Letter to obama on Constitutional rights

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

President , Lord high King, I suggest that you read the Constitution of the United States of America because obviously you haven't a damn clue that you are the servant of WE THE PEOPLE. Where your dumbass got that we are your servants I haven't a clue but WE have just about had enough of your bull! Climb down off that high horse and take the damn saddle off of Michelle long enough to educate your stupid self and maybe teach that arrogant witch you are married to that she isn't a freaking Goddess and certainly not any better than even the least of us! While you are at --stop pissing away our tax dollars on multi-million dollar vacations you simply do not deserve because of the lousy job you have been doing. If you were in Private business your dumbass would have been fired the first few months of your service. To help you I'll start with exactly what you should read first!
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights.html

NEXT--



http://billofrightsinstitute.org/founding-documents/bill-of-rights/

The Bill of Rights – Full Text

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
I AM SAVING THIS TO SEND DIRECTLY TO THAT SOB!!! First Obama U.S. drone strike may be on me but ff him!! I've bout' had enough of that SOB... --Tyr

[Arbo]

Is that written by you or someone else? Hard to tell since it's quoted but without reference.

[fj1200]

I think insulting his wife was exactly the right way to go. :rolleyes:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I think insulting his wife was exactly the right way to go. :rolleyes: Me too ,tis why I wrote it. The real America is as fed up with that sorry excuse for a human as they are with him. I do not think he has a solid 44% of the population on his side. I suspect the number has been inflated and made to appear to be larger by his slavish media . I wrote exactly what was in my heart about the bastard. Anybody that doesn't like it can kiss a good man's ass as far as I am concerned. America should be waking up about now to what a true monster he is . I knew even before the bastard was elected . Some of us have been around the block a few hundred times in our lives and aren't as gullible as are his fans, bots, appeasers and government made slaves. --Tyr

[Arbo]

Me too ,tis why I wrote it.

At least now we know who wrote it. Most people that read it would think the writer was unstable.

[fj1200]

Me too...

So a persuasive argument with specific points to be addressed and potential courses of action wasn't in the cards to begin with then?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So a persuasive argument with specific points to be addressed and potential courses of action wasn't in the cards to begin with then? Why should I bother? So you could do this to it. Cut it down to two words.
Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

Me too... I may decide to write more about it but that depends on a number of factors and who gives me a reason to do so. I seriously doubt that responding in great length and detail to members that cut down my comments to two words is in the cards right now but thanks for playing. ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

Why...

Do you really think me editing your post for brevity makes any difference? :rolleyes: If they want to read your whole post they certainly know where to find it.

[Arbo]

Do you really think me editing your post for brevity makes any difference? :rolleyes: If they want to read your whole post they certainly know where to find it.

I never understood quoting a whole post... takes up too much room, and generally it's unneeded. I suppose some just want their words repeated like they repeat the words of talking heads??

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Do you . What? --Tyr

[fj1200]

What? --Tyr

You can't be that daft... can you???

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You can't be that daft... can you??? You aren't that dense are you?- :laugh: -Tyr

[Arbo]

You can't be that daft... can you???

Twas a lame attempt that fell miles short, wasn't it? Perhaps he doesn't realize though you didn't quote all of his post, you responded to it, whereas he didn't do the same.

[fj1200]

You aren't that dense are you?- :laugh: -Tyr

Nope. Apparently I have a higher opinion of fellow posters than you. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nope. Apparently I have a higher opinion of fellow posters than you. ;) As evidence by your often snarky type of replies and abbreviated "for effect" re-postings of their words no doubt. :laugh: And your pretending I hold contempt at a higher level of "certain members" than you and a few others here is laughable to me. Although you are by no means the worst in that regards.. --Tyr

[fj1200]

As evidence by you often snarky replies and abbreviated "for effect" re-postings of their words no doubt. :laugh: --Tyr

Nope, I have a higher opinion, of most anyway, that they have the ability to fully comprehend the whys and wherefores. Unless you're alleging I broke the rules of course. :)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Nope, I have a higher opinion, of most anyway, that they have the ability to fully comprehend the whys and wherefores. Unless you're alleging I broke the rules of course. :) I did not even mention any rules..

A classic example of snide or snarky remark is this little caveat ,bolded and enlarged in your quoted words above. Notice, I quoted the entire reply and did not edit for effect by leaving out words..;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

I did not even mention any rules..

Correct.


A classic example of snide or snarky remark is this little caveat ,bolded and enlarged in your quoted words above. Notice, I quoted the entire reply and did not edit for effect by leaving out words..;)--Tyr

One man's snark is another man's disclaimer I suppose. :dunno: Nevertheless I'm not sure why you're upset about this.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Back on topic.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/america_after_obama.html

September 20, 2013

February 6, 2012
America after Obama
By Jeff Lukens

Barack Obama has gone from the "one we've been waiting for" to the one we can't wait to kick out. No one ever thought one man could bring the nation to its knees, but here he is living in the White House. And on our knees we have been, praying for the day when he leaves.

The audacity of a president hell-bent on destroying our great nation has truly been a stunning spectacle to observe. No lie is too ridiculous to tell about anyone who opposes him. With a compliant media behind him, the smears this demagogue-in-chief promises to unleash on his opponent this fall could divide the county so badly that it becomes ungovernable.

The societal tensions Obama promised to ease have worsened by his politics of envy. The racial healing he promised has fallen flat, leaving only a worse divide. Despite overwhelming opposition, he forced a health plan on the people that few want. He has trampled on the Constitution and infringed on powers granted to Congress. He has bailed out auto companies, investment bankers, and insurance companies. He has given constitutional rights to terrorists.

Obama's greatest transgression, however, has been the explosion of government spending to the point where we are enslaved to a mountain of debt that can never be repaid. He has given us $1.6-trillion deficits and will have added more than $6 trillion to the debt by the end of his term. He has raised the percentage of GDP consumed by government to 25 percent. And all his spending has stimulated nothing.

If you believe what the government reports, total unemployment is currently 15.2 percent as measured by U-6. During Obama's tenure, true unemployment has been running greater than 20 percent and is near Depression-era levels. In sum, Obama's presidency has hastened a financial disaster upon the nation.

Obama calls his policies "transformation." In an earlier age, they would have been considered something akin to treason. Our enemies could not have planted someone to have caused more damage. And now, with financial collapse on the horizon, our very way of life is threatened.

Altogether, Barack Obama will probably go down in history as the worst president of all time. Until now, historians have long given that dubious distinction to James Buchanan, who left office to Abraham Lincoln as the nation was falling apart and headed toward civil war. It is no exaggeration to say


Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/02/america_after_obama.html#ixzz2hKmCOLvC
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook Lots to consider from that article.. And our enemies did plant....... -Tyr

[Drummond]

Is that written by you or someone else? Hard to tell since it's quoted but without reference.

Just catching up with the contents of this thread.

Arbo, I'm enjoying your challenge to Tyr about the source of his post. I mean ... are you for real ??

Only recently, I identified the source of a large chunk of text that YOU had posted, as something NOT original, but taken from a TV series, Did you cite its origin, show any willingness to acknowledge where it came from, before I posted on it myself ?

YOU DID NOT ... yet, here you are, questioning Tyr on HIS contribution !!!!

Truly amazing ....

I for one have no difficulty in accepting Tyr's work as his own, and I would only question a post's 'bona fides' with good reason to do so ... and you had none.

Tyr's post is an excellent one, in my opinion, and to say the least, deserved.

.. and why am I not surprised that you and FJ want to be critical of it ? For supposed NON Lefties, you folks do an awful lot of defending the Trot-In-Chief, do you not ??

Oh, and before you ask, every word here is my own. If or when I've something to quote, I SUPPLY CITATION AS TO WHERE IT CAME FROM.

A pity that you can't always say the same ... eh ?

[Drummond]

NEXT--


I AM SAVING THIS TO SEND DIRECTLY TO THAT SOB!!! First Obama U.S. drone strike may be on me but ff him!! I've bout' had enough of that SOB... --Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Arbo]

Arbo, I'm enjoying your challenge to Tyr about the source of his post.

Thank god we separated ourselves from your kind so long ago. I asked if they were his f'in words or those of someone else because he has them in a quote (which is odd) and he didn't sign them as he usually does.

Quit being a worthless tard.

[fj1200]

Tyr's post is an excellent one, in my opinion, and to say the least, deserved.

.. and why am I not surprised that you and FJ want to be critical of it ? For supposed NON Lefties, you folks do an awful lot of defending the Trot-In-Chief, do you not ??

Excellent coming from a right-wing rantical I suppose. I want to be critical of it because it does nothing to address any problem. Nevertheless you could point out where I, or Arbo for that matter, have defended the "TiC." BTW, defending truth is not defending the POTUS. ;)

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Just catching up with the contents of this thread.

Arbo, I'm enjoying your challenge to Tyr about the source of his post. I mean ... are you for real ??

Only recently, I identified the source of a large chunk of text that YOU had posted, as something NOT original, but taken from a TV series, Did you cite its origin, show any willingness to acknowledge where it came from, before I posted on it myself ?

YOU DID NOT ... yet, here you are, questioning Tyr on HIS contribution !!!!

Truly amazing ....

I for one have no difficulty in accepting Tyr's work as his own, and I would only question a post's 'bona fides' with good reason to do so ... and you had none.

Tyr's post is an excellent one, in my opinion, and to say the least, deserved.

.. and why am I not surprised that you and FJ want to be critical of it ? For supposed NON Lefties, you folks do an awful lot of defending the Trot-In-Chief, do you not ??

Oh, and before you ask, every word here is my own. If or when I've something to quote, I SUPPLY CITATION AS TO WHERE IT CAME FROM.

A pity that you can't always say the same ... eh ? Had I quoted another's person's words I would have shown who's words I quoted. IF I SIGN MY NAME OR EVEN WHEN I DO NOT SIGN MY NAME IT'S MY WORDS UNLESS I GIVE REFERENCE THAT THE WORDS BELONG TO SOMEBODY ELSE. Some here like to question my words by any lousy means they can think of instead of attempting to refute the words they like to attack the author or question if the words were stolen! As if I can not present such posts after having done so here many times over. I may be no great wordsmith but by God I do get my point across with very little doubt about it! Only a very select few here have ever attempted to say I steal from others . My thread titled, I Take My Stand has a great opening post of which every word is mine. I AM PROUD OF THAT OPENING POST AND THAT ENTIRE THREAD BECAUSE IT DREW THE WOLVES TO ATTACK ME FOR DARING TO PRESENT A GREAT TRUTH AND MY REFUSING TO EVER BACK AWAY FROM THAT GREAT TRUTH.. As we are in the very midst of a great undeclared war being waged upon us and aided by our own government against us!--Tyr

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Excellent coming from a right-wing rantical I suppose. I want to be critical of it because it does nothing to address any problem. Nevertheless you could point out where I, or Arbo for that matter, have defended the "TiC." BTW, defending truth is not defending the POTUS. ;)


Excellent coming from a right-wing rantical I suppose. I want to be critical of it because it does nothing to address any problem. Sure, pointing out the truth serves no purpose, right? According to some it serves no purpose unless one can and does give the solution. Yet the first step to solving any problem has to be in recognizing and accepting that the problem exists in the first place. The left is great at pretending the problems created by their insanity are fictional when we know they are real. Libs, dems and leftists love their damn fantasies but me I prefer truth and reality! Our nation faces two great problems , first with the Islamists and second with their ally the globalists. Obama is the result of that alliance and his policies have been a great disaster to this nation and his next years on the throne will only magnify that many fold. -Tyr

[Drummond]

Thank god we separated ourselves from your kind so long ago. I asked if they were his f'in words or those of someone else because he has them in a quote (which is odd) and he didn't sign them as he usually does.

Quit being a worthless tard.

Thanks for your amusing response.

I'm a 'worthless tard', am I ? Really ?

Evidently my post struck home, then. Fact is, Arbo, that you've been critical of Tyr for behaviour you supposedly only had a SUSPICION of, that very behaviour being something that WAS TRUE OF YOU IN A PREVIOUS POST ELSEWHERE ON THIS FORUM !

Arbo, to be very clear on this: I don't address this to the rest of America. But where you're concerned, Arbo, I too am happy that 'we' separated ourselves from YOUR kind long ago.

I hope my meaning is clear to you.

And I shall continue to post as I, myself, choose, thanks very much. 'Disapprove' if you must, that is your right ... but don't expect that I must, or ever will, be swayed by opinions and gratuitous jibes which - if we're being honest here - are agenda-driven. Just as you categorise me as being on the 'Right' - which I proudly am - you, Arbo, are a creature of the Left (to what precise extent remains undetermined, but most certainly you ARE, comparatively speaking). You're taking a side, as am I. And, in taking that side, you launch into personal attacks because you've often no better recourse open to you.

But then ... MY side is the superior one, so, that's only to be expected. Isn't it ? Which brings me to a point I've been considering - are debates with you worth having ? You are too keen to launch into personalised attacks, and you do so in place of reasoned debate all too often, it seems to me. OK, so you're arguing from a fundamentally weak and ultimately disreputable position of unsupportable 'Leftieness', that's a 'given' ... but since that's the case, and often very transparently so, why not just concede to superior ideology, and be done with it ?

Give it some thought, Arbo. [If your agenda will permit you to, that is.]

[Drummond]

Had I quoted another's person's words I would have shown who's words I quoted. IF I SIGN MY NAME OR EVEN WHEN I DO NOT SIGN MY NAME IT'S MY WORDS UNLESS I GIVE REFERENCE THAT THE WORDS BELONG TO SOMEBODY ELSE. Some here like to question my words by any lousy means they can think of instead of attempting to refute the words they like to attack the author or question if the words were stolen! As if I can not present such posts after having done so here many times over. I may be no great wordsmith but by God I do get my point across with very little doubt about it! Only a very select few here have ever attempted to say I steal from others . My thread titled, I Take My Stand has a great opening post of which every word is mine. I AM PROUD OF THAT OPENING POST AND THAT ENTIRE THREAD BECAUSE IT DREW THE WOLVES TO ATTACK ME FOR DARING TO PRESENT A GREAT TRUTH AND MY REFUSING TO EVER BACK AWAY FROM THAT GREAT TRUTH.. As we are in the very midst of a great undeclared war being waged upon us and aided by our own government against us!--Tyr

What's abundantly clear to me, Tyr, is that you're a great patriot who speaks from the heart, whose passion for the good of his nation SHOULD earn much respect. OK ... there will be those who'll take opposing positions, because some measure of opposition is no less than inevitable.

But what's also inevitable is the ultimate exposure of the inferior, damaging, even outright pernicious character of that opposition. Through reasoned debate, this can be brought into the light of day, and the truth given all the airing it needs for something truly great to follow.

You do great service to your country in continuing as you do, Tyr, and your friendship is a real privilege to have. :salute: And let other loyal AMERICANS come forward in comparable recognition of that service !

[Drummond]

Excellent coming from a right-wing rantical I suppose. I want to be critical of it because it does nothing to address any problem. Nevertheless you could point out where I, or Arbo for that matter, have defended the "TiC." BTW, defending truth is not defending the POTUS. ;)

I daresay that, if I could be bothered, I could do a little resesarch and come up with specific examples.

But I don't even need to, because your argument is self-defeating just as it stands, which is more than enough to settle the issue. You, FJ, repeatedly and consistently set yourself in opposition against those who'd be critical of Obama and his ilk. That you try, weakly so at that, to disguise such a position by offering diversionary argumentation (and often not even that: you just post 'put-downs', instead ...) isn't ultimately convincing: the very fact of sustained opposition to the Left's enemies ITSELF shows where your sympathies lie.

Does that all constitute a defence of the "TiC" ? Most certainly ! By trying to slap down, or discredit his opposition, and perpetually, how DOESN'T IT ?

I needn't say more. This is one of those occasions, FJ, where your position is such a weak one that it doesn't merit further time taken up with it.

[Missileman]

I daresay that, if I could be bothered, I could do a little resesarch and come up with specific examples. In reality, you couldn't.


But I don't even need to, because your argument is self-defeating just as it stands, which is more than enough to settle the issue. You, FJ, repeatedly and consistently set yourself in opposition against those who'd be critical of Obama and his ilk. That you try, weakly so at that, to disguise such a position by offering diversionary argumentation (and often not even that: you just post 'put-downs', instead ...) isn't ultimately convincing: the very fact of sustained opposition to the Left's enemies ITSELF shows where your sympathies lie.

Does that all constitute a defence of the "TiC" ? Most certainly ! By trying to slap down, or discredit his opposition, and perpetually, how DOESN'T IT ?

I needn't say more. This is one of those occasions, FJ, where your position is such a weak one that it doesn't merit further time taken up with it. There are a few posters here, myself included who are outraged by the crap being pulled by Obama, who want to weed out the distractions and go after Obama on legal grounds. There are things that make him a lousy president (golf, vacations, unwillingness to negotiate, economic retard, etc.) and there are things that could make him an impeachable president (Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, selective law enforcement, etc.)

The liberal media is using attacks on Obama for the shit that makes him a lousy president to distract from the real meat and potatoes and they are using it to discredit all who oppose Obama. It also doesn't help when folks latch onto untrue stories, like the one about Obama keeping a Mosque open out of his own pocket. We need to stay focused on the potentially illegal and hopefully they will gain some traction with the rest of Americans.

[fj1200]

Sure, pointing out the truth serves no purpose, right?

There was no truth in your OP, only rant.


Thanks for your amusing response.

I'm a 'worthless tard', am I ? Really ?

Evidently my post struck home, then. Fact is, Arbo, that you've been critical of Tyr for behaviour you supposedly only had a SUSPICION of, that very behaviour being something that WAS TRUE OF YOU IN A PREVIOUS POST ELSEWHERE ON THIS FORUM !

Arbo, to be very clear on this: I don't address this to the rest of America. But where you're concerned, Arbo, I too am happy that 'we' separated ourselves from YOUR kind long ago.

I hope my meaning is clear to you.

And I shall continue to post as I, myself, choose, thanks very much. 'Disapprove' if you must, that is your right ... but don't expect that I must, or ever will, be swayed by opinions and gratuitous jibes which - if we're being honest here - are agenda-driven. Just as you categorise me as being on the 'Right' - which I proudly am - you, Arbo, are a creature of the Left (to what precise extent remains undetermined, but most certainly you ARE, comparatively speaking). You're taking a side, as am I. And, in taking that side, you launch into personal attacks because you've often no better recourse open to you.

But then ... MY side is the superior one, so, that's only to be expected. Isn't it ? Which brings me to a point I've been considering - are debates with you worth having ? You are too keen to launch into personalised attacks, and you do so in place of reasoned debate all too often, it seems to me. OK, so you're arguing from a fundamentally weak and ultimately disreputable position of unsupportable 'Leftieness', that's a 'given' ... but since that's the case, and often very transparently so, why not just concede to superior ideology, and be done with it ?

Give it some thought, Arbo. [If your agenda will permit you to, that is.]

:laugh:


I daresay that, if I could be bothered, I could do a little resesarch and come up with specific examples.

But I don't even need to, because your argument is self-defeating just as it stands, which is more than enough to settle the issue. You, FJ, repeatedly and consistently set yourself in opposition against those who'd be critical of Obama and his ilk. That you try, weakly so at that, to disguise such a position by offering diversionary argumentation (and often not even that: you just post 'put-downs', instead ...) isn't ultimately convincing: the very fact of sustained opposition to the Left's enemies ITSELF shows where your sympathies lie.

Does that all constitute a defence of the "TiC" ? Most certainly ! By trying to slap down, or discredit his opposition, and perpetually, how DOESN'T IT ?

I needn't say more. This is one of those occasions, FJ, where your position is such a weak one that it doesn't merit further time taken up with it.

Do you know how many times I've asked for examples? So far it's been a dry well for those looking. It would also be helpful if you knew what/who my posts were in opposition to. ;)

[Arbo]

Give it some thought, Arbo.


why should anyone do what you refuse to do yourself?

Now is the above a quote, or my own words? That you don't see the point of my initial questioning for such a thing, really clears things up. So yes, what I said stands, for you and a few others.

[Arbo]

I daresay that, if I could be bothered, I could do a little resesarch and come up with specific examples.

Go for it, none of you that claim such things can... loads of talk, but no reality to back any of it.

[Arbo]

There are a few posters here, myself included who are outraged by the crap being pulled by Obama, who want to weed out the distractions and go after Obama on legal grounds. There are things that make him a lousy president (golf, vacations, unwillingness to negotiate, economic retard, etc.) and there are things that could make him an impeachable president (Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, selective law enforcement, etc.)

The liberal media is using attacks on Obama for the shit that makes him a lousy president to distract from the real meat and potatoes and they are using it to discredit all who oppose Obama. It also doesn't help when folks latch onto untrue stories, like the one about Obama keeping a Mosque open out of his own pocket. We need to stay focused on the potentially illegal and hopefully they will gain some traction with the rest of Americans.

It is so refreshing to see someone with the ability to see. :clap:



Do you know how many times I've asked for examples? So far it's been a dry well for those looking. It would also be helpful if you knew what/who my posts were in opposition to. ;)

It's never gonna happen.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

There was no truth in your OP, only rant.

Really, no truth in this . What an amazing defense of Obama you just gave with that verdict in which apparently you think he has done a good job and is not an arrogant man! --Tyr
President , Lord high King, I suggest that you read the Constitution of the United States of America because obviously you haven't a damn clue that you are the servant of WE THE PEOPLE. Where your dumbass got that we are your servants I haven't a clue but WE have just about had enough of your bull! Climb down off that high horse and take the damn saddle off of Michelle long enough to educate your stupid self and maybe teach that arrogant witch you are married to that she isn't a freaking Goddess and certainly not any better than even the least of us! While you are at --stop pissing away our tax dollars on multi-million dollar vacations you simply do not deserve because of the lousy job you have been doing. If you were in Private business your dumbass would have been fired the first few months of your service. To help you I'll start with exactly what you should read first!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Excellent coming from a right-wing rantical I suppose. I want to be critical of it because it does nothing to address any problem. Nevertheless you could point out where I, or Arbo for that matter, have defended the "TiC." BTW, defending truth is not defending the POTUS. ;)


BTW, defending truth is not defending the POTUS. By the way my presenting the Truth about Islam and its orchestrated campaign to enslave the world by any means possible is not hate filled bias but rather dedication to the TRUTH and a warning to the many that are clueless about it. Also a reminder to the many muslim appeasers that their lying crap is being exposed for many to consider. Just presenting the TRUTH about Obama and his many transgressions is not hate filled bias but the same dedication to getting truth out for others to consider.-Tyr

[fj1200]

Really, no truth in this . What an amazing defense of Obama you just gave with that verdict in which apparently you think he has done a good job and is not an arrogant man! --Tyr

Correct; it's opinion. Please point out where I think he has done a good job because your evidence doesn't support your conclusion.


By the way my presenting the Truth about Islam and its orchestrated campaign to enslave the world by any means possible is not hate filled bias but rather dedication to the TRUTH and a warning to the many that are clueless about it. Also a reminder to the many muslim appeasers that their lying crap is being exposed for many to consider. Just presenting the TRUTH about Obama and his many transgressions is not hate filled bias but the same dedication to getting truth out for others to consider.-Tyr

How did this become a "Muzzy" thread??? Oh that's right; because BO. :rolleyes:

[Drummond]

In reality, you couldn't.

There are a few posters here, myself included who are outraged by the crap being pulled by Obama, who want to weed out the distractions and go after Obama on legal grounds. There are things that make him a lousy president (golf, vacations, unwillingness to negotiate, economic retard, etc.) and there are things that could make him an impeachable president (Benghazi, Fast and Furious, IRS, selective law enforcement, etc.)

The liberal media is using attacks on Obama for the shit that makes him a lousy president to distract from the real meat and potatoes and they are using it to discredit all who oppose Obama. It also doesn't help when folks latch onto untrue stories, like the one about Obama keeping a Mosque open out of his own pocket. We need to stay focused on the potentially illegal and hopefully they will gain some traction with the rest of Americans.

As a Right winger myself, naturally news of your own opposition to Obama is good news to me. Good luck to you in your views and whatever efforts you make in that regard.

Though I hear what you have to say, I still wonder why you post anything which the opposition here can latch on to ? Haven't you noticed who's been offering thanks to your posts here ?

As for my post to FJ, didn't I point out that I had no need to offer the examples discussed ? FJ is a poster who offers, as I've explained, consistent opposition to enemies of Obama and his ilk. This is all the evidence needed to show his true sympathies. Why cast around, searching for examples of something that, in essence, is already staring me in the face ?

You fight your corner, Missileman, and with every good wish from me. And I will fight mine.

[Arbo]

Haven't you noticed who's been offering thanks to your posts here ?

That may be because logic and reason are used above strange emotional rants (by him) as well as actual issues rather than inflated non-issues. But that was the point he was making, perhaps you didn't get it.


consistent opposition to enemies of Obama and his ilk. This is all the evidence needed to show his true sympathies.

:lol: You simply can't make fiction as funny as that.

[Drummond]

Do you know how many times I've asked for examples? So far it's been a dry well for those looking. It would also be helpful if you knew what/who my posts were in opposition to. ;)

This is ridiculous. I've already answered you sufficiently well to have made my point. You've been told, and as is obvious to anybody, that you consistently stand in opposition to anyone taking a solid anti-Obama line (except when they post something you can use for your own purposes, that is ..).

In how many threads have you indulged in arguments against me that degenerate into pathetic put-down exercises ? And why do that, why go to such extremes, unless you're fundamentally driven to oppose in any and every way you can dream up ?

What ELSE but being driven to SUPPORT those I'd oppose could explain the lengths you go to ?

Count for me the number of posts you've ever made in which we agree on anything.

Count the number where you agree with Tyr.

Tell you what. Instead of my picking names out of a hat, why not just give me a tally of supportive posts made by you towards anti-Obama posters here on DP.

Good luck with THAT one. Because the truth is as I say it is ... however you dress your arguments up on a post-by-post basis, whatever excuses you give for the argument offered at any one time, your opposition to anti-Obama posters is persistent, and consistent. As befits a Leftie with an agenda ...

[Drummond]

That may be because logic and reason are used above strange emotional rants (by him) as well as actual issues rather than inflated non-issues. But that was the point he was making, perhaps you didn't get it.



:lol: You simply can't make fiction as funny as that.

I get the point he (Missileman) was making, thanks. And I also get your efforts to win a new ally.

As for the so-called 'fiction' ... your description is baseless. Since you don't qualify it with 'logic and reason', since you've only offered an attempt at a put-down, all I need say is that my posts stand on their own merits.

Indeed, why am I arguing with you at all ?

[Arbo]

And I also get your efforts to win a new ally.

:lol: That anyone thinks there are allies and enemies on a forum... priceless. There is merely agreement and disagreement.

[fj1200]

This is ridiculous. I've already answered you sufficiently well to have made my point. You've been told, and as is obvious to anybody, that you consistently stand in opposition to anyone taking a solid anti-Obama line (except when they post something you can use for your own purposes, that is ..).

Yup, I knew you'd fail. The only thing I consistently stand in opposition to is those who can't/won't? make rational arguments (except those being ignored btw).


In how many threads have you indulged in arguments against me that degenerate into pathetic put-down exercises ? And why do that, why go to such extremes, unless you're fundamentally driven to oppose in any and every way you can dream up ?

What ELSE but being driven to SUPPORT those I'd oppose could explain the lengths you go to ?

Count for me the number of posts you've ever made in which we agree on anything.

Count the number where you agree with Tyr.

Tell you what. Instead of my picking names out of a hat, why not just give me a tally of supportive posts made by you towards anti-Obama posters here on DP.

Good luck with THAT one. Because the truth is as I say it is ... however you dress your arguments up on a post-by-post basis, whatever excuses you give for the argument offered at any one time, your opposition to anti-Obama posters is persistent, and consistent. As befits a Leftie with an agenda ...

I've probably engaged in as many threads that degenerate into "pathetic put-down exercises" as you. I'm sure you'll miss the point here again.

Nevertheless I've agreed, and do agree, with many people here so many times that it's countless, it's just that I don't feel the need to ":clap:" like a sycophant. So rather than you making your inabilities my fault why don't you go ahead and try to prove your point. Show me where I am anti-anti-BO rather than just anti-ignorant.

[Drummond]

Yup, I knew you'd fail. The only thing I consistently stand in opposition to is those who can't/won't? make rational arguments (except those being ignored btw).



I've probably engaged in as many threads that degenerate into "pathetic put-down exercises" as you. I'm sure you'll miss the point here again.

Nevertheless I've agreed, and do agree, with many people here so many times that it's countless, it's just that I don't feel the need to ":clap:" like a sycophant. So rather than you making your inabilities my fault why don't you go ahead and try to prove your point. Show me where I am anti-anti-BO rather than just anti-ignorant.

Ho hum. Yet another ducking-exercise. Wow. What a surprise .... :rolleyes:

I'll applaud excellent posts if I so choose. I have that right, FJ, whether or not you like it. That I've never found any of your posts 'excellent' enough (.. or within light years of that !!) to applaud, doesn't say anything notable about me, but plenty about the quality and nature of your own contributions. Simple answer .. give me something worthy of applauding, and I'll do so.

I'll make the point AGAIN (.. probably uselessly, of course). If you're not a Leftie, if you're not, in the final analysis, basically pro-Obama and his regime, then post in agreement with those stalwarts here who prove that opposition on here DAILY .. INSTEAD OF CONTINUALLY OPPOSING THEM.

It's your choice, FJ. If I'm wrong about you being Left wing, if you can agree with Obama's opposition, THEN PROVE IT. There's nothing stopping you, is there ?

Or ... IS there ?

[Drummond]

I'm probably one of the last people here qualified to debate, intelligently (or is that 'intelligibly') about the US Constitution.

I wasn't sure whether or not this merited a new thread, but on balance I decided this had its place here, instead. So ... I've just seen this. Apparently, we now have an NBC host arguing that the US Constitution is 'flawed', and that the US should instead adopt a more European style of Government ..

Well ... wouldn't that open the floodgates to the Socialist controls that form part of everyday life in my part of the world ? Goodbye, inalienable citizens' rights, hello crushing State control over just about everything ---

Here's the piece I have in mind. Get a load of this ....

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/10/86527-msnbc-host-constitution-flawed-obama-democrats-need-absolute-power/


It was only a matter of time before the clash of ideologies between Constitutional conservatives and statist progressives manifested itself in a call for a ‘benevolent dictator’ to resolve the differences in authoritarian fashion.

The hyper-educated Chris Hayes of MSNBC echoed such calls, which have occurred under the Obama administration before in various guises. Hayes appeals to “astute” analysts of American politics at The Washington Post, Slate, and New York magazine, and spoke with one of them — Jonathan Chait.


Hayes says that there is a “growing consensus” that the nation’s law of the land is “fatally flawed,” and therefore we should look to European style parliamentary government used by other “democracies” [sic] for guidance on how to run the most powerful and prosperous country in world history (before the progressives got into power, it should be said).


Hayes lauds the European parliamentary system because the executive and legislative functions are controlled “by the same groups of people.” He then condemns the Constitution for checks and balances, which allow “different parts of the government to be controlled by different parties.”


In other words, the U.S. has a government that is based on reasoned deliberation and not naked force; regardless of the empty appeals to paternalistic virtue that allowed fascism to rise in Europe; and regardless of the demagogue’s calls for the centralized control of wealth redistribution that is the model for socialist and communist countries.


Europe’s tortuous history is lesson enough to remind many of the dangers of central control; but the U.S. has been sheltered to an extent from open calls for dictatorships, which nonetheless did occur under Woodrow Wilson and FDR. The context of Hayes’ call for control in one party’s hands is unmistakable: he wants the Democrat Party to have the absolute power to disregard the need for compromise.


Nearly a great majority of Americans, for example, believe that the U.S. government should cut spending before raising the debt limit. Hayes would presume the Democrats ignore them, and those voters who gave the Republicans power of the purse, and for the Democrats to do as they pleased.


A professor of Constitutional law at Georgetown by the name of Louis Michael Seidman late last year argued in the pages of the New York Times, “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.” Thomas Friedman, also of the New York Times, argued for a concept called “China for a day” (as if it would last for a day) when the (communist) government could actually make decisions. The left’s pedigree of authoritarianism is unmistakable: the more radical the policies, the more the upheaval, and the more incessant the calls for authoritarian “solutions” – in the name of “fairness” or what-have-you.


In opposition, conservatives want divided government, because they have read history and distrust authoritarians, who almost always rise to power to promote the “common good.” The popular image of the tea party, for example, spread by opinion-molders is that it is a right-wing extremist movement within the Republican party. But actually, it is a coalition of American conservatives near the center of two extremes. According to widely accepted political theory and European history, leftists are extremists.


“Right-wing” is a slur reflexively hurled by socialists and progressives at any party, movement, faction, or individual that opposes the left-wing agenda. The smear tactic is intended to confuse those who support the traditionally American tenets of liberty, limited government, and individual rights with European fascists and ultra-nationalists.


It is the appreciation of conflicting interests in a free society that led to the innovations of the Constitution; divided powers and checks and balances were designed to safeguard people against abuses by either an absolutist ruler, or a tyrannical majority seeking to despoil its prey of property, life, or freedom. The requirement of legislation by majority, and the stipulation that changing the Constitution demands a super-majority, were but two safeguards. One of the most important barriers to oppression is the Bill of Rights, which lists individual rights not to be violated by tyrants of any variety.


Those who hold that that conservatives are “extremist” have the false conception that virtuous men can lead a “compassionate” government that will give people everything their hearts desire. But they fail miserably to account for the historical track record of consolidated governmental authority, which is always justified by appeal to lofty sentiments. The American government must inevitably disappoint and frustrate progressives, because it is designed to spur men to manage themselves and become productive members of society.


Conservatives do not desire to rule their political opposition or otherwise impose their will on their fellow citizens. Instead, they want to restore the nation to its Constitutional foundations, establish fiscal responsibility in government, reinstate the free market economic principles that allowed the majority of the nation to prosper, and renew the virtue in individuals to see human beings as ends in themselves, and not as means to some political end.

Ultimately, the Constitution, the embodiment of those founding principles that conservatives cherish most, is specifically designed to protect American citizens from political threats arising from both the right and the left. Leftists, on the other hand, are for complete state control of economy, society, and the government, making them absolutists. Americans should protect the Constitution and strive to prevent further abuse of power by the U.S. government.

What say you, FJ ? Care to give me something I can applaud ... just for once ??

... no ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Correct; it's opinion. Please point out where I think he has done a good job because your evidence doesn't support your conclusion. You mean evidence like this --- Where I say IN MY OPENING POST that obama has done a lousy job and you post this reply QUOTED BELOW to that accusation! You will of course notice how I enlarged and bolded your verdict of --No truth -- being found within my opening post of this thread. Now the wording of "no truth" implies either total lying or total ignorance but now you say you have never stated Obama has done a good job! So what is it, if he hasn't done a good job and hasn't done a lousy job then what? By your statements you appear to have claimed both for him! So are you declaring his job performance to be Mediocre? To make it easy for you to clarify and actually take a stand I'll list them and if you care to choose do so in your reply to this post. That way nobody will be confused as to where you truly stand on this. A. Obama HAS DONE A VERY POOR JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT B. Obama HAS DONE A TRULY WONDERFUL JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT C. Obama HAS DONE A MEDIOCRE JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT. Here is your chance to rectify this great misunderstanding of your confusing posts here. And just to sweeten the deal I'm going to give you two gold stars if you actually reply choosing A,B OR C. THAT IS JUST THE KIND OF GENEROUS GUY I AM. ;)--Tyr


Quote Originally Posted by fj1200 View Post

There was no truth in your OP, only rant.

[Arbo]

Simple answer .. give me something worthy of applauding, and I'll do so.

Yes FJ, just Baaaaaaaa like a good sheep, and you can get a :clap:just like the other sheep. :laugh:


we now have an NBC host arguing that the US Constitution is 'flawed', and that the US should instead adopt a more European style of Government ..

Hayes is a flipping moron.

[Missileman]

As a Right winger myself, naturally news of your own opposition to Obama is good news to me. Good luck to you in your views and whatever efforts you make in that regard.

Though I hear what you have to say, I still wonder why you post anything which the opposition here can latch on to ? Haven't you noticed who's been offering thanks to your posts here ?

As for my post to FJ, didn't I point out that I had no need to offer the examples discussed ? FJ is a poster who offers, as I've explained, consistent opposition to enemies of Obama and his ilk. This is all the evidence needed to show his true sympathies. Why cast around, searching for examples of something that, in essence, is already staring me in the face ?

You fight your corner, Missileman, and with every good wish from me. And I will fight mine.

Your opening line is perhaps a beacon that shines on the problem. If you think my opposition to Obama is "news", then it's patently obvious that you haven't even been reading my posts. As for the rest of it, here's a brief summary of what has been happening on the board. A poster will write "Obama should be impeached because he's left-handed". Another poster will write, "Obama sucks, but you can't impeach him for being left-handed." The original poster and his buddies then attack the replier with, "You're a liberal Obama supporter". It's pathetic, and absolutely no different than when the liberals call anyone who opposes Obama in any way a racist.

[fj1200]

Ho hum. Yet another ducking-exercise. Wow. What a surprise .... :rolleyes:

I'll applaud excellent posts if I so choose. I have that right, FJ, whether or not you like it. That I've never found any of your posts 'excellent' enough (.. or within light years of that !!) to applaud, doesn't say anything notable about me, but plenty about the quality and nature of your own contributions. Simple answer .. give me something worthy of applauding, and I'll do so.

I'll make the point AGAIN (.. probably uselessly, of course). If you're not a Leftie, if you're not, in the final analysis, basically pro-Obama and his regime, then post in agreement with those stalwarts here who prove that opposition on here DAILY .. INSTEAD OF CONTINUALLY OPPOSING THEM.

It's your choice, FJ. If I'm wrong about you being Left wing, if you can agree with Obama's opposition, THEN PROVE IT. There's nothing stopping you, is there ?

Or ... IS there ?

So again, you've made your failure my fault. You should attempt to own up that you can't point to my pro-BO posts and that your imagination is getting the better of you. And BTW, your applause is definitely NOT a goal of mine.


I'm probably one of the last people here qualified to debate, intelligently (or is that 'intelligibly') about the US Constitution.

I wasn't sure whether or not this merited a new thread, but on balance I decided this had its place here, instead. So ... I've just seen this. Apparently, we now have an NBC host arguing that the US Constitution is 'flawed', and that the US should instead adopt a more European style of Government ..

Well ... wouldn't that open the floodgates to the Socialist controls that form part of everyday life in my part of the world ? Goodbye, inalienable citizens' rights, hello crushing State control over just about everything ---

Here's the piece I have in mind. Get a load of this ....


What say you, FJ ? Care to give me something I can applaud ... just for once ??

... no ?

You've got that first statement correct because you are now want to appear to be a great defender of the Constitution when a mere couple of threads ago you were arguing how that it needed to "evolve" based on new threats. So what is it going to be tomorrow? Try pointing to where I have posted in opposition to the Constitution; I can certainly point to your opposition.

[Drummond]

Your opening line is perhaps a beacon that shines on the problem. If you think my opposition to Obama is "news", then it's patently obvious that you haven't even been reading my posts. As for the rest of it, here's a brief summary of what has been happening on the board. A poster will write "Obama should be impeached because he's left-handed". Another poster will write, "Obama sucks, but you can't impeach him for being left-handed." The original poster and his buddies then attack the replier with, "You're a liberal Obama supporter". It's pathetic, and absolutely no different than when the liberals call anyone who opposes Obama in any way a racist.

Missileman, I really hadn't wanted to argue with you. But you seem to want an argument. Very well.

Your opposition to Obama is 'news', yes. But did I say that it was 'new' news ? It could've been very 'old news' ... as indeed it is to me.

I'm not sure whether I have read all of your posts. I've not made a point of following everything you've posted, so very possibly I've seen only a selection of them. But I have seen enough to feel confident of the positions you're likely to take.

As to the rest of your argument, you're falling back on your previous argument that opposition to Obama needs to be grounded in realism, rather than see posters be driven by opposition based on strong bias, bias of a sort that will lead to accusations which demonise. Missileman, I think you exaggerate your case, though I also concede that you have a point.

That conceded ... I still have sympathy for those patriots who so detest Obama that they're highly sensitive to any post, or poster, that what they see is contributors who seem to back-pedal, or keep their opposition 'soft' to an extent which suggests that some measure of covert support might be lurking in the background. On a previous forum, we had experience of an ex-Trade Unionist who tried to sell himself as a highly moderate and Conservative-thinking Democrat who had an interest in 'reforming from within'. Some, he had moderate success in convincing. Others remained sceptical.

He ultimately, though, couldn't maintain the pretence of being anything other than a Left-winger who was intent on sneaking a 'Do not vote for the Republicans' message past the sensibilities of decent Conservatives. Why did he want to stop such votes ? Obviously, to neutralise opposition to Obama. But he over-reached himself, stupidly so, when he started calling Tea Party members 'Teabaggers', which he tried to claim was NOT meant abusively, when he was challenged on it.

So, he gave himself away, people threw away old doubts about him, and saw his real Left wing intent for what it was. After ludicrously claiming that personal threats had been made against himself and his family (to paint the Right wingers on the forum as being a band of thugs), he withdrew from the forum - his real agenda in tatters.

You see, Missileman, there ARE those who'll sell themselves as something that they're not, and they do so in order to make their message as palatable as possible. It does no harm at all to be on your guard against such a phenomenon.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Your opening line is perhaps a beacon that shines on the problem. If you think my opposition to Obama is "news", then it's patently obvious that you haven't even been reading my posts. As for the rest of it, here's a brief summary of what has been happening on the board. A poster will write "Obama should be impeached because he's left-handed". Another poster will write, "Obama sucks, but you can't impeach him for being left-handed." The original poster and his buddies then attack the replier with, "You're a liberal Obama supporter". It's pathetic, and absolutely no different than when the liberals call anyone who opposes Obama in any way a racist. That comparison is far too simplistic. If you disagree with members here pointing to all his faults my friend then obviously that's your right but playing ALL as ignorance from we that like to present the whole enchilada is definitely not right in my book. An opinion which is definitely my right to have. Our posts/opinions expressed here are not about writing up a legal impeachment complaint. Myself I point to all that bastard's shat because so many tens of millions Americans have not a damn clue about his many, many transgressions. His media sees to that by how they protect and defend him. Its great that you oppose his policies and treachery but in my opinion not so great that you criticize those that toss in his arrogance and contemptuous actions as well. I do so to present what the ffing scum truly is simply because I am sick and tired of seeing so much hidden from being made known to the general public about him and his anti-American agenda. Sure not everything anti-American qualifies as impeachment worthy but it does qualify as evidence to his true character. I'll continue to criticize in my own way and not complain about how you post about him. I'd expect the same consideration from others but am well aware a few here will use any issue to attack me and my posts. I trust that your reply was a further clarification rather than an attack. As such I give it due consideration which I will not give to a few others here that like to wage a campaign against me personally rather than address directly and specifically the words I post. I do not include you in that but others here have done so and there is nothing about pure accuracy or seeking greater responsibility in that IMHO. -Tyr

[Drummond]

So again, you've made your failure my fault. You should attempt to own up that you can't point to my pro-BO posts and that your imagination is getting the better of you. And BTW, your applause is definitely NOT a goal of mine.

Still, you evade my challenges, FJ. This is becoming too obvious a process to even bother to debate any longer.


You've got that first statement correct because you are now want to appear to be a great defender of the Constitution when a mere couple of threads ago you were arguing how that it needed to "evolve" based on new threats. So what is it going to be tomorrow? Try pointing to where I have posted in opposition to the Constitution; I can certainly point to your opposition.

You miss the wider point, no doubt purposely so.

As I read it, the NBC commentator wanted to go to the extreme of dispensing with the Constitution, which is a radical step further than just talking about whether or not there's any need to consider its evolution. European nations, my own included, don't have any comparable Constitution which restricts the tinkering ambitions of Socialists here. Yes, there's a European Parliament, and various Treaty obligations in place .. which only serve to subjugate nations to the will of the EU, this meaning that Socialist influences are strong and hard to combat.

THIS, evidently, is what the commentator was arguing for.

For my part, I have never argued (try proving otherwise !) that your Constitution should be done away with.

[Drummond]

That comparison is far too simplistic. If you disagree with members here pointing to all his faults my friend then obviously that's your right but playing ALL as ignorance from we that like to present the whole enchilada is definitely not right in my book. An opinion which is definitely my right to have. Our posts/opinions expressed here are not about writing up a legal impeachment complaint. Myself I point to all that bastard's shat because so many tens of millions Americans have not a damn clue about his many, many transgressions. His media sees to that by how they protect and defend him. Its great that you oppose his policies and treachery but in my opinion not so great that you criticize those that toss in his arrogance and contemptuous actions as well. I do so to present what the ffing scum truly is simply because I am sick and tired of seeing so much hidden from being made known to the general public about him and his anti-American agenda. Sure not everything anti-American qualifies as impeachment worthy but it does qualify as evidence to his true character. I'll continue to criticize in my own way and not complain about how you post about him. I'd expect the same consideration from others but am well aware a few here will use any issue to attack me and my posts. I trust that your reply was a further clarification rather than an attack. As such I give it due consideration which I will not give to a few others here that like to wage a campaign against me personally rather than address directly and specifically the words I post. I do not include you in that but others here have done so and there is nothing about pure accuracy or seeking greater responsibility in that IMHO. -Tyr

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Drummond]

Hayes is a flipping moron.

Perhaps. More to the point, he argues like a Leftie, presenting a case intended to convince people to accept a status quo which - if ever realised - would sweep the path clear for unbridled Left-wing tyranny.

The Left are considerably constrained by the Constitution. So, OF COURSE they want it to go ! Power over people is everything to them.

[Arbo]

As to the rest of your argument, you're falling back on your previous argument that opposition to Obama needs to be grounded in realism,

Tis far better to base opposition on fantasy and lack of emotional self control.. for sure. :laugh:


That comparison is far too simplistic.

One need not write a lengthy essay to explain what is quite clear. He summarized exactly what happens daily.


Perhaps.

No perhaps about it, he is a moron. Pure and simple.

[Drummond]

Tis far better to base opposition on fantasy and lack of emotional self control.. for sure. :laugh:

Or, Arbo, do you argue for mind-numbed complacency in the face of those who may well be following a covert agenda ?


One need not write a lengthy essay to explain what is quite clear. He summarized exactly what happens daily.

I think you have it in mind to try and groom a new ally.


No perhaps about it, he is a moron. Pure and simple.

... and NOT following a Leftie agenda ? Definitely not ?

There is no such thing as TOO much alertness to covert agenda tactics, in my view.

[Arbo]

Or, Arbo, do you argue for mind-numbed complacency in the face of those who may well be following a covert agenda ?

Oh no, here comes the CT.


I think you have it in mind to try and groom a new ally.

:lol: Again with the 'ally' thing. As if there is anything other than agreements and disagreements online. Man that's some funny stuff.



... and NOT following a Leftie agenda ? Definitely not ?

Considering both 'sides' have trampled over the Constitution when it suits their needs, no, it's not a left or right agenda. It's merely idiots that want to get rid of the one thing that stands in their way of total control.

[Missileman]

I think you have it in mind to try and groom a new ally.



You needn't worry in the slightest. I'm civil to most of the members of the board. I suppose that could be construed as evidence that I'm some sort of liberal plant trying to "sneak" leftie attitudes onto the board. I could make a case that a leftie operative might use the tactic of hyper-criticism to muddy the waters. In the end, I judge a poster based on what he or she writes and I am reasonably certain that a few folks are being misjudged by others.

[fj1200]

You mean evidence like this --- Where I say IN MY OPENING POST that obama has done a lousy job and you post this reply QUOTED BELOW to that accusation! You will of course notice how I enlarged and bolded your verdict of --No truth -- being found within my opening post of this thread. Now the wording of "no truth" implies either total lying or total ignorance but now you say you have never stated Obama has done a good job! So what is it, if he hasn't done a good job and hasn't done a lousy job then what? By your statements you appear to have claimed both for him! So are you declaring his job performance to be Mediocre? To make it easy for you to clarify and actually take a stand I'll list them and if you care to choose do so in your reply to this post. That way nobody will be confused as to where you truly stand on this. A. Obama HAS DONE A VERY POOR JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT B. Obama HAS DONE A TRULY WONDERFUL JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT C. Obama HAS DONE A MEDIOCRE JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT. Here is your chance to rectify this great misunderstanding of your confusing posts here. And just to sweeten the deal I'm going to give you two gold stars if you actually reply choosing A,B OR C. THAT IS JUST THE KIND OF GENEROUS GUY I AM. ;)--Tyr

Yes, your opening post, no truth, opinion. I happen to agree with your opinion that he has done a lousy job. Now if you could find any instance where I've suggested that he has done an acceptable job then I might begin to understand where your confusion lies because I don't recall stating otherwise. Further your estimation of what I "implied" is completely incorrect; your inference is on you because my post doesn't mean "total lying" or "total ignorance," it merely means that your verdict is opinion, not truth.





Oh yeah, it appears I get my gold stars. :eek: Hopefully that clears up any confusion on your part... of course I've probably had to clear that up a hundred times or so. :slap:

[fj1200]

You needn't worry in the slightest. I'm civil to most of the members of the board. I suppose that could be construed as evidence that I'm some sort of liberal plant trying to "sneak" leftie attitudes onto the board. I could make a case that a leftie operative might use the tactic of hyper-criticism to muddy the waters. In the end, I judge a poster based on what he or she writes and I am reasonably certain that a few folks are being misjudged by others.

'Tis a good thing to judge based on what is posted and not judge based on what is imagined. ;)

[fj1200]

Still, you evade my challenges, FJ. This is becoming too obvious a process to even bother to debate any longer.

:laugh: Again it's my fault that you fail. Unimaginable the lengths you will go to avoid admitting you're wrong. It's comical that you think that every anti-BO poster is obligated to agree with you knuckleheads in exactly the manner that you post. FWIW I'll choose to post based on logic and truth, you've obviously chosen to base it on rage and hate. I'll bet I win more votes than you come election time.

As far as your challenge goes... you'll have to inform me how I am supposed to prove that your imagination is incorrect. :slap:


You miss the wider point, no doubt purposely so.

As I read it, the NBC commentator wanted to go to the extreme of dispensing with the Constitution, which is a radical step further than just talking about whether or not there's any need to consider its evolution. European nations, my own included, don't have any comparable Constitution which restricts the tinkering ambitions of Socialists here. Yes, there's a European Parliament, and various Treaty obligations in place .. which only serve to subjugate nations to the will of the EU, this meaning that Socialist influences are strong and hard to combat.

THIS, evidently, is what the commentator was arguing for.

I don't particularly care what he was arguing for or his rationale in dispensing with the Constitution. He's a "leftie" in your vernacular and should be immediately discounted based on his, or anyone's, desire to dispense with our supreme law. My concern here is those who make similar arguments from the right that the Constitution needs to evolve; that would be you. See below:


For my part, I have never argued (try proving otherwise !) that your Constitution should be done away with.

Let's see, I didn't say that you've argued that the Constitution should be "done away with" I said you've stated "opposition." The above is you moving the goal posts; a leftie move that wouldn't you say ? ;)


It worries me, though, that a form of straitjacketing is in evidence. The world has moved on since their time, and I think it inconceivable that your Founders could have imagined some of the perils which today's world manages to throw up.

If it were possible - and I'm getting the message that it isn't - for America to move with the times so that there was enough latitude to evolve thinking and legislative need to fully meet and counter modern scenarios, this is surely the way America should go. If it really cannot budge enough to manage that process of evolution, I think it must follow that your responses to future threats will become increasingly inadequate.

I'll remind you that you were arguing that citizens should be stripped of their rights without regard to their Constitutional protections. It's fun to argue with lefties who desire that Constitutional protections be stripped away but it's frightening to argue with "conservatives" who desire same.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post

You mean evidence like this --- Where I say IN MY OPENING POST that obama has done a lousy job and you post this reply QUOTED BELOW to that accusation! You will of course notice how I enlarged and bolded your verdict of --No truth -- being found within my opening post of this thread. Now the wording of "no truth" implies either total lying or total ignorance but now you say you have never stated Obama has done a good job! So what is it, if he hasn't done a good job and hasn't done a lousy job then what? By your statements you appear to have claimed both for him! So are you declaring his job performance to be Mediocre? To make it easy for you to clarify and actually take a stand I'll list them and if you care to choose do so in your reply to this post. That way nobody will be confused as to where you truly stand on this. A. Obama HAS DONE A VERY POOR JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT B. Obama HAS DONE A TRULY WONDERFUL JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT C. Obama HAS DONE A MEDIOCRE JOB AS OUR PRESIDENT. Here is your chance to rectify this great misunderstanding of your confusing posts here. And just to sweeten the deal I'm going to give you two gold stars if you actually reply choosing A,B OR C. THAT IS JUST THE KIND OF GENEROUS GUY I AM. --Tyr Yes, your opening post, no truth, opinion. I happen to agree with your opinion that he has done a lousy job. Now if you could find any instance where I've suggested that he has done an acceptable job then I might begin to understand where your confusion lies because I don't recall stating otherwise. Further your estimation of what I "implied" is completely incorrect; your inference is on you because my post doesn't mean "total lying" or "total ignorance," it merely means that your verdict is opinion, not truth.
Oh yeah, it appears I get my gold stars. :eek: Hopefully that clears up any confusion on your part... of course I've probably had to clear that up a hundred times or so. :slap: Man is this rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yes, your opening post, no truth, opinion.1. So by that statement and how just played it opinion can not be truth too. You said --no truth in my opening post now you say you were right because it was opinion as if opinion expressed can not be truth too. Then you go on to agree with "my opinion" that he did a "lousy job" which also is an opinion, so by your thinking isn't truth either! Sorry Hoss , but I do not play such word games myself. That meaning of -is- type of crap bores me far too much. Please explain how my post being an opinion negates it containing TRUTH! That would only be accurate if everything I ever say or post is a lie! So not only no but hell no you did not win any gold stars with that convoluted logic, even if it could accurately be called any measure of logic at all. 2. Now onto the next way your words quoted above my be interpreted, which by the way would just be silly if presented to prove you were right about my post containing = no truth. . Are you declaring that as a statement which reads, A. Yes, your opening post =no truth, that's my opinion , or even, B. Yes, your opening post = was opinion, so therefore can be judged to be not true based upon no other linked sources having been presented by you? Care to explain how you think you won on presenting the argument that opinion can not be truth? And post as you wish but if your reply is a single sentence of diversionary , evasive and /or more convoluted chatter I'm done with discussing this with you. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Man is this rich!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1. So by that statement and how just played it opinion can not be truth too. You said --no truth in my opening post now you say you were right because it was opinion as if opinion expressed can not be truth too. Then you go on to agree with "my opinion" that he did a "lousy job" which also is an opinion, so by your thinking isn't truth either! Sorry Hoss , but I do not play such word games myself. That meaning of -is- type of crap bores me far too much. Please explain how my post being an opinion negates it containing TRUTH! That would only be accurate if everything I ever say or post is a lie! So not only no but hell no you did not win any gold stars with that convoluted logic, even if it could accurately be called any measure of logic at all. 2. Now onto the next way your words quoted above my be interpreted, which by the way would just be silly if presented to prove you were right about my post containing = no truth. . Are you declaring that as a statement which reads, A. Yes, your opening post =no truth, that's my opinion , or even, B. Yes, your opening post = was opinion, so therefore can be judged to be not true based upon no other linked sources having been presented by you? Care to explain how you think you won on presenting the argument that opinion can not be truth? And post as you wish but if your reply is a single sentence of diversionary , evasive and /or more convoluted chatter I'm done with discussing this with you. -Tyr

Bloody hell, you're already done discussing as now you're just into rehashing. Outside of the insults your "truth" does boil down to opinion. As I said, I happen to agree that he has done a lousy job but some leftie out there has the opinion that BO has done a fine job. If one were to happen to get lost and find his way to DP it would be fun to take his arguments apart but I'm not holding my breath. I suppose you can express an opinion as truth but it is at its core opinion.

But I think I see part of the problem in #2. If you would stop trying so hard to interpret my words as something they are not then we might actually get somewhere. Also where does the requirement that I have to provide "linked sources" to prove your opinion as opinion when you've offered no "linked sources" to prove your opinion as truth? Not that I want to prove it wrong because again, I agree with it.

And since you declined to take up the challenge of my copious, in your opinion, ;) posts that you somehow construe to be supportive of BO I'm guessing that this will be the end of our current tête-à-tête. :)





And in summary. BO sucks as POTUS. My opinion backed by truth and logic.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Bloody hell, you're already done discussing as now you're just into rehashing. Outside of the insults your "truth" does boil down to opinion. As I said, I happen to agree that he has done a lousy job but some leftie out there has the opinion that BO has done a fine job. If one were to happen to get lost and find his way to DP it would be fun to take his arguments apart but I'm not holding my breath. I suppose you can express an opinion as truth but it is at its core opinion.

But I think I see part of the problem in #2. If you would stop trying so hard to interpret my words as something they are not then we might actually get somewhere. Also where does the requirement that I have to provide "linked sources" to prove your opinion as opinion when you've offered no "linked sources" to prove your opinion as truth? Not that I want to prove it wrong because again, I agree with it.

And since you declined to take up the challenge of my copious, in your opinion, ;) posts that you somehow construe to be supportive of BO I'm guessing that this will be the end of our current tête-à-tête. :)





And in summary. BO sucks as POTUS. My opinion backed by truth and logic.

And since you declined to take up the challenge of my copious, in your opinion, ;) posts that you somehow construe to be supportive of BO I'm guessing that this will be the end of our current tête-à-tête. :)-- Your choice on that amigo. Do as you wish I made no such declaration. -Tyr






And in summary. BO sucks as POTUS. My opinion backed by truth and logic. I agree that BO sucks, but do find it a bit funny that you so boldly cite how your opinion is both truthful and logical when you clearly denied my opinion as being that even on BO being a lousy president! [/QUOTE] The logic of this issue is you are convoluting the issue in order to back up your original accusation that my opening post contained --no truth- when you then agree he was a lousy president which in itself refutes your accusation made against my opening post. --Tyr

[fj1200]

-- Your choice on that amigo. Do as you wish I made no such declaration. -Tyr


I agree that BO sucks, but do find it a bit funny that you so boldly cite how your opinion is both truthful and logical when you clearly denied my opinion as being that even on BO being a lousy president! The logic of this issue is you are convoluting the issue in order to back up your original accusation that my opening post contained --no truth- when you then agree he was a lousy president which in itself refutes your accusation made against my opening post. --Tyr

Awesome quoting. I mean seriously good stuff. I'm glad you noticed because I did it just for you. The difference being that I fully acknowledge my opinion. That I can express it logically and rationally without calling the first lady a horse is just gravy I guess.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Awesome quoting. I mean seriously good stuff. I'm glad you noticed because I did it just for you. The difference being that I fully acknowledge my opinion. That I can express it logically and rationally without calling the first lady a horse is just gravy I guess.


That I can express it logically and rationally without calling the first lady a horse is just gravy I guess. Yes that was a mistake on my part. I mean I readily acknowledge that I took in far too much territory with that remark. Let me rephrase it for you. The first lady is a first class horse's ass. Is that better amigo? ;)--Tyr

[fj1200]

Yes that was a mistake on my part. I mean I readily acknowledge that I took in far too much territory with that remark. Let me rephrase it for you. The first lady is a first class horse's ass. Is that better amigo? ;)--Tyr

You are more than welcome to your opinion. Whether I share it or not will remain a mystery. :poke: