|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 13, 2010 15:07:49 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by Aztec89 on Oct 13, 2010 15:35:55 GMT -8
This is what a Dictator looks like. This is why so many young Voters feel dis- enfranchised and will not vote this time. His whole base has dissolved. So sad. Well, not really. The Dictator will be ousted by the masses in 2012.
Heil Obama.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 14, 2010 10:18:14 GMT -8
I certainly would not trust the future of the USA to the two above posters either.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 14, 2010 11:17:06 GMT -8
I certainly would not trust the future of the USA to the two above posters either. Sad and snarky comment. I am joining them in common sense adhering to belief in the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 14, 2010 13:54:29 GMT -8
I certainly would not trust the future of the USA to the two above posters either. Sad and snarky comment. I am joining them in common sense adhering to belief in the Constitution.  Ya, right, um-hum. |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 14, 2010 20:10:20 GMT -8
I certainly would not trust the future of the USA to the two above posters either. But you would seemingly trust the future of the USA to the likes of these totalitarian Democrat in the Senate, White House and State Dept who would sooner confiscate a life savings for their Union buddies and defer our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights to International treaties. Distrust of the average freedom loving US voter by Totalitarians and Globalists are sort of a given, isn't it? www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39336www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7289 |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Oct 14, 2010 20:43:16 GMT -8
I certainly would not trust the future of the USA to the two above posters either. But you would seemingly trust the future of the USA to the likes of these totalitarian Democrat in the Senate, White House and State Dept who would sooner confiscate a life savings for their Union buddies and defer our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights to International treaties. Distrust of the average freedom loving US voter by Totalitarians and Globalists are sort of a given, isn't it? www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39336www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7289ROFL It is crackpot posts like this that form my opinion of you.  |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 14, 2010 20:52:25 GMT -8
But you would seemingly trust the future of the USA to the likes of these totalitarian Democrat in the Senate, White House and State Dept who would sooner confiscate a life savings for their Union buddies and defer our 1st and 2nd Amendment rights to International treaties. Distrust of the average freedom loving US voter by Totalitarians and Globalists are sort of a given, isn't it? www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=39336www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7289ROFL It is crackpot posts like this that form my opinion of you. I couldn't defend them either....  |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 15, 2010 8:50:17 GMT -8
"Totalitarian Democrats" Huh? |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 15, 2010 13:17:22 GMT -8
"Totalitarian Democrats" Huh? What is it about the phrase "seize private 401(k) plans" that would make you think otherwise? |
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Oct 15, 2010 13:25:18 GMT -8
"Totalitarian Democrats" Huh? What is it about the phrase "seize private 401(k) plans" that would make you think otherwise? Ya, we all are just frothing at the mouth at what is being said on a crackpot conspiracy web site.  |
|
|
|
Post by ptsdthor on Oct 15, 2010 14:00:58 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 16, 2010 14:21:13 GMT -8
I sleep well at night knowing that I am a better shot than Dick Cheney. It also helps to know that he is not nearby. Lately, though, it seems to me that conservatives have been suffering more dyspepsia about the constitution than we liberals. So you support the entire constitution, ptsdthor, or do a couple of the articles give you a little gas?  |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 16, 2010 14:36:31 GMT -8
This is what a Dictator looks like. This is why so many young Voters feel dis- enfranchised and will not vote this time. His whole base has dissolved. So sad. Well, not really. The Dictator will be ousted by the masses in 2012. Heil Obama. So what does a dictator look like? May I suggest reading a good biography about Joseph Stalin? You have a great deal to learn about what a dictator looks and acts like. Tell you what though, if Obama really gives you the willies, get thee to place of worship and immediately begin praying. Maybe the Lord God Jehovah will grant your wish. While you're at it pray for a mild winter, will you? Our forecast calls for a great deal of snow. LOL |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Oct 16, 2010 15:37:17 GMT -8
Real dictators are always surrounded by the class of affluence. It is they who keep the dictator in power with their flatulence of cash.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 17, 2010 7:37:24 GMT -8
I sleep well at night knowing that I am a better shot than Dick Cheney. It also helps to know that he is not nearby. Lately, though, it seems to me that conservatives have been suffering more dyspepsia about the constitution than we liberals. So you support the entire constitution, ptsdthor, or do a couple of the articles give you a little gas? What makes you think you are a better shot than Cheney? Who have you ever shot? Rethink and then restate! Also on what specific issue would you challenge any Conservative on support of the Constitution that was not the result of a prior attack by liberals. That means forget trying any of Patriot Act type issues as they are all the result of liberal lapses in the responsibility to uphold the Constitution and other US law. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 19, 2010 16:44:48 GMT -8
I sleep well at night knowing that I am a better shot than Dick Cheney. It also helps to know that he is not nearby. Lately, though, it seems to me that conservatives have been suffering more dyspepsia about the constitution than we liberals. So you support the entire constitution, ptsdthor, or do a couple of the articles give you a little gas? What makes you think you are a better shot than Cheney? Who have you ever shot? Rethink and then restate! Also on what specific issue would you challenge any Conservative on support of the Constitution that was not the result of a prior attack by liberals. That means forget trying any of Patriot Act type issues as they are all the result of liberal lapses in the responsibility to uphold the Constitution and other US law. I have consistently put a pattern within the size of my palm with a .38 at fifty feet. In all my shooting I never hit what I didn't aim at. I was good at bringing dove down with a shotgun and never once hit my father-in-law. Ergo I am a better shot than darth vader. ;D Just because I disagree with the second amendment interpretation does not mean I can't shoot. My father ran an armory with thousands of guns in it. Some of that experience rubbed off. Surprising? - Not! I carried a gun for years as part of my job. I had to qualify to carry it. As to the constitution, hummm. Well, lets see. There's the Water Buddhist ophthalmologist somewhere in Kenturky who hates amendment 14. The ditz in the desert doesn't like amendment one. The absolute moron in Delaware has trouble with that one too. Never mind though, she doesn't even know what it says. (to the laughter of a whole room full of law students) Shall I continue? Thanks to Aztec 70, for the assistance with my political geography! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Oct 20, 2010 10:54:37 GMT -8
What makes you think you are a better shot than Cheney? Who have you ever shot? Rethink and then restate! Also on what specific issue would you challenge any Conservative on support of the Constitution that was not the result of a prior attack by liberals. That means forget trying any of Patriot Act type issues as they are all the result of liberal lapses in the responsibility to uphold the Constitution and other US law. I have consistently put a pattern within the size of my palm with a .38 at fifty feet. In all my shooting I never hit what I didn't aim at. I was good at bringing dove down with a shotgun and never once hit my father-in-law. Ergo I am a better shot than darth vader. ;D Just because I disagree with the second amendment interpretation does not mean I can't shoot. My father ran an armory with thousands of guns in it. Some of that experience rubbed off. Surprising? - Not! I carried a gun for years as part of my job. I had to qualify to carry it. As to the constitution, hummm. Well, lets see. There's the Water Buddhist ophthalmologist somewhere in Kenturky who hates amendment 14. The ditz in the desert doesn't like amendment one. The absolute moron in Delaware has trouble with that one too. Never mind though, she doesn't even know what it says. (to the laughter of a whole room full of law students) Shall I continue? Thanks to Aztec 70, for the assistance with my political geography! I was wondering where you were getting your guidance. I liken that to Stevie Wonder watching Ray Charles to learn stage presence. Those first two folks you challenge can easily be refuted and defended. I have a little trouble with the young lady from Delaware. I am still glad that she won the primary but lost the seat. The reasoning is that the other guy needed to be purged anyway as he would vote with the Dems. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Oct 20, 2010 11:54:56 GMT -8
I have consistently put a pattern within the size of my palm with a .38 at fifty feet. In all my shooting I never hit what I didn't aim at. I was good at bringing dove down with a shotgun and never once hit my father-in-law. Ergo I am a better shot than darth vader. ;D Just because I disagree with the second amendment interpretation does not mean I can't shoot. My father ran an armory with thousands of guns in it. Some of that experience rubbed off. Surprising? - Not! I carried a gun for years as part of my job. I had to qualify to carry it. As to the constitution, hummm. Well, lets see. There's the Water Buddhist ophthalmologist somewhere in Kenturky who hates amendment 14. The ditz in the desert doesn't like amendment one. The absolute moron in Delaware has trouble with that one too. Never mind though, she doesn't even know what it says. (to the laughter of a whole room full of law students) Shall I continue? Thanks to Aztec 70, for the assistance with my political geography! I was wondering where you were getting your guidance. I liken that to Stevie Wonder watching Ray Charles to learn stage presence. Those first two folks you challenge can easily be refuted and defended. I have a little trouble with the young lady from Delaware. I am still glad that she won the primary but lost the seat. The reasoning is that the other guy needed to be purged anyway as he would vote with the Dems. Yes, Win, occasionally I need clarification. I even accept information from davdesid, when he is right. By doing that I prove that I am at least open to a sensible argument. It is much harder to paint me as inflexible. Besides, we are all just having fun here right? |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Oct 20, 2010 13:29:44 GMT -8
>>>The absolute moron in Delaware has trouble with that one too. Never mind though, she doesn't even know what it says. (to the laughter of a whole room full of law students)<<< O'Donnell was right and Coons is the one who doesn't know what's in the 1A. He couldn't name the five freedoms in that article. The 1A does not contain the words "separation of church and state", and the Court had this to say as recently as 1984: No significant segment of our society, and no institution within it, can exist in a vacuum or in total or absolute isolation from all the other parts, much less from government. "It has never been thought either possible or desirable to enforce a regime of total separation. . . ." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 760 (1973). Nor does the Constitution require complete separation of church and state; it affirmatively mandates accommodation, not merely tolerance, of all religions, and forbids hostility toward any. See, e.g., Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306, 314, 315 (1952); Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 211 (1948). Anything less would require the "callous indifference" we have said was never intended by the Establishment Clause. Zorach, supra, at 314. Indeed, we have observed, such hostility would bring us into "war with our national tradition as embodied in the First Amendment's guaranty of the free exercise of religion." McCollum, supra, at 211-212.www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0465_0668_ZO.htmlFor more on this so called 'gaffe', go here: pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/108280/ |
|
Or does he want less people armed when he and the Democrats take over all our 401Ks?
