President Barack Hussein Obama

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by brett636, May 30, 2008.

  1. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    As the title in this thread says, I wish to paint a picture of a world in which BHO is our commander in chief. He and his campaign is all about "change", but what kind of change does BHO truly represent? Is he really a new kind of politician like he states or is he a schemeing political monster out to push his own idealistic beliefs on the rest of us.

    Lets start with energy prices. A lot of focus has been given to this subject recently as oil and gas prices are hitting new records practically everyday. I am just as concerned about this as the next red blooded American, but the concern is how BHO would try to "fix" the problem. You see, the real problem has to do with global demand and supply of oil coupled with a lack of refining capacity in our own country which is required to create many different blends of fuel for differing parts of our nation. BHO, not believing that deregulation is the answer will levy new taxes on the oil industry reducing their ability to explore for new sources of oil and increasing the price for the rest of us. What is worse is BHO buys into the alarmists theory that we have a global warming crisis and that human activities are the cause. With the help of a democratic controlled congress will pass sweeping global warming legislation which will heavily regulate and tax our current energy sources causing those prices to skyrocket further. We are currently complaining of $4/gal for gasoline, but $8/gal or more isn't out of the question with this kind of new regulation. The hope being that this will help ween the American people off of fossil fuels, and that is the most desirable answer to our oil problem but in the meantime we will have to deal with these prices until new technologies become readily available.

    Now that gas is at $8/gal how are you going to pay for it? You would hope that your current paycheck will be able to sustain it somehow considering you can just cut some other item from your budget to make room, but keep in mind your current pay check will not be the paycheck you will recieve under a BHO administration. BHO promises us that he will raise taxes on the rich only, those making over $250k, but we have heard this song and dance before. Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax break, but instead raised taxes on all Americans. Just recently the congress voted to raise taxes on anyone making over $31k/yr. which is far from anyone's standards of being rich. You see, BHO will discover that the rich of our country cannot subsidize every universal social entitlement program he wishes to create. You will have an expiration of the Bush tax cuts, but no relief for the middle class. BHO will use the typical political tactic of sitting on his hands as all Americans pay more in taxes and he whistles in the opposite direction acting like it doesn't matter.

    As healthcare costs continue to rise BHO has promised, and will try to pass a univeral healthcare program of which all Americans can be apart of. At a glance this sounds like a benevolent answer to our current healthcare problem, but in usual leftist fashion BHO does not understand how the free market will react to such a move. As companies start to realize they can dump their current healthcare liabilities and let the government pick up the tab they will do so. This will enhance their bottom line and rid the company of the ever increasing costs of healthcare. As the private insurance companies customer base begins to rapidly decline they will be forced to raise rates in order to maintain coverage. Overtime they only people with private health insurance will be wealthiest among us, as any ordinary American will be priced out of purchasing coverage for themselves. Then you will begin to see and understand the problems Canada and the UK are currently having with their socialized medicine programs. Long waiting lines for surgeries, or to even see a doctor. No longer will you be able to hop in your car and go to the doctor when you wake up ill. You will have to make plans weeks, or even months in advance in order to see your basic family physician.

    Personal freedoms are something we cherish here in the U.S. Our bill of rights allows us stand out from the rest of the world as the only truly free country on the planet. Not to mention the best(for now). Believe it or not the entire bill of rights relies on one single amendment, and that is the 2nd amendment. It reads as follows:

    [SIZE=+1]

    As mentioned before about taxes BHO ignores the the last four words in this amendment. He believes in strict gun control as he knows it from his home city of Chicago. No longer will the handguns, long guns, and family hierlooms be safe when our commander in chief ignores our rights to have them. Now I don't see him enacting an outright ban, but like in the state of California you will see an upward tick in the kind of regulations will have to abide by to continue to own them. All your guns will have to be registered, locked up, and possibly required to keep them in a disassembled form. Ammunition will be taxed to the hilt adding another devatsting blow to the average American budget. You may even see the federal government stepping on your right to even carry your concealed weapons in public. Criminals will gleefully rape and pillage the ordinary person on the street because they know they have little to fear of their victims being armed.

    [/SIZE]
    [SIZE=+1]Lastly, our military is the most powerful, and best equipped military on the planet. The United States is the worlds only remaining superpower, and our enemies have a lot to fear when they see the dreaded U.S. soldier coming their way. As president Obama will call for an end to our operations in Iraq allowing the insurgents there to focus their efforts on the fragile Iraqi government we left in place. Overtime assassinations coupled with a constant barrage of attacks on this fledgling democracy will cause it to fall so that they can raise their own Islamic terrorist state. We will see a nation whose main focus will change from improving itself and its people, to becoming a nation focused on training terrorists, and plotting attacks against us and our allies. BHO believes that if we simply leave our enemies alone they will drop their weapons and learn to love us, but history tells a different story. They will plot their biggest attack yet. While BHO continues to "talk" to our enemies they will put on a benevolent face and act as though they care. In the background they will push terrorist agendas to attack and destroy everything that we hold sacred. Mainly our way of life and our freedoms.

    As I would like to show the bright side of a President Obama world I do not see one. Our budgets will be further constrained by new taxes and regulations, our healthcare system destroyed as we know it, and our freedoms attacked by our own government as well as our enemies. Obama is a dangerous man to be supporting for president, and please take all this into consideration before casting your vote in Nov.


    [/SIZE]​
     
  2. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    Well, if he ever is president, he'll be just B.O. to me. :sick:
     
  3. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    Well said Brett. When I imagine what things would be like in the near future with that Socialist in the Oval Office I pretty much see what you have laid out here. I don't really see much room for anyone to debate any of your points but I'm sure you'll get hammered for this one. Should be interesting.
     
  4. toonertoo

    toonertoo Most Awesome Dog Staff Member

    Im with Bigarrowup, and Bret.
    Now while I still can, Im going to go buy some beer, in my gas guzzler, and some ammo, and go out to the back forty and shoot some stuff.
    Then Im going to come home and take some of my vicodin, that I didnt have to wait 3 months to get for my migraine:whiteflag:
    Scary tales can come true.
     
  5. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    Brett,

    I understand you are a younger man, and I would like to address a point you made in your post.

    I will only address this one point as all the others are just plain rediculous rhetoric heard on the radio, the same old fear and smear stuff not worthy of addressing.

    You stated:
    Quote:
    [SIZE=+1]A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.[/SIZE]

    Its amazing, those who believe they can read, comprehend and apply the written language.

    Its also amazing, the amount of support that followers lend when hearing or reading something that is rediculous and then praise it, as if it were real.

    Lets begin with this Brett.

    First, let me ask you a question:

    "Where in this amendment do you see a "stand alone" sentence giving citizens the right to bear anything" ??

    The Supreme court of the United States of America has only heard the issue of gun rights twice in its history. In NEITHER case has it ruled that any AMERICAN has the right to have a gun.

    The second amendment was first heard by the court in 1939 and at that time, the court DID NOT issue a ruling confirming a citizens right to bear arms.

    The second time the case of the 2nd amendment was heard was just over a month ago. (Heller vs. DC)

    The ruling of the court is expected in a few weeks.

    In this case, the plaintiff sued the State because he felt his 2nd amendment rights were being violated by regulation. A strict handgun ban was enacted and Mr Hellers guns were now against the law.

    The argument was simple. Does the 2nd amendment give an individual the right to keep and brandish a weapon?

    The high court heard testimony from three sides.

    Mr Hellers counsel, The state, The Solicitor General.

    Without having to give you a 3000 page outline of the case, I will keep it in simple terms for you.

    The high court asked Mr Hellers counsel how he came to SEPARATE the meanings in the sentence into THREE separate parts given the fact that there are COMMAS in the sentence making it a CONTINUING sentence.

    Mr. Hellers counsel FAILED to convince the court that the COMMAS were irrelavent in the sentence making it ONE MEANING and not THREE SEPARATE meanings.

    You as well left out the COMMAS in the sentence.

    Most people do.

    The high court heard testimony about the creation of the amendment and the uses of the commas. The court pointed out to MR. Hellers counsel that the sentence was originally written in a miliaristic sense in defense of the State and not individuals.

    You see, when it was written, there were no US armies, no national guard, no police force, no civil defense and no fire departments.

    It was the intention of the founding fathers to establish a means to protect each state from each other and more importantly, protect them from a "Tyrannical goverment".

    Each state was given the right to form militias, "well regulated" by each state in order to provide security. NO WHERE in the amendment did it empower citizens to carry weapons independently.

    The weapons had to be stored in a community warehouse, powder separated by one floor from the muskets (actually written in the constitution)

    What you stated is a common misconception never really addressed until the case was heard recently.

    Yes, the gun nuts take the 2nd amendment literally, leaving out the commas and creating separate meanings, but you cant if you understand the english language.

    The NRA is the most adamant in trying to communicate to its members that the 2nd amendment gives individuals rights to arms.

    When the high court sends down its ruling in a few weeks, it will be interesting to see how it interprets the arguments.

    In the end, it will however, UPHOLD the gun ban and further UPHOLD a states rights to regulate weapons.

    Mr. Hellers case was weak, his counsel failed on many attempts to separate the commas from each other in the sentence. A continuing sentence was the impression Chief Justice Roberts exhaulted.

    There wasnt 1 single justice who sided openly with Mr. Hellers counsels opinion that the commas merely divided three parts of the amendment into separate meanings.

    When the solicitor general explained in GREAT DETAIL the history of the 2nd amendment, the most common idiot would come away knowing what the intention of the amendment was.

    Over the years, it has been assumed that the 2nd amendment meant individuals were granted arms rights yet, not until now has that actually been put to the test.

    I had the pleasure to sit in the gallery for this hearing as a guest of my uncle, Congressman Joe Baca-D- California.

    As I said earlier, this ruling will be landmarking. It will NOT end up with a persons FEDERAL right to possess handguns or arms, it will only extend the regulations of arms upon each state in the Union.

    I am sure you can research this case yourself if you did not know about Heller v. DC.

    Re-read the sentence in the 2nd amendment, and this time, focus on the COMMAS and ask yourself if this sentence is three separte sentences, or one continuing sentence further defined by commas.

    Look up the history of the 2nd amendment, look at how it was created, who wrote it, why were the commas not in there in the begining. Who put the commas in?

    Why was there specificity about the weapons care and the storage thereof.

    You will suprise yourself.

    You can continue to leave your interpretations as they stand and cheat yourself out of knowledge, but as a young man, I am sure you would prefer to find the truth. You have shown your capacity for adjustment in thought many times on this board.

    These are my thoughts.

    Peace:peaceful:
     
  6. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    There are actually two rights being protected here. It means that a state shall have the right to have a militia. It also states that the people (clearly meaning citizens) have the right to keep and bear arms. The term "shall not be infringed." just means that niether of those two rights shall be taken away. Don't let all the commas confuse you. I don't know why it's so hard for liberals to comprehend that!?!? But then again.... they can't even get the first amendment right so what else should we expect?
     
  7. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    I'm not sure how but I hope BC can save Brett's original post and "if" Obama wins the election, let's look over Brett's prediction say in Obama's 3rd year and see how accurate he was. I think it would be fun and instructive at the same time. And no I don't think he'll be all right nor do I think he'll be all wrong but it would still be fun.

    As to the 2nd amendment, it will be interesting how the court rules "BUT" Heller case may still not resolve the issue. DC is not a state as the 2nd amendment pertains to the States. DC is a jurisdictional territory.

    I reserve the right to advise and extend my remarks on this issue at a later time and reserve back the balance of my time!

    :thumbsup:
     
  8. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    "I reserve the right to advise and extend my remarks on this issue at a later time and reserve back the balance of my time!"

    Thanks for the disclaimer, wkmac. I was wondering why your response was looking so short in length. :happy-very:
     
  9. BrownShark

    BrownShark Banned

    Big arrow,

    Maybe you should take your strong Legal interpretation to Mr. Heller and tell him you want to repesent him when he loses the case.

    From your post, you are obviously more qualified than the supreme justices who "disagree" with you.

    As I stated, most people "deliberately" look past the commas and try to create three separate meanings out of 1 continuing sentence.

    Arrow, I am sure with your extreme knowledge of law and history, you could convince the high court to accept your interpretation where a high paid lawyer failed.

    LMAO.....

    Dont worry, you can still shoot cans with your AR-15....:happy-very:

    Language and interpretation is whats key here. What the founding fathers wrote over 200 years ago will be put to the test.

    But i will ask you again, maybe you will get it:

    "where do you see a STAND ALONE sentence in the 2nd amendment (and by stand alone, that means connected to nothing else in a sentence) where it gives an individual the right to bear anything?"

    If you respond, only respond to the question, not political rhetoric about guns or gun rights.

    Then we can move the conversation along to the next point.

    Here's a little help, I will try to break it down to 3rd grade level.

    First a link wih comma usage:
    http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp

    Next, your very argument is silly. First you say there are 2 rights being protected. Yet, you separate those rights by the comma, but there are three commas, that would make three seperate rights, wouldnt it??
    .............................................^comma

    This was Hellers argument to the high court and it was rejected.

    Your argument is that the words SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED applys directly after the words THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, yet you separate these two lines from the first two lines....

    How do you reconcile this?

    Why after the last comma you connect it to THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS, but separate it from A WELL REGULATED MILITIA?

    Explain this in some legal detail?

    Hellers counsel didnt have an answer for this, maybe you could provide the case breaker.

    This issue will come down to applied language at the time. (200 years ago)

    I am sure the founding fathers didnt intend for citizens to be armed with machine guns, bazookas, tanks, 50 cal. machine guns, ak 47's, hand grenades, chemical weapons,rocket launchers, shoulder fired missiles, land mines and the like since they are all considered ARMS by definition.

    And before you cancel your own argument by saying that there are some limitations to people having certain ARMS, remember this, HELLERS counsel said the same thing and had his case blow up in his face by admitting to the high court that REGULATION was necessary to control the type of ARMS people could be allowed to have.

    HELLERS counsel had to admit to the high court that the weapons I mentioned would be considered ARMS and they should NOT be allowed to be in the possession of citizens.

    This concession that regulation was a necessary evil went against HELLERS case of having the sole right to bear an ARM.

    Regulation by the state will always be the case. No where in the constitution does it specify what TYPE of ARM can be brandished by a citizen.

    This is why there needs to be regulation. You can thank HELLERS counsel for admitting this to the high court. HELLERS counsel admitted that by having people go through background checks and registration, it was an appropriate form of state regulation.

    Each state no longer needs militias to protect the state, the goverment now takes care of this. The local police forces in a state provide first line of defense for citizens. The need to have a civilian defense force with ARMS is no longer a necessity.

    In my opinion, and this opinion coming from my geographical area where there are no open areas like in the deep south, guns should be banned in big cities. No handguns, rifles or the like.
    ..............^comma

    In the open parts of the country I could care less if some farm boy wants to shoot birds with his AK 47, just keep them out of the big cities.

    Anyone who feels the need to have an automatic weapon in the first place has to problem to begin with.

    Sporting guns would be ok in the appropriate areas, but not in downtown Los Angeles. There are way to many homocides with guns in the big cities.

    Peace:peaceful:
     
  10. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    I understand, you cannot defend Obama on these issues because you know they are true.

    Its amazing how * like yourself think you can dictate the meaning of the 2nd amendment as one continous sentence, or to try to infer the meaning of the 2nd amendment is a collective or state right. You see, its a simple grammar term known as a compound sentence. The first sentence in this paragraph is a compound sentence where two sentences are joined together by a comma. Being the fool that you are you probably don't understand this.

    The 2nd amendment has been mentioned in several Supreme Court rulings. In several of those cases the Court mentions the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not a collective one. Cases such as Dredscott, Casey v. Planned Parenthood, U.S. v. Cruikshank and others. In fact, in 22 of 27 instances the Supreme court has ruled the 2nd amendment as an individual right, and not a collective one.

    Lower courts have also disagreed with you. "We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain
    meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear
    arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or
    training” and “We reject the collective rights and sophisticated collective rights models for
    interpreting the Second Amendment” This was from U.S. v. Emerson, 5th court of Appeals decision, November 2, 2001, No. 99-10331

    Go back and read my quoting of the 2nd amendment, the commas are there. As stated above your argument has no relevance, and I have been following the Heller case closely. Everything I have read on this case has stated the exact opposite of what you just posted. It is expected the Supreme Court will overturn the ban, and assert an individual's right to keep and bear arms. In fact all the Supreme Court justices agreed that the 2nd amendment does apply to an individual's right and not a collective one.

    Than can you explain to me why all the other rights listed in the Bill of rights are related to the individual, and not the state. To help better explain this idea "The Second Amendment, like the First, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, refers to a "right of the people," not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. The First Amendment guarantees the people's right to assemble; the Fourth Amendment protects the people's right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures; the Ninth Amendment refers to the people's unenumerated rights. 1 These rights are clearly individual -- they protect "the right of the people" by protecting the right of each person. This strongly suggests that the similarly-worded Second Amendment likewise secures an individual right" found here

    Based on your earlier proven capacities to lie on this board I highly doubt you were anywhere near the Supreme Court when arguments were being given. Secondly, everywhere else that I have read other's accounts of what the supreme court heard and said during arguments indicates that it will strike down the D.C. handgun ban. I will wait in great anticipation for the court's final ruling on this matter so incase Obama does become President he understands that our right to bear arms cannot be trifled with. You see, people like yourself do not understand that the 2nd amendment is not there so I can go hunting, or even so that I can protect myself from criminals. The 2nd amendment is there so that I can protect myself from a tyrannical government. The founding fathers agree.

    “[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over
    the people of almost every other nation...[where] the governments are afraid to trust the
    people with arms.”-James Madison

    "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."-Thomas Jefferson

    "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that
    their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."-Thomas Jefferson

    "The totalitarian states can do great things, but there is one thing they cannot do: they cannot
    give the factory-worker a rifle and tell him to take it home and keep it in his bedroom. That
    rifle hanging on the wall of the working-class flat or labourer's cottage, is the symbol of
    democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there."-George Orwell (not a founding father, but well said non the less)

    "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how
    popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.... The right of citizens to
    bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against
    tyranny..."-Herbert Humphrey former U.S. Senator and Vice President of the united states.
     
  11. filthpig

    filthpig Active Member

    Guns don't kill people. Husbands who come home early kill people.
     
  12. diesel96

    diesel96 New Member

    I'm staying out of the 2nd amendment debate cause I find myself torn in the middle, but I find it ironic that Americans are losing the understanding of what it means to be free. We’ve become so accustomed to big brother’s hand that torture, spying without warrants, engaging in illegal wars of aggression, lying to the American public is acceptable.
    These wrongdoings further serves to deny the constitutional safeguards that our founders intended to protect our citizens but it's categorically and overwhelmingly approved by our wanna-be "soldiers of fortune" who only cry foul when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

     
  13. Overpaid Union Thug

    Overpaid Union Thug Well-Known Member

    This is hillarious but sad at the same time. Liberals can't read anything without twisting it out of proportion. I wish the Constitution was "Liberal Proof" but it isn't and I fear that over the years they (particularly liberal judges) will butcher the Constitution the the point where one will have to wonder what country they live in. Brownshark....there is no "fear and smear" or "politial rhetoric" needed to understand the amendment. We only need to look at history (one good example: quotes from founding fathers that Brett listed) and use common sense. Our rights to bear arms is clearly spelt out in the constitution but a few whacko judges are confusing themselves, as well as you liberals, into thinking it means otherwise. WISE UP!
     
  14. tourists24

    tourists24 Well-Known Member

     
  15. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    You really should read some of the help material on this forum and learn how to properly use the quote feature.

    That being said I actually agree with some of what you stated in the first paragraph, but probably not in the same context. People in this country take our freedoms for granted and are too busy enjoying it instead of understanding the true cost of it.

    As far as your losing the argument comment, I fail to see how posting historical facts along with Supreme court rulings and other court decisions is losing an argument. I must admit I do find it a bit disturbing how much you and BS want us to rely on the government for every need. Although you being torn on the 2nd amendment issue is interesting considering the big government guy that you are. Why do you think us peasants need a way to defend ourselves from a tyrannical government?
     
  16. tieguy

    tieguy Banned

    The wording is clearly there allowing citizens the right to bear arms. it is fun though reading through this fantasy of yours. My hats off to your attempt to make this argument as rediculous as it may be.
     
  17. moreluck

    moreluck golden ticket member

    STATEMENT OF FRANCIS CARDINAL GEORGE, O.M.I.,
    ARCHBISHOP OF CHICAGO
    June 3, 2008

    To put recent events in some perspective, I have asked Father Michael Pfleger, Pastor of St. Sabina’s Parish, to step back from his obligations there and take leave for a couple of weeks from his pastoral duties, effective today. Fr. Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time. While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church’s regulations for all Catholic priests. I hope that this period will also be a time away from the public spotlight and for rest and attention to family concerns.
    I hope also that the life of St. Sabina’s parish may continue in uninterrupted fashion. Fr. William Vanecko, Pastor of St. Kilian’s parish, will be temporary administrator of St. Sabina’s and will assure the full complement of ministerial services during this period. I ask the members of St. Sabina’s parish to cooperate with him and to keep him and Fr. Pfleger in their prayers. They are in mine.