Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DREDIOCK on January 03, 2008, 08:31:44 PM
-
Barack Obama upsets front runner Hillary Clinton in the Iowa Caucus this Thursday January 3 2008 and turns out to be the big landslide victory winner in Iowa.
http://blip.tv/file/575182 (http://blip.tv/file/575182)
ANYONE
But Hillary 08!
-
The power of Oprah!
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
ANYONE
But Hillary 08!
Ditto ^^
-
What about Paul? How did he do?
-
Originally posted by Tango
What about Paul? How did he do?
It's not over yet but I think he will at least beat Giuliani lol.
Overall it looks like it will be Obama and Huckabee as the two winners
-
I think its pretty funny that Billary is gonna finish behind the rich boy too! (Edwards)
-
A robot and a pastor. Go Iowa!
-
Originally posted by Tango
What about Paul? How did he do?
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA
As of right now, looks like Paul is coming in at 10%, or 4th place. Not too bad. He's ahead of Giuliani (although Giuliani didn't campaign heavily in Iowa), so maybe he will finally be acknowledged as a "real" candidate by the mainstream media.
-
if we end up having to choose between either Muhammad Obama or Huckabee Finn we are screwed pretty badly.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
if we end up having to choose between either Muhammad Obama or Huckabee Finn we are screwed pretty badly.
agreed.
-
I do not believe Obama is electible as POTUS
-
Be interested to know in a State of how many millions, just how many turned out to vote in -20 degrees.
...-GIxer
-
Originally posted by Tarmac
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#IA
As of right now, looks like Paul is coming in at 10%, or 4th place. Not too bad. He's ahead of Giuliani (although Giuliani didn't campaign heavily in Iowa), so maybe he will finally be acknowledged as a "real" candidate by the mainstream media.
Wow. If those margins hold (8-9%), they (runners up and their lackies) won't be able to claim it was "close" or "within the margin of error" and therefore still a victory as some silly correspondent said on the radio this morning (as if there is a "margin of error" in an actual vote).
-
Well its just one state...many more to go.
The only surprise for me is Edwards eeked out 2nd place, 1 percentage point ahead of Mrs Clinton.
Huckabee is here today, gone tomorrow. I think he'll wash out over the grind.
On to NH
-
Ron Paul for President.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
Well its just one state...many more to go.
The only surprise for me is Edwards eeked out 2nd place, 1 percentage point ahead of Mrs Clinton.
Huckabee is here today, gone tomorrow. I think he'll wash out over the grind.
On to NH
My oldest son told me a year ago he thought Huckabee was going to make some noise as a contender. I told him no way. I think it may run neck and neck between him and Romney. Will be interesting to see where support goes after the others drop out. I think Fred Thompson may be the first to throw in the towel.
-
I've got the same gut feeling about Fred. His folksey approach and all is nice, but I don't see him catching on.
At this point, I think its more Rudi and Romney. McCain has betrayed the conservatives and earned the RINO tag. His stand on illegal immigration ("amnesty") is just one of the many things that come to mind.
I wish we had some other contenders. Ron Paul is just noise, much like Perot was.
-
Serious question...Say Obama or Clinton were to be elected President of the United States...Are we in a time and place that there is someone out there who has so much hatred for either an African American or a female as president that we would see an attempt at assasination?
This isn't flame bait or troll, i'm 100% serious. Does either of these candidates run the risk at having an attempt at their life, more so than other candidates?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I do not believe Obama is electible as POTUS
Just the opposite is true. Americans are getting excited about the Obama campaign. Americans in both political parties want change, in my opinion.
Iowa is one of the most white and conservative states in the nation. If Obama can win so convincingly here, tell me, in what state is he going to lose?? Alaska and Montana maybe??
The stats that are coming in are really unexpected. Obama came in first place with women voters, which Hillary was supposed to have wrapped up in her pocket. He even came in first with rural voters too, who are normally the most conservative.
It looks like Edwards is going to nudge out Hillary, and she is going to end up in third place, despite having spent the most money of anyone in the campaign.
If Hillary gets the nomination, I think that the Republicans still have a chance to win, despite the disaster of the Bush Presidency. But to me, an Obama/Edwards ticket looks about unbeatable to me.
SIG 220
-
(http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/ron-paul-babies.jpg)
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Serious question...Say Obama or Clinton were to be elected President of the United States...Are we in a time and place that there is someone out there who has so much hatred for either an African American or a female as president that we would see an attempt at assasination?
This isn't flame bait or troll, i'm 100% serious. Does either of these candidates run the risk at having an attempt at their life, more so than other candidates?
All the candidates run this risk, which is why I beleive all have some level of private and secret service protection assigned to them
Is it feasible? Sure. More so on one versus the other....ah heck, who knows? You're asking for Vegas odds.
-
I can see some racist hatred toward Obama from some back country folk, however I don't see them taking the time to fix their pickup trucks up for the journey to assassinate him. Also Shotguns lose their effectiveness after a certain range.
In all seriousness, if someone is willing to shoot Reagan to impress an actress, then you never know.
Democrats tend to outnumber Republicans 3 to 2. However Republicans have a higher percentage showing up to vote. Obama is doing a fine job of motivating people to be politically active.
My prediction:
The US has a tendency to swing back and forth across the liberal/conservative line every 8-12 years. After the Bush administration I feel the pendulum has been knocked out of the Republican party's reach. As long as Obama stays ahead of Hillary, I believe he has the best chance as the next president. If Hillary managed to pass Obama on the Democratic vote, then 08 could be up for grabs for the Republicans. Too many people have a pure, unexplainable hatred for Hillary (myself included).
(Note, I was in favor of Bush in 04 and am currently leaning for Obama)
-
Originally posted by cav58d
This isn't flame bait or troll, i'm 100% serious. Does either of these candidates run the risk at having an attempt at their life, more so than other candidates?
Since America is the least sexist and racist nation on earth, the answer to your question is no.
If Hillary was running in say Pakistan, for example, she would have already been blown up months ago.
Same for Obama, for rejecting Islam ( the religion of his father ), and instead becoming a Christian. So he would also be dead meat in almost any Muslim nation.
SIG 220
-
IMHO, it will be Hillary/Obama or Obama/Hillary. Each completes the other.
Obama has the spark and the passion, Hillary has the cautious calculation, and experience. Obama has has the fresh idealism, Hillary has decades of political knife work. Obama brings youth, Hillary brings adult supervision. Obama brings Oprah, Hillary bring the establishment money machine. Obama will inspire the majority of the Democratic base. Hillary will manipulate, bribe, or intimidate the rest.
Wab
-
Originally posted by Raptor
Democrats tend to outnumber Republicans 3 to 2. However Republicans have a higher percentage showing up to vote. Obama is doing a fine job of motivating people to be politically active.
You're right about that. The numbers I saw indicated approx 230,000 Dems showing up to caucus in Iowa and only 120,000 Reps.
-
Anyone but Osamabama or Hitlery
-
Color me tickled tonight. I know Iowa isn't a good predicter of how it will go long term, but I am still taking delight in the results. I hope that evil shrew is worried now, this might interfere with her plans to ban our guns.
Anyone but Hillary 2008!
-
As I said in another thread, How much does Iowa actually mean to the political landscape these days???
Wait for someplace like Ohio, or Florida. Or California. One state doesn't make the race.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Just the opposite is true. But to me, an Obama/Edwards ticket looks about unbeatable to me.
SIG 220
Well, let's not debate it, let's wait and see. :)
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
As I said in another thread, How much does Iowa actually mean to the political landscape these days???
Wait for someplace like Ohio, or Florida. Or California. One state doesn't make the race.
The Iowa primaries are usually a big deal. When it comes to voting is when Ohio plays a major role.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Just the opposite is true. Americans are getting excited about the Obama campaign. Americans in both political parties want change, in my opinion.
SIG 220
And that is exactly why I think someone like Paul if he can get himself talked about by the major medias has a chance.
People of both sides are disgusted
-
Anyone Bill Clinton campaigns for always winds up losing. Looks like his good luck has blessed his wife :) (Plus, all the places he stumps for her, he goes on and on about himself, very seldom even mentioning her!)
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
You're right about that. The numbers I saw indicated approx 230,000 Dems showing up to caucus in Iowa and only 120,000 Reps.
Analysts said that was because virtually all independents went for Democratic candidates, mainly Obama and Edwards. In addition, Obama has caused many new young voters to come, and people who have not bothered to vote in the past.
Face it, the Republicans are doomed in this year's election. This election will be a repeat of 1964.
I hope that they actually don't ban some guns. I will be pissed if I have to give up any of Assault rifles, especially if the government offers no compensation.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Since America is the least sexist and racist nation on earth...
What the **** have you been smoking?
-
Originally posted by Gixer
Be interested to know in a State of how many millions, just how many turned out to vote in -20 degrees.
...-GIxer
It would be interesting to see how many vote in the general elections in November.
I'm willing to bet that the voter turn out from these forums will probably mirror the national voter turn out percentage.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
It would be interesting to see how many vote in the general elections in November.
I'm willing to bet that the voter turn out from these forums will probably mirror the national voter turn out percentage.
ack-ack
I dunno, Ack-ack. If you take all of the eligible, registered voters' on this BBS, I'm sure More of a percentage than you see in here, versus what will turn out on a national average, will vote. How they vote is a different issue.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
(http://swordattheready.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/ron-paul-babies.jpg)
I still haven't figured out, is that supposed to be a pro or anti Ron Paul picture.
:D
-
I simply cannot accept another president who disavows evolution. Huckabee speaks well, but his history as a fatty, his bad teeth and his god fearing ways speak leaps about his weak machismo.
All kidding aside... As a young, middle class, educated American I have been wholeheartedly ashamed and embarrassed by the ill political environment of Washington and the actions of our broken republic abroad.
Obama has my vote.
I believe Obama to be the pure change candidate (aside from Paul). We don't need experience. We need change.
Taxes need to be raised, the debt needs to be paid down. Education needs to be center stage. Time to get real and clean shop.
I'm more sick of big business's hand in politics than I am of big government. The size of the government has grown under the republican admin anyway.
I'm sick of our over extended foreign policy and our HUGE defense budget. I'm sick of a weak dollar and our dismal reputation abroad.
America shouldn't be polarized between red and blue. It should be polarized between fiscally realistic and fiscally retarded. The current administration being the former.
-
interesting times we live in.
-
Originally posted by john9001
interesting times we live in.
Agreed. Good morning John.
-
Frankly, the only people who won are the 2 candidates that get a little more media coverage in the next 5 days (until New Hampshire), the people of Iowa who raked in more than 100 million dollars of money spent there, and the media for ramming the opinions of a small fraction of Iowa voters (less people than one district of other states) down our throat.
National polls are the same, regardless of what the few in Iowa decided. However, I am very happy that Dodd did so poorly... our beloved Connecticut Senator decided to pack up and move to Iowa, family and all, in a hopeless attempt to draw support from Iowa while missing almost every vote in Congress. I sent Dodd an e-mail last night, thanking him for not putting his ambitions ahead of Connecticut residents and to enjoy his retirement as few will vote for him in the future.
-
Originally posted by Dadano
I simply cannot accept another president who disavows evolution. Huckabee speaks well, but his history as a fatty, his bad teeth and his god fearing ways speak leaps about his weak machismo.
All kidding aside... As a young, middle class, educated American I have been wholeheartedly ashamed and embarrassed by the ill political environment of Washington and the actions of our broken republic abroad.
Obama has my vote.
I believe Obama to be the pure change candidate (aside from Paul). We don't need experience. We need change.
Taxes need to be raised, the debt needs to be paid down. Education needs to be center stage. Time to get real and clean shop.
I'm more sick of big business's hand in politics than I am of big government. The size of the government has grown under the republican admin anyway.
I'm sick of our over extended foreign policy and our HUGE defense budget. I'm sick of a weak dollar and our dismal reputation abroad.
America shouldn't be polarized between red and blue. It should be polarized between fiscally realistic and fiscally retarded. The current administration being the former.
Pretty much the same feelings I have.. I will most likely vote for Obama I've watched him awhile and I've yet to see anything about him I don't like.
I think a Obama / Edwards ticket would be the real deal. They both have similar ideas but still different enough to bring in their own supporters to the table. Obama has the money behind him and Edwards is short on cash, sounds like the perfect match to me.
Hillary on the other hand would be too much like Bush in reguards to dividing this nation even more than it is.
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
It would be interesting to see how many vote in the general elections in November.
I'm willing to bet that the voter turn out from these forums will probably mirror the national voter turn out percentage.
ack-ack
I'd take that bet. I think those who post here are on average more expressive of their opinions than the general populace. We could take a poll but how many here would admit to not voting if they didn't?
-
Obama took Mama to school.
-
I read that Obama's speech was "historic" and will be remembered for generations to come, so I read the transcript.
It read like meaningless gibberish. No content at all. I highly recommend turning off your TV set to clearly see that "blah, blah, blah" means blah, blah blah, and nothing more.
-
yeah, aside from promising to screw up health care he really didn't say all that much...
-
It read like meaningless gibberish. No content at all. I highly recommend turning off your TV set to clearly see that "blah, blah, blah" means blah, blah blah, and nothing more.
That's how all his 'speeches' are. Go back to the last Democrat Convention.
Folks seem easily impressed by a well spoken non-threatening black man even though he never really says much.
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I read that Obama's speech was "historic" and will be remembered for generations to come, so I read the transcript.
It read like meaningless gibberish. No content at all. I highly recommend turning off your TV set to clearly see that "blah, blah, blah" means blah, blah blah, and nothing more.
Point taken. Go ahead and turn back on the TV and try and appreciate how incredibly articulate Obama is. Look no further than Germany 1933 to see how effective expression can bring people together.
-
osamabama is even left of hillary.
I can't believe that so many feel that we have to be punished by having the stooges in washington take even more of our money in taxes away from us.
I can't believe some gun owners are simply sitting around hoping that an osamabama won't take "to many" of their guns away from em.
I hear a lot about a mormon thompson ticket.. I think it would be a winner.
Ron paul, unfortunately.. did about as I would have expected.
I think it is a good sign that a liberal republican like the new york scumbag didn't do well.
When you guys start to study osamabamas voting record I think that you will see it doesn't matter how much you want to look unbigotted or how easy a warm voice calms you.
We need to raise taxes? Unbelievable.. course.. I understand that you guys mean that we need to raise taxes on everyone making more than you tho... Just as short sighted as you look.
lazs
-
I believe Obama to be the pure change candidate (aside from Paul). We don't need experience. We need change.
He's a member of the Illinois democratic machine, groomed by Dick Durbin for greater things who, unexpectedly, was presented with the opportunity for greater things much earlier than anticipated. His very limited voting record to date suggests little independence from that of those who promote him. He does have charisma and talks a good line though.
Yet it is also startling to see how quickly Obama’s senatorship has been woven into the web of institutionalized influence-trading that afflicts official Washington. He quickly established a political machine funded and run by a standard Beltway group of lobbyists, P.R. consultants, and hangers-on...
...All of this has forged a political culture that is intrinsically hostile to reform. On condition of anonymity, one Washington lobbyist I spoke with was willing to point out the obvious: that big donors would not be helping out Obama if they didn’t see him as a “player.” The lobbyist added: “What’s the dollar value of a starry-eyed idealist?”
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/11/0081275
It will be interesting to see if the whole Tony Rezko thing gets traction now.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729_2.html
Charon
-
Ron paul, unfortunately.. did about as I would have expected.
Paul actually did very well, as such things go. As good as I had hoped he would do, with plenty of opportunity to improve. I still don't see him winning, but it was a strong showing at this point and one that will make him somewhat harder to ignore.
Charon
-
Point taken on his voting record and limited experience Charon.
Heya Laz. How can we get this budget back to a reasonable state? Do we need to?
-
we can get the budget back to a reasonable state by not spending so much.
Do we need to? well.. we need to reign it in some but we are not that bad off.. that is according to the economists I read.. I don't believe it.. I would love to cut the scumbags in washington off... make em balance the budget without raising taxes on the middle class..
Yep.. that's right.. every time they say raise taxes on the rich.. your taxes go up. I don't know how they keep finding more people to by into the "tax the rich and we will give the money to you" scam.. guess it is true that there is a new one born every second.
charon.. I don't think that pauls numbers were any big deal.. they put him squarely in the has been area.
lazs
-
Hill has no chance.... on the other hand.... no one really cares what anyone in IOWA wants. This is just for the paparazzi types like cnn, fox and the new york times.
-
We need a civil war...that is what we need....and to answer an earlier question I do believe that some fool or fools will take a chance at putting a bullet or bomb on either Obama or Clinton if one of them makes it into the office or even before then.
If that happens all legal gun owners like myself are royally screwed then and there will not be one thing we can do about it.
-
you did get the gist of it tho.. the only guns the politician scumbags want to get rid or are the ones that might get aimed at them.
Which just about means all of em. The reason other countries are so interested in us is because as long as there is even one gun in the world that they don't control... someone might take em out of the game.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
you did get the gist of it tho.. the only guns the politician scumbags want to get rid or are the ones that might get aimed at them.
Which just about means all of em. The reason other countries are so interested in us is because as long as there is even one gun in the world that they don't control... someone might take em out of the game.
lazs
I would add, that once they can effectively disable the 2nd Amendment, then that gives them the ability to go after the others...The 2nd is arguably the most vulnerable. But after that, most likely would be free speech.
-
"Blaming guns for crime is like blaming spoons for Rosie O'Donnel's obesity." by Travis McGee
-
frode we agree. I just wish I could get you to see that the more money you give government the more they use it to take away your rights.
lazs
-
so is every dem in Iowa black? Otherwise how can a black muslim dude win in farm country?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
frode we agree. I just wish I could get you to see that the more money you give government the more they use it to take away your rights.
lazs
I'll tell you the truth, Lasz. I feel like It's not so much that we have the option to give it or not anymore...Now, they just take it whether we want to give it or not. I feel like we're lucky that they haven't really lowered the boom on us.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
so is every dem in Iowa black? Otherwise how can a black muslim dude win in farm country?
Obama is Christian, not Muslim. Still a good question though. The democrats don't reveal the number of votes during caucases. I suspect he got the majority of what, maybe 10,000 votes?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Obama is Christian, not Muslim.
I have no proof... but I suspect this is a front.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I have no proof... but I suspect this is a front.
It's a front for many people but is it what he claims.
-
I still think Obama is the anti christ himself. He speaks well, people are so in love with him when they see him. I am sorry but if you read the Left Behind series he reminds me of the anti christ in the books. I read the book a few years ago, and when Obama made his speech at the Dem Convention. People immediately starting saying he will be president one day, and fell in love with him. Just a weird thing that the book sounds so much like what is going on with him right now.
-
Maybe farmers are more intelligent and less racist than many think.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Maybe farmers are more intelligent and less racist than many think.
shamus
Typical nutjob response: The only people who don't vote for Obama are racist.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Obama is Christian, not Muslim. Still a good question though. The democrats don't reveal the number of votes during caucases. I suspect he got the majority of what, maybe 10,000 votes?
The democratic caucus is different than how the republicans run theirs... The Repubs do it the old fashioned way - where registered repubs vote and the totals are tallied up.
The dems make it more complicated (heheheh)... gathering at more than 1700 different precincts where they meet... they divide up into groups based on who they support, and offer delegate votes (like the electoral college). More than 100k dems participated - according to CNN, more dems came out than repubs.
In any case - Iowa is an overwhelmingly white state, and out of all of Obama's supporters, 94% were white.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Typical nutjob response: The only people who don't vote for Obama are racist.
Nope, responding to this: so is every dem in Iowa black? Otherwise how can a black muslim dude win in farm country?
I know that was kinda deep for you.
shamus
-
Originally posted by JBA
Obama took Mama to school.
Heh, her column about it was pretty good.
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Maybe farmers are more intelligent and less racist than many think.
shamus
Zing!
Originally posted by Shamus
Nope, responding to this: so is every dem in Iowa black? Otherwise how can a black muslim dude win in farm country?
I know that was kinda deep for you.
Double Zing!
9/10
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Nope, responding to this: so is every dem in Iowa black? Otherwise how can a black muslim dude win in farm country?
I know that was kinda deep for you.
shamus
He was being sarcastic, I know you are unable to recognize such things and therefore your response was genuine. However, I'll not hijack this thread arguing with the unarmed so you are dismissed.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Since America is the least sexist and racist nation on earth, the answer to your question is no.
SIG 220
:rofl
...-Gixer
-
Originally posted by Dadano
I simply cannot accept another president who disavows evolution. Huckabee speaks well, but his history as a fatty, his bad teeth and his god fearing ways speak leaps about his weak machismo.
All kidding aside... As a young, middle class, educated American I have been wholeheartedly ashamed and embarrassed by the ill political environment of Washington and the actions of our broken republic abroad.
Obama has my vote.
I believe Obama to be the pure change candidate (aside from Paul). We don't need experience. We need change.
Taxes need to be raised, the debt needs to be paid down. Education needs to be center stage. Time to get real and clean shop.
I'm more sick of big business's hand in politics than I am of big government. The size of the government has grown under the republican admin anyway.
I'm sick of our over extended foreign policy and our HUGE defense budget. I'm sick of a weak dollar and our dismal reputation abroad.
America shouldn't be polarized between red and blue. It should be polarized between fiscally realistic and fiscally retarded. The current administration being the former.
First, Taxes don't need to be raised. Every time the government LOWERS taxes, tax revenues go up. It is so childish how some people still think that you need to raise taxes to get the money back. Not to mention the negative affects on the economy by doing so.
You call yourself educated, yet you know very little about national debt and the effects of it. Running up the national debt as well as creating a weak dollar is right out of the Economics 101 play book.
America will continue to be polarized. It has always been polarized.
Also, how's the sailing going?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
He was being sarcastic, I know you are unable to recognize such things and therefore your response was genuine. However, I'll not hijack this thread arguing with the unarmed so you are dismissed.
It seems that you are capable of recognizing sarcasm on only a part time basis as I said, kinda deep for you.
I so do enjoy watching your sharp tongue and dull mind tho, please keep it up.
shamus
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Obama is Christian, not Muslim. Still a good question though. The democrats don't reveal the number of votes during caucases. I suspect he got the majority of what, maybe 10,000 votes?
There were over 200 thousand...It was a record breaker.
-
Is it just me or does Huckabee look like Gomer Pyle?;)
-
Originally posted by Reschke
We need a civil war...that is what we need....and to answer an earlier question I do believe that some fool or fools will take a chance at putting a bullet or bomb on either Obama or Clinton if one of them makes it into the office or even before then.
If that happens all legal gun owners like myself are royally screwed then and there will not be one thing we can do about it.
I don't think a President Obama would need to worry about assasination unless he had Clinton as a VP. Then I don't give him a year. She'll have him popped. Move into the White House and screech about the right wing conspiracy. Hillary must have her way.
-
Winning the Iowa caucus is like getting a hit in the top of the first inning in the World Series....it means nothing if all of the other at-bats end in strike outs.
-
Originally posted by Ghi
I still think Obama is the anti christ himself. He speaks well, people are so in love with him when they see him. I am sorry but if you read the Left Behind series he reminds me of the anti christ in the books. I read the book a few years ago, and when Obama made his speech at the Dem Convention. People immediately starting saying he will be president one day, and fell in love with him. Just a weird thing that the book sounds so much like what is going on with him right now.
:rofl
Dano, what have you been eating.. inhaling? Obama the way of the future?:lol
edit- well well well...
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2185/2167415378_b39eda8d4c_o.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/12420910@N07/2167415378/)
-
I'd hit it, the one on the right that is :D
-
Originally posted by Warhawk
Is it just me or does Huckabee look like Gomer Pyle?;)
He is actually Gomer Pyle's better looking younger brother.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by rpm
What the **** have you been smoking?
Both women and minorities ( either racial, ethnic, or religious ) all do very well in the USA. Obama and Clinton's campaigns are absolute proof of that.
No nation on earth has more laws protecting the rights of women and minorities than the USA.
What have you been snorting???
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Dadano
I simply cannot accept another president who disavows evolution. Huckabee speaks well, but his history as a fatty, his bad teeth and his god fearing ways speak leaps about his weak machismo.
All kidding aside... As a young, middle class, educated American I have been wholeheartedly ashamed and embarrassed by the ill political environment of Washington and the actions of our broken republic abroad.
Obama has my vote.
I believe Obama to be the pure change candidate (aside from Paul). We don't need experience. We need change.
Taxes need to be raised, the debt needs to be paid down. Education needs to be center stage. Time to get real and clean shop.
I'm more sick of big business's hand in politics than I am of big government. The size of the government has grown under the republican admin anyway.
I'm sick of our over extended foreign policy and our HUGE defense budget. I'm sick of a weak dollar and our dismal reputation abroad.
America shouldn't be polarized between red and blue. It should be polarized between fiscally realistic and fiscally retarded. The current administration being the former.
You have been spending too much time at Starbucks, and consuming way too much caffeine.
Even Obama is called for a middle class tax cut.
Putting through higher taxes on working people would be an extremely popular thing to do during a recession like the one we are now in.
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Rolex
I read that Obama's speech was "historic" and will be remembered for generations to come, so I read the transcript.
It read like meaningless gibberish. No content at all. I highly recommend turning off your TV set to clearly see that "blah, blah, blah" means blah, blah blah, and nothing more.
You miss the point here. Political speeches are supposed to make folks feel good. They are not for things like laying out public policy.
Obama's speech was fantastic and inspiring. It made you proud to be an American.
The only Republican that has a REMOTE chance of beating Obama is Huckabee. And that is only if he uses his pull with God, and gets him to perform a miracle on his behalf! :lol :lol
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by Jebus
I still think Obama is the anti christ himself. He speaks well, people are so in love with him when they see him. I am sorry but if you read the Left Behind series he reminds me of the anti christ in the books. I read the book a few years ago, and when Obama made his speech at the Dem Convention. People immediately starting saying he will be president one day, and fell in love with him. Just a weird thing that the book sounds so much like what is going on with him right now.
You forget that Britany Spears said that she was the Anti-Christ back when she was in therapy while in rehab last year.
Don't you believe her?
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
You miss the point here. Political speeches are supposed to make folks feel good. They are not for things like laying out public policy.
Obama's speech was fantastic and inspiring. It made you proud to be an American.
Not too much goes over my head, but I'm open to the possibilty. Can you quote the passages that "inspired" you?
What parts made you "proud to be an American," and why did it make you proud?
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Both women and minorities ( either racial, ethnic, or religious ) all do very well in the USA. Obama and Clinton's campaigns are absolute proof of that.
No nation on earth has more laws protecting the rights of women and minorities than the USA.
What have you been snorting???
SIG 220
Obama has the vote of every guilty white liberal:aok NOW, if he can just get some of black folks who are voting for the shrew to vote for HIM
-
Sounds more like a popularity contest than a competition of ability..
-
Originally posted by SIG220
You miss the point here. Political speeches are supposed to make folks feel good. They are not for things like laying out public policy.
SIG 220
Or you can lay out public policy while inspiring people in 2-3 minutes or so.
Like
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
You miss the point here. Political speeches are supposed to make folks feel good. They are not for things like laying out public policy.
Obama's speech was fantastic and inspiring. It made you proud to be an American.
The only Republican that has a REMOTE chance of beating Obama is Huckabee. And that is only if he uses his pull with God, and gets him to perform a miracle on his behalf! :lol :lol
SIG 220
I hate to wake you up, but it is my opinion that America is not quite ready to elect a black leader, be it republican or democrat. You have the south to contend with...nuff said. If Obama goes up against Alfred E. Neumenn, Neumenn will win.
May another 10 ti 20 years, when whites are the minority...then Obama might have a chance.
-
Originally posted by bongaroo
I'd hit it, the one on the right that is :D
No uh... soup for you, they're both on the left. ;)
-
Hillary Clinton has pledged 50 billion dollars to alternative energy programs if she gets elected. I think this will stimulate our economy and help bankrupt the Middle East.
-
Not to try to hijack the thread but...DAMN....that picture of Hillary will freeze your blood......:eek:
-
Well, she obviously gave the young lady standing next to her the chills!
-
Originally posted by Toad
Well, she obviously gave the young lady standing next to her the chills!
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Rolex
Not too much goes over my head, but I'm open to the possibilty. Can you quote the passages that "inspired" you?
What parts made you "proud to be an American," and why did it make you proud?
Unfortunately, much of the speech had vague generalities. I know that the words HOPE and CHANGE were used a lot. He also spoke about uniting the nation.
It was an uplifting and positive speech, and made you feel good about our country. The message is simple: Do not give up HOPE, Obama will bring CHANGE.
He said that he would:
1) Make Health care affordable
2) Give more Tax breaks to the Middle Class
3) Free our nation from relying on Oil
4) End the War in Iraq
5) Make America once again the land of opportunity that it used to be
In short, he will solve all of our greatest national problems. And he cited a tradition of American greatness that he would follow in, starting with the bravery of the Colonists in becoming free, and ending with the march on Selma.
Obama is much better at the politics of salvation than Huckabee. And much like Hitler, he knows how to move people with his voice and words, casting a spell over them.
Who can resist cheering wildly for him?
SIG 220
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Who can resist cheering wildly for him?SIG 220
Uh.... I can.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I hate to wake you up, but it is my opinion that America is not quite ready to elect a black leader, be it republican or democrat. You have the south to contend with...nuff said. If Obama goes up against Alfred E. Neumenn, Neumenn will win.
May another 10 ti 20 years, when whites are the minority...then Obama might have a chance.
Well, as I have said before, I do not think that America is a racist nation.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Well, as I have said before, I do not think that America is a racist nation.
It is not necessarily racism. It may be stereotyping and bigotry.
With that said, considering the candidates we have out there thus far this election (and in past elections in the last 24 years) we again will be forced to hold our noses when voting...so, if there *is* a year that is an exception to my statement, this might actually be it....
However, if there were a strong candidate, be it Repub or Dem, that is white, and male, today they have a MUCH better chance than a woman or a black man.
-
Well...I think the country is prepared to elect either it's first female or black president....but the female would need to be a Margaret Thatcher clone and the black male would have to be of the Colin Powell mold.
Hillary may be unelectable, for she's going to be too much of a lightning rod. Obama has picked up a head of steam with the win in Iowa, but he'll need the right vice-presidential running mate to overcome the image that some have of him as being an inexperienced light-weight.
Huckabee? Don't underestimate him. He's a far more savvy campaigner than his opponents perceive him to be. Romney outspent him in Iowa by an order of magnitude....and still lost. The Huckster has the same smarmy, down-home, feel-your-pain charm that Slick Willy has. At the start of the campaign in '92 Ole Slick wasn't give much of a chance either....yet he turned out to be quite a giant killer.
-
I'd vote for Condoleezza Rice over John Edwards. Ideology is far more important than race, gender, or appearance and anyone who believes otherwise should not be allowed to vote.
-
Obama is for open borders and amnesty for illegals. Open borders... will you Obama supporters overlook that? WHY?
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Unfortunately, much of the speech had vague generalities. I know that the words HOPE and CHANGE were used a lot. He also spoke about uniting the nation.
It was an uplifting and positive speech, and made you feel good about our country. The message is simple: Do not give up HOPE, Obama will bring CHANGE.
Every presidential candidate in this election (and throughout history) has said the same thing. What has he done in the past to backup his words of bringing "change" and "hope?" He has a voting record of sitting on the fence with one finger to the wind during his short time in Congress.
He said that he would:
1) Make Health care affordable (Every president and presidential candidate has said the same thing.)
2) Give more Tax breaks to the Middle Class (Every president and presidential candidate for the last 30 years has said the same thing.)
3) Free our nation from relying on Oil (Every president and presidential candidate for the last 30 years has said the same thing.)
4) End the War in Iraq (So why is now against it, when he was for it before and voted for it? Is he slow on the uptake?)
5) Make America once again the land of opportunity that it used to be (Every president and presidential candidate for the last 30 years has said the same thing. More government does not equal more opportunity.)
In short, he will solve all of our greatest national problems. And he cited a tradition of American greatness that he would follow in, starting with the bravery of the Colonists in becoming free, and ending with the march on Selma.
(So? What is he going to do? He and you are not colonists. He and you did not march in Selma. What does Selma have to do with solving the problems of America today?)
Obama is much better at the politics of salvation than Huckabee. And much like Hitler, he knows how to move people with his voice and words, casting a spell over them.
(I don't understand the "politics of salvation." What does that mean? It sounds like gobbledygook to me.)
Who can resist cheering wildly for him?
In the harsh light of day and business, I rely on logic rather than emotion to find solutions to problems. Cheering wildly about things without looking deeper is just noisy and unproductive. It leads to mistakes in judgment.
The only change that he and his Democratic rivals want is to grab whatever change you have left in your pocket to make the government bigger.
Almost 50% of American households are now beholding to the government in some way, as employees, contractors, employees of companies with government contracts, recipients of welfare, subsidies, grants, loans, etc. This may be the last election before it tops 50%, and we're all in trouble then.
He voted for every spending bill. How do you lower taxes without reducing spending?
He voted for the war.
He voted for Patriot Act. How would the colonists who shed blood and lost fortunes feel about that?
He has no record of doing anything to bring about "change" or standing for anything during his few short years in Congress. How does that square with the flowery rhetoric?
-
Iowa picks corn, the big states pick presidents.
-
"So why is now against it, when he was for it before and voted for it? Is he slow on the uptake?"
Obama was sworn in in 2005 :aok
I cant seem to find any war-related bills that Obama voted on beside the "Obama also introduced the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act", a bill to cap troop levels in Iraq, begin phased redeployment, and remove all combat brigades from Iraq before April 2008".
-
actually, he wasn't around to vote on some of that stuff, although he did vote on reauthorizations and appropriations... That not being in washington that long thing might end up working in his favor... anyhoo, here's his voting record if anyones interested. http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Unfortunately, much of the speech had vague generalities. I know that the words HOPE and CHANGE were used a lot. He also spoke about uniting the nation.
It was an uplifting and positive speech, and made you feel good about our country. The message is simple: Do not give up HOPE, Obama will bring CHANGE.
He said that he would:
1) Make Health care affordable
2) Give more Tax breaks to the Middle Class
3) Free our nation from relying on Oil
4) End the War in Iraq
5) Make America once again the land of opportunity that it used to be
In short, he will solve all of our greatest national problems. And he cited a tradition of American greatness that he would follow in, starting with the bravery of the Colonists in becoming free, and ending with the march on Selma.
Obama is much better at the politics of salvation than Huckabee. And much like Hitler, he knows how to move people with his voice and words, casting a spell over them.
Who can resist cheering wildly for him?
SIG 220
I can. He casts no spell over me. He is as transparent as most glass I've seen. And as full of B.S. as most manure spreaders.
-
Originally posted by SIG220
Unfortunately, much of the speech had vague generalities. I know that the words HOPE and CHANGE were used a lot. He also spoke about uniting the nation.
It was an uplifting and positive speech, and made you feel good about our country. The message is simple: Do not give up HOPE, Obama will bring CHANGE.
He said that he would:
1) Make Health care affordable
2) Give more Tax breaks to the Middle Class
3) Free our nation from relying on Oil
4) End the War in Iraq
5) Make America once again the land of opportunity that it used to be
In short, he will solve all of our greatest national problems. And he cited a tradition of American greatness that he would follow in, starting with the bravery of the Colonists in becoming free, and ending with the march on Selma.
Obama is much better at the politics of salvation than Huckabee. And much like Hitler, he knows how to move people with his voice and words, casting a spell over them.
Who can resist cheering wildly for him?
SIG 220
This is only the Iowa Caucus; his speechwriters' good, I'll give him that, but He still has 49 states' to go, With Hillary doing anything she can to get the nomination. She'll eventually smother him down the road, I should think. Wait for the Poo fights' to commence. She has more money than he does, and she is already proven to be ruthless. Let's see what happens' in NH.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Pretty much the same feelings I have.. I will most likely vote for Obama I've watched him awhile and I've yet to see anything about him I don't like.
Things I don't like about Obama - and this is all my own personal opinion:
- Oprah supports him
- Did not like his BS "tell them whatever they want to hear" speech
- Former Pot and Cocaine user
- Refuses to wear a US flag pin on his tie
- Refuses to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
- Muslim heritage and upbringing (did his early schooling in Jakarta)
- Completely inexperienced
- Anti 2nd amendment
The above may not matter to some, or even most, but it matters to me personally - and I'll vote accordingly.
I think he's by far the least qualified and most over-hyped candidate of the pack - also the biggest out-and-out silver-tongued bull****ter I've ever seen (but that is only my personal opinion).
Truth be told: I think all the candidates suck - but he's the worst choice by far.
Shamroc
-
If you don't like him from the get-go you're not going to like his speech no matter what. Same could be said for me when it comes to Hillary or Giuliani.
Originally posted by shamroc
- Refuses to wear a US flag pin on his tie
I personally like this about him. Who says you have to be like everyone else to be patriotic? To me it feels like he is being more patriotic by not wearing it.
I agree with you on the National Anthem statement
Your statements regarding Oprah, his speech, drugs and Muslim upbringing come across as just searching for some sort of an excuse not to like him.
As for inexperience:
Just how much would congressional experience help one in the role as President? They are two separate branches of the government, the president no longer has the power to introduce a bill to congress. If he wants a bill introduced to congress he has to get a congressman to introduce it for him. He can however support legislation, threaten to veto, etc.
I think the Muslim upbringing would be a strong point for him in foreign policy. Even though he says he is now a Christian, he at least understands the Islamic religion better than most Americans do, which is probably an important thing considering our current state with the middle east...
As for anti-second amendment statement, I don't know his stance on the issue. I'll take your word for it that he wants to ban certain types of guns and/or make it more difficult to acquire a gun.
My personal opinion for guns is (note I come from a family that owns several guns and hunts frequently) that hunting rifles/shotguns/compact bows are fine. I'll even go as far as saying guns like the .45 magnum and similar revolvers are understandable. However I think it should be more difficult to acquire small firearms such as the 9mm which are not practical for hunting. I do not hunt nor own guns myself, therefore I would not be affected if strict gun acquisition laws were put into effect.
In response to something someone said earlier:
Also the second amendment is the most misinterpreted amendment. Someone said "If they get rid of the second amendment from the bill of rights, what is to keep them from getting rid of the rest?"
Answer: Nothing. Amendments can be changed by making a new amendment. Ever hear of Prohibition?
In these election year debates... people tend to give the president more credit than deserved. The president cannot amend the constitution. There are three ways to amend the constitution. 2/3 vote in congress then ratified by 2/3 states, State conventions, and Supreme Court Rulings.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
In these election year debates... people tend to give the president more credit than deserved. The president cannot amend the constitution. There are three ways to amend the constitution. 2/3 vote in congress then ratified by 2/3 states, State conventions, and Supreme Court Rulings.
Uh, no. There are two ways to amend the constitution, neither of which includes the Supreme Court.
Article V: Amendment Process
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
-
You're right, my mistake. Was thinking there were 3 ways to make laws and the third was an unofficial supreme court route thanks to judicial review.
My point remains though.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
You're right, my mistake. Was thinking there were 3 ways to make laws and the third was an unofficial supreme court route thanks to judicial review.
Well, the reality may be (has been imo) that you're right, the SC actually does amend the constitution though it is utterly unconstitutional.
-
Originally posted by Raptor
I personally like this about him. Who says you have to be like everyone else to be patriotic? To me it feels like he is being more patriotic by not wearing it.
I
uhhh.. you are ok with him granting amnesty to all the illegals here and opening our borders? Just wondering.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Well, the reality may be (has been imo) that you're right, the SC actually does amend the constitution though it is utterly unconstitutional.
Show me one example please?
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Show me one example please?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
for starters
Whatever happened to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness?
another: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/
more to come
I'm done, two is enough for me.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
uhhh.. you are ok with him granting amnesty to all the illegals here and opening our borders? Just wondering.
Not sure why you quoted that part of what I said in context to your question. What does patriotism have to do with immigration policies?
Amnesty, yes. I can't think of a feasible way to "round up" 12+ million people spread throughout the US efficiently. Grant them US Citezenship so they pay the same taxes I do, then that is perfectly fine.
Open borders, no. Would be better off to absolve Mexico in to the US.
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Show me one example please?
Brown vs Board of Education
-
Wow, I dunno, Rap, I'd differ on:
Just how much would congressional experience help one in the role as President? They are two separate branches of the government, the president no longer has the power to introduce a bill to congress. If he wants a bill introduced to congress he has to get a congressman to introduce it for him. He can however support legislation, threaten to veto, etc.
It's not really inexperience per se, but a lack of a record that shows' exactly what issues he does support. If he had more time in office as a senator, we could show his actual standing on a lot of issues' that he talks so boldly about. In essence, we don't know him from adam.
I think the Muslim upbringing would be a strong point for him in foreign policy. Even though he says he is now a Christian, he at least understands the Islamic religion better than most Americans do, which is probably an important thing considering our current state with the middle east...
That's a double-edged sword. It might make him too soft in dealings' with some other nations. Plus, It will discredit him to the Christian right in the U.S.
As for anti-second amendment statement, I don't know his stance on the issue. I'll take your word for it that he wants to ban certain types of guns and/or make it more difficult to acquire a gun.
I haven't really seen the 2nd, or any kind of gun control, really come up as an issue yet this campaign. That leaves a big question for many voters, as there are very many other issues' on the table at this time. It does, however, leave the possibility of a suprise political 'left hook', in the form of a hidden agenda that doesn't appear until he's in office. For that, one might see if he has affiliations' with someone like the Brady Coalition.
In these election year debates... people tend to give the president more credit than deserved. The president cannot amend the constitution. There are three ways to amend the constitution. 2/3 vote in congress then ratified by 2/3 states, State conventions, and Supreme Court Rulings.
Your right, there. However, the president can exercise the power of a Veto. That's how that end of it works, and the oval office can use that as leverage even in the senate or House.
-
Originally posted by shamroc
Things I don't like about Obama - and this is all my own personal opinion:
.
.
- Refuses to put his hand over his heart during the national anthem.
.
.
.
Is that really a relevant issue, though? Many Obama supporters are calling it dirty "mud slinging" that is not relevant. Must a President show respect to the National Anthem when it is played?? Should he also sing the song?
I have questioned this too, but then I found out that a photo of the event was taken, and is available for viewing in many places:
(http://www.theodoresworld.net/pics/1007/MUSLIMObamaImage1.jpg)
I have to admit that this image is a bit unnerving, now that I have seen it.
SIG 220
-
Clinton spoke of "feeling our pain", and made the chicks feel all warm and fuzzy about themselves, etc....but never any specifics. First thing he did in office was 'gays in the military' and attempt to nationalize 1/7 of our economy (healthcare)
-
Originally posted by Raptor
As for anti-second amendment statement, I don't know his stance on the issue. I'll take your word for it that he wants to ban certain types of guns and/or make it more difficult to acquire a gun.
Just FYI:
Obama supports:
*Ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
*Increase state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.
*Require manufacturers to provide child-safety locks with firearms.
Source: 1998 IL State Legislative National Political Awareness Test Jul 2, 1998
"all forms of semi-automatic weapons" would include virtually every pistol in existence (I have never seen a bolt action pistol or revolver, though, that doesn't mean one has never been made) and of course a vast majority of long guns out there.
Obama also supports a total gun ban in all "inner cities" which I interpret as all urban areas (ie: like the gun bans in LA, Chicago or DC)
Source: The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.215 Oct 1, 2006
That last point is laughable - take DC - has had a gun ban for like what ? 25+years, yet still is the murder capital of the country.
Shamroc
-
Here is a list of all the candidates and where/what they voted on in regards to the issues:
http://www.2decide.com/table.htm
-
raptor.. I have to say that you have about the least understanding of the second amendment that I have seen in a while.
your ignorance about the second being about hunting is only slightly less offensive than your condencending attitude about what guns you will let me own based on.. on you ignorance of firearms.
I am glad that you would allow me to have a 45 magnum instead of those evil 9 mm's tho.. if only I knew what a 45 magnum revolver was.
There once was a short lived "45 magnum" semi auto.. I still have some of the brass for curios. There is no 45 magnum.
you can hunt with any firearm out there including weak black powder revolvers or even a knife.
I can only imagine that all the rest of your opinions on osamabama are as ill informed and based on the same brand of ignorance as your second amendment one.
lazs
-
rolex.. absolutely dead on post on your part. very well put.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raptor
I do not hunt nor own guns myself, therefore I would not be affected if strict gun acquisition laws were put into effect.
He pretty much says it all right there. As long as his particular oxen are not being gored he's fine with getting rid of that pesky Constitutional gibberish.
I might say that I'm not really religious and I wouldn't be affected if strict laws were put into effect controlling and regulating the types of religious services allowed here.
But then, I'd never even think that, let alone say it.
"When we consider that this government is charged with the external and mutual relations only of these States; that the States themselves have principal care of our persons, our property and our reputation, constituting the great field of human concerns, we may well doubt whether our organization is not too complicated, too expensive; whether offices and officers have not been multiplied unnecessarily and sometimes injuriously to the service they were meant to promote." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:331
-
well.. he is a "lemming of pray". that says something.
lazs
-
It always amazes me that there are people who so willfully and casually would toss aside the Constitution and Bill of Rights to suit their particular desires or to calm their ignorant fears.
They ignore history and intentions of the founding fathers who worked to guarantee us a fair system of government with the protections to secure freedom for the people as long as our nation survives.
Consider how the Bill of Rights particularly established rights as the rights of the individual:
"The Right of the People" in Other Bill of Rights Provisions
First Amendment: Congress shall make no law . . . abridging . . . the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fourth Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .
Ninth Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment: [Speaking of "the powers . . . of the people" rather than "the right . . . of the people"] 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.
Then consider how many of the states also choose to protect those rights:
Calls for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms from State Ratification Conventions
Five of the states that ratified the Constitution also sent demands for a Bill of Rights to Congress. All these demands included a right to keep and bear arms. Here, in relevant part, is their text:
New Hampshire: Twelfth[:] Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
Virginia: . . . Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power.
New York: . . . That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; That the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law except in time of War, Rebellion or Insurrection. That Standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, excess in Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the civil Power.
North Carolina: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people, trained to arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms."
Rhode Island: Almost identical to Virginia demand, but with "the body of the people capable of bearing arms" instead of "the body of the people trained to arms," and with a "militia shall not be subject to martial law" proviso as in New York.
Historical evidence is out there in tremendous volume to support the evident truth that the founding fathers intended the second amendment to protect the individual citizens right to bear arm for both self-defense and as a protection against a tyrannical government and a military acting in a bullying or illegal manner.
How anyone can come along now and try to tear down those protections upon which our nation was founded and has flourished is beyond my understanding.
Source: UCLA Law (http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm#TOC2)
-
It's even simpler than that, really.
Did the Founders form this government around the principle of increasing personal freedom or increasing the power of a central government?
The answer is irrefutable; the Constitution and the BOR were/are about ensuring personal freedoms/liberty for the citizens and restraining the power of the central government.
That's really about all you need to remember.
-
toad... I think we know what the founders wanted but..
read these boards.. there are plenty here who want nothing more than to increase the powers of government and to take away the powers of the individual...
Any excuse is good enough.. guns kill.. the temperature is different today than yesterday... people are mean to others...
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
toad... I think we know what the founders wanted but..
read these boards.. there are plenty here who want nothing more than to increase the powers of government and to take away the powers of the individual...
Any excuse is good enough.. guns kill.. the temperature is different today than yesterday... people are mean to others...
lazs
I am with you on this lazs.
Sometimes I am left astounded at the naivety, ignorance or just plain stupidity of those who think that banning guns at this point in our society would be a good idea. Have they opened their eyes and minds even a small amount to consider what would be the actual results if their illegal gun-banning schemes worked? I seriously doubt it.
Do they think crime would go down? If so, they are seriously deluded. Criminals would not turn in their guns, since obviously they have ignored laws all along. A new gun law or ban would have no more effect than previous laws. It would only serve to disarm the honest citizen who doesn't use their weapons in an illegal manner. Creating a society of unarmed victims is not my idea of improving our nation. Maybe I need to buy some rose colored reality obscuring glasses?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
for starters
Whatever happened to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness?
another: http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/06/24/scotus.property/
more to come
I'm done, two is enough for me.
Oh, I thought you siad they passed amendments, not interpreted law. sorry.
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
Oh, I thought you siad they passed amendments, not interpreted law. sorry.
What I was saying is that through their interpretation they have made law contradicting my interpretation of the constitution therefore effectively amending it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raptor.. I have to say that you have about the least understanding of the second amendment that I have seen in a while.
your ignorance about the second being about hunting is only slightly less offensive than your condencending attitude about what guns you will let me own based on.. on you ignorance of firearms.
I am glad that you would allow me to have a 45 magnum instead of those evil 9 mm's tho.. if only I knew what a 45 magnum revolver was.
There once was a short lived "45 magnum" semi auto.. I still have some of the brass for curios. There is no 45 magnum.
you can hunt with any firearm out there including weak black powder revolvers or even a knife.
I can only imagine that all the rest of your opinions on osamabama are as ill informed and based on the same brand of ignorance as your second amendment one.
lazs
Lazs, I never stated anything remotely saying that the second ammendment meant hunting. I was stating that people often argue that they have several hunting guns they do not want to lose and bring up the second amendment in their defence. I then described why I have no problem with hunting weapons.
Also if you read what I said, I never said anything about banning a gun. If you read what I said, I said my opinion is that certain weapons should have higher requirements to own, for example the 9mm.
lazs, my mistake... .44 magnum, even though I'm sure you knew what I was talking about you just needed to try to find something to nitpick at even if what you chose wasn't necessarily constructive in any way.
Heck, you can hunt with a stick and a rock if you want. Yet you know as well as I do that no one sets out to buy a 9mm with the intention of using it for hunting. An ill informed person may buy it to defend himself if he is going bear hunting... however any reasonable gun salesman would tell him that's not going to do much against a bear.
Originally posted by Toad
He pretty much says it all right there. As long as his particular oxen are not being gored he's fine with getting rid of that pesky Constitutional gibberish.
I was responding to Shamroc, who said he was voting on account of what was important to him. Thus gun control proposals are not a concern for me and I will vote accordingly.
With a lack of widespread modern militias, I don't see many people exercising their second amendment rights. The National Guard performs what old militias would have done, and the National Guard is under the President. If the government were to come to a point where the people needed/wanted to change it to the point of rebellion, I don't think they care about laws imposed by the government restricting their use of guns.
As for self defense, it may vary from state to state. In North Carolina (one of the states you listed) it was stated that you could not use a gun in self defense unless the attacker commits an act of violence which is life threatening. Even then one might be condemned if they aim to kill instead of wound.
Originally posted by lazs2 read these boards.. there are plenty here who want nothing more than to increase the powers of government and to take away the powers of the individual... [/b]
The power of the government has increased dramatically under the Bush administration, while infringing on individual rights. Not to mention the increased spending.
Originally posted by lazs2
well.. he is a "lemming of pray". that says something.
Just for your own benefit. When you resort to personal attacks you begin to lose credibility. I'm not offended by any of the remarks you've made, however it gives off the impression you are incapable of making a legitimate argument.
-
I am always sadly amused by those who in their "generosity" decide we can hunt with the appropriate rifle or shotgun, but still feel that is the only legitimate reason to own a weapon.
Far be it from them to recognize target shooting, practical shooting competitions, or self-defense being something we should be allowed to enjoy or practice. I mean, if they don't choose to do it, nobody should be allowed to do it.
Following that reason, since I only choose to use a vehicle to transport me, I think nobody should be allowed to own race cars. Let's ban NASCAR, the local stock car track, and all drag strips and funny cars. (same reasoning, people die every year as a result of these activities, and what the heck, I don't do them, so ban them all).
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Dago
I am always sadly amused by those who in their "generosity" decide we can hunt with the appropriate rifle or shotgun, but still feel that is the only legitimate reason to own a weapon.
Far be it from them to recognize target shooting, practical shooting competitions, or self-defense being something we should be allowed to enjoy or practice. I mean, if they don't choose to do it, nobody should be allowed to do it.
Following that reason, since I only choose to use a vehicle to transport me, I think nobody should be allowed to own race cars. Let's ban NASCAR, the local stock car track, and all drag strips and funny cars. (same reasoning, people die every year as a result of these activities, and what the heck, I don't do them, so ban them all).
:rolleyes:
If you read what I said I didn't say anything about banning firearms. Believe it or not I did take into consideration people that collect guns, go to shooting competitions, etc. I enjoy seeing exotic guns as much as the next guy, yet I have no desire to own one myself. Now if you are serious about collecting guns, shooting, hunting, etc. Then you shouldn't have a problem acquireing a gun. Then again this is my stance which differs from Obama.
If Obama is calling for pure bans and the democratic party fully agrees, I understand your concerns and why you would not vote for him. I actually encourage you not to vote for him if that is the case.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
What I was saying is that through their interpretation they have made law contradicting my interpretation of the constitution therefore effectively amending it.
more like "overriding" the constitution, hence the unconstitutionality argument.
-
Vote Obama in '08 for Change (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAN-SHPajNs)
-
Originally posted by Raptor
If you read what I said I didn't say anything about banning firearms. Believe it or not I did take into consideration people that collect guns, go to shooting competitions, etc. I enjoy seeing exotic guns as much as the next guy, yet I have no desire to own one myself. Now if you are serious about collecting guns, shooting, hunting, etc. Then you shouldn't have a problem acquireing a gun. Then again this is my stance which differs from Obama.
If Obama is calling for pure bans and the democratic party fully agrees, I understand your concerns and why you would not vote for him. I actually encourage you not to vote for him if that is the case.
I won't vote for Obama as he has so very little experience, and I don't agree with a lot of his actions in the past.
Yes, I am sure he will toe the democratic party lines and move to ban guns, despite any and all evidence to the contrary that it does any good or improves anything.
California banned .50 cal weapons, ask yourself why. Can you think, or find any evidence that the .50 cal was used in many, if any crimes? I am confident not. It was just purely a BS political move in an emotional manner to a non-issue, and typical of the liberal gun grabbing/banning feminines this country is infected with anymore.
So no, gun control advocates rarely operate from a position of reason, logic or evidence, it is mostly from a state of emotional fear, or a desire to try and win votes. Ban liberals, not guns.
BTW, if it was a choice between Hillary and Obama, I would take Obama every time.
-
You must be black to belong to the same church as Obama. Sounds like a racist to me. I find it funny how the To Become a Member part of the website is not working now.
http://www.tucc.org/about.htm
-
Originally posted by Dago
I won't vote for Obama as he has so very little experience, and I don't agree with a lot of his actions in the past.
I addressed that earlier and FrodeMK3 was the only one to give a response.
Originally posted by Dago
BTW, if it was a choice between Hillary and Obama, I would take Obama every time.
Which is why he will probably win. The US goes through conservative/liberal phases that usually last 8-12 years. After the Bush administration, the Republican party will be fighting an up hill battle against a fortified position.
-
Frankly, I don't really care if the 2nd Amendment was abolished or not, I feel strongly that the wording has been stretched from states having their own militias and police forces to granting everyone to ability to bear arms.
That said, I don't really care for Obama and his views on firearms have nothing to do with it. I'm convinced his campaign will eventually implode when he has to start answering serious questions and cannot read from the prompter.
(edited for spelling error)
-
Originally posted by Delirium
Frankly, I don't really care if the 2nd Amendment was abolished or not, I feel strongly that the wording has been stretched from states having their own militias and police forces to granting everyone to ability to bear arms.
Since you fail to understand the 2nd Amendment, the intent of it and the necessity for it, it is not a surprise you don't care about it.
-
Originally posted by Dago
I am always sadly amused by those who in their "generosity" decide we can hunt with the appropriate rifle or shotgun, but still feel that is the only legitimate reason to own a weapon.
:rolleyes:
To me the answer is easy. They get the law abiding population disarmed to just hunting guns. Then they declare a Green Emergency to outlaw hunting for enviromental reasons. Then tack on that hunting guns will be outlawed to protect the enviroment from poachers.
-
Originally posted by Shifty
To me the answer is easy. They get the law abiding population disarmed to just hunting guns. Then they declare a Green Emergency to outlaw hunting for enviromental reasons. Then tack on that hunting guns will be outlawed to protect the enviroment from poachers.
I hope you're kidding...
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I've got the same gut feeling about Fred. His folksey approach and all is nice, but I don't see him catching on.
At this point, I think its more Rudi and Romney. McCain has betrayed the conservatives and earned the RINO tag. His stand on illegal immigration ("amnesty") is just one of the many things that come to mind.
I wish we had some other contenders. Ron Paul is just noise, much like Perot was.
I too think Thompson is the sleeper in this race. I think he wont campaign hard until AT LEAST the Jan 19 or February 5th series of primaries and let everyone else spend out and lose momentum.
I could be wrong (happened once or twice) but I look for Thompson to be a vital contender in this race. After all, he bagged the hottie, didnt he?
-
On the topic at hand... Obama won because everyone hates hillary... Not that they like Osama... errrr Obama that much
-
Originally posted by Mr No Name
On the topic at hand... Obama won because everyone hates hillary... Not that they like Osama... errrr Obama that much
Same reason Bush beat Gore and then Kerry. It's sad when we have to vote for the one we dislike the least.
-
i think too much emphasis is placed on the presidency, the president is only the administrator, congress makes the laws and the budget.
-
raptor.. if you "hope" he is kidding then you are not paying attention.. just that thing has happened in kalifornia... many guns are banned because the makers won;'t jump through kalifornias senseless and expensive hoops.. and....
Hunting has been banned due to lead content in many areas "a green emergency" if you will... they are just getting started but they will keep at it.
Name on gun law that has prevented any kind of crime. You can hunt or you can defend yourself or yours with just about any firearm.. there is no sense in banning one over another.
You are basing what you say on "feelings" not on fact and you are arrogant enough to think that you have the right to tell people what they can own.
look at england and australia.. that is the model.. they started restricting some guns.. then banning others.. now.. look at em.. they have nothing unless they hid em.. it seemed reasonable to "register" and "keep track of" some weapons.. in the end.. they just rounded em all up.
This is not paranoia.. this is current history. What makes you think our gun control nuts are different? they are in fact.. mostly the same players.
Far from us being paranoid.. it is you who need to wake up and take a look around. Tell them in DC they are not in danger of losing their rights or new york or jersey... tell them they were being paranoid.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raptor
After the Bush administration, the Republican party will be fighting an up hill battle against a fortified position.
I doubt that.
No one is happy with the dumbacrats inaction on everything since 11/06 (unless larry flynt style witch hunts count) .
Worse case is a four year stint of an equally ineffective dumbarsecrat potus be it white or black / female or male or a combo of the dyno duo. My only concern is that the country takes a huge hit (economic/terrorism/both) in those 4 years while the average dumarse is learning his lesson and paying the price for electing them ...
-
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=from+freedom+to+fascism
I posted this in another thread, but no one seemed to care.. It's worth watching the whole thing.
Bookmark it, and when you have the time, watch it all.. The first 2 parts are only the tip of the iceburg.
Very good stuff showing you that both parties are BS, and it's pretty scary to what extreme they are.
I don't know if it's 100% accurate on every single point, i'm not a lawyer, but it should be enough to make you think a bit.
After watching the whole thing, i've decided to vote for ron paul.
Then of course after he doesn't win, i'll vote for whichever republican does.
-
I am pretty sure that the ultra liberal democrat broken record is not going to play any better than another bush running.
The democrats picked up some seats not by advocating bigger government and more taxes and gun control.. not even the war (which.. in reality...most Americans care little about) but...
They won by pretending to be gun toting conservatives... they won by being more like republicans than the current republicans.. those who ran by being more liberal... lost as a rule.
osamabama can't pretend to be anything but a commie... he can make a good speech and make some feel guilty for owning slaves 200 years ago but that is about it. once his record comes out...
lazs
-
Originally posted by Raptor
After the Bush administration, the Republican party will be fighting an up hill battle against a fortified position.
I wouldn't say that. He has higher poll numbers than the Democratic controlled Congress.
-
I ahve always wondered. What is the point of the Iowa caucus?
-
Originally posted by Cypher
I ahve always wondered. What is the point of the Iowa caucus?
To bring a wagonload of money into Iowa once every four years?
-
I still do not believe obama is electible to POTUS
-
Originally posted by Eagler
I doubt that.
No one is happy with the dumbacrats inaction on everything since 11/06 (unless larry flynt style witch hunts count) .
Worse case is a four year stint of an equally ineffective dumbarsecrat potus be it white or black / female or male or a combo of the dyno duo. My only concern is that the country takes a huge hit (economic/terrorism/both) in those 4 years while the average dumarse is learning his lesson and paying the price for electing them ...
You have to define "No one".
And It doesn't seem like many are considering the actions' of congress in this election-Hell, Obama's a Senator, and the fact that he's in a congress with a low approval rating hasn't come up. It seems' like right now, thing's are going almost solely on campaign promises-Such as withdrawal from Iraq, and other side issues. However, It is only the opening Caucus's, we should take another look halfway through.
-
George Will skewers Huck and Edwards:aok
Economist Stephen Rose, defining the middle class as households with annual incomes between $30,000 and $100,000, says a smaller percentage of Americans are in that category than in 1979 — because the percentage of Americans earning more than $100,000 has doubled, from 12 to 24, while the percentage earning less than $30,000 is unchanged. "So," Rose says, "the entire 'decline' of the middle class came from people moving up the income ladder." Even as housing values declined in 2007, the net worth of households increased.
Huckabee told heavily subsidized Iowa — Washington's ethanol enthusiasm has farm values and incomes soaring — that Americans striving to rise are "pushed down every time they try by their own government." Edwards, synthetic candidate of theatrical bitterness on behalf of America's crushed, groaning majority, says the rich have an "iron-fisted grip" on democracy and a "stranglehold" on the economy. Strangely, these fists have imposed a tax code that makes the top 1 percent of earners pay 39 percent of all income tax revenue, the top 5 percent pay 60 percent and the bottom 50 percent only 3 percent.
link (http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will010608.php3)
-
Originally posted by SteveBailey
I still do not believe obama is electible to POTUS
And that is why the Republicans hope he wins the demodork nomination. :aok
I don't think Hillary is electible either. I wonder, as in the last two elections, why do the demodorks have such a hard time finding and nominating someone who can win?
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
You have to define "No one".
Anyone with half a brain whose thinking is not clouded with witch hunt fueled Bush hatred.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
I hate to wake you up, but it is my opinion that America is not quite ready to elect a black leader, be it republican or democrat. You have the south to contend with...nuff said. If Obama goes up against Alfred E. Neumenn, Neumenn will win.
May another 10 ti 20 years, when whites are the minority...then Obama might have a chance.
Apparently the Secret Service feels the same way....
Secret Service presence has increased for Sen. Barack Obama since his dramatic win in Iowa, amid fears over the safety of the man seeking to become America's first black president.
"For many black supporters, there is a lot of anxiety that he will be killed, and it is on people's minds," said Melissa Harris-Lacewell, a Princeton University professor of political science and contemporary black culture.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Apparently the Secret Service feels the same way....
Let's hope that doesn't happen as if it were to occur, Billary is in hands down on the sympathy vote after the killing is spun like a top.
Because of that, she would be on top of the list if any funny business does pop up..