Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:36 pm
oscardeuce wrote:The President also said he would "work under the radar" to push gun control. He said it, I did not. Fast and furious killed both Americans and Mexicans. No slander here just his words and actions of his administration.
“continue to work with members of both parties and with religious groups and with civic organizations to arrive at a consensus around violence reduction”. Sure sounds like "under the radar" to me. Maybe you're right. Maybe what he actually meant was "Subvert the constitution of the United States and magically disenfranchise the Senate and Supreme Court. I could be wrong. I'm not usually, but in this case maybe I am the goofy one here. But I doubt it. I prefer to think that this president, like every other president, is wekll aware of the constitution that he swore to uphold and is not a traitor, despite the claims and concerns of many on this forum. They make medication for paranoia. I'm just sayin'
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sat Jul 28, 2012 4:59 pm
muddyboots wrote:oscardeuce wrote:The President also said he would "work under the radar" to push gun control. He said it, I did not. Fast and furious killed both Americans and Mexicans. No slander here just his words and actions of his administration.
“continue to work with members of both parties and with religious groups and with civic organizations to arrive at a consensus around violence reduction”. Sure sounds like "under the radar" to me. Maybe you're right. Maybe what he actually meant was "Subvert the constitution of the United States and magically disenfranchise the Senate and Supreme Court. I could be wrong. I'm not usually, but in this case maybe I am the goofy one here. But I doubt it. I prefer to think that this president, like every other president, is wekll aware of the constitution that he swore to uphold and is not a traitor, despite the claims and concerns of many on this forum. They make medication for paranoia. I'm just sayin'
Paranoia against an over reaching government is extremely healthy for those of us who love freedom.That is the whole idea of the second amendment.I question any treaties involving the un.The bill has been defeated twice already but it keeps coming up.
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:15 pm
And it's going to keep coming up because much of the rest of the Western world is gasp more liberal than the US. And teh rest of the world that isn't liberal is tired of us and Russia and China flooding the market with cheap weapons to allow our brown people to kill their brown people. And it's going to continue to fail because no sitting president is stupid enough to subvert the constitution, destroy his voter support, pass a treaty that will immediately be thrown out by the senate or the supreme court. Again, that's why we have a balance of powers written into the constitution. To prevent (mostly) subversion of our rights. Of course, we never had this conversation when Bush subverted the constitution by strengthening the power of the government to spy on its people, and to illegally search us in airports in order to make people feel safe in quite possibly the dumbest way possible (TSA can you hear me?) No, instead we banned political talk so no one could question it here at WIX, and banned people over it. It's only now that we have a liberal president (oops I mean a communist one) that pages and pages of political crap gets posted railing against htis liberal presidents supposed subversion of the constitution. Which by the way never happened and won't happen. Because our constitution is stronger than any one person or party, including that great bugaboo of the right: the Communist party.
Only the weak minded insist that great evil lurks in the hearts of their political opponents in America. We are all Americans. We all want the best for our country. That we do not agree on how to get there does not make us evil, or treasonous, or subverters of the constitution. It makes us Americans, who are raised to defend the constitution, which is itself open to interpretation and that for a reason. The constitution was written to be interpreted by the courts and amended by the Congress and led by the executive branch. It's working just fine, thank you, even with a communist, baby raping, dark-skinned, born in Hawaii, big-eared basketball playing nerd. It's amazing. It's almost like our forefathers knew what they were doing and built in safety mechanisms so rabid conservatives couldn't turn us into a fascist state, and looney liberals couldn't turn us into a communist regime. Imagine that.
Leave the hysterics to FOX. They're good at it. Here on WIX it just sounds stupid.
Only the weak minded insist that great evil lurks in the hearts of their political opponents in America. We are all Americans. We all want the best for our country. That we do not agree on how to get there does not make us evil, or treasonous, or subverters of the constitution. It makes us Americans, who are raised to defend the constitution, which is itself open to interpretation and that for a reason. The constitution was written to be interpreted by the courts and amended by the Congress and led by the executive branch. It's working just fine, thank you, even with a communist, baby raping, dark-skinned, born in Hawaii, big-eared basketball playing nerd. It's amazing. It's almost like our forefathers knew what they were doing and built in safety mechanisms so rabid conservatives couldn't turn us into a fascist state, and looney liberals couldn't turn us into a communist regime. Imagine that.
Leave the hysterics to FOX. They're good at it. Here on WIX it just sounds stupid.
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sat Jul 28, 2012 5:54 pm
muddyboots wrote:And it's going to keep coming up because much of the rest of the Western world is gasp more liberal than the US. And teh rest of the world that isn't liberal is tired of us and Russia and China flooding the market with cheap weapons to allow our brown people to kill their brown people. And it's going to continue to fail because no sitting president is stupid enough to subvert the constitution, destroy his voter support, pass a treaty that will immediately be thrown out by the senate or the supreme court. Again, that's why we have a balance of powers written into the constitution. To prevent (mostly) subversion of our rights. Of course, we never had this conversation when Bush subverted the constitution by strengthening the power of the government to spy on its people, and to illegally search us in airports in order to make people feel safe in quite possibly the dumbest way possible (TSA can you hear me?) No, instead we banned political talk so no one could question it here at WIX, and banned people over it. It's only now that we have a liberal president (oops I mean a communist one) that pages and pages of political crap gets posted railing against htis liberal presidents supposed subversion of the constitution. Which by the way never happened and won't happen. Because our constitution is stronger than any one person or party, including that great bugaboo of the right: the Communist party.
Only the weak minded insist that great evil lurks in the hearts of their political opponents in America. We are all Americans. We all want the best for our country. That we do not agree on how to get there does not make us evil, or treasonous, or subverters of the constitution. It makes us Americans, who are raised to defend the constitution, which is itself open to interpretation and that for a reason. The constitution was written to be interpreted by the courts and amended by the Congress and led by the executive branch. It's working just fine, thank you, even with a communist, baby raping, dark-skinned, born in Hawaii, big-eared basketball playing nerd. It's amazing. It's almost like our forefathers knew what they were doing and built in safety mechanisms so rabid conservatives couldn't turn us into a fascist state, and looney liberals couldn't turn us into a communist regime. Imagine that.
Leave the hysterics to FOX. They're good at it. Here on WIX it just sounds stupid.
I was in agreement with you muddyboots until conservatives are fascist.The majority of the country is conservative.We cant help if the rest of the world just doesnt get it.
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sat Jul 28, 2012 6:11 pm
so rabid conservatives couldn't turn us into a fascist state, and looney liberals couldn't turn us into a communist regime.
I didn't say you conservatives were fascists. I said the constitution has built in safety mechanisms to prevent it, unlike, say Italy or the Weimar republic which had no defense against it and thus ended up on the wrong side of history. It won't happen to us because we have three branches of government, equally balanced. We won't ever go the way of the Russians or Chinese, or the Germans or Italians, although it is possible we will become more conservative or more liberal, I don't believe we will ever be able to break our constitution as long as we guard against MCarthyism. It's when we start accusing each other of treason that we weaken ourselves.
What I see today however, is McCarthyism on the rise again. When you start calling one party communists, or fascists, you have a problem. When you claim subversion of the constitution where there is none, as if your opposing party were treasonous, or when you accuse your president of treason because he is liberal and you are conservative, that is skirting treasonous itself and worthy opf censur.
I avoided doing it with Bush despite his literal subversion of our civil liberties in numerous instances, believing that our balance of powers would protect us from overreaching. Which it has done. . I avoid doing it with the current president despite his carrying forward a number of Bush initiatives that I don't agree with. We have a Senate and Supreme Court to work those issues out and eventually they will decide if the TSA has the right to feel my private parts in order to determine if I am carrying a bomb aboard a plane, just as all three branches have decided on the Patriot Act's legality. That's why they're there. To call a sitting president a traitor is scummy IMO. It has no place at WIX in particular.
To me it's not a liberal conservative thing any more. It's a honesty issue. When you lie about your opponent to serve a nefarious purpose you lose my respect. Many on WIX have done just that. I wouldn't have them to dinner, I wouldn't have them on a fire team, and I certainly wouldn't listen to them lie about my president-any president without calling them on it. I called liberals on it when they claimed Bush was acting illegally when he invaded Iraq, I call conservatives on it when they claim Obama isn't an American, or that he's a traitor.
By the way, the majority of the country is not conservative. It's about 40 conservative (in various ideologies), 35 moderate (in various ideologies) and 20 percent liberal (again wildly various ideologies.) That we do as well as we do with that moderate 35% should tell you something. Considering you outnumber us two to one and we still beat you half the time at the polls isn't just because we have a better party system. People just don't seem to like being accused of treason just because they don't agree with you...
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:05 pm
I will again go to President Obama's words:
". But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says whatthe Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf,"
So he wants a the federal gov't to do more, redistribute wealth, and "social justice"? I may be paraoid, but I do not think this man is speaking like someone who believes in the Constitution as written.
Is not wealth redistribution a key element of Marxism, and in its ultimate form where the state has all the wealth communism?
Fascism is to the left of center while conservatism is to the right.
I have not call the President a traitor, he just does not believe in the contry as founded, he is not the only one, just happens to be at the head of the pack as President. I have listened to him speak, and I take his words to mean what they mean.
As for "under the radar". Could you not agree that fast and furis is and "under the radar" program? Even the EPA banning Pb bullets is somewhat under the radar as there is no bill subitted for debate, vote and signing/veto.
". But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says whatthe Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf,"
So he wants a the federal gov't to do more, redistribute wealth, and "social justice"? I may be paraoid, but I do not think this man is speaking like someone who believes in the Constitution as written.
Is not wealth redistribution a key element of Marxism, and in its ultimate form where the state has all the wealth communism?
Fascism is to the left of center while conservatism is to the right.
I have not call the President a traitor, he just does not believe in the contry as founded, he is not the only one, just happens to be at the head of the pack as President. I have listened to him speak, and I take his words to mean what they mean.
As for "under the radar". Could you not agree that fast and furis is and "under the radar" program? Even the EPA banning Pb bullets is somewhat under the radar as there is no bill subitted for debate, vote and signing/veto.
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sat Jul 28, 2012 7:27 pm
"Personal property is the effect of society; and it is as impossible for an individual to acquire personal property without the aid of society, as it is for him to make land originally.
Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
-Agrarian Justice Part Three
(Thomas Paine)
You're making the mistake of thinking that wealth redistribution is ONLY symptomatic of Marxism. Was Thomas Pain a Marxist? Fascism is decidedly not only to the left of center. The political spectrum is not a gradient from left to right it is a circle with Authoritarian/anarchism on opposite sides and liberalism/conservatism on the other sides. Fascim is authoritariam conservatism by one definition, authoritarian liberalism by another. Depends on how you define liberalism--the definition of liberalism and conservatism has changed over the years, to almost the opposite of what it meant in Adam Smith's day. If you go far enough in one direction, American conservatism is either anarchy or fascism. Your pick. I don't like either myself. But hen, I don't like communism either. That I prefer something in between doesn't make me a commie or wishy-washy,it makes me someone who tries to solve problems using my mind, not a freaking dogma preached by a ruling power to win the throne.
So you believe in slavery, and only 13 states, and that women shouldn't vote? I can only assume that since you think your president doesn't believe in your "original" constitution that you also believe it should never have been amended or interpreted by the Supreme Court. Me, I believe that it can and should be amended, and interpreted. This is not 1787. It is 2012. If they had abortion, cell phones, nuclear bombs, and ebola in 1787 you can bet they would have made some new rules to fit the situation. That you don't like these new rules is tough titties. We elect leaders to make decisions, and they have done so. That you didn't get your way doesn't make it unconstitutional, or treason. It just means you didn't get your way. Spend more money on Romney if you want us to go back to 1787. I'm sure we'll do fine as a corporatocracy, won't we?
Fast and Furious was certainly not made public. I assume you want all of our police operations made public? Maybe we ought to advertise when we try to infiltrate drug gangs as well? That way we can all feel safe inkowing that individuals won't make mistakes and subvert our constitution, however temporarily. .. Myself, I'm sure that between our Supreme Court and our Senate and House it will be dealt with. Is that not how it is supposed to happen? Should we lynch the president and accuse him of treason for the mistakes of his underlings? I don't remember demanding that Bush be impeached when his underlings helped ensure that prisoners of war were tortured in Iraq, but it sure happened, didn't it? In fact his VP actually said it was a good idea and we should do it, remember? Checks and balances. Checks and balances. Not accusations and hand waving and lies, thanks.
Separate an individual from society, and give him an island or a continent to possess, and he cannot acquire personal property. He cannot be rich. So inseparably are the means connected with the end, in all cases, that where the former do not exist the latter cannot be obtained. All accumulation, therefore, of personal property, beyond what a man's own hands produce, is derived to him by living in society; and he owes on every principle of justice, of gratitude, and of civilization, a part of that accumulation back again to society from whence the whole came."
-Agrarian Justice Part Three
(Thomas Paine)
You're making the mistake of thinking that wealth redistribution is ONLY symptomatic of Marxism. Was Thomas Pain a Marxist? Fascism is decidedly not only to the left of center. The political spectrum is not a gradient from left to right it is a circle with Authoritarian/anarchism on opposite sides and liberalism/conservatism on the other sides. Fascim is authoritariam conservatism by one definition, authoritarian liberalism by another. Depends on how you define liberalism--the definition of liberalism and conservatism has changed over the years, to almost the opposite of what it meant in Adam Smith's day. If you go far enough in one direction, American conservatism is either anarchy or fascism. Your pick. I don't like either myself. But hen, I don't like communism either. That I prefer something in between doesn't make me a commie or wishy-washy,it makes me someone who tries to solve problems using my mind, not a freaking dogma preached by a ruling power to win the throne.
So you believe in slavery, and only 13 states, and that women shouldn't vote? I can only assume that since you think your president doesn't believe in your "original" constitution that you also believe it should never have been amended or interpreted by the Supreme Court. Me, I believe that it can and should be amended, and interpreted. This is not 1787. It is 2012. If they had abortion, cell phones, nuclear bombs, and ebola in 1787 you can bet they would have made some new rules to fit the situation. That you don't like these new rules is tough titties. We elect leaders to make decisions, and they have done so. That you didn't get your way doesn't make it unconstitutional, or treason. It just means you didn't get your way. Spend more money on Romney if you want us to go back to 1787. I'm sure we'll do fine as a corporatocracy, won't we?
Fast and Furious was certainly not made public. I assume you want all of our police operations made public? Maybe we ought to advertise when we try to infiltrate drug gangs as well? That way we can all feel safe inkowing that individuals won't make mistakes and subvert our constitution, however temporarily. .. Myself, I'm sure that between our Supreme Court and our Senate and House it will be dealt with. Is that not how it is supposed to happen? Should we lynch the president and accuse him of treason for the mistakes of his underlings? I don't remember demanding that Bush be impeached when his underlings helped ensure that prisoners of war were tortured in Iraq, but it sure happened, didn't it? In fact his VP actually said it was a good idea and we should do it, remember? Checks and balances. Checks and balances. Not accusations and hand waving and lies, thanks.
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sat Jul 28, 2012 11:12 pm
muddyboots wrote: We still have that conservative balanced SCOTUS that W packed to keep your rights to own bazooka's safe.
Since you claimed to be a friend of the truth in you post earlier today, I'll just politely remind you he didn't "pack" the court, he appointed justice to vacancies that occurred during his term.
Like all Presidents, Mr. Bush appointed those who he thought would agree on various topics. He no more "packed" the couirt than Clinton did , or Obama hopes to.
It's a perk of the job...like living in the White House or flying in a private 747.
The term "packing" when it comes to the supreme court usually refers to FDR's attempt to increase the court by up to 6 new justices..so he could name people who would agree with his New Deal plans....an unconstitutional step that he didn't get away with.
In case you've forgotten it from high school history, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_P ... ll_of_1937
BTW: Free advice from a former PR guy: if you...and other people here...want to convince people of your open mindedness, thyey should temper some of their language.
When people use "name caling" terms, they come across like a partisan hack...even if the claim not to be.
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sun Jul 29, 2012 12:04 am
JohnB wrote:muddyboots wrote: We still have that conservative balanced SCOTUS that W packed to keep your rights to own bazooka's safe.
Since you claimed to be a friend of the truth in you post earlier today, I'll just politely remind you he didn't "pack" the court, he appointed justice to vacancies that occurred during his term.
Like all Presidents, Mr. Bush appointed those who he thought would agree on various topics. He no more "packed" the couirt than Clinton did , or Obama hopes to.
It's a perk of the job...like living in the White House or flying in a private 747.
The term "packing" when it comes to the suprem court usually refers to FDR's attempt to increase the court by up to 6 new justices..so he could name people who would agree with his New Deal plans....an unconstitutional step that he didn't get away with.
In case you've forgotten it from high school history, here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_P ... ll_of_1937
Actually the number of Supreme Court Justices isn't named in the Constitution. What he suggested was entirely constitutional as long as he could have swung the votes. He didn't and it didn't happen because his own party rebelled at the idea of upsetting the balance of powers. It was hardly unconstitutional, although he did manage to appoint eight of the nine justices before he passed away which amounts to packing it, doesn't it? I mean, if all but one person on the court is going to vote your way every time, you've packed the court. Bush has managed to do almost that, with a 5/4 advantage for the conservatives. if it weren't for that pesky John Roberts and his refusal to accept the party line... If you're going to quote history, please try and get it right. Nowhere in your Wikipedia citation does it suggest that changing the number of justices is unconstitutional AT ALL. Do you have any support at all that he tried to subvert the constitution or are you just quoting Rush Limbaugh's obvious distortions? I would hate to waste my time arguing with a dittohead.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office. Can you point out ANYWHERE in this article where it even suggests the number of justices on the Supreme Court? I'll eat my flip flops if you can. You'll have to let me use BarBQ sauce though. I am a Southerner. w
What it does say is congress establishes them, which has been taken to mean that COngress decides the number. Whcih has changed over the years, if you didn't know. And always it has been suggested by the president and decided by the congress... Soudns like FDR to me. The president's jobis to suggest new laws to congress, who then confirm or refuse them. In this case they refused his new idea, and he moved on. Hardly unconstitutional.
I was being sarcastic when I said it (although in effect he really did pack the court). W had every right to nominate the people he chose, and when he picked someone who wasn't a very good choice, again the system of checks and balances did its job and forced him to withdraw the nomination (Harriet Miers) Heck, his own party went sugar over it--the opposition hardly had to say anything it was so pointedly stupid. But it was hardly unconstitutional, and no one, NO ONE suggested he was subverting the constitution... Again, he was POTUS. I might not like his choices, and I might not have liked what he did as President. But it was wrong to accuse him of treason when every single thing he did was in what he perceived to be the best interests of the United States.
It isn't a Democrat who yelled "You lie!" at a President of the United States of America during a presidential address. It isn't the Democrats who have subverted the office of the presidency and made us a laughingstock. That would be the conservative party (particularly the Tea Party) with its demagogues and trained monkeys using their special party authorized code words like "ObamaCare" and "Socialist" and the Birthers who are so moronic they can't remember that his mother was an American and it doesn't matter WHERE he was born because he is the child of an American citizen and able to run for president according to the constitution that they keep claiming he is subverting...If Joe Arpio has ever read the constitution I would be surprised. I'd be surprised if he's read his own Arizona code of law for that matter.
Meanwhile this political thread goes on and on. I vote we bring Bill back to give you guys a real fight. So far I've done very little beyond remind you how silly your arguments are by pointing out how little they are based on reality. I'm sure he would be far better than me at this as well as much funnier. I'm just a piker compared to Greenwood. Of course, it's not difficult to argue with people who have spent their lives listening to Glenn Beck's lies and crazy hypothesis, and Rush Limbaugh's tortured logic and weird accusations, and FOX's conservative agenda. Heck, I'm not even a Democrat any more and I'm managing it lol. I don't even particularly like Obama. I'm just disgusted to hear people on this site accusing the President of the United States of treason and subverting the constitution. It's disgusting IMO, and has no place here or anywhere for that matter. It smacks of McCarthyism.
It's a circle of idiocy, and I'm sure you're all going to cry that I use that word again. But what other word can you use to describe an attitude like this?. It comes up over and over and over and over and nobody calls you guys on it. Well now you're being called on it. If you absolutely MUST bring up political crap, ignoring WIX's rules, at least be honest about it and quit using stupid accusations and wild claims to support your arguments. It's embarrassing. The right has managed to subvert reality with it's claims that evolution has no real evidence that the bible can't explain, and Climate Change isn't real science when a tiny minority of modern scientists question it, and that creationism should be taught as just as logical as the scientific method when it's all bunk.
You people climb in machines which move around in the air above the ground at high speeds, and depend on the scientific method to explain why they do that and build better machines that go faster and are louder and cooler> You avoid other machines flying around at high speeds in the air using invisible rays that bounce off the other machines flying around up there and then glow on a nifty little screen to tell you where they are, but you can't accept all the other scientific theory that modern medicine depends on and which might save the world our grandchildren are going to be left with when we're gone. GOD did not come up with those theories and laws. SCIENTISTS did. You know, those people you accuse of wanting to end religion and marriage between a man and a woman, and think want to legalize beastiality and pedophilia? Those guys figured out how to make your kites fly in the air and how to make the bacteria that want to kill you when you shoot each other not kill you with gangrene. Better take a second look at your opinions of scientists IMO. If they're wrong you're screwed.
It's sort of weird, actually. We're filled to the brim with pilots and ground crew and supposedly intelligent educated people who couldn't explain how the scientific method really works to save their lives, much less what Keynesian Economics is really about, but they're ready to demonize it despite that, and claim that scientists have some agenda beyond answering the worlds questions with facts instead of religion. All on the word of some guy on the TV, who is being paid to rabble rouse and doesn't care one bit about the truth beyond its ability to make him richer and louder. If you have to resort to lies and wild claims of treason to win an argument, you aren't winning the argument.
Re: UN Small Arms Treaty
Sun Jul 29, 2012 1:23 am
I think this thread lost the warbird connection some time ago, and has turned into a rehash of political opinions. The thread is therefore locked, for the time being at least.