Conservatives Hate Obama More Than They Love America

[Hooded_Miracle]

As far as I can tell, part of the reason that the constitution is such a pain in the ass for a lot of politicians to try and ignore is because our forefathers probably didn't even dream of all this technology right now. They didn't expect guns to get so powerful, or for terrorism on the scales of 9/11, or anything like that. Admittedly, they may not have planned ahead, but predicting 300+ years into the future is a little hard. ('_')/

[Lord T Hawkeye]

Check the vid series, it clears everything up nicely. The founders were very well aware the world of today would be far different than theirs. That's why they specifically stated that the constitution should not be based on their original intent.

[Rachel Bronwyn]

Originally Posted by Soccermom

Mayor versus Community Organizer?

As a "community organiser" Obama had significantly more responsibility than Palin ever did being mayor of a small town. There are high school principals with more responsibilities than that of the mayor of Wasilla.

Governor versus Congressman?

Again, you're only taking title into account. As a congressman Obama had significantly more responsibility and accomplished more than Palin did in her few months as governor of Alaska.

The answer between the two of them is fairly clear cut.

No, it's not. You aren't looking at the issue remotely critically. The titles aren't what matters. It's what that experience entails. "Mayor" and "governor" don't mean much when you served in a sleepy state with a minute population.

And again, I'm simply talking experience, I don't like either one. To rephrase my previous questions:

Executive Experience versus nothing?
Executive Experience versus legislative experience?

Remember, the presidential position is an executive position.

Still, you're not taking into account anything but titles, which do not accurately express the content of someone's accomplishments. "Executive" doesn't mean anything when it's regarding eighteen months in Alaska, whereas the legislative experience Obama has (not to mention the eduction = a clear understanding of American law) demanded a ton of responsibility.

It doesn't help that Sarah Palin can't conduct herself professionally and utterly lacks basic understanding of American law.

AND I DON'T EVEN LIKE OBAMA.

[kia252]

Originally Posted by Lord T Hawkeye

This may sound reasonable to the untrained eye but I'm not so easily fooled. You see, this claim contains a glaring flaw.

The constitution was created to establish a set of standards that the government is assigned to enforce. Thus the concept of the rule of law. This is intended to keep the peace while preventing the government from exceeding their role. You claim that all interpretations are equal when discerning what the constitution means? Utter nonsense and this is why: If we go by that logic, we can make the constitution mean anything we want to. There's the flaw.

A document that can mean anything, means nothing and is thus worthless.

There's no two ways about the bit about the right to bear arms, it is as clear as crystal: Government can't disarm the public. Period!

The bit about free speech? Very clear too. People have the right to speak their mind and nobody gets a say otherwise.

You have a right to engage in fair trade with anyone you choose, whenever you choose and in what manner you choose. Nobody gets to veto it.

It's as simple as ABC and clear as a bell. Sneaking in alternate takes on it is dishonest and really quite vile when you get right down to it. So spare me the moral high ground nonsense because you're doing nothing more than making excuses for the freedom hating weasels.

I know you won't but if anyone reading this is interested in learning more about the constitution, I highly recommend this lecture series


The second part talks about interprating the constitution. Very informative

So, does the fact that I started watching your video as a matter of curiosity before I even realized the childish little slam mean that what you "know" is wrong. In this case, sure. In other cases, I suppose not. The blind arrogance and cheap character assassination is pretty funny, though.

If you would be so kind as to not cherry-pick the premises as my argument and deny the conclusion and everything else, you might see that there is no suggestion they are equal arguments.Though both sides believe they work within the bounds of the Constitution (the original point you no longer seem wiling to debate), one must be an incorrect interpretation. As I have said 3 times now, there constitutionally mandated authority in determining which position does adhere to constitutional law, the Supreme Court. I'm not excusing the arguments so much as saying that those arguing are not "freedom-hating weasels" as much as they may just have an incorrect understanding of what is and is not constitutional.

Eerily, I had already established a problem with the video's argument of final constitutional arbitration lying with the people before even watching it. The people can have among them competing interpretations of the Constitution and not be able to come unanimous decision of something being unconstitutional even when it is. He even contends that many people (lawyers, politicians, legal scholars, laymen) hold interpretations that differ from his own, yet expects them to be the final authority on upholding his interpretation, defying his own stance. Additionally, he conveniently omits, in his little scenario, that the jury can fail to deem a law is unconstitutional, which then allows the convicted to appeal to higher courts where it will be deemed whether it is constitutional or not by either an existing precedent or direct ruling from the Supreme Court.

I appreciate the effort in the video, it does share clarifications and ideas that are meaningful. However, his take on constitutional interpretation boils down to, "this is the only interpretation I can personally develop with my qualifiers, therefore all other interpretations must be wrong." Unfortunately, that is pretty much the argument everyone else makes in asserting their interpretations, so he really doesn't get any special assumption that his is right.

[qzar9999]

Originally Posted by DalekSec

As opposition grows, more gun muzzles are required. Govt. becomes more paranoid and people turn up missing in the night. Sooner or later, folks decide that living in chains is not better than taking the chance to die as free men and they will rise up. Quietly or with great thunder, they always do.

...as just about *any* fiction set in a Dystopia or Crapsack World will tell you. (Equilibrium, The Matrix, V for Vendetta...) Nobody can rule through oppression forever.

[genderhazard]

Originally Posted by Rachel Bronwyn

Obama had significantly more responsibility than Palin ever did being mayor of a small town.

As Vice-President this would have been Palin's responsibility.

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

(Even OhZone could do that. LULZ)

and

If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President.

As a congressman Obama had significantly more responsibility and accomplished more than Palin did in her few months as governor of Alaska.

The governor of any state has more responsibility than a Congressman or Senetor.

[qzar9999]

What I wonder, really, is why anyone's still talking about this. McCain/Palin lost, Obama/Biden won. If every single person in the US of A woke up tomorrow and thought, "Oh my God, we elected a total n00b to the highest office in the land!" it wouldn't make a bit of difference. He is President, and barring death or impeachment he'll remain President until the next election (or the one after that). So really--what's it matter?

[Soccermom]

Originally Posted by qzar9999

What I wonder, really, is why anyone's still talking about this. McCain/Palin lost, Obama/Biden won. If every single person in the US of A woke up tomorrow and thought, "Oh my God, we elected a total n00b to the highest office in the land!" it wouldn't make a bit of difference. He is President, and barring death or impeachment he'll remain President until the next election (or the one after that). So really--what's it matter?

I would say "It would help us from ever making that same mistake again."

But I can't, because the other side was a mistake too. We were fucked either way.

[Hooded_Miracle]

I've noticed that in the last few elections, it's either you vote for one mistake or the other.

I like America, but I plan on voting for Chuck Norris until I see a side with a candidate that doesn't have any glaring flaws. ('_')/

[Lord T Hawkeye]

I appreciate the effort in the video, it does share clarifications and ideas that are meaningful. However, his take on constitutional interpretation boils down to, "this is the only interpretation I can personally develop with my qualifiers, therefore all other interpretations must be wrong." Unfortunately, that is pretty much the argument everyone else makes in asserting their interpretations, so he really doesn't get any special assumption that his is right.

Actually he does because that's what the constitution says. The constitution is not the bible, it is in fact VERY clear in it's instructions. As he pointed out, it's supposed to restrict all branches of government but how can it when said branches can make it mean whatever they want to? The rule of law must not be subject to whims. Even in the case of jury nullification, majority rule still doesn't win the day. It must be unanimous. Not perfect? Sure but what is?

[OhZone]

OHMY! I thought Chuck Norris was a raving loon like Glenn Beck.


Chuck Norris Roundhouse Kicks Politics and Logic!
http://www.cracked.com/video_16655_c...ic-on-cnn.html

[Sephie]

Originally Posted by Hooded_Miracle

I've noticed that in the last few elections, it's either you vote for one mistake or the other.

I like America, but I plan on voting for Chuck Norris until I see a side with a candidate that doesn't have any glaring flaws. ('_')/

Since all humans have glaring flaws you will be voting for Chuck Norris until you die?