96 replies to this topic

[Tiggs]

Yamato, on 22 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

If you can't stop looking in your rear view mirror then yeah, what I said above means absolutely nothing, to you.

Y'know - the President hasn't even drafted the Executive Orders currently. As such - talk of kingship and legislation to reverse them is probably a bit premature.

Quote

Speaking of "absolutely", were you not being "absolutely clear" a week ago about not wanting to discuss anything with me "ever again"?

Let's take that to PM.

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 23 January 2013 - 12:10 AM, said:

Y'know - the President hasn't even drafted the Executive Orders currently. As such - talk of kingship and legislation to reverse them is probably a bit premature.




Let's take that to PM.

It belonged in a PM when you said it in the first place.

Some of us who genuinely care about liberty have been talking about "kingship" since Bush.   We're late to the game to be acting like we're just now starting something new.

[Tiggs]

Yamato, on 23 January 2013 - 12:24 AM, said:

Some of us who genuinely care about liberty have been talking about "kingship" since Bush.   We're late to the game to be acting like we're just now starting something new.

It goes back much further than Bush.

The Second World War Japanese internment camps were set up via Executive Order 9066 by Roosevelt.

[Yamato]

Tiggs, on 23 January 2013 - 01:30 AM, said:

It goes back much further than Bush.

The Second World War Japanese internment camps were set up via Executive Order 9066 by Roosevelt.

Our history is rife with abuses that smack of unconstitutionality when we read the spirit of our highest law and why we even exist as a nation in the first place.   It goes back further than Bush, and that confers with even greater importance for this thread, so let's not act like we're ahead of ourselves when we're already running late.  

Roosevelt issued a lot of orders.  He was also administrating a war that Congress declared.   At least we weren't so ignorant in 1941 to skip the clearest language in our highest law about how to take our country to war.   The difference between 9066 and last week is we've had plenty of hindsight to determine whether 9066 smacked of legislation or whether it was just policy that our policymakers made.   But here we go again.  I'll say it again, I don't care about someone else, at some other time, doing some other thing, about some other subject, belonging on some other thread, as a reason not to discuss this topic.   Dig up all the bones from the past you like.   Japanese Americans aren't in camps.  Our Bill of Rights is under attack by these trigger-happy executives from the White House.    We have the President we have despite your urge to feel defensive about him, and due to the hazardous precedent from Obama and his contemporaries, we should already be very concerned with what we're putting up with.

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 22 January 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

Defending liberty is about stopping the infringement before it happens, not after.   We've got 23 orders from the President

I'd be willing to bet that you have not even read a single one of the 23.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 23 January 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

I'd be willing to bet that you have not even read a single one of the 23.

I'd be willing to bet you think I'd disagree with all 23 of them if you thought I had.    The executive orders aren't the problem.  Executive orders aren't unconstitutional.  President Obama's track record is.   Thankfully we have a few good figures in public office like Rand Paul to help protect us from anymore malfeasance.

[preacherman76]

Tiggs, on 22 January 2013 - 02:30 PM, said:

The whole regulated militia part, apparently.

Hu?

Quote

Which of those do you believe are covered in his executive orders?

Oh sorry, Im in NY. Soon as I can be, Im outta here.

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 23 January 2013 - 06:08 AM, said:

I'd be willing to bet you think I'd disagree with all 23 of them if you thought I had. The executive orders aren't the problem.  Executive orders aren't unconstitutional.  President Obama's track record is.  

ok I'll byte. What "track record" are you referring to? I'd be willing to bet you really have no idea.

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 23 January 2013 - 06:13 PM, said:

ok I'll byte. What "track record" are you referring to? I'd be willing to bet you really have no idea.

Libya was impeachable.  But the derelict Congress aren't interested in eating their own.  I think debates about Obama's unconstitutionality are infinitely more important than his kids going to a private school for privileged kids, or not putting his hand on his chest, his secret Muslim faith, his birth certificate, and a hundred other ridiculous diversions and conspiracies the media pumps out.

[ninjadude]

Yamato, on 23 January 2013 - 08:46 PM, said:

Libya was impeachable.

in what respect?

[Yamato]

ninjadude, on 24 January 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

in what respect?

It was unconstitutional.  There is a clear legal process to taking the country to war and like the rest of the Constitution, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you feign ignorance of even that.

Libya did NOT attack the United States, Libya was NOT an imminent threat to the United States, and so Obama and his liberal cheerleaders can't cite the War Powers Resolution on Libya.   Obama just makes his own power up as he goes.  At least Bush had to lie to get his war started.   We have lost our senses since George W. Bush and his unconstitutional shenanigans and it's partisans on both sides of the political aisle that will ensure this illegality in our government continues.   You don't care when Obama does it just like another load of nonchalant Americans didn't care when Bush did it.   It's the collective enablers of these abuses of power that are the greatest threat to our security today.   Obama should have been impeached, not reelected.

[AsteroidX]

Sending contractors to Mali is the same thing.

[acidhead]

Yamato, on 24 January 2013 - 06:25 AM, said:

It was unconstitutional.  There is a clear legal process to taking the country to war and like the rest of the Constitution, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you feign ignorance of even that.

Libya did NOT attack the United States, Libya was NOT an imminent threat to the United States, and so Obama and his liberal cheerleaders can't cite the War Powers Resolution on Libya.   Obama just makes his own power up as he goes.  At least Bush had to lie to get his war started.   We have lost our senses since George W. Bush and his unconstitutional shenanigans and it's partisans on both sides of the political aisle that will ensure this illegality in our government continues.   You don't care when Obama does it just like another load of nonchalant Americans didn't care when Bush did it.   It's the collective enablers of these abuses of power that are the greatest threat to our security today.   Obama should have been impeached, not reelected.

and he gets a free ride... a crazy carpet roller coaster ride

[acidhead]

lol

[jake1967]

This debate could go on forever. The problem is that it shouldn't. The focus has been put on 'guns' in the recent media. Guns are inanimate objects. Freedom is not. The United States won it's independance at a cost..and that cost was great. The second amendment was established to allow a nation to protect itself from a government that would no longer be accountable to it's citizens...to  have free reign to do as it will. I believe we, as a nation, fought to free ourselves from that same oppression at one time...and today..different political parties and belief systems argue against that right? The argument really is not about guns..it is about the right to bear them...and once that right is gone or regulated..what is next? Will 'mother' tell you what socks you are allowed to wear? Or perhaps tell you that you can no longer think for yourselves..because 'your' thinking is 'harmful' based on some politicians view of the world? Freedom...to be honest is an illusion..there are only a few that are truly free..and only a few left to see the hazards of letting someone else make your choices for you..for your own 'protection'. ...Scary world we live in these days.