What's new
By:

Seriously? No thread on the Iowa caucuses yet?

green said:
I will be voting for Mitt because he is the only person that can beat Obama. He is the only guy that could win 49 out of 50 states that is running.
Click to expand...

Millsapa said:
What is your reasoning behind this statement?
Click to expand...

Gojazz79 said:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html

One source amoung many. Perception.
Click to expand...

I was really hoping green would answer the question and with a little more reasoning than "the liberal media tells me so." That can't be all the reasoning there is behind green's belief that Romney can win 49 of the 50 states.
 
Millsapa said:
I was really hoping green would answer the question and with a little more reasoning than "the liberal media tells me so." That can't be all the reasoning there is behind green's belief that Romney can win 49 of the 50 states.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why Green believe what he/she does. I am just saying that the general perception is that only Romney can beat Obama because of the media spin.
 
Gojazz79 said:
So you think it is ok for someone to buy and equip surface to air missles in their back yards? There may be a market for the 20,000-40,000 missles missing in Libya that no one knew about.

How do I corner this market is what I want to know?
Click to expand...

The same way you corner everything under the constitution.
At the state and local level, with people of that area voting on what to do about it.
At the same time, there's a pretty slim chance that you're going to have such a widespread problem with these weapons.
 
One Brow said:
I agree. They are specific enough, precise enough, and clear enough that they typcially apply to the particular needs of the particular time. Meanwhile, your depiction of the Constitution as "open-ended" is my point: the language is not a precise description, and needs to be interpreted.
Click to expand...

It is the people through their representatives that solves these problems at the local level, as the constitution demands.
Different areas have different issues, and that's why federal laws that are unconstitutional are just so.
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
The same way you corner everything under the constitution.
At the state and local level, with people of that area voting on what to do about it.
At the same time, there's a pretty slim chance that you're going to have such a widespread problem with these weapons.
Click to expand...

Damnit, I just can't help it. I like you. Want to come over and have my sister?
 
We were the best, for a while, and gradually lost our rights to a horde of people like you who feel the call to regulate others and carefully instruct everyone about how to think and live.

At the constitutional convention, the word "militia" was chosen to represent free people with their own weopons willing to defend their own liberty. Oh, the same people who vote to replace government officeholders. Basically, there was no provision for a standing army, and the nation was going to rely on the people to defend themselves in any time of need.

Now you are ignoring the fact that your government has discarded key provisions of the Bill of Rights, and that liberal and neocon Justices of the Supreme Court now consider that they have the power to reshape the meaning of the Constittution and the law. It's called "Administrative Law", and by it the Courts are moving in on many areas of our lives in ways that are actually "legislating from the bench" and exercising "Executive" authority.

But that's just fine with you. You are ON BOARD (OB) from here on out.

You remind me somewhat of what I imagine was the sort of thinking going on back when the Catholic Church had an actual dogma about the Infallibility of the Pope. And that in conjunction with a well-ordered and regulated political system in full harmony with it. Well, you're comfortable because you have plenty of company in your snug little mantras about how wonderful the oncoming LA LA LAND of the truly scientific and well-managed planet will be. You can count on your paycheck, and your retirement. The new order cannot exist without you. What else matters?

If you are involved in some agenda-pushing "change-agent" outfit, here's a word of advice. The intellectuals like yourself who worked so hard to overturn the Czar in Russia, who considered the Russian Revolution a triumph for the people, were actually the first ones to go into the Gulag camps when the marxist elites had the army's guns behind them. It turned out that "Management" feared the change-agents most of all.

You might want to reconsider your confidence that Management needs you.
 
TheSilencer1313 said:
I'm hoping babe was just kidding when he/she said they would actually consider voting for Gingrich, and hopefully he/she was seriously joking about Newt being a conservative lol.
Click to expand...

Nah, you've got to quit hoping like that.

Newt has been around. But he actually did some good things that people should be grateful for when he was in congress. The Establishment is all behind Romney. Meaning the Bush establishment. He's been their man for a long time, and has proven his willingness to go along with the program.

Newt lost favor because he actually thought he could just do some things right, regardless of what was expected of him by Management. That means he really is a "conservative", who actually believes he should serve the people first. That is a huge throwback towards Constitutional government, and enough to outweigh his daliance with the CFR. He is just smarter than most of the progressive dupes he has known so well, and knows what will actually work. And he's just dumb enough to think he can show them the way forward, too.

I want a Gingrich/Paul ticket. That way the Management won't just shoot Gingrich.
 
A highly amusing rant, with the usual mischaraterizations.

babe said:
At the constitutional convention, the word "militia" was chosen to represent free people with their own weopons willing to defend their own liberty.
Click to expand...

I thought the second Amend was crafted in the first Congress, after ratification?
 
One Brow said:
A highly amusing rant, with the usual mischaraterizations.



I thought the second Amend was crafted in the first Congress, after ratification?
Click to expand...

Does that change the reason why the word "militia" was chosen?
 
One Brow said:
A highly amusing rant, with the usual mischaraterizations.



I thought the second Amend was crafted in the first Congress, after ratification?
Click to expand...

Well, actually there was a promise to add the amendments as a condition of ratification of the Constitution, I think. . . . . and the wording was largely borrowed from rights already in place in, I think, Virginia, or something. It was argued by some that the states could have all the "rights" to define "rights" until the cows come home and that the Federal idea was just going to be a civil arrangement between sovereign states, or something like that, but some of the wiser heads in the convention refused to agree to a Federal constitution that did not within itself have some provision for preventing the Federal government from changing all that. . . . . and they did their best to prevent it. . . . . and yet here we are today with eunuch servile states lined up at the Federal trough doing everything the Feds dictate, and acquiescing with Federal measures gutting all our civil rights.
 
babe said:
. . . . . and yet here we are today with eunuch servile states lined up at the Federal trough doing everything the Feds dictate, and acquiescing with Federal measures gutting all our civil rights.
Click to expand...

What choice do they have? Let the taxes from their citizens go to other states?
 
I'm hoping babe was just kidding when he/she said they would actually consider voting for Gingrich, and hopefully he/she was seriously joking about Newt being a conservative lol.
Click to expand...

Nah, you've got to quit hoping like that.

Newt has been around. But he actually did some good things that people should be grateful for when he was in congress. The Establishment is all behind Romney. Meaning the Bush establishment. He's been their man for a long time, and has proven his willingness to go along with the program.

Newt lost favor because he actually thought he could just do some things right, regardless of what was expected of him by Management. That means he really is a "conservative", who actually believes he should serve the people first. That is a huge throwback towards Constitutional government, and enough to outweigh his daliance with the CFR. He is just smarter than most of the progressive dupes he has known so well, and knows what will actually work. And he's just dumb enough to think he can show them the way forward, too.

I want a Gingrich/Paul ticket. That way the Management won't just shoot Gingrich.
Click to expand...

I think we all know Newt Gingrich is a pretty smart guy, and that's why he gets more "so-called progressive" as the times change.
In these elections.... he's chosen to sort of copy the Ron Paul domestic policy model, while at the same time keeping the warmongers foreign policy.

I also expect the management you speak of is the military/medical/banking industrial complex.
They don't have the balls to shoot the president this time, because they've started running back into their ivory towers years ago.
These losers are a lot more scared of us, then we are of them.

But if you think that putting Next Gingrich in a position to sign executive orders is a good thing..... well then go ahead and see what happens.
Gingrich and Romney are both extremely evil snakes in the grass, and if either of them get the presidency you will see plenty of tyranny.
 
One Brow said:
Not at all. However, getting the details right makes an argument more believable.
Click to expand...

True. But that sure looked like an attempt at a straw man when what you argued against had really nothing to do with the core of his argument. Just sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top