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.
Again with the personal attacks, Risen. How does that make him 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.
All the anecdotes and misused quotation marks you could ever want! Come get 'em here, folks! Eat up, yum! The second bolded statement is cute. I'd be willing to have a rational conversation if you were willing to cite anything. xDaunt and I have done it, so I know it can be done.
(Obama's approval rating in Europe is waning a bit since his 2008 election, though that may have been inevitable. "The approval ratings decreased in countries where it was so high in the first place," Nyiri said. "No one expected it to stay there.")
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvR5qTUOTuY
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.
All the anecdotes and misused quotation marks you could ever want! Come get 'em here, folks! Eat up, yum! The second bolded statement is cute. I'd be willing to have a rational conversation if you were willing to cite anything. xDaunt and I have done it, so I know it can be done.
I have cited sources plenty of times, what are you on about?
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.
Again with the personal attacks, Risen. How does that make him look like "an ass?"
Because you're using a google search specified to your tastes to make a statement about the rest of us. If said google search is customized to show you what you want to see, then I guess it isn't really a proper view of how the rest of us see it, is it? So in the future, don't use google searches as a source for a point you're trying to make.
(Obama's approval rating in Europe is waning a bit since his 2008 election, though that may have been inevitable. "The approval ratings decreased in countries where it was so high in the first place," Nyiri said. "No one expected it to stay there.")
That's a different question, would they still prefer him to the caricature Republican that exists in their minds. Of course they will.
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvR5qTUOTuY
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.
All the anecdotes and misused quotation marks you could ever want! Come get 'em here, folks! Eat up, yum! The second bolded statement is cute. I'd be willing to have a rational conversation if you were willing to cite anything. xDaunt and I have done it, so I know it can be done.
I have cited sources plenty of times, what are you on about?
Did you cite anything in what I just quoted you on? Did you misuse quotations in what I JUST quoted you on? The answer to both of these is a resounding yes.
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.
Again with the personal attacks, Risen. How does that make him look like "an ass?"
Because you're using a google search specified to your tastes to make a statement about the rest of us. If said google search is customized to show you what you want to see, then I guess it isn't really a proper view of how the rest of us see it, is it? So in the future, don't use google searches as a source for a point you're trying to make.
That is dumb. Google search customization doesn't work that way. If I had just provided 4 or 5 links from that search instead of just pointing to the search results, you wouldn't be making this dumb argument. Give it up.
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.
Again with the personal attacks, Risen. How does that make him look like "an ass?"
Because you're using a google search specified to your tastes to make a statement about the rest of us. If said google search is customized to show you what you want to see, then I guess it isn't really a proper view of how the rest of us see it, is it? So in the future, don't use google searches as a source for a point you're trying to make.
On a sidenote, that link does not work for me, I just get redirected to the standard Google.ca...
On October 25 2012 05:33 sc2superfan101 wrote: so from now on, can anyone who is looking to ask a conservative/Republican a question about abortion and rape please refer that question to me so that I can answer it? Because apparently Republican politicians are having a hard time answering this question without sounding like misogynist asses. I mean how hard is this:
"Rape is one of the most heinous and terrible things that can happen to someone. We as a society have a moral duty to protect the victims and to pursue justice against the perpetrators, and it is my firm belief that we have a further obligation to provide the victims with as much help as humanly possible. As a {insert political/religious philosophy here}, I believe that all life is sacred, and I believe that the rights of the unborn child should be protected with every bit as much dedication and fervor as the rights of the mother."
but noooooooo... we can't be fucking politically savvy to save our gddamn lives. no way, Republicans have to start trying to redefine rape and wondering if maybe God didn't want the rape to happen or whatever the fuck that retard was saying. I mean, these are grown men and they can't even fucking get it right.
someone get them the hell out of my party because they make me look bad, and that's fucking saying something right there.
What you're suggesting is heinous. It's not up to you to decide what sort of "help" best serves a woman who has just been impregnated by rape, while ignoring what she believes is best for her. Youre suggesting you can speak on behalf of rape victims instead of listening to them. Its misogeny at its absolute most fundamental and it is totally embarrassing that you think its a reasonable stance. For you to attempt to dictate terms of recovery to rape victims is heinous, particularly using respect for life as a pretext for your view.
George W. Bush * Son of president George H. W. Bush. * Governor of Texas. * Military veteran.
Bill Clinton * Governor of Arkansas. * Attorney General of Arkansas.
George H. W. Bush * Vice President of the United States. * Director of the CIA. * Chairman of the Republican National Committee. * United States Ambassador to the United Nations. * United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Ronald Reagan * Governor of California. * Campaign assistant to Barry Goldwater. * Military veteran. * Famous actor.
Jimmy Carter * Governor of Georgia. * Member of the Georgia Senate. * Military veteran.
Gerald Ford * Vice President of the United States. * US House of Representatives Minority Leader * Member of the US House of Representatives. * Military veteran.
Now lets look at Barack Obama... * 1 incomplete term as US Senator. * Member of the Illinois Senate.
xDaunt *Resolute conservative *Frequent hurler of partisan derision *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words
JonnyBNoHo *Fiscal conservative *Likes to talk hard numbers and economics *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words
parallelluniverse *Seemingly liberal *Aussie economics guy *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words
Defacer *Canadian liberal *Likes bipartisan discussion, sometimes even panders to it *Large number of substantive posts backing his position in his own words
Now lets look at Swazi Spring *cites blogs and punditry as fact *enjoys reveling in talking points rather than issues or policies ........?
Sorry to the faceless of blob of liberal posters like souma, TheTenthDoc, kwizach, leporello, and doublereed. You are all the same to me
That about covers it, it's posters like Swazi and dvorak and people like Trump that sometimes make me hate that I get tagged with the same "conservative" label.
Of course, the libs have their fair share of talking point parroting fools inside and out of this thread as well.
On October 25 2012 05:29 Swazi Spring wrote: [quote] 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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvR5qTUOTuY
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.
All the anecdotes and misused quotation marks you could ever want! Come get 'em here, folks! Eat up, yum! The second bolded statement is cute. I'd be willing to have a rational conversation if you were willing to cite anything. xDaunt and I have done it, so I know it can be done.
I have cited sources plenty of times, what are you on about?
Did you cite anything in what I just quoted you on? Did you misuse quotations in what I JUST quoted you on? The answer to both of these is a resounding yes.
I provided an example of how they could try to redefine the Constitution? The Supreme Court has never made such a ruling, it was an example.
Basically Bank of America is getting sued by the federal prosecuter. The allegation is fraud. 1 billion dollars is the alledged fraud.
While it's about damn time if the President starts campaigning on this I'm calling BS on the timing. "Look voters, we've been going after the big banks!".
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.
You appear to have little understanding how Google and the Internet work. The link is not a link to Risen's personal Google search but it makes Google search for Risen's input. On my first page of results there is for some reason almost nothing related to Obama (stuff about fish in Iceland). And Google does indeed use such an algorithm and it is widely known. Perhaps you should switch search engines (though chances are they also use such an algorithm, but almost certain a worse one).
I saw a speech about the danger of us being stuck in our personal bubble if these personalized algorithms prevail (similar stuff happens on facebook) and thought it was a bit over the top but now I can see the problems...
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.
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.
I've already had a discussion with you where you 1) cite stuff you don't read that runs contradictory to your argument, 2) assert things that can neither be proven nor disproved, 3) have the gall to suggest I put aside partisanship. No I don't think we can have a discussion. When even the conservatives in this thread are embarrassed to be associated with you it might be time for you to rethink 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).
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.
Again with the personal attacks, Risen. How does that make him look like "an ass?"
Because you're using a google search specified to your tastes to make a statement about the rest of us. If said google search is customized to show you what you want to see, then I guess it isn't really a proper view of how the rest of us see it, is it? So in the future, don't use google searches as a source for a point you're trying to make.
That is dumb. Google search customization doesn't work that way. If I had just provided 4 or 5 links from that search instead of just pointing to the search results, you wouldn't be making this dumb argument. Give it up.
I would be 100% ok with you citing things from your google searches b/c those things don't change depending on who clicks enter. It's not dumb. In the future do that instead.
On October 25 2012 05:52 I_Love_Bacon wrote: [quote]
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: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvR5qTUOTuY
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.
All the anecdotes and misused quotation marks you could ever want! Come get 'em here, folks! Eat up, yum! The second bolded statement is cute. I'd be willing to have a rational conversation if you were willing to cite anything. xDaunt and I have done it, so I know it can be done.
I have cited sources plenty of times, what are you on about?
Did you cite anything in what I just quoted you on? Did you misuse quotations in what I JUST quoted you on? The answer to both of these is a resounding yes.
I provided an example of how they could try to redefine the Constitution? The Supreme Court has never made such a ruling, it was an example.
Do you even know what anecdote is?!? THIS IS ANECDOTE!
""it only applies to swords," which is what I've heard some liberals recently claim it "should mean.""
EPT
