Obama goes far Commie !

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

So you don't agree with a living constitution but you contend it gives you the rights to an assault rifle? Am I correct in assuming that? In the original constitution, women and african americans had no rights. In fact, they couldn't vote and african americans were 2/3 a person. Are you saying that's the way it should still be? Because if you don't believe in a living constitution, it should still be the same, yes? Are you proud of everything America has done as a country? There are certainly many things that have been done in the name of this country that I'm not particularly proud of. It's not about hating anything, it's about being intellectually honest about our past. No country is perfect, least of all this one. First you say Obama doesn't like america. Then you say he does, but it's limited to some of the people or lands. What's wrong with change? Ignorance and fear go hand in hand. Anything different is bad and we should resist any change, no matter that it might actually benefit us?

your post is full of idiotic nonsense

for example the 2/3rds of a person was designed to limit the slave states power, not in valuing a person as a person. it was anti slavery.

you are uneducated

a living constitution isn't one in which there are no amendments, we have several mechanisms to amend the constitution

a living constitution is one in which amendments aren't necessary, because the words themselves evolve without a need for amendment and all we have to do is obey the government

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

your post is full of idiotic nonsense

for example the 2/3rds of a person was designed to limit the slave states power, not in valuing a person as a person. it was anti slavery.

you are uneducated

Actually, it wasn't. And it was actually 3/5 but you repeated it as I initially said it, proving you didn't know to begin with. It was framed that way to figure out how blacks would be counted toward the population, thus determining legislative representation as well as for the purposes of tax. Are you also contending that blacks were not valued less as people? Because that would be an interesting conversation. And do you care to address any of the other points I made. I guess not.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Actually, it wasn't. And it was actually 3/5 but you repeated it as I initially said it, proving you didn't know to begin with. It was framed that way to figure out how blacks would be counted toward the population, thus determining legislative representation as well as for the purposes of tax. Are you also contending that blacks were not valued less as people? Because that would be an interesting conversation. And do you care to address any of the other points I made. I guess not.

you have no points

and me copying you wasn't a sign I didn't know it was 3/5ths I just didn't bother to correct you because im not that petty, it was insignificant to anything

you are significantly petty I see

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

you have no points

and me copying you wasn't a sign I didn't know it was 3/5ths I just didn't bother to correct you because im not that petty, it was insignificant to anything

you are significantly petty I see

You say I have no points. You do nothing to back it up. And no one passes up a chance to correct someone in this forum, so you're lying on top of it. Good day.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

The last time The Washington Examiner got it right was about Bigfoot.

Well there was that one time they reported about a white hating,homo muslim loving dude from Clarksville that lost his job as Obama's jock strap. As it turns out this dude ate himself smooth out of a job.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Goddamn, I never said I thought I had no rights. I said that they weren't granted by a superhero. Then you go off on this tangent about how I said I had no rights. The reason it didn't work is right in your diatribe. The duty of government is to protect its citizens' rights, from government. What happens when you put a fox in charge of the hen house? Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Man got a taste of the power and he never looked back.

Why do you continually defend and support the fox?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by guy fawkes

Hum Texas

fewest high school graduates per capita,

Have you counted the illegal aliens in California yet?

Or are you all sending them North still?

If Texas would close her borders it might help.

[LexusLover]

As good a thread as any for this headline:

"Top Cuban spy released by Obama says he’s ready for his ‘next order’ from Castro regime"

Speaking of "High School"!

[i'va biggen]

Nothing like a spy who everyone knows. Like James Bond.

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Why do you continually defend and support the fox?

Because he's a troll.

[DSK]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You really are a special kind of stupid, aren't you? The point the Founders were trying to make is that our rights are inherent simply because we exist. They used the terms "Creator" and "Providence", as well as others to point to the great mystery of why we are here. Simply saying "I don't believe in God, so I have no natural rights, so the Declaration of Independence and other documents don't apply to me" is ignorance at its finest. Stating that rights emanate from government is basic to tyranny. The Founders were adamant that rights are NOT granted by government and arise from a source greater than government, thereby DENYING the authority of government to abrogate or or otherwise limit those rights without a damned good reason.


You can call that Source God, the Universe or simply yourself. That's good enough. You are here. You have those rights, as does everyone else. The duty of government is to protect those rights, especially from government. That's why the Constitution was written the way it was. It was designed to keep human ambition from gaining power. It didn't work, which is why our government has abandoned the Constitution in favor of sweet sounding lies and corruption. Unfortunately, as your ilk gains power, liberty recedes. It's almost gone, and you can't even see it, nor understand your complicity in its death.

Excellent post and it should be understood by all. You seem like the smartest poster on this board.

[rioseco]

Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

you are not a member of a well-regulated militia. As for a whimsical, updated interpretation, what the fuck do you think you're doing by going from a militia bearing arms to an AR-15? That's an updated interpretation, which is what you just said we shouldn't be doing. And what you do certainly is my business if we're going to occupy the same society.

Read again UC.
The US Constitution guarantees you no right to decide my liberty or invade my privacy. I believe you intent is good, but also very misguided. The 2nd Amend. states--- Shall not be infringed upon
That means not by you,not by them, not by anyone EVER !
I am thankful that my freedom doesn't hinge upon the determinations made by you and those who think so little of freedom.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

your post is full of idiotic nonsense

for example the 2/3rds of a person was designed to limit the slave states power, not in valuing a person as a person. it was anti slavery.

you are uneducated

a living constitution isn't one in which there are no amendments, we have several mechanisms to amend the constitution

a living constitution is one in which amendments aren't necessary, because the words themselves evolve without a need for amendment and all we have to do is obey the government

You added the two last bits later. And they contradict one another. One says a living constitution has mechanisms for amending it. The second one says the exact opposite. A living constitution DOESN'T need to be amended because it somehow evolves. I'm not sure how you evolve without changing but I'll let you explain.

[UnderConstruction]

Originally Posted by rioseco

Read again UC.
The US Constitution guarantees you no right to decide my liberty or invade my privacy. I believe you intent is good, but also very misguided. The 2nd Amend. states--- Shall not be infringed upon
That means not by you,not by them, not by anyone EVER !
I am thankful that my freedom doesn't hinge upon the determinations made by you and those who think so little of freedom.

The question isn't about not being infringed upon. That part is clear. What isn't clear is what it is that shouldn't be infringed upon. Actually the Constitution does not protect your right to privacy. And I actually can decide your liberty. If you've committed a crime, I have the right to make a citizens' arrest.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/project...ofprivacy.html

And just to be crystal clear; I don't want your guns. I don't want law-abiding people's guns. I want guns out of the hands of people who would use them to do harm. Criminals, mentally unstable, etc.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

Because he's a troll.

That doesn't make any sense. Did you not understand your own post, OverCompensation?