

Because of this, morality can never be allowed into the equation.

At one time, eating potatoes was considered immoral and downright satanic by the Catholic church (love that history channel).

 

Apolgy accepted. And I never got the impression that you were bowing to me or belittling yourself. As a matter of fact I believe you to be a better man for doing so. Thats how it works, whether you are a person or a nation.

Though an apology for implying I am stupid and uninformed in my blind obedience would have carried much more weight

[PureSnipe]

Well, you shot at one 1 of 3 and you missed THAT one.

"I do support that. As for the fact that, although I don't agree with it, that the federal government should not outlaw abortion or same-sex marriage, for laws regarding morals are left to states."

How many times does it have to be said?

You cannot legislate morality.

One of the biggest reasons for the Judicial branch of the federal government is to keep states from discriminating against minorities.

And by minorities I mean ANYBODY that is not in the majority.

The Supreme Court is the very last line of defense in the war on personal freedom.

The only thing that can be legislated is how much what one person does, affects another.

Where you may find that flag burning or gay marriage may be immoral (and I'm just speculating there), I find that prohibitting these actions and even punishing those that do them, to be even more immoral.

Because of this, morality can never be allowed into the equation.

At one time, eating potatoes was considered immoral and downright satanic by the Catholic church (love that history channel).

 

Apolgy accepted. And I never got the impression that you were bowing to me or belittling yourself. As a matter of fact I believe you to be a better man for doing so. Thats how it works, whether you are a person or a nation.

Though an apology for implying I am stupid and uninformed in my blind obedience would have carried much more weight

 

The Constitution is worded so that if a power is not explicitly stated for the federal government, then it is left to the states. Moral issues fall into that category, and if they aren't in violation of a federal law to prevent discrimination and is not seen as unconstitutional, the federal courts aren't allowed to rule on it.

 

The powers of the Judicial branch, as outlined by the Constitution and Marbury vs. Madison of 1803, are as follows:

Interpret the law

Exercise the power of judicial review

Chief Justice presides over trials of presidential impeachment

 

Should we make laws based on morality? That's a question that falls into the gray area.

Morality is commonly defined as right and wrong. When we know that something is "definitely wrong" then we make a law on it. When it boils all down to it, the majority of the laws made are on moral standpoints.

 

I can understand the thought that we shouldn't legislate on moral standpoints, but in essence, if we were to do that, then we would have few laws at all. Most criminal offenses wouldn't exist as for the fact that the laws originated with the thought of the person writing the first bill as "____ is wrong. There needs to be a law on it."

 

For some countries, to assist someone in a suicide wouldn't raise any legal problems. Germany, for example. In the US? It's illegal. Also, prostitution is legal in most all European countries, and even Canada. For the most part, it's illegal as a whole in the US.

 

And I'm going to open a can of worms and most likely take some flak for this next one.

What about the laws regarding incest and polygamy? Aren't those laws based on morals?

 

My apologies again that you took my posts as to attempt to imply that you were stupid, ignorant, or blindly following. In fact, I see the opposite. Seems I have a tendency to word things so that they could be taken in ways other than I meant them to be taken.