Letter to obama on Constitutional rights

[Arbo]

Give it some thought, Arbo.

why should anyone do what you refuse to do yourself?

Now is the above a quote, or my own words? That you don't see the point of my initial questioning for such a thing, really clears things up. So yes, what I said stands, for you and a few others.

[Arbo]

I daresay that, if I could be bothered, I could do a little resesarch and come up with specific examples.

Go for it, none of you that claim such things can... loads of talk, but no reality to back any of it.

[Arbo]

There are a few posters here, myself included who are outraged by the crap being pulled by Obama, who want to weed out the distractions and go after Obama on legal grounds. There are things that make him a lousy president (golf, vacations, unwillingness to negotiate, economic retard, etc.) and there are things that could make him an impeachable president (Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, selective law enforcement, etc.)

The liberal media is using attacks on Obama for the shit that makes him a lousy president to distract from the real meat and potatoes and they are using it to discredit all who oppose Obama. It also doesn't help when folks latch onto untrue stories, like the one about Obama keeping a Mosque open out of his own pocket. We need to stay focused on the potentially illegal and hopefully they will gain some traction with the rest of Americans.

It is so refreshing to see someone with the ability to see.

Do you know how many times I've asked for examples? So far it's been a dry well for those looking. It would also be helpful if you knew what/who my posts were in opposition to.

It's never gonna happen.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There was no truth in your OP, only rant.

Really, no truth in this . What an amazing defense of Obama you just gave with that verdict in which apparently you think he has done a good job and is not an arrogant man! --Tyr

President , Lord high King, I suggest that you read the Constitution of the United States of America because obviously you haven't a damn clue that you are the servant of WE THE PEOPLE. Where your dumbass got that we are your servants I haven't a clue but WE have just about had enough of your bull! Climb down off that high horse and take the damn saddle off of Michelle long enough to educate your stupid self and maybe teach that arrogant witch you are married to that she isn't a freaking Goddess and certainly not any better than even the least of us! While you are at --stop pissing away our tax dollars on multi-million dollar vacations you simply do not deserve because of the lousy job you have been doing. If you were in Private business your dumbass would have been fired the first few months of your service. To help you I'll start with exactly what you should read first!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Excellent coming from a right-wing rantical I suppose. I want to be critical of it because it does nothing to address any problem. Nevertheless you could point out where I, or Arbo for that matter, have defended the "TiC." BTW, defending truth is not defending the POTUS.

BTW, defending truth is not defending the POTUS.

By the way my presenting the Truth about Islam and its orchestrated campaign to enslave the world by any means possible is not hate filled bias but rather dedication to the TRUTH and a warning to the many that are clueless about it. Also a reminder to the many muslim appeasers that their lying crap is being exposed for many to consider. Just presenting the TRUTH about Obama and his many transgressions is not hate filled bias but the same dedication to getting truth out for others to consider.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Really, no truth in this . What an amazing defense of Obama you just gave with that verdict in which apparently you think he has done a good job and is not an arrogant man! --Tyr

Correct; it's opinion. Please point out where I think he has done a good job because your evidence doesn't support your conclusion.

By the way my presenting the Truth about Islam and its orchestrated campaign to enslave the world by any means possible is not hate filled bias but rather dedication to the TRUTH and a warning to the many that are clueless about it. Also a reminder to the many muslim appeasers that their lying crap is being exposed for many to consider. Just presenting the TRUTH about Obama and his many transgressions is not hate filled bias but the same dedication to getting truth out for others to consider.-Tyr

How did this become a "Muzzy" thread??? Oh that's right; because BO.

[Drummond]

In reality, you couldn't.

There are a few posters here, myself included who are outraged by the crap being pulled by Obama, who want to weed out the distractions and go after Obama on legal grounds. There are things that make him a lousy president (golf, vacations, unwillingness to negotiate, economic retard, etc.) and there are things that could make him an impeachable president (Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, selective law enforcement, etc.)

The liberal media is using attacks on Obama for the shit that makes him a lousy president to distract from the real meat and potatoes and they are using it to discredit all who oppose Obama. It also doesn't help when folks latch onto untrue stories, like the one about Obama keeping a Mosque open out of his own pocket. We need to stay focused on the potentially illegal and hopefully they will gain some traction with the rest of Americans.

As a Right winger myself, naturally news of your own opposition to Obama is good news to me. Good luck to you in your views and whatever efforts you make in that regard.

Though I hear what you have to say, I still wonder why you post anything which the opposition here can latch on to ? Haven't you noticed who's been offering thanks to your posts here ?

As for my post to FJ, didn't I point out that I had no need to offer the examples discussed ? FJ is a poster who offers, as I've explained, consistent opposition to enemies of Obama and his ilk. This is all the evidence needed to show his true sympathies. Why cast around, searching for examples of something that, in essence, is already staring me in the face ?

You fight your corner, Missileman, and with every good wish from me. And I will fight mine.

[Arbo]

Haven't you noticed who's been offering thanks to your posts here ?

That may be because logic and reason are used above strange emotional rants (by him) as well as actual issues rather than inflated non-issues. But that was the point he was making, perhaps you didn't get it.

consistent opposition to enemies of Obama and his ilk. This is all the evidence needed to show his true sympathies.

You simply can't make fiction as funny as that.

[Drummond]

Do you know how many times I've asked for examples? So far it's been a dry well for those looking. It would also be helpful if you knew what/who my posts were in opposition to.

This is ridiculous. I've already answered you sufficiently well to have made my point. You've been told, and as is obvious to anybody, that you consistently stand in opposition to anyone taking a solid anti-Obama line (except when they post something you can use for your own purposes, that is ..).

In how many threads have you indulged in arguments against me that degenerate into pathetic put-down exercises ? And why do that, why go to such extremes, unless you're fundamentally driven to oppose in any and every way you can dream up ?

What ELSE but being driven to SUPPORT those I'd oppose could explain the lengths you go to ?

Count for me the number of posts you've ever made in which we agree on anything.

Count the number where you agree with Tyr.

Tell you what. Instead of my picking names out of a hat, why not just give me a tally of supportive posts made by you towards anti-Obama posters here on DP.

Good luck with THAT one. Because the truth is as I say it is ... however you dress your arguments up on a post-by-post basis, whatever excuses you give for the argument offered at any one time, your opposition to anti-Obama posters is persistent, and consistent. As befits a Leftie with an agenda ...

[Drummond]

That may be because logic and reason are used above strange emotional rants (by him) as well as actual issues rather than inflated non-issues. But that was the point he was making, perhaps you didn't get it.



You simply can't make fiction as funny as that.

I get the point he (Missileman) was making, thanks. And I also get your efforts to win a new ally.

As for the so-called 'fiction' ... your description is baseless. Since you don't qualify it with 'logic and reason', since you've only offered an attempt at a put-down, all I need say is that my posts stand on their own merits.

Indeed, why am I arguing with you at all ?

[Arbo]

And I also get your efforts to win a new ally.

That anyone thinks there are allies and enemies on a forum... priceless. There is merely agreement and disagreement.

[fj1200]

This is ridiculous. I've already answered you sufficiently well to have made my point. You've been told, and as is obvious to anybody, that you consistently stand in opposition to anyone taking a solid anti-Obama line (except when they post something you can use for your own purposes, that is ..).

Yup, I knew you'd fail. The only thing I consistently stand in opposition to is those who can't/won't? make rational arguments (except those being ignored btw).

In how many threads have you indulged in arguments against me that degenerate into pathetic put-down exercises ? And why do that, why go to such extremes, unless you're fundamentally driven to oppose in any and every way you can dream up ?

What ELSE but being driven to SUPPORT those I'd oppose could explain the lengths you go to ?

Count for me the number of posts you've ever made in which we agree on anything.

Count the number where you agree with Tyr.

Tell you what. Instead of my picking names out of a hat, why not just give me a tally of supportive posts made by you towards anti-Obama posters here on DP.

Good luck with THAT one. Because the truth is as I say it is ... however you dress your arguments up on a post-by-post basis, whatever excuses you give for the argument offered at any one time, your opposition to anti-Obama posters is persistent, and consistent. As befits a Leftie with an agenda ...

I've probably engaged in as many threads that degenerate into "pathetic put-down exercises" as you. I'm sure you'll miss the point here again.

Nevertheless I've agreed, and do agree, with many people here so many times that it's countless, it's just that I don't feel the need to "" like a sycophant. So rather than you making your inabilities my fault why don't you go ahead and try to prove your point. Show me where I am anti-anti-BO rather than just anti-ignorant.

[Drummond]

Yup, I knew you'd fail. The only thing I consistently stand in opposition to is those who can't/won't? make rational arguments (except those being ignored btw).



I've probably engaged in as many threads that degenerate into "pathetic put-down exercises" as you. I'm sure you'll miss the point here again.

Nevertheless I've agreed, and do agree, with many people here so many times that it's countless, it's just that I don't feel the need to "" like a sycophant. So rather than you making your inabilities my fault why don't you go ahead and try to prove your point. Show me where I am anti-anti-BO rather than just anti-ignorant.

Ho hum. Yet another ducking-exercise. Wow. What a surprise ....

I'll applaud excellent posts if I so choose. I have that right, FJ, whether or not you like it. That I've never found any of your posts 'excellent' enough (.. or within light years of that !!) to applaud, doesn't say anything notable about me, but plenty about the quality and nature of your own contributions. Simple answer .. give me something worthy of applauding, and I'll do so.

I'll make the point AGAIN (.. probably uselessly, of course). If you're not a Leftie, if you're not, in the final analysis, basically pro-Obama and his regime, then post in agreement with those stalwarts here who prove that opposition on here DAILY .. INSTEAD OF CONTINUALLY OPPOSING THEM.

It's your choice, FJ. If I'm wrong about you being Left wing, if you can agree with Obama's opposition, THEN PROVE IT. There's nothing stopping you, is there ?

Or ... IS there ?

[Drummond]

I'm probably one of the last people here qualified to debate, intelligently (or is that 'intelligibly') about the US Constitution.

I wasn't sure whether or not this merited a new thread, but on balance I decided this had its place here, instead. So ... I've just seen this. Apparently, we now have an NBC host arguing that the US Constitution is 'flawed', and that the US should instead adopt a more European style of Government ..

Well ... wouldn't that open the floodgates to the Socialist controls that form part of everyday life in my part of the world ? Goodbye, inalienable citizens' rights, hello crushing State control over just about everything ---

Here's the piece I have in mind. Get a load of this ....

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/8652...bsolute-power/

It was only a matter of time before the clash of ideologies between Constitutional conservatives and statist progressives manifested itself in a call for a ‘benevolent dictator’ to resolve the differences in authoritarian fashion.

The hyper-educated Chris Hayes of MSNBC echoed such calls, which have occurred under the Obama administration before in various guises. Hayes appeals to “astute” analysts of American politics at The Washington Post, Slate, and New York magazine, and spoke with one of them — Jonathan Chait.


Hayes says that there is a “growing consensus” that the nation’s law of the land is “fatally flawed,” and therefore we should look to European style parliamentary government used by other “democracies” [sic] for guidance on how to run the most powerful and prosperous country in world history (before the progressives got into power, it should be said).


Hayes lauds the European parliamentary system because the executive and legislative functions are controlled “by the same groups of people.” He then condemns the Constitution for checks and balances, which allow “different parts of the government to be controlled by different parties.”


In other words, the U.S. has a government that is based on reasoned deliberation and not naked force; regardless of the empty appeals to paternalistic virtue that allowed fascism to rise in Europe; and regardless of the demagogue’s calls for the centralized control of wealth redistribution that is the model for socialist and communist countries.


Europe’s tortuous history is lesson enough to remind many of the dangers of central control; but the U.S. has been sheltered to an extent from open calls for dictatorships, which nonetheless did occur under Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The context of Hayes’ call for control in one party’s hands is unmistakable: he wants the Democrat Party to have the absolute power to disregard the need for compromise.


Nearly a great majority of Americans, for example, believe that the U.S. government should cut spending before raising the debt limit. Hayes would presume the Democrats ignore them, and those voters who gave the Republicans power of the purse, and for the Democrats to do as they pleased.


A professor of Constitutional law at Georgetown by the name of Louis Michael Seidman late last year argued in the pages of the New York Times, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.” Thomas Friedman, also of the New York Times, argued for a concept called “China for a day” (as if it would last for a day) when the (communist) government could actually make decisions. The left’s pedigree of authoritarianism is unmistakable: the more radical the policies, the more the upheaval, and the more incessant the calls for authoritarian “solutions” – in the name of “fairness” or what-have-you.


In opposition, conservatives want divided government, because they have read history and distrust authoritarians, who almost always rise to power to promote the “common good.” The popular image of the tea party, for example, spread by opinion-molders is that it is a right-wing extremist movement within the Republican party. But actually, it is a coalition of American conservatives near the center of two extremes. According to widely accepted political theory and European history, leftists are extremists.


“Right-wing” is a slur reflexively hurled by socialists and progressives at any party, movement, faction, or individual that opposes the left-wing agenda. The smear tactic is intended to confuse those who support the traditionally American tenets of liberty, limited government, and individual rights with European fascists and ultra-nationalists.


It is the appreciation of conflicting interests in a free society that led to the innovations of the Constitution; divided powers and checks and balances were designed to safeguard people against abuses by either an absolutist ruler, or a tyrannical majority seeking to despoil its prey of property, life, or freedom. The requirement of legislation by majority, and the stipulation that changing the Constitution demands a super-majority, were but two safeguards. One of the most important barriers to oppression is the Bill of Rights, which lists individual rights not to be violated by tyrants of any variety.


Those who hold that that conservatives are “extremist” have the false conception that virtuous men can lead a “compassionate” government that will give people everything their hearts desire. But they fail miserably to account for the historical track record of consolidated governmental authority, which is always justified by appeal to lofty sentiments. The American government must inevitably disappoint and frustrate progressives, because it is designed to spur men to manage themselves and become productive members of society.


Conservatives do not desire to rule their political opposition or otherwise impose their will on their fellow citizens. Instead, they want to restore the nation to its Constitutional foundations, establish fiscal responsibility in government, reinstate the free market economic principles that allowed the majority of the nation to prosper, and renew the virtue in individuals to see human beings as ends in themselves, and not as means to some political end.

Ultimately, the Constitution, the embodiment of those founding principles that conservatives cherish most, is specifically designed to protect American citizens from political threats arising from both the right and the left. Leftists, on the other hand, are for complete state control of economy, society, and the government, making them absolutists. Americans should protect the Constitution and strive to prevent further abuse of power by the U.S. government.

What say you, FJ ? Care to give me something I can applaud ... just for once ??

... no ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Correct; it's opinion. Please point out where I think he has done a good job because your evidence doesn't support your conclusion.

You mean evidence like this --- Where I say IN MY OPENING POST that obama has done a lousy job and you post this reply QUOTED BELOW to that accusation! You will of course notice how I enlarged and bolded your verdict of --No truth -- being found within my opening post of this thread. Now the wording of "no truth" implies either total lying or total ignorance but now you say you have never stated Obama has done a good job! So what is it, if he hasn't done a good job and hasn't done a lousy job then what? By your statements you appear to have claimed both for him! So are you declaring his job performance to be Mediocre? To make it easy for you to clarify and actually take a stand I'll list them and if you care to choose do so in your reply to this post. That way nobody will be confused as to where you truly stand on this. A. Obama HAS DONE A VERY POOR JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT B. Obama HAS DONE A TRULY WONDERFUL JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT C. Obama HAS DONE A MEDIOCRE JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT. Here is your chance to rectify this great misunderstanding of your confusing posts here. And just to sweeten the deal I'm going to give you two gold stars if you actually reply choosing A,B OR C. THAT IS JUST THE KIND OF GENEROUS GUY I AM. --Tyr

Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post

There was no truth in your OP, only rant.