RLENT
Veteran Expediter
You do understand, do you not ... that simply by virtue of your own yap and/or fingers, you have created yourself as the very poster-child of ... National Insecurity ?
How ... ironic ...
Last edited:
The Clown in Chief
- Thread starter LDB
- Start date
How ... ironic ...
It is amazing how you can almost always go into the personal remarks and get away with it?
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Ok, well then post # 53 doesn't make any sense...
All I said was that there is history of a very similar president using a war to extend his power.
Do I believe Obama would try it? Yes, IF he though he could get away with it.
It is all about the power. The government is pushing, quite quickly, for as much control as they can get. Obama is pushing the limits on, or ignoring, the Constitution any way he can. The IRS stomping on political speech is ample evidence although there are many other fine examples.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Are you saying WWII was not necessary and FDR got us into it merely to stay in power?
No, I am saying he did everything he could to take advantage of the situation. I also believe that it may have been avoidable. We did push Japan. Whether or not it was the right thing to do is a debate within it self.
There is one theory that FDR let Pearl Harbor happen at that magnitude to get out of the depression that had dragged on for years. FDR was perhaps the most liberal president to that point. We have by far the most liberal president in history and another economy dragged down by his spending idiocy and foundering for years. FDR could be re-elected any number of times legally. Obama considers himself far superior to FDR and anyone else and is not at all above doing anything within his power and probably anything not within his power if he believes he can get away with it.
It's highly unlikely a US presidential election would be postponed for any reason. However, the idea of an Obama 3d term has been addressed already. U.S. Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) sponsored a bill to repeal the 22d Amendment: http://beta.congress.gov/113/bills/hjres15/113hjres15ih_xml.xml
However, by the time Obama gets through ruining the American health care system, screwing up the overall economy plus allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons capability, the voting public will have had their fill of the clown who would be king in spite of the MSM's refusal to offer any objective criticism of the nation's most liberal and first black POTUS.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
I'm not against the repeal of the 22nd Amendment. I am against an Obama third term.. We need my man Bill more than ever now...
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Yeah, so? NPR is irrelavent too....
Why would you support a candidate who is opposed to ANY part of the Bill of Rights, Like Slick Willy was and Hilary are?
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
How do you figure that?
Bill Clinton signed the first "assault weapons" ban in 1994. He his STILL talking about infringing on our Second Amendment rights. As is Hilary.
Yes, congress passed it, but he COULD have vetoed it. The reality was he pushed for it.
Gun crime increased. The Constitution was weakened.
If one is going to take an oath to "protect and defend" the Constitution one must do so for the entire Constitution, not just the parts that one likes.
He is not much different than Obama. He too pushed for a government controlled health care system.
From what I can see, there ain't two cents difference between politicians today. Not a good one in the bunch.
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
So you are contending that crime increased because of the assault ban? Nope. Not buying it. As far as the Second Amendment goes, show me a shred of evidence where there has been legislation to repeal it. Constitutional provisions aren't necessarily meant to exist unfettered or unrestricted. First Amendment rights are challenged all the time. We have freedom of speech, but, if you for instance were to threaten the President of the United States, it is a felony. This is a common sense restriction to free speech, not an attack on it. In other words you can't just say anything you want. There might be consequences. Restrictions exist, rightfully, in a civilized society.
"Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. It consists of knowingly and willfully mailing or otherwise making "any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States"
paullud
Veteran Expediter
Try to focus on the words "shall not be infringed".
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
I made it past the 6th grade. I know what infringement means. Common sense is common sense. If the Constitution is a "living breathing" document as it has been described then restrictions can be negotiated. The very fact that the document can be amended proves that.
First off, "Shall not be infringed" means exactly that. Second off, the Second Amendment reaffirmed a RIGHT that is NOT granted by the Federal Government since the federal government has neither the authority or the right to grant, remove or restrict rights.
Also, look up "incrementalism" to learn what they are truly doing. They have been slowly, but surely, chipping away at ALL our Rights , moving every so slowly towards their ultimate goal of total government control. In more common terms it's known as the "boiling frog" plan.
For you reading pleasure.
John Lott: The Facts About Assault Weapons and Crime - WSJ.com
letzrockexpress
Veteran Expediter
Wild Paranoid Conjecture. By the way, that story about the frog is parable. A frog will jump out of the pot if it gets too hot. It's been proven time and again...