Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

{Gun Control} Obama: "Why Are You Afraid Of The Govt. That You Elected?"

page: 2
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 

Not to you, ModernAcademia. But to 0bama
edit on 5-4-2013 by macman because: (no reason given)




posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RalagaNarHallas
www.realclearpolitics.com...
www.gallup.com...
maybe he has not seen the approval rating for our representatives and him self lately.....ill give him this his approval rating is a lot higher then congress but thats not saying much with all the idiots we have in office


Regardless of what the media states, congressional approval ratings and presidential approval ratings are entirely different animals. Voters tend to feel more of a connection with and are more in tuned with individuals they, themselves, have direct voting power over... even if that politician is not one they actually voted for. These are nationwide satisfaction surveys, but only the POTUS is elected in a nationwide vote. It would be far more interesting (and likely far, far different a story) if they polled individual congressional districts only about their own elected representative. Obviously, if I was polled about Congress as a body, I'd be far from satisfied (yet I am still slightly more satisfied with the job they've done than I am with Obama... but I am a self identified "fringe" far right idealist.) However, if I was polled with the same nature of question as is asked about Obama, ie: "Are you satisifed with the job Don Young is doing in Congress?" my response would be far more favorable. Similarly, I suspect most (not all) voting districts are more evenly split 50-50 on whether they are happy with their "representative" or unhappy with him/her.

The reality is, had GWB not set the new low standard for approval ratings in his fianl year in office, Obama's bottom feeding would be much bigger news.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 03:48 PM
link   
edit on 5-4-2013 by neo96 because: nevermind did read that wrong



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by ModernAcademia
It's 19:00 in
He says why are the people so afraid when they elected me.



Is he joking?
He is constrained he says? Constrained by the rules of the founding fathers???
Mr. Executive orders is really saying that?

He runs his administration with this thought in mind - "They elected me, so I can do as I want and see fit." It's clear he has no other guidelines - not the Constitution nor the rule of law. He does what he wants and if no one complains, he goes further. If they do challenge his actions, he fights them with lawyers.

To be honest, I think much of what comes from his office is not his doing. I believe it's Valerie Jarrett and she's probably taking marching orders from some other entity higher on the food chain than even her. Obama is not smart enough and is too lazy to ever think about this stuff on his own. JMO of course
edit on 5-4-2013 by Bilk22 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 05:39 PM
link   
Someone seems to have skipped taking the bus to the "Transparency in government" class.

Voting Democrat is a different animal than voting for a Democratic Socialist - but since there is no Socialist Democrat party I can see the misunderstanding or non-transparency.

It would seem to me that the National Democrat Party should consider renaming their party. They could then takes lessons from a Russian Emperor on how to stay at the top.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Its not hard to understand, is it? He's trying to punish everyone for the actions of a few idiots, and the ones most likely to lose out are also the ones who didn't vote for him, and he thinks they are going to like him for that? He's even dumber than I thought. The only time the man acknowledges the other half of the country that didn't vote for him is when he's insulting them or trying to bend them over. What does he expect?



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 06:19 AM
link   
What's funny to me is you all have this image of Obama akin to a supervillain skulking in some hollowed out volcano lair, petting a white cat while plotting your personal destruction.

All presidents are temps. They really don't have much power. The ones with the real power are the Senators and Representatives in Congress.

These are the people who really are screwing this country over, not this temp.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 07:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
All presidents are temps. They really don't have much power. The ones with the real power are the Senators and Representatives in Congress.

These are the people who really are screwing this country over, not this temp.


That is supposed to be true, but it's not
He circumvents congress all the time



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 07:40 AM
link   
TPTB set up the last election for Obama to win it. They intentionally got a rich guy that looks like a greasy used car salesman and knew folks would choose the lesser of two evils. Notice how a decent guy like Ron Paul was totally shunned and not mentioned at all by the pretty people on TV.

They did the same thing setting up Bush in 2004. Your choices were either Bush, or a guy that had all the charisma of a saltine cracker. Not to mention at the time the general public was afraid that the terrorists were going to swim over here and make 9/11 happen every day and Bush was going to protect us all from it happening.

Voting in this country is a total illusion of the people having control of their leaders.
edit on 6-4-2013 by Cancerwarrior because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 



That is supposed to be true, but it's not
He circumvents congress all the time


The most he does is use his power for recess appointments so that he can actually have a cabinet. If he didn't Congress would force him to do everything by himself with no staff whatsoever.

I think they came up with a great idea recently about gun control. People who insist on owning firearms should have to buy insurance so that we the people don't have to pay out of OUR pockets for gun nuts who decide to gun down a mall or a school or wherever.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by HauntWok
The I think they came up with a great idea recently about gun control. People who insist on owning firearms should have to buy insurance so that we the people don't have to pay out of OUR pockets for gun nuts who decide to gun down a mall or a school or wherever.


"..Shall not be infringed in any way.."......so goes the 2nd amendment.

Guns be free - self made, or purchased by anyone if he cannot make one himself from anywhere.

Mandatory insurance is an infringement, as the costs are controlled by a 2nd party whom can lower it so that even criminals can buy or raise it sky high no citizen can afford.

For the la-la land anti-gun lobby fanatics who have no wish to abide by the sacred Constitution, like Benedict Arnold, can always move to England where gun crimes are low but VIOLENCE is high, afterall, they seem to dislike being treated with violence by guns but is ok with violence by anything and everything else, from bombs to pen-knives.

The President's initiative to fund $100million for brain mapping and research is commendable. When that is completed with EMPERICAL evidences that violence can be traced to parts within our mind, then the removal of the 2nd amendment can be considered, as it will no longer be needed by anyone, as mandatory physical health examinations at childbirth, high school and leaving school would be able to detect mind anamolies and be treated before it comes to harm, to themselves and others.

But in the meantime, the 2nd amendment stays. Guns are a deterrant to crime and violence. The mere ownership title to a gun would deter the criminal from carrying out their deed, except the insane who would try.

But with the banning of guns, it would be open season to anyone with illegal guns, including tyrants, to make humans kneel.

The 2nd amendment is not meant for hobbies. It was meant for a crucial need, for our forefathers understood the nature of humanity and placed that amendment to ensure ALL, even la-la land anti-gun fanatics have protection against crime and tyranny in a huge landmass America is.
edit on 6-4-2013 by SeekerofTruth101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


It doesn't infringe on your second amendment rights to bear arms. Just like it doesn't infringe on your right to own a car to have insurance on it. Of course I do love it when gun nuts conveniently forget the first part of the 2nd Amendment even though it's only a single sentence long. (you know, the well regulated part.)

Why should the rest of the taxpaying public have to pay for the messes gun owners create? When one of you snaps and decides to blow away a school or a movie theatre or a college campus, why should I have to pay to keep you behind bars or execute you. It should be up to your fellow "Law Abiding Gun Owners"
to pay for your jail time. and compensate the victims of gun violence because of "Law Abiding Gun Owners"


And since most gun nuts are only concerned with wanting to blow away their fellow countrymen anyway at any opportunity they can, I really don't see why this shouldn't be enacted.
edit on 6-4-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 11:55 AM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 

Please, before you spout off with uninformed BS, go look and please post the meaning of "infringe".
I will wait.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:03 PM
link   
reply to post by macman
 



Please, before you spout off with uninformed BS, go look and please post the meaning of "infringe".
I will wait.


Sure, but do me a favor and look up "WELL REGULATED"

Infringe:

1. to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another

Now, having to buy insurance doesn't encroach upon your rights as you are still allowed to own any sort of hand cannon you want. Own an arsenal. The rest of us just think that if you are going to have a stockpile of military grade weapons, you might also want to insure yourself so that in the eventuality you go postal or decide to arbitrarily mow down your fellow countrymen WE don't have to pay to clean up YOUR mess.
edit on 6-4-2013 by HauntWok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:12 PM
link   


It doesn't infringe on your second amendment rights to bear arms. Just like it doesn't infringe on your right to own a car to have insurance on it. Of course I do love it when gun nuts conveniently forget the first part of the 2nd Amendment even though it's only a single sentence long. (you know, the well regulated part.)
reply to post by HauntWok
 


Actually yea it infringes and what does car insurance have to do with it? No where does it say you have a right to own and/or drive a car. Not that needing a license and insurance stops people from driving illegally. If your going to quote the 2nd amendment then recognize the scotus ruled that the well regulated militia has nothing to do with gov't of any kind, it's all we the people.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   
IT IS TIME TO WATER THE TREE OF LIBERTY WITH THE BLOOD OF TYRANTS.

SHERIFFS CAN ORGANIZE A MILITIA IN EVERY COUNTY. WE NEED ORGANIZATION TO RESTORE THE REPUBLIC. ACTING ALONE WILL ONLY CREATE CHAOS, ALLOWING THE ZIONIST CRIMINALS TO DESTROY AMERICA.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


Exactly, the Militia is made up of WE the People, and the states have the right to keep that militia well regulated. Regulations aren't infringements. You are still able to buy firearms. So it's not an infringement.



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ModernAcademia
 


He fails to understand, that we don't need the false protection for citizens, that every police dept.in the land provides. We don't need big ass govt. protecting us from our own weapons, that we have every right to own and protect ourselves with. Gun violence, simply does not equate, to having any effect on our right, to have any firearm we choose. We as a people accept the collateral damage, that comes with those rights.

End of the GD story Period.

edit on 6-4-2013 by randyvs because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by hangedman13
 


Yea and neither will not having insurance stop "Law Abiding Gun Owners"
from massacring a shopping mall full of people. Having to have insurance isn't going to stop you from collecting more guns than David Koresh, It's not going to stop you from random fertilizer purchases and it's not going to stop you from exercising "those second Amendment remedies"



posted on Apr, 6 2013 @ 12:56 PM
link   
I don't fear little princes. We lions eat them when not properly caged.

We do not fear you sir. We are watching and waiting. Undeserving leaders have fallen under our foot many times.

We are the Goths, the Huns, the Vandals and even the conquistadors. We are the barbarian hoards at your city gates. We are the angered plebe. We are the miners in revolt. We are the world you rule.

It is not that you are on top of us, it is that we are every where surrounding you. We are not stuck with you and your kind. You are stuck on this planet with us.

Pain, death, fear, none of it will deter us. It motivates and justifies us. A true leader makes his enemies fear him and his people respect him.....dear fragile little prince....
edit on 6-4-2013 by tadaman because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
24
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join