96 replies to this topic

[Yamato]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 05:35 PM, said:

If Obama has Rand Paul beheaded for treason then I'll believe he's become a king. Until then it's just politically charged nonsense.

Constitutional constraints on government are politically charged nonsense?   I won't suggest the same of your Constitution, when it's bully Canada roaming around the world launching wars at will; ignoring the clearest letters in your highest law.  What is the nonsense here, really?

[Corp]

Launching wars? You mean the wars that Obama is ending? And had nothing at all to do about what Rand is talking about? In any event claiming that Obama is trying to be a king is just silly and detracts from actual, serious concerns.

[and then]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

Launching wars? You mean the wars that Obama is ending? And had nothing at all to do about what Rand is talking about? In any event claiming that Obama is trying to be a king is just silly and detracts from actual, serious concerns.

Many Americans consider the separation of powers in the constitution to be of the utmost seriousness.  Obama has stretched the envelope with E.O.s and it seems to be a trend now.  I can only shudder to think what the next chief executive might try to get by with.  The congress is gutless and servile.  When the economic collapse happens and they can no longer deliver the goodies back home, the leeches in the system will stroke out and start strolling the streets and demanding what they desire.  Maybe THEN...some real leaders will stand up.

[Yamato]

Corp, on 18 January 2013 - 11:56 PM, said:

Launching wars? You mean the wars that Obama is ending? And had nothing at all to do about what Rand is talking about? In any event claiming that Obama is trying to be a king is just silly and detracts from actual, serious concerns.

I mean the acts of war he has committed; the wars he's started, the wars he's escalated, the wars he's ended or not ended, and the wars he is yet to start.

The warfare has something to do with it, Corp.   It has to do with the Constitutionality of our government.   Our Constitution was intentionally designed so our President could not be a King, that is, a President cannot usurp Congress and write his own laws.  Acts of Congress are designed to be burdensome, not subject to the will of one high and mighty individual, but the entire Legislative body.   Our rule of law is at stake.  Unilateral actions that Obama has taken without the Congress, especially in his perpetual war waging is not only relevant, it's the most serious example of his unconstitutional use of power of all.

Here's Rand Paul (and Dennis Kucinich) putting Obama's wars to the same legal standard he's speaking about in the OP video with the 2nd Amendment.

[ninjadude]

and then, on 19 January 2013 - 12:31 AM, said:

Many Americans consider the separation of powers in the constitution to be of the utmost seriousness.  Obama has stretched the envelope with E.O.s

how do you figure? he;s signed fewer than previous presidents

[acidhead]

ninjadude, on 19 January 2013 - 04:34 AM, said:

how do you figure? he;s signed fewer than previous presidents

true... right now after 23 more he's batting average for the past 5 or 6 presidents.. he's only got something like 144 in 4 yrs.... HW Bush for example had around 166 in one term... They all use EO's.  The president during WW2... Roosevelt used over 3500. http://en.wikipedia....d_Order_numbers

[Kafkaesque]

acidhead, on 19 January 2013 - 06:07 AM, said:

true... right now after 23 more he's batting average for the past 5 or 6 presidents.. he's only got something like 144 in 4 yrs.... HW Bush for example had around 166 in one term... They all use EO's.  The president during WW2... Roosevelt used over 3500. http://en.wikipedia....d_Order_numbers

Many presidents have used Executive Orders, this is true.

What makes this different I suppose is that the Second Amendment is vital.

[Yamato]

Eonwe, on 19 January 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

Many presidents have used Executive Orders, this is true.

What makes this different I suppose is that the Second Amendment is vital.

And that we can't hop in a time machine and impeach past Presidents for their abuses of power, we have to start with the present and move forward from there.   At least according to Obama we can't go back.  I'd have gone after the Bush administration in late January 2009 but Obama would have none of it.  He wouldn't dare set up a dangerous precedent that put his butt on the line for repeating all of Bush's greatest turd drops.

[Tiggs]

Eonwe, on 19 January 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

Many presidents have used Executive Orders, this is true.

What makes this different I suppose is that the Second Amendment is vital.

Which part of the second amendment do you believe that his executive orders have undermined?

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 19 January 2013 - 07:01 PM, said:

Which part of the second amendment do you believe that his executive orders have undermined?

The right to bear arms part.   Using verbs in the past tense like "undermined" not required.

[Tiggs]

Yamato, on 19 January 2013 - 07:09 PM, said:

The right to bear arms part.   Using verbs in the past tense like "undermined" not required.

So do you no longer have the right to bear arms?

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 19 January 2013 - 07:10 PM, said:

So do you no longer have the right to bear arms?

This isn't about me.  Don't get personal with me.

A person might not have the right to bear arms if it's made out of black plastic and scary looking to liberals.   A person's children might not have the right to bear their parents' arms after they die.   We can go on and on, but the point is, this is erosion of the 2nd Amendment by attrition.

[Tiggs]

Yamato, on 19 January 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

This isn't about me.  Don't get personal with me.

Then you should probably just stop responding to my posts as I've previously asked you to.

Quote

][/size]
A person might not have the right to bear arms if it's made out of black plastic and scary looking to liberals.

Then just paint them orange. Second amendment saved.

Quote

A person's children might not have the right to bear their parents' arms after they die.   We can go on and on, but the point is, this is erosion of the 2nd Amendment by attrition.

Why, yes. Increasing funding for school security will stop American citizen's children from bearing arms.

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 19 January 2013 - 07:42 PM, said:

Then you should probably just stop responding to my posts as I've previously asked you to.




Then just paint them orange. Second amendment saved.




Why, yes. Increasing funding for school security will stop American citizen's children from bearing arms.

I've advocated for increasing funding for school security.  What liberals can't understand is that everything that happens in the world doesn't need to come from Washington DC.  A federal district of massive gun crime and military aggression that's already got us up to our necks in debt and exponentially increasing future unfunded liabilities.   Where does this pretense come from that we can completely ignore fiscal sanity when the money is coming out of other peoples' pocket?   The double standard is killing our nation.  Statists, put the giant credit card in the sky down.  Forward your own great ideas to your own communities, or else move to a new community where your brilliant ideas are represented.

[Stellar]

Yamato, on 19 January 2013 - 07:17 PM, said:

This isn't about me.  Don't get personal with me.

A person might not have the right to bear arms if it's made out of black plastic and scary looking to liberals.   A person's children might not have the right to bear their parents' arms after they die.   We can go on and on, but the point is, this is erosion of the 2nd Amendment by attrition.

"might might might". Come back when rmtge 2nd has ACTUALLY been infringed, not when it "might" be infringed in some hypothetical situation that only you can tie to one of the EOs.