Though I was referring to idiot liberals I know in real life who will say and do anything to violate the Second Amendment.
Dude wtf is that site? Are you for real right now?
You're right, Risen, I was grasping for straws. While there certainly are fringe lefties who feel that way, I imagine that most Democrats probably do not believe that the Second Amendment only applies to swords. I apologize, hopefully we can move past this and we can have a rational discussion without bringing such nonsense to the table.
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:
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.
I looked up what you just claimed and it is false. The supreme court ruled on that in 2008 in District of Columbia v. Heller in which it ruled that 2nd amendment gives right to carry a firearm regardless of status in a militia.
Though I was referring to idiot liberals I know in real life who will say and do anything to violate the Second Amendment.
Dude wtf is that site? Are you for real right now?
You're right, Risen, I was grasping for straws. While there certainly are fringe lefties who feel that way, I certainly hope that most Democrats do not believe that the Second Amendment only applies to swords. I apologize, hopefully we can move past this and we can have a rational discussion without bringing such nonsense to the table.
The rational liberals don't believe it applies to swords. Some rational liberals approve of bearing arms, with limitations. Some rational conservatives do not mind some limitations.
Let's be reasonable in this thread. Extremists/fringe groups should not be brought up unless they are actively interfering with government processes (protests like the OWS or Tea Parties).
Though I was referring to idiot liberals I know in real life who will say and do anything to violate the Second Amendment.
Dude wtf is that site? Are you for real right now?
You're right, Risen, I was grasping for straws. While there certainly are fringe lefties who feel that way, I certainly hope that most Democrats do not believe that the Second Amendment only applies to swords. I apologize, hopefully we can move past this and we can have a rational discussion without bringing such nonsense to the table.
The rational liberals don't believe it applies to swords. Some rational liberals approve of bearing arms, with limitations. Some rational conservatives do not mind some limitations.
Let's be reasonable in this thread. Extremists/fringe groups should not be brought up unless they are actively interfering with government processes (protests like the OWS or Tea Parties).
I agree, what I posted was horrible. It was some obscure liberal blogger and his friends posting extremist/fringe views that do not represent the views of most Democrats.
It's pretty tense with how narrow the leads are in battleground states right now. To have it be this even while this close to the election makes it quite the fight. From what I hear, the whole Benghazi flub is old news for voters, not likely to sway in one way or another (though it recently was leaked emails showing White House prior knowledge of the terror attack before they started proposing it was a youtube video).
Anything October surprise upcoming or just attack ads in battleground states until the evening of? Leaning towards the latter right now.
Though I was referring to idiot liberals I know in real life who will say and do anything to violate the Second Amendment.
Dude wtf is that site? Are you for real right now?
You're right, Risen, I was grasping for straws. While there certainly are fringe lefties who feel that way, I certainly hope that most Democrats do not believe that the Second Amendment only applies to swords. I apologize, hopefully we can move past this and we can have a rational discussion without bringing such nonsense to the table.
The rational liberals don't believe it applies to swords. Some rational liberals approve of bearing arms, with limitations. Some rational conservatives do not mind some limitations.
Let's be reasonable in this thread. Extremists/fringe groups should not be brought up unless they are actively interfering with government processes (protests like the OWS or Tea Parties).
I agree, what I posted was horrible. It was some obscure liberal blogger and his friends posting extremist/fringe views that do not represent the views of most Democrats.
No sane person tries to argue the second amendment doesnt apply to guns, what the argument against is is that its 2 purposes when it was made are in one case unnessecarry and in the second one impossible. The two purposes were to maintain there own police force which is now handled by the government and the unstated reason for some of the people who voted for it was to maintain the ability to overthrow governement by popular uprising should it overstep its bounds.
The second one is impossible but made sense at the time because they had just overthrown what they considered to be a tyranical government and contributed to there fear of a big national government at the time.
On October 25 2012 06:23 Swazi Spring wrote: When have I ever "parroted talking points" instead of preferring a rational discussion? Be specific.
Solyndra. The Porkulus. Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union. Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious. Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents. Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples.
Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media.
Solyndra. The Porkulus. Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union. Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious. Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents. Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples.
Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media.
I remember hearing (recently) from a credible source that Obama gave a government position or something to that extent to the owner of the company's wife to make the Latino TV people shut up about Fast and Furious.
On October 25 2012 06:23 Swazi Spring wrote: When have I ever "parroted talking points" instead of preferring a rational discussion? Be specific.
Solyndra. The Porkulus. Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union. Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious. Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents. Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples.
Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media.
I remember hearing (recently) from a credible source that Obama gave a government position or something to that extent to the owner of the company's wife to make the Latino TV people shut up about Fast and Furious.
And that credible source is?
You're more than welcome to bag on the big networks/MSNBC/CNN for ignoring Fast and Furious because they certainly did but Univision has been on the ball. Look, I like Breitbart, RedState, and The Daily Caller as much as anyone but linking things from those sites just hurts your credibility. Hell, I even like Rush but the right take him way too seriously and I'd never use him when making an actual point.
Use at least some mildly reputable sources and people would be giving your hyperbole a lot less crap.
Liberals, this goes for you too. Any time I see HuffPo, Daily Kos, /r/politics or ThinkProgress linked I just assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
On October 25 2012 06:23 Swazi Spring wrote: When have I ever "parroted talking points" instead of preferring a rational discussion? Be specific.
Solyndra. The Porkulus. Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union. Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious. Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents. Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples.
Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media.
I remember hearing (recently) from a credible source that Obama gave a government position or something to that extent to the owner of the company's wife to make the Latino TV people shut up about Fast and Furious.
Good for you, but debate doesn't revolve around hearsay. Show us a source and explain why it's credible. And please don't give us a link to the oh so great Rush Limbaugh. He is the extremist conservative version of Jon Stewart, major difference being that he's balding and pissed about it.
But in all seriousness, Limbaugh is an entertainer. His goal is not to educate, nor is it to present an informed opinion. His goal is to develop and maintain his audience through any means necessary. Would it surprise you if Rush really didn't give a shit about the majority of the things he lambasts on his show?
On October 25 2012 06:23 Swazi Spring wrote: When have I ever "parroted talking points" instead of preferring a rational discussion? Be specific.
Solyndra. The Porkulus. Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union. Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious. Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents. Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples.
Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media.
I remember hearing (recently) from a credible source that Obama gave a government position or something to that extent to the owner of the company's wife to make the Latino TV people shut up about Fast and Furious.
And that credible source is?
You're more than welcome to bag on the big networks/MSNBC/CNN for ignoring Fast and Furious because they certainly did but Univision has been on the ball. Look, I like Breitbart, RedState, and The Daily Caller as much as anyone but linking things from those sites just hurts your credibility. Hell, I even like Rush but the right take him way too seriously and I'd never use him when making an actual point.
Use at least some mildly reputable sources and people would be giving your hyperbole a lot less crap.
Liberals, this goes for you too. Any time I see HuffPo, Daily Kos, /r/politics or ThinkProgress linked I just assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
The source was my uncle, who is a college professor and someone I have been discussing politics with for years. He wouldn't have ever made such a statement if he didn't have proof if he didn't hear it from a credible source.
This is one of those stories (and liberal sites love to do it to) where if you read all the way down it sort of defuses the headline.
Basically what I got out of the story is a bunch of defense contractors were worried about the cuts incoming on Jan 2, because congress failed to make a deal, and were planning on sending out layoff notifications. After learning of this the White House told them not to worry and that there would be no immediate defense contracts cancelled (that part is there right to decide) so there was no need to send out pink slips so soon. None of that seems illeagal and it just seems like McCain is trying to start a fire before the election.
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!".
He dont even need to campaign on this, people will notice it annway. The timing is just perfect. After the elections they will drop the whole case, 1b is a symbolical amount annway compared to the "fraud" commited so wallstreet probably wont worry about this.
@ below: agree that settlement also is an option,i think it will be a low fine annyway compared to the damage done. Wallstreet didnt react at all to this news.
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!".
He dont even need to campaign on this, people will notice it annway. The timing is just perfect. After the elections they will drop the whole case, 1b is a symbolical amount annway compared to the "fraud" commited.
I dont think they will drop it but BoA will probably settle and the timing is political but I would say waiting a few years was probably to give them time to recover so there would be money to get from sueing them.
On October 25 2012 06:23 Swazi Spring wrote: When have I ever "parroted talking points" instead of preferring a rational discussion? Be specific.
Solyndra. The Porkulus. Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union. Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious. Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents. Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples.
Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media.
I remember hearing (recently) from a credible source that Obama gave a government position or something to that extent to the owner of the company's wife to make the Latino TV people shut up about Fast and Furious.
And that credible source is?
You're more than welcome to bag on the big networks/MSNBC/CNN for ignoring Fast and Furious because they certainly did but Univision has been on the ball. Look, I like Breitbart, RedState, and The Daily Caller as much as anyone but linking things from those sites just hurts your credibility. Hell, I even like Rush but the right take him way too seriously and I'd never use him when making an actual point.
Use at least some mildly reputable sources and people would be giving your hyperbole a lot less crap.
Liberals, this goes for you too. Any time I see HuffPo, Daily Kos, /r/politics or ThinkProgress linked I just assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
The source was my uncle, who is a college professor and someone I have been discussing politics with for years. He wouldn't have ever made such a statement if he didn't have proof if he didn't hear it from a credible source.
So you believe it because your uncle is a credible source to you, therefore it has meaning to you. However unfortunately you are not my uncle, nor, to the best of my knowledge, a college professor, nor have we been discussing politics for years. While he as a source is credible to you, you as a source are not credible to us and therefore your anecdotal contribution has no meaning until you marry my aunt. The way sources work is you find one that can be agreed by all to have value and then share it. You have not done this.
On October 25 2012 06:23 Swazi Spring wrote: When have I ever "parroted talking points" instead of preferring a rational discussion? Be specific.
Solyndra. The Porkulus. Handing GM over to the United Autoworkers Union. Bribing the owners of Latino TV channels in order to make them shut up about Fast and Furious. Using executive privileged to classify the Fast and Furious documents. Lying to the American people about the Benghazi attack.
Shall I continue?
One of many, many examples.
Oh and by the way, the bolded is crap. Univision did an incredible investigative piece on Fast and Furious less than a month ago. Of course, it was brushed under the rug but the Spanish speaking media has been following Fast and Furious much better than the English speaking media.
I remember hearing (recently) from a credible source that Obama gave a government position or something to that extent to the owner of the company's wife to make the Latino TV people shut up about Fast and Furious.
And that credible source is?
You're more than welcome to bag on the big networks/MSNBC/CNN for ignoring Fast and Furious because they certainly did but Univision has been on the ball. Look, I like Breitbart, RedState, and The Daily Caller as much as anyone but linking things from those sites just hurts your credibility. Hell, I even like Rush but the right take him way too seriously and I'd never use him when making an actual point.
Use at least some mildly reputable sources and people would be giving your hyperbole a lot less crap.
Liberals, this goes for you too. Any time I see HuffPo, Daily Kos, /r/politics or ThinkProgress linked I just assume you have no idea what you're talking about.
The source was my uncle, who is a college professor and someone I have been discussing politics with for years. He wouldn't have ever made such a statement if he didn't have proof if he didn't hear it from a credible source.
Yeah and my uncle says that the world is flat and he's a generally sensible guy so I have no reason to doubt him.
Also I heard some republicans the other day saying that Obama is a muslim and the antichrist. Sure wish I'd known that before.
P.S. Obama is a christian and the antichrist of our age would probably be Ke$ha.
EPT
