Once and for all: Why you should vote for Obama

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by WhatTheory

 

Hmm
i am curious

and this is a real question, so please dont flame

I remember (and its been a long time) hearing something about Washginton DC has a different set of "laws" or something like that when the constitution is brougth up?

Basically - they're not a state, so different things can happen in DC

?

No, there is nothing special about DC regarding the Constitution.
I think what you are refering to is their voting rights and representation.
Here is a link that explains it:

Link about DC voting rights

reply to post by deadbang


Now you are - once again - omitting things to fit your agenda


I said a "well regulated militia" is not some yokel and 20 of his hill billy friends starting a group and calling it a militia


Do try and be fair about these things, wont you?

Deleting my entire passage so that it looks like i said something other than i really did does seem to be a favorite past time of certain people on these boards


however, i did nto say what you claim i did

and you can scroll back up and see for yourself




and oh yeah: im an elitist

i make less than 70k a year. How does that make me elite

[edit on 7/7/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

No. Terrorist are men. They forefit ALL of their rights when they decide to blow up little kids.

reply to post by WhatTheory


from that link you provided, whatheory, it says

Congress has the final say on DC's budget and laws.

It says congress decides, not the constitution?

By denying DC residents representation in Congress, are they not denying them the right to be equal?

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin


I didnt omit portions to make my point, you said hilbilly and yokels not me...and an elitist has nothing to do with income its a mindset..

oh, and don't be a condescending ass Andrew...pathetic.

reply to post by -Reason-


Yeah, and Charles Manson raped and murdered little boys

Does he not have a constitutional right, as laid forth by the constitution?

My goodness... you are stretching aren't you? Are you just trying to justify Obama's sympathies for the terrorist?

reply to post by -Reason-


No.

I am trying to uphold what the constitution stands for

The founding fathers wrote "all men are created equal"



and even though they really didnt mean it
I DO

ALL men are created equal

You attach emotion to it by calling them terrorists


yep. They are terrorists

and the moment we deny them what we stand for, we become no better than they are.

I am stretching it thin?



[edit on 7/7/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 7/7/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


I.) Against domestic drilling. While im not AGAINST domestic drilling, i do agree with Obama. It will not lower gas prices. George hershel walker Bush imposed the current moratorium on Domestic Drilling....were you aware?

So let's get this straight. Long-time oil man George H.W. Bush imposed ban on offshore drilling. For whose benefit did he do this? Do you really think he was an environmentalist? Of course he wasn't. But this kept the price of oil high.

And so now Obama wants to carry on in Bush's footsteps and it doesn't raise a red flag?

J.) touchy subject. I agree. However; were the founding fathers saying in "all men are created equal" that this only applies to US territories?

Are "terrorists" not men as well?

I'm pretty sure that the "all men are created equal" line isn't in the Constitution, but instead it's in the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was written to counter the idea that the King of England somehow had divine powers. Thus, that line was to highlight the opposing view that King wasn't special at all, i.e., that he was a man like everybody else.

Now when it comes to fighting a war, nobody except modern day liberals, including Obama, have ever suggested that opponents on the battlefield be given Constitutional rights. In fact, Obama's own stated objective to capture OBL belies his position that OBL would be granted Constitutional rights. I will guarantee that if special forces surround OBL nobody is going to be reading him his rights.

The SF guys will read him his rights, with 671 grains of diplomacy. All the rights he deserves.

reply to post by -Reason-


Well, unfortuantely, the constitution disagrees with you.

yes. the declaration of independence is different from the constituation


....were they not written by the same group of people?

If one means one thing
and the other means another thing

and they contradict one another (as jamie suggests)

....then should we really take either one seriously?


Personally, i think all (wo)men deserve the rights we cherish as Americans. to deny them that, no matter how horrible the crime, is to deny ourselves our morality

When Sadam was captured, he was granted constitutional rights and was put on trial.

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

Originally posted by deadbang

The second amendment is very clear about who the militia is...it's you and I, and as such we are allowed to own and keep guns.

No. im sorry, its not.

It says a militia. I've given definition of a militia. Militia's still exist in today's society, do i really need to provide google results to prove this to you? An individual is not a militia.

[edit on 7/6/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

At the time the Constitution was written, the whole damned nation was a militia. Have you ever heard of the Revolutionary War?

The recipients of the 2nd Amendment are CLEARLY outlined in the 3rd Amendment. Funny how the anti-rights libs always forget that. The 3rd Amendment specifically states that in times of peace, the people have the right to deny quartering to soldiers and members of the government. The point of the guns, as outlined by the 3rd Amendment, is to keep the GOVERNMENT out of the homes of the PEOPLE.

You're wrong. That is why the Originalists voted FOR individual rights as envisioned by the Founding Fathers and the Activists in typical fashion voted AGAINST individual rights as usual.

I don't understand how libs today are AGAINST individual rights. Don't they realize that once we lose our individual rights, we don't get them back? Only a suicidal crackpot would be AGAINST the rights of people. That is the problem with the citizens in this country - they think this is a Democracy. America is NOT and NEVER HAS BEEN a Democracy. We are a REPUBLIC. The word Democracy isn't even mentioned in the Articles of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers were adamantly against a Democracy, or a mobocracy, as they called it, because it incites mob rule and corruption. When the majority realizes they can vote in their own benefits package at the expense of the minority, the system breaks down. The Republic lasts forever. AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS!

Andrew, I'd be impressed if you knew what a Republic was off the top of your head. I can all but guarantee you'll have to Google that definition to reply to me.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by ChocoTaco369]

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369



At the time the Constitution was written, the whole damned nation was a militia. Have you ever heard of the Revolutionary War?

actually....no....they weren't


another definition of a militia (pay special close attention to the #3)

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

source


Physically fit and "eligible by law" certainly doesnt apply to everyone.

A militia is setup to protect those who cannot protect themselves

if you are a person who cannot protect yourself, and you are protected by an outside militia, then you do not belong to that militia

since there were lots of people like this during colonial times, your statement is incorrect

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
reply to post by beaverg

 

a WELL regulated militia

that doesnt mean any yokel with 20 hill billy friends can start a militia and condone having automatic weapons

neighborhood watch? Hmm, well i guess if you want to call it that, i would support the use of arms for such a program, as long as it were regulated, and organized

Here is a link to the Neighborhood Watch Program. Their goal is to be well regulated and organized; Safer like that . Actually if those "hill billies" are organized and they can form a 'militia'(*edit*Neighborhood Watch*) to protect their property in cooperation with the local police and have firearms in the process. It may work down here for us 'hill billies' but I'm sure things are different in the big cities.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by beaverg]

reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

Again, you miss the point. You are applying today's definition to a word defined over 200 years ago. In order to understand what the Founding Fathers meant, you have to understand what words meant two centuries ago. You're completely ignorant of originalism, which is why you have no right to break down the Constitution. You, plain and simple, don't understand it.

Once again, refer to the 3rd Amendment as it clearly defines the 2nd Amendment. Again, in order to judge the Constitution, you have to UNDERSTAND it.

[edit on 7-7-2008 by ChocoTaco369]

reply to post by beaverg


The goal is to be well regulated and organized?

Good! You have a goal. If you have not attained that goal, then legally speaking, you have not attained status of militia.

I do not refer to any one group of people as hill billies

i live in Urbana, IL, hardly a big city

i bow hunt, i pheasant hunt, and i go fishing.

Hardly a big city elitist

Ok Andrew, I think that we can all agree you are hopeless on Gun rights. So why not quite before you look even more silly and answer some of the other questions that What Theroy asked about.

3rd Amendment:

No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This clearly outlines that the individual property owner is held in a higher regard than the military. The military is part of the Government, and the rights of the individuals are clearly more important according to the Founding Fathers.

As you know, the military is armed. The point of the 2nd Amendment was to give individual owners of homes the right to own a gun and keep the military (aka Government) out of their home, and if the government tried to force their way in, you were within your rights to stop them with force.

THAT is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment - a supplement to the 3rd Amendment.

Originally posted by ChocoTaco369
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

 

Again, you miss the point. You are applying today's definition to a word defined over 200 years ago. In order to understand what the Founding Fathers meant, you have to understand what words meant two centuries ago. You're completely ignorant of originalism, which is why you have no right to break down the Constitution. You, plain and simple, don't understand it.
[edit on 7-7-2008 by ChocoTaco369]

Oh, im ignorant huh?

Lets refer to some outside material for reference

Seems unbiased to me

maybe we should all (me too) read this

What does 'well regulated' mean

What was a colonial militia




hmm, seems like some things are leaning towards "wiggin is right"

next subject

Barack Obama on Budget & Economy

I agree with a lot of Obama's stances. You can view this Here


anyone care to discuss?