On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
On October 25 2012 05:39 Defacer wrote: And the international community has far more respect for Obama's administration based on the killing of Obama and his response to Gaddafi.
What is wrong with this sentence (other than the fact that it starts with "and")?
That the international community thinks Obama is either a fool or just incompetent?
Do Americans actually, you know ... talk to people outside their country? Or read international news?
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
On October 25 2012 05:39 Defacer wrote: And the international community has far more respect for Obama's administration based on the killing of Obama and his response to Gaddafi.
What is wrong with this sentence (other than the fact that it starts with "and")?
That the international community thinks Obama is either a fool or just incompetent?
Do Americans actually, you know ... talk to people outside their country? Or read international news?
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
I don't think you understand what the Supreme Court's role in all this is >.>
Edit: Wtf does a google search show? Seriously. What a fuckin' joke.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
I don't think you understand what the Supreme Court's role in all this is >.>
On October 25 2012 05:39 Defacer wrote: And the international community has far more respect for Obama's administration based on the killing of Obama and his response to Gaddafi.
What is wrong with this sentence (other than the fact that it starts with "and")?
That the international community thinks Obama is either a fool or just incompetent?
Do Americans actually, you know ... talk to people outside their country? Or read international news?
You guys actually thought that America was just going to take you on as our pedagogues? That's funny. That's really, really, funny.
Almost as funny as pointing out negative international reaction to a foreign policy debate as endemic. Have you ever seen, say, a European foreign policy debate?
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
I don't think you understand what the Supreme Court's role in all this is >.>
To interpret the Constitution.
To make sure laws are constitutional. You seem to have this crazy mania filled vision of the future that anyone who looks at the facts knows just won't happen. You're, again, what's wrong with my party.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
On October 25 2012 05:39 Defacer wrote: And the international community has far more respect for Obama's administration based on the killing of Obama and his response to Gaddafi.
What is wrong with this sentence (other than the fact that it starts with "and")?
You can start sentences with an and and still have it gramaticaly correct.
Idk why people keep feeding off of swazi like this. Its pretty obvious that this is the only thread that he ever posts in and hes just saying stuff to get a reaction out of all the liberals that think conservatives actually act like him.
On October 25 2012 05:39 Defacer wrote: And the international community has far more respect for Obama's administration based on the killing of Obama and his response to Gaddafi.
What is wrong with this sentence (other than the fact that it starts with "and")?
That the international community thinks Obama is either a fool or just incompetent?
Do Americans actually, you know ... talk to people outside their country? Or read international news?
You guys actually thought that America was just going to take you on as our pedagogues? That's funny. That's really, really, funny.
Almost as funny as pointing out negative international reaction to a foreign policy debate as endemic. Have you ever seen, say, a European foreign policy debate?
Nope, it probably wouldn't be all that interesting. It would probably just be a bunch of "doves" debating who hates Israel more.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
...lol? So, first he has to select a judge that will get confirmed and then convince the remaining judges (at least a majority) to make a drastic change to the Consitution... and that still wont matter because amendments to the constitution are passed and voted on in the house/senate before being ratified by the states.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
Do you even know how SC justices are appointed?
Hint: There's a confirmation process.
You're assuming the Democrats won't take Congress.
On October 25 2012 05:39 Defacer wrote: And the international community has far more respect for Obama's administration based on the killing of Obama and his response to Gaddafi.
What is wrong with this sentence (other than the fact that it starts with "and")?
That the international community thinks Obama is either a fool or just incompetent?
Do Americans actually, you know ... talk to people outside their country? Or read international news?
You guys actually thought that America was just going to take you on as our pedagogues? That's funny. That's really, really, funny.
Almost as funny as pointing out negative international reaction to a foreign policy debate as endemic. Have you ever seen, say, a European foreign policy debate?
Nope, it probably wouldn't be all that interesting. It would probably just be a bunch of "doves" talking about how much they hate Israel.
Clearly you have never seen a German foreign policy debate in your life.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
Do you even know how SC justices are appointed?
Hint: There's a confirmation process.
You're assuming the Democrats won't take Congress.
Because all Democrats want to ban all guns and none are from purple districts. And one or two more liberal SC justices can nullify an amendment without 2/3 of both houses.
I was going to write a longer response but then I realized you're a far better advocate for liberal policies than I ever will be. Anyone reading this thread is going to read your shit and think, "Man, Swazi is the average conservative. Holy fuck.". So shine on you crazy diamond, keep on doing what you're doing.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
I don't think you understand what the Supreme Court's role in all this is >.>
Edit: Wtf does a google search show? Seriously. What a fuckin' joke.
Yes, you are a joke. Only one of the search results on the first page of your link is about foreigners being happy with Obama, and that was about them being happy he was elected. From four years ago.
All the links on the first page of the results I posted, however, were articles from sources as various as Der Spiegel, Juan Cole, The Daily Mail, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, etc., all of them recent, about the world's disappointment with Obama.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
I don't think you understand what the Supreme Court's role in all this is >.>
Edit: Wtf does a google search show? Seriously. What a fuckin' joke.
Yes, you are a joke. Only one of the search results on the first page of your link is about foreigners being happy with Obama, and that was about them being happy he was elected. From four years ago.
All the links on the first page of the results I posted, however, were articles from sources as various as Der Spiegel, Juan Cole, The Daily Mail, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, etc., all of them recent, about the world's disappointment with Obama.
So good job, you made yourself look ridiculous.
This is probably one of those Google knows what we want to see and prioritizes that. Which still ends up making you look like an ass.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
Do you even know how SC justices are appointed?
Hint: There's a confirmation process.
You're assuming the Democrats won't take Congress.
Because all Democrats want to ban all guns and none are from purple districts. And one or two more liberal SC justices can nullify an amendment without 2/3 of both houses.
I was going to write a longer response but then I realized you're a far better advocate for liberal policies than I ever will be. Anyone reading this thread is going to read your shit and think, "Man, Swazi is the average conservative. Holy fuck.". So shine on you crazy diamond, keep on doing what you're doing.
Not all Democrats, I posted a video earlier praising a Democrat who was running (at least part of) his campaign on gun rights:
They wouldn't "nullify" it, just try to change the definition to something like: "it only applies to swords," which is what I've heard some liberals recently claim it "should mean."
Again, you're attacking my character without any evidence whatsoever. If you discarded your blind hatred and bigotry, you'd probably realize that we can have a rational discussion, put aside partisanship, and probably agree on a lot of things.
On October 25 2012 05:20 jdsowa wrote: The point isn't what Obama privately believes. I'm sure he privately would support a total gun ban. But he knows that it's not politically viable. So in debates he gives a lot of lip service to the 2nd Amendment. If he were to come out and oppose the 2nd Amendment, he would not be re-elected because that position is outside of the mainstream. The mainstream American political thought is the average political stance of the country. The fact that candidates basically get disqualified if they represent too many radical positions reflects the ultimate authority of mainstream thought. No matter what one guy believes, the mainstream will assert its will.
But once the election is over (assuming Barry wins), he won't have to worry about what the people think anymore.
If someone wants to murder the Jews, but they know it isn't politically viable, that doesn't change the fact that we probably shouldn't vote for him.
Yeah, this might matter if the president could somehow just appeal the 2nd amendment by himself.... but he, you know... can't.
Also, glad we got a Hitler reference out of you; always enlightening.
Obama can appoint liberal anti-gun Supreme Court justices that nullify the Second Amendment (and any other aspect of the Constitution for that matter).
I don't think you understand what the Supreme Court's role in all this is >.>
Edit: Wtf does a google search show? Seriously. What a fuckin' joke.
Yes, you are a joke. Only one of the search results on the first page of your link is about foreigners being happy with Obama, and that was about them being happy he was elected. From four years ago.
All the links on the first page of the results I posted, however, were articles from sources as various as Der Spiegel, Juan Cole, The Daily Mail, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, etc., all of them recent, about the world's disappointment with Obama.
So good job, you made yourself look ridiculous.
This is probably one of those Google knows what we want to see and prioritizes that. Which still ends up making you look like an ass.
That makes no sense. Google divined my political orientation from my search history, and by clicking on a hyperlink you provided, it gave me a different set of results than it gave you? I clicked that link because I really wanted to see what came up. If Google just gave me bad results thanks to some algorithm of theirs, that's a disservice to me and it would be Google doing a bad job. Which wouldn't happen because Google would ruin its credibility for reliable search results if it was found out. So just give it up.
EPT
