It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment

page: 11
52
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:02 AM
link   
JUST ANOTHER OBAMA FLUNKY THAT DOESNT CARE ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION.
they had a clip on fox,where the radical muslim barry,says she is in part the reason he's the "president" today!
ya know,scratch my back,i'll scratch yours????
i'll bet she owes taxes!

and let me say, that as an american white man, that i can make decisions better than a puerto rican woman,because i have lived here all my life, and i dont get my period. period.

this is not a racist statement,but if i had thought about it,i probably would have chosen my words better



[edit on 30-5-2009 by Spectre0o0]




posted on May, 30 2009 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Not Authorized
 




It's like a frog in boiling water much like this nation has sunk lower and lower with each administration, including the current.


I don't really have the time to go into it, but since you mentioned the frog - I thought I should say something on the matter. Many posters here like to use this analogy as a means to convey small gradual changes compounding the others until a critical mass is reached - and it's too late to react.

While I understand the point it's trying to make, the analogy is utterly bogus. I've always known something was wrong with it, but ignored it for the point it was trying to make, but for some reason it's (over) use is really starting to get on my nerves. Not to mention that it makes those who throw it around nonchalantly look utterly ignorant.

Frogs will not stay in gradually heated water until they die, and frogs tossed into boiling water will likely die immediately. Put a frog into cold water, and it will likely jump out. Put a frog in warm water, and it will likely jump out. It's a frog. It's not going to stay in the pot unless you force it to stay there. If, by some chance it does, the frog will jump out before the water becomes too hot for it. There has been actual research done on this to determine it's veracity, and time and time again the studies show that as the temperature gradually increases, the from will try harder and harder to escape the pot and become more active and frenzied in it's jumps.

After all... how the hell does the "folksy old wisdom" account for the adaptation of amphibian behavior to seasonal climate changes? On the inverse, as the temperature decreases slowly with the coming winter - wouldn't a frog simply freeze in the pond rather than hibernate in the ground or shallowly settled in lake mud?

Actually, frogs are highly sensitive to very gradual temperature changes and many biologists consider them to be the "canary in the coal mine" of environmental change/pollution. Depending on the species/environment, have some amazing means of surviving harsh seasons such as winter/dry season. Some cocoon themselves in water-tight dead skin, some form a kind of glucose which prevents water from fully crystallizing (antifreeze), etc. The idea of frogs burrowing in the mud is also a myth it seems.

People just don't seem to know much about frogs...

Anyhow, the boiling myth:

The legend of boiling frogs is just a legend.

Slow Boiled Frog Myth - Snopes

Economics: Fast Company - Putting the boiling frog myth to the test.



"There are certain cases where gradual change is almost preferred," Hofman commented. "The change myth assumes a very narrow view of people. If frogs can do it, people definitely can."


The analogy couldn't be more contrary to reality.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
................
Search Article II of the Constitution... there's nothing about Term Limits. You won't find anything either until the 22nd Amendment enacted in 1951. That amendment actually strips some freedoms by prohibiting Americans from voting for a president they may want to a third term.

Yet... somehow, because the same suit monkey proposed it to a new congress, it's somehow "Obama's plan to bring NWO tyranny to America".

Pffft.


What in the world are you talking about? What does the term limits for president of the United States have anything to do about this thread?...

If you are going to join a discussion, perhaps it is wise if you wait to get sober instead of "griping" nonsense.

This woman was appointed by Obama, not by some other person. Every Obama nominee has been found to be corrupt to the point that several have been found who are not even paying taxes, and every one of them is an advocate to ultimately ban weapons, and the Second Amendment.

We are talking in this thread about the Second Amendment, and this latest nominee of Obama blatantly claiming that states do not need to obey the Second Amendment, which in itself is an act of treason as government officials make an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States, which includes the Bill of Rights.

As for your claim that the Obama administration is not implementing a tyranny. I wonder how you interpret the claim of Hillary Clinton that "no Human Right is more important than the economic crisis, or any other crisis", which was clearly made to happen. What about the statement from Emmanuel Rham that "they can't allow this GOOD CRISIS" go by, and they can do things now that before wouldn't be possible". Obviously he stated that they plan on making changes which would have never been made if we were not in the economic crisis.

Not to mention that already we have H.R. 1388, which President Obama agreed and signed into law, in which the present administration gives the power over the education of America's children to something they call The Corporation, and this Corporation can indoctrinate our youth, as well as teachers/professors in whatever it sees fit. Not to mention the fact that American children and college students as well as every other American will have to soon do MANDATORY community service, which is nothing more than SLAVERY because Americans won't be able to make a choice whether they want to participate in such programs.

And you are naive enough to try to dismiss all of this?....



[edit on 30-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say the Government has to kiss your butt. It's only there to protect your rights and liberties, which isn't to say all of your rights and liberties. It's a balancing act in which some citizens must forfeit certain rights and liberties in order to preserve the broadest spectrum of rights and liberties for all...


So, according to you some Americans must forfeit their rights and liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution, and Bill of Rights because you say so?... and "for the good of the many"?... I have heard that before.

Another dictatorial system tried to indoctrinate me with that same mentallity of yours, and it destroyed the country, as well as put children in hard labour camps starting from 11-12 years old... and of course the oposition was silenced by taking away the jobs of those who would dare speak against the dictatorial regime, since ALL infraestructure was/is NATIONALIZED and was/is owned by the STATE.

If people who oposed/opose the dictatorial regime continue speaking against it they would find themselves incarcerated, or worse, murdered. That's the sort of system you are talking about and which those in power are taking us towards to...

What you just described is called Communism, so we know where you stand now...




[edit on 30-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 06:51 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


I don't have more than a few moments to waste your drivel, but to address one or two points.



What in the world are you talking about? What does the term limits for president of the United States have anything to do about this thread?...


I'm attempting to make a point on the futility of connecting superfluous and ill-researched material in an attempt demonize an institution or administration to suit your personal perceptions or opinions. I realize that's a bit of a lost cause on a conspiracy website, but hopefully someone will understand.

... and I made that point by use of a recent example.



and this latest nominee of Obama blatantly claiming that states do not need to obey the Second Amendment


The constitution, as pointed out earlier in this thread, is confusing on this point on many levels. Ultimately, what she appears to be endorsing will be granting more power to the states. Why are people on ATS complaining about a move that will grant them more liberty, when a major complaint here is surrounding a "nanny state" Federal government?

In either case, the Federal Government's stance on the 2nd Amendment will not change. However, this will prevent the Federal Government from stepping in and halting the ban on firearms - should your STATE decide to repeal that right in it's state constitution.

It's giving YOU more responsibility to be more vocal and active in the political direction of your state. Are you saying now that you're frightened of responsibility for your own freedoms - and want the Federal Government to step in and prevent your fellow citizens from possibly enacting the sort of change they want to see in their State?



which in itself is an act of treason as government officials make an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States, which includes the Bill of Rights.


No, it's not... and name precedence in a court case. The Constitution is designed to malleable and flexible. To change with the society. It's not a rigid document which is immutable. Hence the amendment process. While government representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution, it doesn't stipulate the Constitution of 1788, 1810, 1925, etc. You do realize they don't delete anything out of the Constitution - merely add on to it. The 18th amendment (Prohibition) is still in the Constitution, despite later being repealed by the 21st amendment.



As for your claim that the Obama administration is not implementing a tyranny. I wonder how you interpret the claim of Hillary Clinton that "no Human Right is more important than the economic crisis, or any other crisis", which was clearly made to happen. What about the statement from Emmanuel Rham that "they can't allow this GOOD CRISIS" go by, and they can do things now that before wouldn't be possible". Obviously he stated that they plan on making changes which would have never been made if we were not in the economic crisis.


Do you actually have context for any of these, or are you just quote mining?



Not to mention that already we have H.R. 1388, which President Obama agreed and signed into law, in which the present administration gives the power over the education of America's children to something they call The Corporation, and this Corporation can indoctrinate our youth, as well as teachers/professors in whatever it sees fit.


Funny, I haven't heard anything from the National Science Foundation - or from any scientists/teacher/university which would speak out against it. Funny how President Bush can publicly endorse his support for the Creationist lobby and "teach the controversy" BS with a mountainous uproar from educators and scientists - yet Obama is supposedly undermining the entire educational process in one fell swoop of his pen and nobody in the scientific/educational community seem to care? Seems to be a much bigger issue than merely teaching Creationism was.

I'd ask for reputable links, but I gotta feeling you're just going to send me to some InfoWars-ish site.



Not to mention the fact that American children and college students as well as every other American will have to soon do MANDATORY community service, which is nothing more than SLAVERY because Americans won't be able to make a choice whether they want to participate in such programs.


1. What exactly does the bill/proposition/E.O say on the matter? Please post it here, and then please explain exactly where it says that Americans will be forced into slave labor. I don't think you know what a slave is. Slavery isn't about work. Slavery is the OWNING of another human being as personal property. Slaves are typically owned to do work, but not always.

I have a feeling you're misreading or misunderstanding the issue. I've only heard of a similar measure in regards to high school students/collage students as a means of procuring funding for collage. Though you don't HAVE to do it, if you don't - then certain avenues of federal funding will be closed. If so, this is no different than the rules regarding Selective Service when I had to register. I didn't HAVE to sign up for Selective Service (the draft), but if I didn't, I wouldn't have been offered certain federal collage aid funds nor been eligible for a government job and various benefits.

It's an encouragement, not forced labor.



And you are naive enough to try to dismiss all of this?....


I haven't dismissed any of it, but I'm merely being rational about it. At the time being, I see no real evidence to suggest the scenario you're presenting.



So, according to you some Americans must forfeit their rights and liberties as guaranteed by the Constitution, and Bill of Rights because you say so?


Because I say so? Not at all. You're jumping to rash conclusions on spurious evidence, which is why I suspect that you're supporting such concepts in the first place.

There has never been a society on earth in which it's citizens have been given unlimited freedom, because once a citizen exercises their freedom in an unlimited fashion, they will trample on the freedoms of others. This is where the rule of law comes in; a series of social rules which restrict individual freedoms for the benefit of all. I can't break the windows in your car without penalty because there are laws designed to protect your private property. In such a case, my freedom to break windows has been restricted by your right to have a window.

However, a rule of law is worthless without a means of enforcement - as well as a mechanism for creating those laws. This is where government steps in. Even the Founding Fathers realized this: as seen below taken from the Federalist Papers, Article No. 2:


Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.


Or, from perhaps the most revolutionary of the revolutionaries - Thomas Paine.


Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.


... from his pamphlet Common Sense.



That's the sort of system you are talking about and which those in power are taking us towards to...


No, that's merely what you're projecting.



What you just described is called Communism, so we know where you stand now...


Nothing "I" described was anything close to Communism. Nor do you apparently know where I stand, merely where your straw man stands. You are arguing against a phantasm of your imagination. Nothing more it seems, but I am here to respond if you wish to speak to ME.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:15 AM
link   
Funny.... shes not even really American... yes by territory... by lets face it Puerto Rico is nothing like the U.S... I wonder if she was borne in P.R and if thats the case can someone born in a territory be in the U.S Supreme court???????



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Sotomayor is of Puerto Rican descent, and was born in the Bronx. Her father died when she was nine, and she was raised by her mother. Sotomayor graduated with an A.B., summa cum laude, from Princeton University in 1976, and received her J.D. from Yale Law School in 1979, where she was an editor at the Yale Law Journal. She worked as an Assistant District Attorney in New York for a time before entering private practice in 1984. Sotomayor was nominated to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York by President George H. W. Bush in 1991


Do people need any more reasons to know that there really is no two party system here????????? its a 1 party system making beleive its a 2 party so it hlds control.... SICK OF IT



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Lasheic
 


That's what I thought. Since you don't know me or where I live...your dead..and broke. Sorry.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Jessicamsa
 

After giving this some more thought, I've changed my opinion. Allowing states to control guns at the state level is the same as states declaring that it's citizens no longer enjoy the right of free speech or are guilty until proven innocent.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 12:44 PM
link   
This is a joke.

The constitution is the supreme law of the land...the rules should be followed as it says, not ripped apart from State to State.

The constitution is also a living document, which means it CAN change, but this is not how to go through with it, and on top of it all, the second amendment doesn't need any changing. There are already regulations on guns, enough to stop most criminals from buying it (thats why we have a black market).



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
the fact that the foundations of the Republic are based on Christian principles.


...that is NOT fact... it is fundamentalist xtian propaganda...


Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...(4) you can claim any religious persuasion (or lack thereof) that you wish but, fact is, you jumped on my jest about the word "commandment" like a starving duck on a junebug and that strongly conveys (whispering) an agenda, lol...



Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
It doesn't convey any "agenda", it conveys the "truth".


...it conveys the truth about your agenda...


...earlier today, i read one of your responses to someone else and you were very insulting, although they posted an intelligent and well thought out post... you asked what that person's opinion had to do with the thread you started... however, in all of your replies to me you have not once addressed my posted view on the topic of "your" thread but, instead, chose to go off topic and question my jest of the word commandment... are you often hypocritical or are you just having a bad week?...

[edit on 5/30/09 by Wyn Hawks]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Just move to Kennesaw, Georgia as at least they seem to have had faith in the Constitution - for decades

"Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia --- Crime Rate Plummets"

www.freerepublic.com...



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by contemplator
That is a crying shame. I was looking forward to taking my country back. I felt my 44 Magnum would have fared well against EMP's, Microwave Beams, Sonic Beams, predator drones with sidewinder missiles, nuclear subs, tactical nukes, f22 raptors, m1 tanks, stealth bombers, gatlin guns, bio weapons, white phosphorous, poisoned water supply, no food, apache helicopters and more. How can I possibly reclaim my country without my 44mag!?


Yes the government has more weapons, but things like microwave beams, and sonic beams take hours to get ready for use....

BTW, what exactly are you trying to imply here appart from the government having more power? You rather give away your weapons just because the government is better armed?...



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Granfalloon

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
Why is it that people get mad when states get their rights taken away and replaced by federal control with it comes to the amendments about most things, but when it comes to gun control, it's not okay for the states to decide?

I mean, I don't think she's right about this. I'm just making a general observation. Don't most people (not me) want MORE state control and less federal control?


The states already have control. I know this because I live in Chicago; this stinking socialist state already prohibits handgun ownership and places all sorts of silly restrictions on my rifle as well (no adjustable stock, no heat-shielding handguard, no bayonet lug, etc).



Notice those are all restrictions that address the tactical capacity of the weapon? They all limit in some way the tactical applications one would find useful in a combat situation.



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

The guns rights movement has crossed into sillyness...at least on ATS...and I own guns.

So by your definition of "infringe" or "restrict" the developmentally disabled should be able to own guns? Children? Convicted criminals? Those folks with Psychological disorders?

For that matter...."bare arms" does that include rocket luanchers?

Sillyness.................


For crying aloud, stop the silliness please....

If you are talking about "mentally disabled" those people should be in an institution, and not roaming free in the streets if they have a tendency towards violence, because in case you didn't know they could use a knife, or set fires, or some such other thing and more people would be killed than if a gun was used...

As for the disabled in general, now you are stereotyping a whole group of people with different dissabilities because you are too ignorant to know that there are many forms of disabilities, and yes disabled people are just NORMAL PEOPLE...they just have some form of disability which could be not having the use of their legs, or one arm, etc....

Are you claiming that because an American doesn't have the use of an arm, or his/her legs, that American has no right to self defense, and to have firearms?....

As for children....can children go to a store and buy a knife?........

Are there no knives, or alcohol in a home where there are children? or do the parents have to be RESPONSIBLE and teach their children not to play with certain things, and make sure those items, INCLUDING GUNS, are in a place where their children can't take them.....

Don't go around dismissing, and downplaying the "gun right movement", and calling them "silly" when you make such "silly comments".....



[edit on 30-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic
There is no mention of god or gods in the Constitution. Even if the Declaration of Independence or Mayflower Compact may have included mention of a god or even specifically the Christian religion -


Really?... This shows how well you know these documents you are discussing...



IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Natures God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

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.

www.ushistory.org...

The above is part of the declaration of Independence, which obviously you haven't read.

That document IS PART OF THE FOUNDATION OF THIS REPUBLIC, nomatter how much you try to claim the contrary...

The rest of your post is nothing more than silliness yapping from you once more....

BTW, please don't try to again to twist the truth, many others like you have tried to claim the same thing, that there is no mention of any God in these documents, yet this only shows your ignorance of these documents...

I would be ashamed if you are an American more so as to trying to dismiss, like you just did the Declaration of Independence.



[edit on 30-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 30 2009 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lasheic

I don't have more than a few moments to waste your drivel, but to address one or two points.


The only drivel is coming from your drunken mind.


Originally posted by Lasheic
I'm attempting to make a point on the futility of connecting superfluous and ill-researched material in an attempt demonize an institution or administration to suit your personal perceptions or opinions. I realize that's a bit of a lost cause on a conspiracy website, but hopefully someone will understand.

... and I made that point by use of a recent example.


Oh boy, the ony one who hasn't done any research is obviously you, so quit yapping nonsense, and if you want to discuss this you better inform yourself instead of filling the thread with garbage.


Originally posted by Lasheic
The constitution, as pointed out earlier in this thread, is confusing on this point on many levels. Ultimately, what she appears to be endorsing will be granting more power to the states. Why are people on ATS complaining about a move that will grant them more liberty, when a major complaint here is surrounding a "nanny state" Federal government?


....We are talking about the total disregard Sotomayor has for the Second Amendment.... BTW, the STATES DO HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THIS REPUBLIC.....


Originally posted by Lasheic
It's giving YOU more responsibility to be more vocal and active in the political direction of your state. Are you saying now that you're frightened of responsibility for your own freedoms - and want the Federal Government to step in and prevent your fellow citizens from possibly enacting the sort of change they want to see in their State?


BS, her statement clearly says she has no respect for the Second Amendment, and that's what we are discussing, stop trying to derail the thread...


Originally posted by Lasheic
No, it's not... and name precedence in a court case. The Constitution is designed to malleable and flexible. To change with the society. It's not a rigid document which is immutable. Hence the amendment process. While government representatives are sworn to uphold the Constitution, it doesn't stipulate the Constitution of 1788, 1810, 1925, etc. You do realize they don't delete anything out of the Constitution - merely add on to it. The 18th amendment (Prohibition) is still in the Constitution, despite later being repealed by the 21st amendment.


The Constitution is malleable if the new amendments implemented are for the benefit of Americans, it is not malleable so people like you and politicians can rewrite the Constitution, and take away the rights guaranteed to all Americans... Nice try again to twist the truth, you are sounding more and more like another politician who has no knowledge whatsoever of the documents he/she took an oath to uphold and defend....


Originally posted by Lasheic
Do you actually have context for any of these, or are you just quote mining?


Humm, wonder where Lasheic has been for the past several months...


BEIJING, China (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton broached the issue of human rights with Chinese leaders Saturday, but emphasized that the world economic and other crises are more pressing and immediate priorities.
"Human rights cannot interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis and the security crises," Clinton said in talks with China's foreign minister.

www.cnn.com...

Emmanuel Rahm statements.
www.youtube.com...



Originally posted by Lasheic
Funny, I haven't heard anything from the National Science Foundation -
...........................
I'd ask for reputable links, but I gotta feeling you're just going to send me to some InfoWars-ish site.


Wow the sarcasm of someone who apparently has been living under a rock for the past several months....

This has been discussed for months on the forums, and links have been given directly to the bill.

The bill was called "H.R. 1388 Generations Invigorating Volunteerism and Education Act, now it's name has been changed to "The Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, an Act to reauthorize and reform the national service laws."

We have several threads about this bill.

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Inform yourself and read those threads in their entirety before you make more asinine comments.


Originally posted by Lasheic
1. What exactly does the bill/proposition/E.O say on the matter? Please post it here, and then please explain exactly where it says that Americans will be forced into slave labor. I don't think you know what a slave is. Slavery isn't about work. Slavery is the OWNING of another human being as personal property. Slaves are typically owned to do work, but not always.


There are many forms of slavery MANDATORY community service is a form of slavery because you ahve no choice..

BTW, i know what slavery is better than you. I grew up watching how a Communist regime would drag away my two older sisters as they would cry to my parents to not let the government workers take them away to work on summer hard labor camps. The dictatorial Communist regime would send school buses to pick up all children starting from 11-12 years old and up to these hard labor work camps, and my sisters always returned very thin, with lice, and intestinal problems every time they came back from the work camps.

If my parents tried to stop this the STATE would take my sisters away because "my parents would keep them from becoming good Communists". So don't go telling me I don't know what slavery is. This is a form of slavery when you are FORCED to do things you don't want to do....

BTW, the programs being implemented in the U.S. are similar because children starting from secondary, and now a new bill is being introduced to start much earlier with children from primary school being forced to do Community Service in summer. Parents should be the ones deciding what they children should be doing in summer, and not the STATE... Even one hour of MANDATORY Community Service, is one hour of forced labor. the starting program is for children starting from secondary, or even primary, to do 50 hours of MANDATORY Community Service, and don't you give me any asinine speeched about how good Community Service is...MANDATORY Community Service means you have no choice whatsoever, which is forced labor for everyone, and Emmanuel Rahm himself has stated that there will be similar programs for all other Americans, because the present administration wants for all Americans to do some sort of MANDATORY Community Service...



Originally posted by Lasheic
I have a feeling you're misreading or misunderstanding the issue.
....................
It's an encouragement, not forced labor.


BS, it is not encouragement when it is REQUIRED/MANDATORY.... The only one not understanding this is you, and the other brainwashed Obama fans.


[edit on 30-5-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:18 AM
link   
Oh, and lets not forget HIllarys's own comment about the economic crisis..


US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton today told an audience "never waste a good crisis", as she highlighted the opportunity of rebuilding economies in a greener, less energy intensive model.

www.independent.co.uk...

Apparenlty Hillary doesn't know that "crisis' are not "good", in fact the definition of crisis is the oposite of "good", unless you ahve plans to take advantage of it by doing things that, as Emmanuel Rahm ahs stated "we could have never done before".

The disregard, and contempt by the administration to realize that millions of people have lost their homes, and tens of thousands if not millions have already lost their job during, is just appalling, more so when they describe the economic crisis as "a good crisis"...



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
...but this still does not change the fact that the foundations of the Republic are based on Christian principles.


Umm.... No? Old propaganda, and disproven by anyone with a High School History education, my friend.

Most of the founding fathers were deists (I'll describe it if you like), and for every document you can produce to seemlingly proves your claim, there are dozens others showing how little the founding fathers wanted religion as part of this republic. Christianity was not the dominant driver.

Deists, not Christians (even a few Atheists if I recall).

And if by Christian principles, you mean the whole "Don't lie, cheat, steal, etc" deal, welp, those aren't exclusively Christian principles. They're sort of "the right thing to do" principles."


AND BTW...

Is anyone going to argue the point made previously about the 2nd and 14th amendments and the concept of Selective Incorporation, or is this just an whiny emotional complain thread? about "I want my guns! I want my guns!"



posted on May, 31 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
We are talking in this thread about the Second Amendment, and this latest nominee of Obama blatantly claiming that states do not need to obey the Second Amendment, which in itself is an act of treason as government officials make an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of these United States, which includes the Bill of Rights.


Treason? You're reaching. Goes back to my previous point. Just because someone doesn't agree with your point does not make it a crime, Electric. It's the same argument bible freaks use. Your argument is too emotional, and even a bit radical.

Like it or not, right or wrong, her interpretation on this point has merit, and when there's merit, the person's agenda is irrelevant.




top topics



 
52
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join