He's no messiah

[billcoe]

That whole thing is surprising and calls into question competency and if they can get say....international relations.... right, or if it will take 3 or 4 try's at that as well. The Obama team was bragging at the start of this how deep and through the "vetting" process would be, yet they can't seem to pull it off anywhere close to flawlessly. It's a F**ked Up mess. Guys like Tvrash were calling Cheney all kinds of names a bit ago, but as confusing as his tax life must have been given the complexities of his various employments, no on even alleged he skipped any of his taxes ever.

 

So this is how this will probably go: "Well we fucked that up Hillary, now lets move onto fixing the Middle East problem...."

 

Hmmmmmm OK.

[tvashtarkatena]

What, specifically, are you refering to in the international relations front?

 

Or do you even know?

 

As for back taxes, they CAN be a big deal, but aren't always.

 

And your logic about Cheney, which goes something like

 

Well, he fucked up the entire world and America's reputation in it, but, hey, he never once killed an innocent kitten.

 

It's, well, a prime example of the clarity of thought we've come to expect from you, Bill.

Edited March 5, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[jmo]

"Originally Posted By: kevbone

Originally Posted By: tvashtarkatena

It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda.

 

 

We did not give the feds anything....they took our civil liberties ......and it wont stop there.....more to come."

 

 

Some among us gave them away by voting for totalitarians rather than for those who respect liberty.

 

 

If you mean Barack Obama, you are absolutely right. We will lose some, if not many Civil liberties in the next four years.

 

If by that you meant George Bush and that Patriot Act. I was never in favor of the act, and thought that whatever security it might provide was not worth the loss of civil liberties. Unfortunately it was passed by the Senate by 98-1, so it cannot be entirely blamed on Bush and the republicans. Please go here www.whitehouse.gov and try to find the repeal of the Patriot act on his Agenda. I could not find it. Since Obama's agenda is so wide in scope and very anti Bush, I think if he wanted it repealed he would say so.

 

if you mean something else, please clarify.

Edited March 5, 2009 by jmo

[tvashtarkatena]

"Originally Posted By: kevbone

Originally Posted By: tvashtarkatena

It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda.

 

 

We did not give the feds anything....they took our civil liberties ......and it wont stop there.....more to come."

 

 

Some among us gave them away by voting for totalitarians rather than for those who respect liberty.

 

 

If you mean Barack Obama, you are absolutely right. We will lose some, if not many Civil liberties in the next four years.

 

If by that you meant George Bush and that Patriot Act. I was never in favor of the act, and thought that whatever security it might provide was not worth the loss of civil liberties. Unfortunately it was passed by the Senate by 98-1, so it cannot be entirely blamed on Bush and the republicans. Please go here www.whitehouse.gov and try to find the repeal of the Patriot act on his Agenda. I could not find it. Since Obama's agenda is so wide in scope and very anti Bush, I think if he wanted it repealed he would say so.

 

if you mean something else, please clarify.

 

No, I'm not just refering to the PATRIOT ACT, one of the least (but still) damaging federal erosions to civil liberties (notice I've used the term

'federal', not 'Bush', something your conveniently filtered out).

 

I'm referring to Gitmo, torture, rendition, explicit denial of FOIA requests through a new policy of government secrecy under the phony guise of national security, illegal spying on Americans, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which explicitly through habeus corpus and the ban against evidence gained under torture in the trash, the politization of the DOJ, and on and on and on....

 

Now, you can proceed to tell us all how Obama intends to rape the Bill of Rights. Use his actual actions and statements, please. Spare us the conjecture.

Edited March 5, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[jmo]

I believe we've found some common ground. I agree with you on those except the existence of GITMO itself. People held there should be charged with something, and torture should not be used. We should retain the moral high ground to contrast with our enemies.

 

I disagree with many of the things that Bush did, but supported him because I believe he is/was the lesser of two evils. I don't like the two party system and think both are corrupt. I support republicans because they are closer to my views, which are a mix of the Consitution and Libertarian party.

[jibby]

http://cdn.newsone.blackplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/obama_smoking-1.jpg

 

Smoker=Horrible, what's his stance on bi g Tobacco?

Edited March 5, 2009 by jibby

[tvashtarkatena]

Why make an exception for Gitmo? It's the most egregious violation of civil liberties the Bush administration commited; torture, evidence gained under torture addmissable, lack of legal representation, habeus corpus stripped, violation of federal statutes treaty law..... It is arguably the number one terrorist recruiting PR tool as well.

 

If you feel strongly about civil liberties, you're a member of the wrong party. The GOP gave that up as an agenda item (except the 2nd Amendment of course) under Nixon and they've been trashing them ever since.

 

If you'd like to reconstitute the party of Goldwater/Eisenhower, I'm all for it, but good luck: ain't gonna happen any time soon. Your party's going completely in the opposite direction, and pretty much off a cliff.

 

Two party system? Yeah, whatever. If only the world were....

 

Not the problem. Any car in the driveway that runs will get you there, and the two party system may not run well, but it runs. The problem is with the core values, or lack thereof, of American voters. The party system is just the vehicle; no better or worse than any other democracy's as far as I can tell.

 

Now, about that Obama question....

[tvashtarkatena]

http://cdn.newsone.blackplanet.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/obama_smoking-1.jpg

 

Smoker=Horrible, what's his stance on bi g Tobacco?

 

Who gives a fuck? If you wanna smoke, smoke. Big Tobacco'll sell you what you need. If not, don't.

 

My only concern about tobacco is ensuring that it is farmed sustainably.

[jmo]

Oh, and BTW, owing back taxes (if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct) isn't a crime (as you stated it was) unless the payer is charged with evasion.

 

Daschle bowed out on his own soooo....the process didn't work? OK, whatever. I guess he had to be publicly garroted for certain people to be satisfied.

 

Goodbye credibility round deux.

 

The process didn't work because the administration still supported him after learning of his tax problems.

 

"(if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct)" What a bunch of BS! Why don't do some research yourself instead of personal attacks and accusing me lying. All you have to do is type "Geithner Tax" into Google and see what comes back.

 

He is an Obama appointee. Of course he's not going to be charged. Doesn't mean he didn't do it.

[tvashtarkatena]

Oh, and BTW, owing back taxes (if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct) isn't a crime (as you stated it was) unless the payer is charged with evasion.

 

Daschle bowed out on his own soooo....the process didn't work? OK, whatever. I guess he had to be publicly garroted for certain people to be satisfied.

 

Goodbye credibility round deux.

 

The process didn't work because the administration still supported him after learning of his tax problems.

 

"(if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct)" What a bunch of BS! Why don't do some research yourself instead of personal attacks and accusing me lying. All you have to do is type "Geithner Tax" into Google and see what comes back.

 

He is an Obama appointee. Of course he's not going to be charged. Doesn't mean he didn't do it.

 

So by your logic, Mr. I Support Civil Liberties And The Rule Of Law, an uncharged Daschle should be treated like a criminal because...YOU think he is one?

 

OK. I get it.

 

 

[jmo]

Both parties pick and choose the Civil Liberties they want to support.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the most important of the entire bill of rights, for without it the others are worth nothing more than the paper they are printed on. Therefore, it is Obama's first target.

 

"Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent." Taken directly from www.whitehouse.gov

 

Enacting all this policy will present a backdoor to almost completely outlawing guns in this country. The men that founded this country had a a lot of vision and wisdom, and had this to say about guns.

 

"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..."

 

George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention

 

NOAH WEBSTER

 

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

 

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787)

 

RICHARD HENRY LEE

 

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms."

 

Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress

 

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."

 

Making the 2nd Amendment irrelevant is a violation of the Oath of office that he took, and shows how he feels about the rest of the Constitution. He cannot "respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners" as he states and support that agenda. While his desire to disarm the people does not imply that he intends to tyrannize the people, it is a prerequisite to tyranny. Every country throughout history with a tyrannical government has had gun or arms control.

 

"Assault weapons" are the first target because they are easy, and the only means that the people could use to rebel. A a ban will have little to no effect of violent crime, since before the 1994 ban, such weapons were only used in 2% of all violent crimes in the nation. Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm

 

Once the 2nd Amendment is defanged, with enough like minded people in government, it won't matter what the Constitution or the people say because no will be able to stop him.

 

Now, I am NOT say that Obama is bent on becoming a dictator. He hasn't said that yet. But if he is, he's heading down the right path.

 

More to follow, I have to go work soon.

 

 

 

[jmo]

Oh, and BTW, owing back taxes (if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct) isn't a crime (as you stated it was) unless the payer is charged with evasion.

 

Daschle bowed out on his own soooo....the process didn't work? OK, whatever. I guess he had to be publicly garroted for certain people to be satisfied.

 

Goodbye credibility round deux.

 

The process didn't work because the administration still supported him after learning of his tax problems.

 

"(if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct)" What a bunch of BS! Why don't do some research yourself instead of personal attacks and accusing me lying. All you have to do is type "Geithner Tax" into Google and see what comes back.

 

He is an Obama appointee. Of course he's not going to be charged. Doesn't mean he didn't do it.

 

So by your logic, Mr. I Support Civil Liberties And The Rule Of Law, an uncharged Daschle should be treated like a criminal because...YOU think he is one?

 

OK. I get it.

 

 

 

Not paying your taxes is only a Civil Liberty is you're the Senate Majority Leader. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQIKJqLIqaE

 

I beleive that people should be "innocent until proven guilty" Daschle is clearly guilty. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6786608 "The White House today called Daschle's failure to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes a "serious mistake," but the president still "absolutely" supports his nomination to be secretary of Health and Human Services. " Of course he won't be charged, because he's a politican. I think it is wrong for Obama to condone his non payment by desiring to appoint him anyways.

 

Don't you think that the people that run our government should be held to high standards?

 

Start doing some of your own research instead of just attacking everything I post.

[billcoe]

I totally agree with the 2nd amendment post. you realize of course, that some here will not read it, but will argue against it on their own lack of principle alone.

[tvashtarkatena]

Both parties pick and choose the Civil Liberties they want to support.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the most important of the entire bill of rights, for without it the others are worth nothing more than the paper they are printed on. Therefore, it is Obama's first target.

 

 

This is gonna be like taking candy from a baby.

 

If all our other freedoms depend on the 2nd amendment, why are there many, many other countries that lack such a right that are as free or freer (much of Europe comes to mind) than ours? How free a society is depends not at all on personal gun ownership: it depends on the strength and justness of the rule of law and the institutions that support it. Last time I checked, the institutions of the United States, while somewhat worse for wear after the Bush years, is still very much intact. Personal gun ownership a mythical deterrent to tyranny, but it makes a great fund raising pitch for certain well moneyed organizations. The idea of that lone family or Wile E. militia band, making a stand with AR15s and shotguns against the full might of the government, is laughable on its face.

 

While you're at home cleaning your 'arsenal', telling yourself how people like you are 'protecting freedom', there are other people and organizations out there out lobbying, canvassing, levying legal challenges, educating the public, reporting on government activities, ie, do the REAL work of keeping our society free. You're just sitting on your fat ass cleaning your gun, dude. Nobody even notices...least of all the government.

 

And, of course, there is the assertion that banning assault rifles (or any specific type of weapon, such a grenade launchers and machine guns) somehow violates the 2nd Amendment. Would you kindly point to the case law where that principle is specifically upheld for us? And no, the DC ruling does not address that issue even periferally, just in case you were going to reach for standard answer.

 

Cuz I'm afraid the courts don't happen to agree with you, but, hey, what do they know? That's just our rule of law talkin'.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 5, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[kevbone]

It's a good thing we gave the feds all those intrusive powers during the Bush years. Now there's a new law in town, with a different agenda.

 

We did not give the feds anything....they took our civil liberties ......and it wont stop there.....more to come.

 

Some among us gave them away by voting for totalitarians rather than for those who respect liberty.

 

 

I understand....I just dont think it would have matter.

[tvashtarkatena]

BTW, I'm not even for the assault rifle ban. It's just a way for the Dems to lose votes and not gain a damn thing...it's politically stupid.

 

But you gun nuts have been completely gamed by the GOP. They've spoon fed you the myth that participating in shooting sports somehow keeps America free, while all the time raping habeus corpus, probable cause, due process, free speech and expression, privacy, and religious freedom (by pushing one religion's agenda, of course).

 

Way to be ever vigilant.

[jmo]

Both parties pick and choose the Civil Liberties they want to support.

 

The 2nd Amendment is the most important of the entire bill of rights, for without it the others are worth nothing more than the paper they are printed on. Therefore, it is Obama's first target.

 

 

This is gonna be like taking candy from a baby.

 

If all our other freedoms depend on the 2nd amendment, why are there many, many other countries that lack such a right that are as free or freer (much of Europe comes to mind) than ours? How free a society is depends not at all on personal gun ownership: it depends on the strength and justness of the rule of law and the institutions that support it. Last time I checked, the institutions of the United States, while somewhat worse for wear after the Bush years, is still very much intact. Personal gun ownership a mythical deterrent to tyranny, but it makes a great fund raising pitch for certain well moneyed organizations. The idea of that lone family or Wile E. militia band, making a stand with AR15s and shotguns against the full might of the government, is laughable on its face.

 

While you're at home cleaning your 'arsenal', telling yourself how people like you are 'protecting freedom', there are other people and organizations out there out lobbying, canvassing, levying legal challenges, educating the public, reporting on government activities, ie, do the REAL work of keeping our society free. You're just sitting on your fat ass cleaning your gun, dude. Nobody even notices...least of all the government.

 

And, of course, there is the assertion that banning assault rifles (or any specific type of weapon, such a grenade launchers and machine guns) somehow violates the 2nd Amendment. Would you kindly point to the case law where that principle is specifically upheld for us? And no, the DC ruling does not address that issue even periferally, just in case you were going to reach for standard answer.

 

Cuz I'm afraid the courts don't happen to agree with you, but, hey, what do they know? That's just our rule of law talkin'.

 

 

 

Yes, it is easy to take Candy from a Baby if you ignore them.

 

Like I said, lack of private weapons does not equal tyranny, but it is a prerequisite. Let's look at the very violent and bloody history of Europe. In the 30's the Nazis outlawed the ownership of guns by Jews, and other undersirables. 6 Million were rounded up and exterminated. How successful would the German invasion of France in 1940 if every Frenchman had a gun? The Soviet Union also banned guns. No one knows for sure how many died there.

 

"The idea of that lone family or Wile E. militia band, making a stand with AR15s and shotguns against the full might of the government, is laughable on its face."

 

Obviously you've never been to Iraq, where this sort of thing has been going on for years. It was in fact so laughable, that most of the democrats in the government said our 150,000 soldiers there couldn't win and the war was lost. 4,000+ soldiers were laughing when they were killed by that lone family. Don't forget that all members of the military swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" before they obey the orders of the President. The military would fall apart if it were used against Americans.

 

I have more to say on this, but can't do it now.

[Serenity]

The Draconian measures being put forward by the Blair Holt are more invasive and of greater risk to personal freedoms than anything I have seen in a long time under any administration. Giving no knock access to someone's house so whatever legal authority can make sure a legal gun owner is storing their firearms correctly?

 

You wanna be the Sheriff or agent that has the job of enforcing that one? I don't.

 

What's next? Making sure your stoned housewife has her prescription meds locked securely in a kitchen cabinet.

 

It's a slippery slope. I say leave well enough alone, quit sending Border Patrol agents to federal prison for doing their jobs, and stay out of the middle classes ass.

 

There are bigger fish to fry.

[jmo]

 

And, of course, there is the assertion that banning assault rifles (or any specific type of weapon, such a grenade launchers and machine guns) somehow violates the 2nd Amendment. Would you kindly point to the case law where that principle is specifically upheld for us? And no, the DC ruling does not address that issue even periferally, just in case you were going to reach for standard answer.

 

Cuz I'm afraid the courts don't happen to agree with you, but, hey, what do they know? That's just our rule of law talkin'.

 

 

 

What part of the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to type that? The 1st Amendment only applies to printing presses. Why do you need a right to free speech anyways? Find that, and I'll show you why assault rifles are within the 2nd Amendment. That's a classic liberal trick. Why should we prove the need to exercise our rights? It's a right, not a privilege. More later.

 

[Dechristo]

The Draconian measures being put forward by the Blair Holt are more invasive and of greater risk to personal freedoms than anything I have seen in a long time under any administration. Giving no knock access to someone's house so whatever legal authority can make sure a legal gun owner is storing their firearms correctly?

 

Now there's a recipe for disaster considering "Make My Day" laws.

[Dechristo]

...quit sending Border Patrol agents to federal prison for doing their jobs...

 

 

I was glad to hear of Bush's pardon for those two guys.

[tvashtarkatena]

You're 'what if' argument about the German Jews is just plain silly. German gun ownership laws at the beginning of Hitler's rise were not significantly more restrictive than present ones in the U.S. You can wax hypothetical to the point of ridiculous all you want, but what happened happened despite the ready availability of personal firearms there. Stick to things that actually happened, taken in context and you'll do a lot better.

 

So, if I get this straight, you're comparing the U.S. to a failed state with no infrastructure newly occupied by a clueless invader? A state with an unemployed standing army, virtually all of its arsenal readily available on the black market, surrounded by leaky borders to hostile nations?

 

OK. Whatever, myan. Pass me the joint.

 

As an experiment, you might try blowing off some IEDs here. The rest of us will kick back and time how long your little insurrection lasts. You might find that a little home court advantage goes a long way...but not in your favor.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

The Draconian measures being put forward by the Blair Holt are more invasive and of greater risk to personal freedoms than anything I have seen in a long time under any administration. Giving no knock access to someone's house so whatever legal authority can make sure a legal gun owner is storing their firearms correctly?

 

You wanna be the Sheriff or agent that has the job of enforcing that one? I don't.

 

What's next? Making sure your stoned housewife has her prescription meds locked securely in a kitchen cabinet.

 

It's a slippery slope. I say leave well enough alone, quit sending Border Patrol agents to federal prison for doing their jobs, and stay out of the middle classes ass.

 

There are bigger fish to fry.

 

I Snoped this. Acccording to that resource (not the be all and end all,but I don't care enough to spend more than a minute or two on it) the bill does not include home inspection, only inspection of firearm storage for sale or commerce. Needless to say, I couldn't find any reference to 'no knock' entry.

 

That stuff just didn't sound right to me, so I checked it out. It isn't.

[tvashtarkatena]

Bottom line is this; you gun nuts have been voting republican for a while now, and that party's been pushing an anti-civil rights, pro police state agenda pretty hard, with a lot of success. Your chances of hiding these days are pretty much zero.

 

Well, now the anti-gun side (as I've predicted for years now) is in charge and they want your guns gone, and now they have all the surveillance and enforcement tools to make sure you comply. Personally, I don't happen to agree with that agenda, but you've made your bed, now you have to lie in it. We'll see how you like playing defense for a change.

 

You might think a little ahead next time before you vote the totalitarian ticket.

[bradleym]

Actually the econmic stimulus bill was approved the Senate on the 13th. (Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00001:@@@X, the only source for legislation) After promising dire consequences for the country if that bill was not approved as soon as possible, he then went on back to chicago for a short vacation with his wife. He didn't wait long enough to fulfill his campaign promise, but did wait long enough to raise questions about the fear mongering he used to get it passed.

 

SCIP was not approved by both houses of Congress until Feb 4th. Signed by the President THAT SAME DAY. Source: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00002:@@@X

 

Lily Ledbetter: Passed by Congress in it's final form Jan 27. Signed by the President Jan 29. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:SN00181:@@@X

 

Your Source is wrong. My source at Fox was correct, and I have included links to the website of Congress to prove it.

 

Good lord, this thread has a life of its own...fwiw, here is my response to your response.

 

You're right, my source does appear to be wrong, and I retract what I said about the Lily Ledbetter legislation. The Senate version became law, and I was stuck on the House version, which went no where. Too early in the morning, I suppose.

 

However, this issue will perhaps continue to be a subject of interpretation, since it depends on one's definition of when a law is complete, or at least complete enough to allow the public to review it. in the case of HR2, SCHIP, the law was agreed in the House on the 14th, the Senate on the 29th, then through conference on the 4th, whereupon the president signed it. A stickler, who wanted to prove that Obama is a 'liar', might state that the clock should start ticking when the law is officially presented to the president. In this case, the provisions of the law were essentially in place substantially before that, which is also the case with Lily Ledbetter, which was passed by the Senate on 22nd and the Senate version passed by the House on the 27th, then signed the 29th.

 

The only bill that had substantial changes to it in conference was the stimulus bill, and from conference agreement to signing was several days.

 

As 'proof' that Obama has broken a campaign pledge and therefore legitimate to include in a list of 'Obamas Top 5 Broken Promises', this is a pretty thin reed. The bills may not be on the whitehouse web site simply because the administration is rather young and that simply hasn't been completed yet. There are numerous other steps the Obama administration has taken that are far more substantive, such as opening up the bidding and appropriations process.

 

But if this continues to be an issue for you--if legislation is getting through without anyone being able to see it--then by all means call them on it.