PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court DC gun ban ruling..remember these comments



JerrySharrett
06-26-2008, 08:14 PM
We have "At War Forever" McCain and we have Obammy Wammy.

We also have a reasonable alternative to the above pi$$-poor compromise choices.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080626/pl_usnw/bob_barr_calls_heller_decision_on_gun_rights__one_ of_court___s_most_important_rulings_on_behalf_of_l iberty

VaniB
06-26-2008, 09:13 PM
Bob Barr is as phony as a 3 dollar bill!

Did you know this man was head council of the UCLA? He can be bought by anybody! It's obvious to me that the Democrats bought him and are hoping enough uninformed people will fall for it, and pull enough votes from McCain to help elect Obama.

Do your homework!


EDIT: Oh....geeees. I meant the ACLU (.......American Civil Liberties Union.)

jackie schmidt
06-26-2008, 09:16 PM
Somebody needs to take Bob Barr out back and beat the Sh-t out of him.
I hope I have made myself plain enough on this issue........jackie

Bill Wynne
06-26-2008, 09:25 PM
Somebody needs to take Bob Barr out back and beat the Sh-t out of him.
I hope I have made myself plain enough on this issue........jackie

Jackie, Is that a no for Bob Barr? :)

Concho Bill

Paul Fielder
06-26-2008, 10:13 PM
is an election win for Obama!!

pf

vinny
06-26-2008, 10:26 PM
Somebody needs to take Bob Barr out back and beat the Sh-t out of him.
I hope I have made myself plain enough on this issue........jackie

I'd be happy to do it!
vinny

artabr
06-27-2008, 02:02 AM
I'd be happy to do it!
vinny

As a person I liked Bob Barr. That being said, I'd be more than happy to be the first to kick candidate Barr's butt. :mad:


Art

Bill Wynne
06-27-2008, 05:31 AM
Somebody needs to take Bob Barr out back and beat the Sh-t out of him.
I hope I have made myself plain enough on this issue........jackie

I see a line forming.:(:mad::):D:(:mad::)

Concho Bill

JerrySharrett
06-27-2008, 05:39 AM
He's still a better choice than the two front tunners.

Do your homeowrk.

30378
06-27-2008, 07:03 AM
I do think it is an absolute tragedy that Obama and McCain are all this country has to offer as leadership and Presidential choices. This in itself is a true sign of weakness.

Mr. D
06-27-2008, 07:12 AM
Bob Barr is as phony as a 3 dollar bill!

Did you know this man was head council of the UCLA? He can be bought by anybody! It's obvious to me that the Democrats bought him and are hoping enough uninformed people will fall for it, and pull enough votes from McCain to help elect Obama.

Do your homework!


EDIT: Oh....geeees. I meant the ACLU (.......American Civil Liberties Union.)

Of course I'n aware that most on this forum have gained a negative opinion of the ACLU, but in my experience that is because like "Defense Attorneys" they cannot separate the attorney from the client. You know the belief that if you represent a rapist in court you must not care if your wife and daughter are raped. Brillaint thought, but common! Get a rope! Anyway, there may be a few willing to think about the issue with an open mind:

First of all, I’m not a member of the ACLU and I’ve never given it a penny, I’m not a lawyer, nor have I had any contact with them! I’m not speaking for the ACLU! I just understand their mission and why they take such ridiculous and unpopular cases! (Put down the flame throwers!) :eek:

What is misunderstood about the ACLU is it’s mission!

The ACLU believes that one of the most important things that protects freedom and civil liberties “for all of us” under the Constitution is the “actual, real” ability of every person in the U.S. to get legal representation no matter how loony, misguided, bigoted or hated by others they are! If a person cannot get represented by a lawyer because the majority of Americans think they are a loon or are against their beliefs, then YOU may not be able to get a lawyer and a fair trial someday if the public doesn’t agree with you, or you’ve been made to look like a loon or pervert by a large company, organization or our government! Sure if it’s by our government you get a overworked public defender with a giant pile of cases!

What history has shown is that if your cause is unpopular, lawyers may have to pay a great price in public anger and attack if they represent you!
In the 1950’s if you represented a black man in the South regarding civil rights issues, or for allegedly attacking a white woman , you’d better sleep with a gun and relocate your practice north after the trial, because you were done as a lawyer with the whites in that town and your kids might hear some interesting remarks at school from the other kids!

If you represent some despicable organization or even an average person the public has “already tried in the press and found guilty ” or a crazy loon that wants his day in court, ( who isn’t a O.J. or Michael Jackson so the lawyer can become rich and famous) the lawyer may be have his practice hurt by people who hate the client!

If they had a prison just for child molesters, some doctor would be employed to work at that prison and many brilliant types would say, “What kind of a doctor wants to be with child molesters all day? I would let him touch my child!” Get the point! I wouldn’t want to be that guy, would you?

So the ACLU will represent any crazy loon or Nazi, or whatever without judging their character or the common sense of their case so that you and I will always have a place to go when lawyers say, “You deserve representation, but I have a family and I can’t afford to risk their safety and their financial future by representing you!” The ACLU lawyer is often assigned from a different area so angry people can’t threaten his family or give him a little payback for representing the guy they hate!

The ACLU believes that without legal representation and a “fair” day in court YOUR rights are in jeopardy! So their mission is to be there to represent anyone who they think will be unpopular to represent! Of course if you’re Michael Jackson you don’t need the ACLU! You’ve got money! Whether we will admit it or not, money buys you a better chance in court and in our halls of government! Money talks and justice walks! Did I get that quote wrong? Yes, but it’s still true!

Want to hear something funny? One of the most far right, rabid, dyed in the wool, ultra conservative, hate big tax government, Clinton's the Devil, anti ACLU Republicans I've ever met (My ex tax person/we argued all the time) is getting screwed by Blue Cross of Calif. related getting dialysis for her husband! No lawyer she called would take the case, because of the long term cost of fighting a giant like Blue Cross. Blue Cross is going to fight her tooth and nail because the issue may set an expensive precedent! So who helped Mrs. Anti ACLU! You guessed right, the ACLU!

I bet when it's all over she'll still hate the ACLU! She'll somehow rationalize it and deny her own experience in favor of her ideology just like a religion! Bet me! She'll hang on to her ideology regardless of the real world facts before her! It's just like those who hate government intervention until the intervention does something they favor! Then they rationalize it as somehow different. When you try to show them the real world, it's heads they win, tails you lose!

Bill Wynne
06-27-2008, 07:43 AM
He's still a better choice than the two front tunners.

Do your homeowrk.

Jerry, I thought the same about Ross Perot and when I awoke, Bill Clinton was my President. :)

Anyone thinking about voting for Bob Barr had better do their homework. Start with this. When was the last time a third party candidate won the White House?

Concho Bill

Rich-Allen
06-27-2008, 08:15 AM
The USA would be a better place without the ACLU and organizations like them.

Big Al
06-27-2008, 08:22 AM
He's still a better choice than the two front tunners.

Do your homeowrk.

You got this one right, Jerry. I will never vote for the lesser of two evils, in the end, you have still voted for evil.

Paul Fielder
06-27-2008, 08:26 AM
Jerry, I thought the same about Ross Perot and when I awoke, Bill Clinton was my President. :)

Anyone thinking about voting for Bob Barr had better do their homework. Start with this. When was the last time a third party candidate won the White House?

Concho Bill

Anyone who is think of voting for Barr might as well vote for Obama and make it less painful for the rest of us.

I don't mind losing the potus w/ our E/C system in places say 51%-49% but when someone gets elected not even close to 50% magority, it is just wrong.

I think we need a run off if the 3rd party becomes a standard.....I think clinton won it with just 43% thanks to the little man.


pf

koginam
06-27-2008, 09:16 AM
The idea of the ACLU was a good one before it was taken over by socialists who use it to push their agenda by way of the courts.
It isn't their mission to help any cause that is so loony no lawer will take the case, its to help those who are to poor to get good representation, with clients like NAMBLA and fringe environmentalists groups as clients what should we think.

Mr. D
06-27-2008, 09:35 AM
The idea of the ACLU was a good one before it was taken over by socialists who use it to push their agenda by way of the courts.
It isn't their mission to help any cause that is so loony no lawer will take the case, its to help those who are to poor to get good representation, with clients like NAMBLA and fringe environmentalists groups as clients what should we think.

We should think that the best way to protect our right to a fair trial is to give it to the lowest scum we find on earth!

Don't you think ACLU lawyers have children too! Do you think they are pro NAMBLA or Pro Neo Nazi or what ever? Of course not! They have to hold their noses to protect our rights to a fair trial! We can't just give those rights to those who we think deserve them! Isn't that also part of the issue in QITMO? What if innocent men have been held for over five years with no charges? Will their sons be the next terrorist bombers because of what was done to their innocent fathers by the U.S.?

Vibe
06-27-2008, 10:02 AM
I'd be happy to do it!
vinny
And this from a New Yorker named Vinny who hangs out on a benchrest board.
Perhaps Mister Barr should be worried. :D

JTinKY
06-27-2008, 10:47 AM
Has the ACLU ever defended a gun rights case?

Big Al
06-27-2008, 11:03 AM
Anyone who is think of voting for Barr might as well vote for Obama and make it less painful for the rest of us.

I don't mind losing the potus w/ our E/C system in places say 51%-49% but when someone gets elected not even close to 50% magority, it is just wrong.

I think we need a run off if the 3rd party becomes a standard.....I think clinton won it with just 43% thanks to the little man.


pf

I'd vote for O'bama. If he would give me absolution for what my great, great, great grandaddy might or might not have done to some black people. Basically for being white. I think this is why most white folks want to vote for O'bama.

Why not vote for Barr? If you think McCain has the slightest chance in He!! to win, I got a bridge for sale I would like to show you.

Paul Fielder
06-27-2008, 11:09 AM
I'd vote for O'bama. If he would give me absolution for what my great, great, great grandaddy might or might not have done to some black people. Basically for being white. I think this is why most white folks want to vote for O'bama.

Why not vote for Barr? If you think McCain has the slightest chance in He!! to win, I got a bridge for sale I would like to show you.

.....because of the Barr votes if he runs. If Barr stays out of it & it's just a two man race, I got $100 bill that says JM will win.

pf

wolf gray
06-27-2008, 11:40 AM
They should put a warning label on this upcoming election, "This election could cause your beer/scotch consumption to go up". As usual, I'm not voting for somebody, I voting against somebody. I don't like either one of them but I am voting for McCain against Obama. I think the last time I voted FOR somebody was Reagan !

Best,
Dan Batko

"Where are we going and why am I in this basket?"

Chuck Bogardus
06-27-2008, 12:14 PM
I'd vote for O'bama. If he would give me absolution for what my great, great, great grandaddy might or might not have done to some black people.

Well, I had families on both sides... Do I get consideration for the family members who fought and died for the North?

http://www.bogardus.com/resources/civil_war.htm

http://www.bogardus.com/resources/lt_colonel_c_bogardus.htm

As it is, we have a finite pool of votes (at least in most places... Chicago, St. Louis, and some other cities have been known to register zombies...).

Say you're in an area with 100 voters. And if they're split

49 Obama
49 McCain
2 Fringe and Barking Moonbat Territory

the Democrats want people who would ordinarily vote to stay home...

49 Obama
48 McCain
2 Fringe and Barking Moonbat Territory
1 Lazy Bum who will bitch endlessly about the results of an election he didn't vote in

The focus of their media campaign (and this campaign has been multiplatform - not just the evening news, but also internet blogs, forums, etc.) for the past seven and a half years is that "Republicans are Bad." Their goal isn't to get you to vote for them. Obama-Girl is just a by-product of white guilt and rock-star politics. Their goal is to get you to vote for "anyone but a republican" or to just stay home. That's -all- they need.

pendennis
06-27-2008, 03:52 PM
...
What is misunderstood about the ACLU is itís mission!




If what you wrote is true, then why won't they take 2nd Amendment cases?

Here's a clue: As opposed to the other nine of the first Ten Amendments, the 2nd Amendment is the only one the ACLU thinks is not an individual right!

(See minority opinion in Supreme Court, Heller v. Washington, D.C.)

I don't mind anyone taking on unpopular causes, but many times 2nd Amendment cases are as unpopular as they get.

Dennis

HovisKM
06-27-2008, 04:58 PM
The first president of the ACLU did an interview just before his death, in which he stated that the ACLU was a Communist/Socialist organization whose mandated was to use the freedoms of the constitution against itself to destroy it. This interview was shown twice during the 1980's and then was purchased and thrown in a safe. Anyone who supports the ACLU supports the destruction of the constitution of this country....period.

Hovis

Mr. D
06-27-2008, 08:49 PM
The first president of the ACLU did an interview just before his death, in which he stated that the ACLU was a Communist/Socialist organization whose mandated was to use the freedoms of the constitution against itself to destroy it. This interview was shown twice during the 1980's and then was purchased and thrown in a safe. Anyone who supports the ACLU supports the destruction of the constitution of this country....period.

Hovis


You forget that communism did not have the negatives it has now. Many, many good patriotic Americans looked at communism and socialism as an answer during the Robber Baron Period and the Great Depression. Things were not working well with capitalism!!! Looking back now to 1890 you have 20/20 hindsight those people did not. Guess what? Many parts of the best governments in the world including the U.S. have elements of socialism.

JerrySharrett
06-27-2008, 08:55 PM
I certainly don't like the issues the ACLU gets its mainstream media headlines about but the ACLU is no more nor more less Communist than the Democaratic party has been since the Woodrow Wilson era, nor is it more nor less Communist than the Repubilcan Party has become since the NeoCons took over.

As to Bob Barr and the ACLU read the following for starters;
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28960.html

Mr. D
06-27-2008, 09:17 PM
If what you wrote is true, then why won't they take 2nd Amendment cases?

Here's a clue: As opposed to the other nine of the first Ten Amendments, the 2nd Amendment is the only one the ACLU thinks is not an individual right!

(See minority opinion in Supreme Court, Heller v. Washington, D.C.)

I don't mind anyone taking on unpopular causes, but many times 2nd Amendment cases are as unpopular as they get.

Dennis

Do you have any proof of that belief? You may be right as many historians do not believe it was intended to be an individual right based on the writings and culture of the times. For one thing the 2nd Amendment "individual' right was not honored in many of the cities the Founders lived in! The right to bear a firearm in public was not allowed in many cities. Also I believe many historians would tell you that the issue of not allowing the average man to keep and bear a firearm never was even considered as a real possibility in the 1780's. Common sense should tell anyone that.

Having said that, I wish the Founding Fathers had made it completely crystal clear that the 2nd Amendment had nothing to do with protecting the state militias from being disarmed by the Federal Standing Army. I support the right of the private citizen to keep and bear arms 100% and I'm glad that is the interpretation, but I don't think it is clearly supported by the 2nd Amendment or the history and culture of the 1780's. I don't think the Founding Fathers were worried about government taking Dad's deer rifle at all. That would have started another revolution against the Federal government in about 2.5 seconds! They were worried about the Standing Federal Army disbanning state militias and and making it illegal for them to keep and bear arms to protect their states rights against a new and worrisome "Big" Federal Government with it's standing army. That's the first thing the British did was to seize militia armories and take cannons, powder and shot.

Remember now that I said clearly, I support the right of the private citizen to keep and bear arms 100% and I'm glad that is the interpretation.

Paul Fielder
06-27-2008, 09:30 PM
.....for Obama!! I cannot believe I am seeing this here!!

THINK!!

Read the post again by Jackie & Wolf!!

Do you REALLY want Obama?? If that does not bother you then vote for Barr....otherwise you HAVE to vote for JM.

How can such wise people make foolish decisions....think of a presidency under Obama before you pull the Barr lever.

So frustrating to see this support from such smart people.

sad...

pf

Chuck Bogardus
06-27-2008, 10:25 PM
What kind of membership does the ACLU have? Ain't the internet wonderful. The wiki says they have around 500,000 members.

If 20% of the members of the NRA join in a year, and then threaten to quit when dues-time rolls around, the organization will experience a come-to-jeezus moment...

ballistic64
06-28-2008, 12:56 AM
You may be right as many historians do not believe it was intended to be an individual right based on the writings and culture of the times.B][/U]

Im not sure where these "historians" learned thier history.The framers of the Constitution without a doubt believed the right to bear arms (right to defend oneself) along with freedom of speech,religion etc. are inalienable God given rights granted to all free men by God.These Amendments do not grant these rights,they were created to guarantee the State and United States does not impair them.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

This is how The Supreme Court intepreted these Amendments 100 yrs later in the United States vs Cruikshank Case of 1876.

"The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government." -- The Supreme Court of the United States, in U.S. v. Cruikshank

The fact that the vote in the Heller case was so close serves only as proof that we have Supreme Court Justices that are incompetent,tyrannical or just plain hold themselves higher than God.

JerrySharrett
06-28-2008, 08:12 PM
.....for Obama!! I cannot believe I am seeing this here!!

THINK!!

Read the post again by Jackie & Wolf!!



So frustrating to see this support from such smart people.

sad...

pf

To which I would like to quote a not so well known, but non the less great American. A man who has three tattoos, two purple hearts and a union card;

""the average voter either becomes disgusted or decides to vote for whichever candidate seems capable of doing the least amount of harm. This is how aristocracies retain their power.""

-A Time to Fight
US Senator Jim Webb (D-VA)

RStiefel
06-28-2008, 08:26 PM
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Meaning outstanding.

Mr. D
06-28-2008, 09:22 PM
Im not sure where these "historians" learned thier history.The framers of the Constitution without a doubt believed the right to bear arms (right to defend oneself) along with freedom of speech,religion etc. are inalienable God given rights granted to all free men by God.These Amendments do not grant these rights,they were created to guarantee the State and United States does not impair them.

False argument. I've never heard a real historian say that that any rights are granted by any piece of paper! Guaranteed by the government and codified on a piece of paper, yes!

Also, if God granted us all these rights it did men no good until governments started enforcing those rights. Tell a slave in Alabama not to worry "God granted you unalienable Rights! Go tell the plantation owner that and just leave! Sound's churchy good, until you actually think about how silly it is! God granting you freedom means very little when you have chains on you. Frankly, I'd rather have it in law, because allot of good Christians did not agree with you, and still don't! (Yes, I know they're not really Christians, but that doesn't take chains off slaves!


"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

Wonderful words! It's too bad so very few Americans ever believed them! We are still struggling to reach that goal if you understand real history instead of the mythical stories we teach our children about it!



The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."


Here you are obviously just wrong! The rights protected by the constitution restrict the actions of every state in the Union. You sound like those who claimed they could do whatever they wanted with their blacks in their state (of course they used the "N" word) because the Constitution only "restricts the powers of the national government." Thankfully your interpretation of the Constitution ended with the Civil War!

You are using silly interpretations to support your wish to support the right of citizens to own guns! I'm with you 100% on your goal, but your arguments hold no water.

Paul Fielder
06-28-2008, 10:52 PM
To which I would like to quote a not so well known, but non the less great American. A man who has three tattoos, two purple hearts and a union card;

""the average voter either becomes disgusted or decides to vote for whichever candidate seems capable of doing the least amount of harm. This is how aristocracies retain their power.""

-A Time to Fight
US Senator Jim Webb (D-VA)


...and I feel like I'm voting for a liberal is sheeps clothing but no way can I 'throw' my vote away Jerry.

You want the closet Muslim to be out president then vote for a 3rd party candidate to show 'your patriotism' and disgust with the election.

All I am asking is to not use your heart during this election and use your head. Barr has no chance and you know it.....is it your pride??

You are a smart man and am amazed w/ the posts you have had on this site but you will allow obama to be the leader of the greatest nation on the planet due to stubborness.

Vote away....

pf

ballistic64
06-29-2008, 02:39 AM
False argument. I've never heard a real historian say that that any rights are granted by any piece of paper! Guaranteed by the government and codified on a piece of paper, yes!

Also, if God granted us all these rights it did men no good until governments started enforcing those rights. Tell a slave in Alabama not to worry "God granted you unalienable Rights! Go tell the plantation owner that and just leave! Sound's churchy good, until you actually think about how silly it is! God granting you freedom means very little when you have chains on you. Frankly, I'd rather have it in law, because allot of good Christians did not agree with you, and still don't! (Yes, I know they're not really Christians, but that doesn't take chains off slaves!
__________________________________________________ _______________
Actually Mr D,your right,the United States was created as a Republic.A Republic is a representative government ruled by law.A Republic recognizes inalienable rights of its citizens.These rights are given by God,and these are the rights the framers of the Constituion aimed to protect its citizens,by law, from the Government.The slaves of the time your talking of were not citizens of the Union and therefore were not recognized as having these rights,until the 14th Amendment was proposed and ratified.


Wonderful words! It's too bad so very few Americans ever believed them! We are still struggling to reach that goal if you understand real history instead of the mythical stories we teach our children about it!
__________________________________________________ _______________
Actually the words from the Declaration of Independence,hardly a mythical piece of history.




Here you are obviously just wrong! The rights protected by the constitution restrict the actions of every state in the Union. You sound like those who claimed they could do whatever they wanted with their blacks in their state (of course they used the "N" word) because the Constitution only "restricts the powers of the national government." Thankfully your interpretation of the Constitution ended with the Civil War!
__________________________________________________ ______________
Not my interpretation,a quote from a Supreme Court Justice in 1876.Of course the State governments are bound to uphold the Constitution.You seem to have slavery on the mind? The Civil War wasnt fought over states believing they could do whatever they wanted with thier slaves,it was fought over States Rights in that they believed they had the right to succeed from the Union.




You are using silly interpretations to support your wish to support the right of citizens to own guns! I'm with you 100% on your goal, but your arguments hold no water.
__________________________________________________ _______________
These are not silly interpretations,these are the beliefs of the Founders of this Country and the reason the Constitution was formed.Study up on the founding of this Country,you'll learn thier intent was clear.Its been clouded over by politicians and people with special agendas for the past 200+ yrs.
Ask people on the street the difference between a Republic and a Democracy,I'd be willing to bet 99.9% dont know and that same percent believes this Country was founded as a Democracy.The politicians these days certainly believe it.

Mr. D
06-29-2008, 03:09 AM
These are not silly interpretations,these are the beliefs of the Founders of this Country and the reason the Constitution was formed. Study up on the founding of this Country,you'll learn thier intent was clear. Its been clouded over by politicians and people with special agendas for the past 200+ yrs.
Ask people on the street the difference between a Republic and a Democracy, I'd be willing to bet 99.9% dont know and that same percent believes this Country was founded as a Democracy.The politicians these days certainly believe it.

Respectfully, I think you are wrong in your beliefs!

(1.) I taught the constitution for years and at very least you are wrong about everything being so obvious in interpretation. I suggest you have a special agenda in protecting gun rights! Nothing wrong with that, me too, but you still can't have your own facts and history!

(2.) Are you a Libertarian??? The silly nitpicking over the use of the word "democracy" is an old libertarian trick. Today the term "democracy" is not used as meaning a "pure democracy" as in small towns or in ancient Greece as you should know. Tell most educated people, even Sen. John McCain, that we don't live in a democracy and he'll just smile at you and call security! :D

democracy = a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

republic =a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

I do have a reasonable education for a stupid liberal shooter! :D

Vibe
06-29-2008, 07:51 AM
The second amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Here you are obviously just wrong! The rights protected by the constitution restrict the actions of every state in the Union.

He may be wrong, but it's an accuarate quote of the SCOTUS. Which until challenged and corrected has the effect of being quite right.

JerrySharrett
06-29-2008, 08:31 AM
...and I feel like I'm voting for a liberal is sheeps clothing but no way can I 'throw' my vote away Jerry.

You want the closet Muslim.......


Vote away....

pf
Paul, for me it is wrong to try to "save" my vote by voting against what I believe in, i.e. the Neocon sponsored candidate John McCain.

As Jim Webb put it and I have agreed, long before I started following Jim Webb, the socalled Neoconservative Republican Right is still so far left that it should still be considered "left/socialist/Communist".

When Irving Kristal, his son Bill Kristal, Charles krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliot Abrams, et. al. took over purporting to be the "New Right", they just spread Liberal left of the Democrat Party into the Republican Party. Now they have both!

As to Obama being Muslim, there is too much Jewish support for him for that to be a fact. The Jews vetted him long ago or he wouldn't even get air time or press time in the US.

Paul Fielder
06-29-2008, 09:09 AM
It is your vote and you are the one who has to sleep w/ yourself. It's not my place.

I just know Barr has zero chance of winning and so do you I suspect. Common sense would say you need to vote dem or rep so the question for this potus race boils down to which of the two would you rather have in control of the U.S., appointing scotus, etc., correct?? Sounds to me you do not mind obama over jm??

If you can live w/ obama in office, then vote for Barr because logic tells us if he indeed does run, he will pull JM votes for the most part.

Like the other thread...."I do not trust Obama" & my vote is not 'really' for JM because I don't like him either. It is my only option when you look at the facts and I want my vote to count.

We are voting for the lesser of TWO evils....yet you are supporting obama by choosing door #3.

But again, I do not think I am telling you or anyone here what they do not already know......Barr voters will give obama the win. But hey, at least you guys voted in what you believe.

sigh...

pf

ballistic64
06-29-2008, 10:46 AM
[QUOTE=Mr. D;425943]Respectfully, I think you are wrong in your beliefs!

(1.) I taught the constitution for years and at very least you are wrong about everything being so obvious in interpretation. I suggest you have a special agenda in protecting gun rights! Nothing wrong with that, me too, but you still can't have your own facts and history!

Likewise,respectfully,I believe I have my facts and history right.Its why "In God We Trust" is on our currency and why "Tyranny is Disobedience to God" was suggested as our National Slogan.The fact that people have lost the interest to know thier own Country's history is obvious.Every State in the Union was created as a Republic and each has its own Constitution.The United States was created as a Republic and has been on the rise as a Democracy.Im not talking "pure democracy",but a "Representative Democracy".
Having taught the Constitution,you should know that Article 4 Section 4,guarantees every State in the Union to a Republican (read:REPUBLIC) form of government.The Founders knew the difference between a Republic and a Democracy.This is why nowhere in the Constitution you will find Democracy mentioned,not even once.

Does this sound familiar? It should,its whats happening to us and has been for some time.

Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse

Mr. D
06-29-2008, 11:59 AM
Democracies always self-destruct when the non-productive majority realizes that it can vote itself handouts from the productive minority by electing the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury. To maintain their power, these candidates must adopt an ever-increasing tax and spend policy to satisfy the ever-increasing desires of the majority. As taxes increase, incentive to produce decreases, causing many of the once productive to drop out and join the non-productive. When there are no longer enough producers to fund the legitimate functions of government and the socialist programs, the democracy will collapse

What you say can be true of both a "pure democracy" that you refer to as just a "democracy", or a "democratic republic". Poor judgement will sink any ship.

My point is that in today's lexicon, the U.S.A. is spoken of as a "democracy" by everyone but libertarians. You can argue that point, but it won't change it! Residents of Canada and Mexico are also Americans. We are citizens of The United States of America. When I was a kid, Canadians were insulted by us calling ourselves Americans as if they were not. They got over it and you have to get over this being called a democracy!

Good discussion libertarian :D!

JerrySharrett
06-29-2008, 02:22 PM
It is your vote and you are the one who has to sleep w/ yourself. It's not my place.

I just know Barr has zero chance of winning and so do you I suspect.
We are voting for the lesser of TWO evils....yet you are supporting obama by choosing door #3.

But again, I do not think I am telling you or anyone here what they do not already know......Barr voters will give obama the win. But hey, at least you guys voted in what you believe.

sigh...

pf
Paul, your "knowledge" that Barr has zero chance of winning is a popular conclusion by the self proclaimed know-it-alls we see regularly on TV news.

But, think about the Jim Webb election situation since I have quoted him here. He was a military brat, raised in an Air Force household. He got an appointment to the Naval Academy and graduated as an engineer. Went into the Marines as an Officer. Served as a platoon leader and company commander in Viet Nam.

He came back home and later got a law degree. He was a Republican, serving in the Reagan administration for 4 years. There he was Assistant Secretary of Defense then later was appointed as Secretary of the Navy. Being ordered to cut the US Navy strength, in a time when the US Navy was the most significant power, on this planet, he resigned. He resigned because the US needed the nuclear power of the Navy to provide defense for this nation in a time when MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) was the only factor in preventing the start of a WW III.

Now then, as to the "not a chance in hell" proclamation of the know-it-alls. He saw what had happened to the Republican Party power structure after the Neocons took it over, he became a Democrat.

He became a Democrat, not because of love for that party, but as a shot of getting elected to the US Senate from his, then native State of Virginia. George Allen was the Republican candidate for this office. George Allen, having served in the US House of Representatives,and served two terms as a popular Virginia Governor. George Allen who had also been elected to the Virginia Legislature. George Allen, the incumbent US Senator from Virginia. George Allen, son of the famous Washington Redskins coach George Allen.

Senator Webb started his campaign against the incumbent US Senator George Allen just 9 months before the election. He started that ill fated venture with no money, no professional staff, not even a single know-it-all expert. He started it with the help of a one-armed Marine who served with Jim in Vietnam and another Marine who had become a lawyer after serving with him in Viet Nam. And he WON!!

So how can I, or you, or the know-it-alls "know" Bob Barr can not be elected POTUS in 2008???

ballistic64
06-29-2008, 02:25 PM
Im not really interested in the terminology people misuse to describe a Democracy.The Socialist Party itself defines socialism and democracy as one and indivisible.If the world starts calling an apple an orange,it makes no difference,I still know what an apple is,and always will be.It doesnt change the structure of an apple.
And no,Im not a Libertarian,as I believe in government action to control order.A true Libertarian does not.
Its not so hard to understand,if you look back through history and see the Constitutional violations of the government.Either you have a Republic and the Constitution protects its citizens from government abuses or you dont and it becomes another form of government.Its as simple as that,theres no half way.
It does amaze me however that the Libertarian Party was the only political party to file a brief in the Heller case.
__________________________________________________ _______________

Heller ruling a 'preservation of liberty in the United States'
Following the Supreme Court's ruling in the case District of Columbia v. Heller, Libertarian Party spokesperson Andrew Davis called the case a "landmark victory for the preservation of liberty in the United States."

The Libertarian Party was the only political party to file a brief in the case.
__________________________________________________ _______________

What did your party do,socialist?

Paul Fielder
06-29-2008, 03:56 PM
So how can I, or you, or the know-it-alls "know" Bob Barr can not be elected POTUS in 2008???


....I would be willing to place a wager if you are inclined:-)

Just let me "know".

pf

HovisKM
06-30-2008, 04:02 PM
You forget that communism did not have the negatives it has now. Many, many good patriotic Americans looked at communism and socialism as an answer during the Robber Baron Period and the Great Depression. Things were not working well with capitalism!!! Looking back now to 1890 you have 20/20 hindsight those people did not. Guess what? Many parts of the best governments in the world including the U.S. have elements of socialism.

Yes it did. The interview was in 1979 or 1980 I believe. The ACLU is a self admitted socialist/communist organization. When someone tells me, in an interview, they want to destroy the constitution and that they are a communist...well, I have no reason not to believe him/they.

Hovis

Mr. D
06-30-2008, 06:08 PM
Yes it did. The interview was in 1979 or 1980 I believe. The ACLU is a self admitted socialist/communist organization. When someone tells me, in an interview, they want to destroy the constitution and that they are a communist...well, I have no reason not to believe him/they.

Hovis


That's been discredited over and over again! He was for creating a communist/socialist government because he thought it would be better at that time. In earlier U.S. Historical periods such as the depth of the depression things were so bad many good Americans favored communism and socialism until they got to see it fail in Russia. Many Christian denominations believed in slavery too. Does that mean those churches still think it is a great idea today?

ACLU members don't think that today! To say the ACLU is trying to overthrow the government is beyond silly!

davejones
07-01-2008, 04:03 AM
Has the ACLU ever defended a gun rights case?

yes, this one.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/119544.html

The ACLU of Texas has joined with the Texas State Rifle Association and the NRA to fight local prosecutors who are defying a law aimed at protecting law-abiding Texans from being arrested for having guns in their cars.

RStiefel
07-01-2008, 10:53 AM
only one example of ones rights being protected by the ACLU. We have heard so many negative things about them, yet how many of us has actual experience with them?

Mr. D
07-02-2008, 10:25 AM
only one example of ones rights being protected by the ACLU. We have heard so many negative things about them, yet how many of us has actual experience with them?

They represented my ultra, ultra far right anti government, conservative tax attorney against Blue Cross of California because she could not find a lawyer that would take the case. She hated the ACLU, but went to them anyway to protect her civil rights! They won for her, but I bet she still bad mouths them! I have a new tax person!

beemanbeme
07-02-2008, 02:29 PM
Lawyers, cops, soldiers, ACLU, hit men, hookers, ------- (fill in the blank) are bad until you are the one needing them. ;)

Mr. D
07-02-2008, 02:36 PM
Lawyers, cops, soldiers, ACLU, hit men, hookers, ------- (fill in the blank) are bad until you are the one needing them. ;)

Exactly! Behind every rotten lawyer is a pure client trying to accomplish something in court!

HovisKM
07-02-2008, 02:46 PM
I was a soldier for 24+yrs...are you calling me f****** bad?? That type of statement has to be coming from some Liberal. What a crappy way of looking at things. No man is without sin, does that make sin ok then??

Hovis

Mr. D
07-02-2008, 02:49 PM
I was a soldier for 24+yrs...are you calling me f****** bad?? That type of statement has to be coming from some Liberal. What a crappy way of looking at things. No man is without sin, does that make sin ok then??

Hovis

:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:

HovisKM
07-02-2008, 02:53 PM
That's been discredited over and over again! He was for creating a communist/socialist government because he thought it would be better at that time. In earlier U.S. Historical periods such as the depth of the depression things were so bad many good Americans favored communism and socialism until they got to see it fail in Russia. Many Christian denominations believed in slavery too. Does that mean those churches still think it is a great idea today?

ACLU members don't think that today! To say the ACLU is trying to overthrow the government is beyond silly!


Bullsh*t.... I call Bullsh*t. They stand for the same thing today as they did back then, just look their mainstay of cases from then and now. Also, it's crap to say many good americans favored communism, the reason it never got a chance in this country is because we could see through the crap and wouldn't let it happen. I never said the ACLU was going to overthrow the goverment, they are trying to destroy the constitution through the court system. Silly...hell...that's what germans said when they were warned about Hitler. Same old crap, different day from the libs like you pushing this socialism.

Hovis

Mr. D
07-02-2008, 03:04 PM
Hovis,

Maybe you are right, the whole world is out to get you and destroy the U.S except for conservative Americans! Let's drop it! When you disagree, you tend to get disagreeable!

You're right and I'm wrong!

RStiefel
07-02-2008, 03:09 PM
drop it Mr. D. If you are anything other than a Republican, your opinion means nothing here. One party government such as China, Cuba, North Korea.
I think you get my point. What a shame.