Letter to obama on Constitutional rights

[Arbo]

Simple answer .. give me something worthy of applauding, and I'll do so.

Yes FJ, just Baaaaaaaa like a good sheep, and you can get a just like the other sheep.

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 ..

Hayes is a flipping moron.

[Missileman]

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.

Your opening line is perhaps a beacon that shines on the problem. If you think my opposition to Obama is "news", then it's patently obvious that you haven't even been reading my posts. As for the rest of it, here's a brief summary of what has been happening on the board. A poster will write "Obama should be impeached because he's left-handed". Another poster will write, "Obama sucks, but you can't impeach him for being left-handed." The original poster and his buddies then attack the replier with, "You're a liberal Obama supporter". It's pathetic, and absolutely no different than when the liberals call anyone who opposes Obama in any way a racist.

[fj1200]

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 ?

So again, you've made your failure my fault. You should attempt to own up that you can't point to my pro-BO posts and that your imagination is getting the better of you. And BTW, your applause is definitely NOT a goal of mine.

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 ....


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

... no ?

You've got that first statement correct because you are now want to appear to be a great defender of the Constitution when a mere couple of threads ago you were arguing how that it needed to "evolve" based on new threats. So what is it going to be tomorrow? Try pointing to where I have posted in opposition to the Constitution; I can certainly point to your opposition.

[Drummond]

Your opening line is perhaps a beacon that shines on the problem. If you think my opposition to Obama is "news", then it's patently obvious that you haven't even been reading my posts. As for the rest of it, here's a brief summary of what has been happening on the board. A poster will write "Obama should be impeached because he's left-handed". Another poster will write, "Obama sucks, but you can't impeach him for being left-handed." The original poster and his buddies then attack the replier with, "You're a liberal Obama supporter". It's pathetic, and absolutely no different than when the liberals call anyone who opposes Obama in any way a racist.

Missileman, I really hadn't wanted to argue with you. But you seem to want an argument. Very well.

Your opposition to Obama is 'news', yes. But did I say that it was 'new' news ? It could've been very 'old news' ... as indeed it is to me.

I'm not sure whether I have read all of your posts. I've not made a point of following everything you've posted, so very possibly I've seen only a selection of them. But I have seen enough to feel confident of the positions you're likely to take.

As to the rest of your argument, you're falling back on your previous argument that opposition to Obama needs to be grounded in realism, rather than see posters be driven by opposition based on strong bias, bias of a sort that will lead to accusations which demonise. Missileman, I think you exaggerate your case, though I also concede that you have a point.

That conceded ... I still have sympathy for those patriots who so detest Obama that they're highly sensitive to any post, or poster, that what they see is contributors who seem to back-pedal, or keep their opposition 'soft' to an extent which suggests that some measure of covert support might be lurking in the background. On a previous forum, we had experience of an ex-Trade Unionist who tried to sell himself as a highly moderate and Conservative-thinking Democrat who had an interest in 'reforming from within'. Some, he had moderate success in convincing. Others remained sceptical.

He ultimately, though, couldn't maintain the pretence of being anything other than a Left-winger who was intent on sneaking a 'Do not vote for the Republicans' message past the sensibilities of decent Conservatives. Why did he want to stop such votes ? Obviously, to neutralise opposition to Obama. But he over-reached himself, stupidly so, when he started calling Tea Party members 'Teabaggers', which he tried to claim was NOT meant abusively, when he was challenged on it.

So, he gave himself away, people threw away old doubts about him, and saw his real Left wing intent for what it was. After ludicrously claiming that personal threats had been made against himself and his family (to paint the Right wingers on the forum as being a band of thugs), he withdrew from the forum - his real agenda in tatters.

You see, Missileman, there ARE those who'll sell themselves as something that they're not, and they do so in order to make their message as palatable as possible. It does no harm at all to be on your guard against such a phenomenon.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your opening line is perhaps a beacon that shines on the problem. If you think my opposition to Obama is "news", then it's patently obvious that you haven't even been reading my posts. As for the rest of it, here's a brief summary of what has been happening on the board. A poster will write "Obama should be impeached because he's left-handed". Another poster will write, "Obama sucks, but you can't impeach him for being left-handed." The original poster and his buddies then attack the replier with, "You're a liberal Obama supporter". It's pathetic, and absolutely no different than when the liberals call anyone who opposes Obama in any way a racist.

That comparison is far too simplistic. If you disagree with members here pointing to all his faults my friend then obviously that's your right but playing ALL as ignorance from we that like to present the whole enchilada is definitely not right in my book. An opinion which is definitely my right to have. Our posts/opinions expressed here are not about writing up a legal impeachment complaint. Myself I point to all that bastard's shat because so many tens of millions Americans have not a damn clue about his many, many transgressions. His media sees to that by how they protect and defend him. Its great that you oppose his policies and treachery but in my opinion not so great that you criticize those that toss in his arrogance and contemptuous actions as well. I do so to present what the ffing scum truly is simply because I am sick and tired of seeing so much hidden from being made known to the general public about him and his anti-American agenda. Sure not everything anti-American qualifies as impeachment worthy but it does qualify as evidence to his true character. I'll continue to criticize in my own way and not complain about how you post about him. I'd expect the same consideration from others but am well aware a few here will use any issue to attack me and my posts. I trust that your reply was a further clarification rather than an attack. As such I give it due consideration which I will not give to a few others here that like to wage a campaign against me personally rather than address directly and specifically the words I post. I do not include you in that but others here have done so and there is nothing about pure accuracy or seeking greater responsibility in that IMHO. -Tyr

[Drummond]

So again, you've made your failure my fault. You should attempt to own up that you can't point to my pro-BO posts and that your imagination is getting the better of you. And BTW, your applause is definitely NOT a goal of mine.

Still, you evade my challenges, FJ. This is becoming too obvious a process to even bother to debate any longer.

You've got that first statement correct because you are now want to appear to be a great defender of the Constitution when a mere couple of threads ago you were arguing how that it needed to "evolve" based on new threats. So what is it going to be tomorrow? Try pointing to where I have posted in opposition to the Constitution; I can certainly point to your opposition.

You miss the wider point, no doubt purposely so.

As I read it, the NBC commentator wanted to go to the extreme of dispensing with the Constitution, which is a radical step further than just talking about whether or not there's any need to consider its evolution. European nations, my own included, don't have any comparable Constitution which restricts the tinkering ambitions of Socialists here. Yes, there's a European Parliament, and various Treaty obligations in place .. which only serve to subjugate nations to the will of the EU, this meaning that Socialist influences are strong and hard to combat.

THIS, evidently, is what the commentator was arguing for.

For my part, I have never argued (try proving otherwise !) that your Constitution should be done away with.

[Drummond]

That comparison is far too simplistic. If you disagree with members here pointing to all his faults my friend then obviously that's your right but playing ALL as ignorance from we that like to present the whole enchilada is definitely not right in my book. An opinion which is definitely my right to have. Our posts/opinions expressed here are not about writing up a legal impeachment complaint. Myself I point to all that bastard's shat because so many tens of millions Americans have not a damn clue about his many, many transgressions. His media sees to that by how they protect and defend him. Its great that you oppose his policies and treachery but in my opinion not so great that you criticize those that toss in his arrogance and contemptuous actions as well. I do so to present what the ffing scum truly is simply because I am sick and tired of seeing so much hidden from being made known to the general public about him and his anti-American agenda. Sure not everything anti-American qualifies as impeachment worthy but it does qualify as evidence to his true character. I'll continue to criticize in my own way and not complain about how you post about him. I'd expect the same consideration from others but am well aware a few here will use any issue to attack me and my posts. I trust that your reply was a further clarification rather than an attack. As such I give it due consideration which I will not give to a few others here that like to wage a campaign against me personally rather than address directly and specifically the words I post. I do not include you in that but others here have done so and there is nothing about pure accuracy or seeking greater responsibility in that IMHO. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Hayes is a flipping moron.

Perhaps. More to the point, he argues like a Leftie, presenting a case intended to convince people to accept a status quo which - if ever realised - would sweep the path clear for unbridled Left-wing tyranny.

The Left are considerably constrained by the Constitution. So, OF COURSE they want it to go ! Power over people is everything to them.

[Arbo]

As to the rest of your argument, you're falling back on your previous argument that opposition to Obama needs to be grounded in realism,

Tis far better to base opposition on fantasy and lack of emotional self control.. for sure.

That comparison is far too simplistic.

One need not write a lengthy essay to explain what is quite clear. He summarized exactly what happens daily.

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it, he is a moron. Pure and simple.

[Drummond]

Tis far better to base opposition on fantasy and lack of emotional self control.. for sure.

Or, Arbo, do you argue for mind-numbed complacency in the face of those who may well be following a covert agenda ?

One need not write a lengthy essay to explain what is quite clear. He summarized exactly what happens daily.

I think you have it in mind to try and groom a new ally.

No perhaps about it, he is a moron. Pure and simple.

... and NOT following a Leftie agenda ? Definitely not ?

There is no such thing as TOO much alertness to covert agenda tactics, in my view.

[Arbo]

Or, Arbo, do you argue for mind-numbed complacency in the face of those who may well be following a covert agenda ?

Oh no, here comes the CT.

I think you have it in mind to try and groom a new ally.

Again with the 'ally' thing. As if there is anything other than agreements and disagreements online. Man that's some funny stuff.

... and NOT following a Leftie agenda ? Definitely not ?

Considering both 'sides' have trampled over the Constitution when it suits their needs, no, it's not a left or right agenda. It's merely idiots that want to get rid of the one thing that stands in their way of total control.

[Missileman]

I think you have it in mind to try and groom a new ally.

You needn't worry in the slightest. I'm civil to most of the members of the board. I suppose that could be construed as evidence that I'm some sort of liberal plant trying to "sneak" leftie attitudes onto the board. I could make a case that a leftie operative might use the tactic of hyper-criticism to muddy the waters. In the end, I judge a poster based on what he or she writes and I am reasonably certain that a few folks are being misjudged by others.

[fj1200]

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

Yes, your opening post, no truth, opinion. I happen to agree with your opinion that he has done a lousy job. Now if you could find any instance where I've suggested that he has done an acceptable job then I might begin to understand where your confusion lies because I don't recall stating otherwise. Further your estimation of what I "implied" is completely incorrect; your inference is on you because my post doesn't mean "total lying" or "total ignorance," it merely means that your verdict is opinion, not truth.





Oh yeah, it appears I get my gold stars. Hopefully that clears up any confusion on your part... of course I've probably had to clear that up a hundred times or so.

[fj1200]

You needn't worry in the slightest. I'm civil to most of the members of the board. I suppose that could be construed as evidence that I'm some sort of liberal plant trying to "sneak" leftie attitudes onto the board. I could make a case that a leftie operative might use the tactic of hyper-criticism to muddy the waters. In the end, I judge a poster based on what he or she writes and I am reasonably certain that a few folks are being misjudged by others.

'Tis a good thing to judge based on what is posted and not judge based on what is imagined.

[fj1200]

Still, you evade my challenges, FJ. This is becoming too obvious a process to even bother to debate any longer.

Again it's my fault that you fail. Unimaginable the lengths you will go to avoid admitting you're wrong. It's comical that you think that every anti-BO poster is obligated to agree with you knuckleheads in exactly the manner that you post. FWIW I'll choose to post based on logic and truth, you've obviously chosen to base it on rage and hate. I'll bet I win more votes than you come election time.

As far as your challenge goes... you'll have to inform me how I am supposed to prove that your imagination is incorrect.

You miss the wider point, no doubt purposely so.

As I read it, the NBC commentator wanted to go to the extreme of dispensing with the Constitution, which is a radical step further than just talking about whether or not there's any need to consider its evolution. European nations, my own included, don't have any comparable Constitution which restricts the tinkering ambitions of Socialists here. Yes, there's a European Parliament, and various Treaty obligations in place .. which only serve to subjugate nations to the will of the EU, this meaning that Socialist influences are strong and hard to combat.

THIS, evidently, is what the commentator was arguing for.

I don't particularly care what he was arguing for or his rationale in dispensing with the Constitution. He's a "leftie" in your vernacular and should be immediately discounted based on his, or anyone's, desire to dispense with our supreme law. My concern here is those who make similar arguments from the right that the Constitution needs to evolve; that would be you. See below:

For my part, I have never argued (try proving otherwise !) that your Constitution should be done away with.

Let's see, I didn't say that you've argued that the Constitution should be "done away with" I said you've stated "opposition." The above is you moving the goal posts; a leftie move that wouldn't you say ?

It worries me, though, that a form of straitjacketing is in evidence. The world has moved on since their time, and I think it inconceivable that your Founders could have imagined some of the perils which today's world manages to throw up.

If it were possible - and I'm getting the message that it isn't - for America to move with the times so that there was enough latitude to evolve thinking and legislative need to fully meet and counter modern scenarios, this is surely the way America should go. If it really cannot budge enough to manage that process of evolution, I think it must follow that your responses to future threats will become increasingly inadequate.

I'll remind you that you were arguing that citizens should be stripped of their rights without regard to their Constitutional protections. It's fun to argue with lefties who desire that Constitutional protections be stripped away but it's frightening to argue with "conservatives" who desire same.