An open letter to the people who hate Obama more than they love America
Only in the befogged-minds of Kool-Aid drinking liberals who are drunk on the double-speak of their martinets.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
You are kidding right? We really go to war and see how fast we round up us some Muslims. Just like we did the Japs.
I am under no illusion that human nature is any different now than it was 70 years ago or when any other nations peeps feel scared.
Still avoiding debate are we, I.B.?
Perhaps you would humor us and restate your assertions about TP and WE and their attacks on the FF by explaining them further. Then you could bless us by contrasting what you seem to be saying was the FF's superior grasp and manifestation of altruistic behavior.
Otherwise, I'm becoming tired of your limited vocabulary and your repetitive insults. You can't even come up with new ones. Copying and pasting this one was a perfect example of not even waiting for another post to repeat it.
Oh wait! My most sincere apologies! You added "pathetic" when you copied and pasted the two. Thank you for the variety.
What a creative writer!
Originally Posted by Little Stevie
Your squirming, wormy attempts to "define" my argument have failed, and you will continue to fail so long as you purposefully misconstrue what has been said. Your persistent ignorance and failure to comprehend the written word is your problem; don't cry puddles of tears for help. Read what has been posted and return when you understand and can articulate a meaningful, cogent rebuttal.
You are kidding right? We really go to war and see how fast we round up us some Muslims. Just like we did the Japs.
I am under no illusion that human nature is any different now than it was 70 years ago or when any other nations peeps feel scared.
Originally Posted by WTF
No. The Constitution shouldn't be dismissed as a meaningless piece of paper, and being scared is not an excuse for such dismissal. It's notable that the Patriot Act and the recent NDAA violate the civil rights of American Citizens, and those violations must be addressed.
If by "round up" you mean "internment", then no. It was wrong in 1942, and it would be wrong today if such an action were allowed to reoccur. The U.S. government remains responsible for defending and protecting U.S. citizens and their the interests, but it is also obligated to preserve our rights.
You boys are talking over my head....I'm not sure how anyone that wasn't there knows WTF the FF meant....but I do like taking a break from being in the middle of a shit storm from time to time.
Both sides have made me proud!
I.B. is simply afraid to clearly state his assertions. Vagaries exist in his previous posts and none are suitable for supporting what he likes to refer to as "cogent" arguments.
I.B. is simply afraid to clearly state his assertions. Vagaries exist in his previous posts and none are suitable for supporting what he likes to refer to as "cogent" arguments.
Originally Posted by Little Stevie
Since you are so set on defending WE and Tiny Minded Tim’s position, and “claim” you are unable to discern mine, perhaps you should concisely restate their argument as it pertains to the validity of the Constitution and the morale values of the men who wrote and signed the document – if that’s not too challenging for you. Otherwise, quit crying and read!
Quit trying, IB, they simply ignore what people say to get their venom out. Odd, they call us the "haters". I wasn't feeling the love from them. Notice they didn't address any of my points either, but they laugh at our ignorance. I just don't get it. Obama has broken more campaign promises than anyone, yet they still support him. That is blind obedience, and we know where that has led in the past. Quite frightening, really.
I.B. is simply afraid to clearly state his assertions. Vagaries exist in his previous posts and none are suitable for supporting what he likes to refer to as "cogent" arguments.
Originally Posted by Little Stevie
Since you are so set on defending WE and Tiny Minded Tim’s position, and “claim” you are unable to discern mine, perhaps you should concisely restate their argument as it pertains to the validity of the Constitution and the morale values of the men who wrote and signed the document – if that’s not too challenging for you. Otherwise, quit crying and read!
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
What’s this? It’s been nine hours, and there has been no pompous, smart-ass retort from O’ Blind One? Could it be that his third-grade reading skills are not up to par, and he has found he cannot restate the thesis he purports to be defending? Or, more likely, has O' Blind One been found intellectually wanting and choking on his own bullshit? 
What’s this? It’s been nine hours, and there has been no pompous, smart-ass retort from O’ Blind One? Could it be that his third-grade reading skills are not up to par, and he has found he cannot restate the thesis he purports to be defending? Or, more likely, has O' Blind One been found intellectually wanting and choking on his own bullshit?
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
I B, people in here don't follow argumentation, nor read posts, they flail away with retorts and non-sequiturs and when a position can no longer be manned, its deserted as if it never had a sentinel
There are some true claims and some dubious claims in the OP’s letter. It’s just the opposite side of the coin for many of the anti-Obama rants.
I think the following states the Constitution’s attitude towards slavery.
Slavery is seen in the Constitution in a few key places. The first is in the Enumeration Clause, where representatives are apportioned. Each state is given a number of representatives based on its population - in that population, slaves, called "other persons," are counted as three-fifths of a whole person. This compromise was hard-fought, with Northerners wishing that slaves, legally property, be uncounted, much as mules and horses are uncounted. Southerners, however, well aware of the high proportion of slaves to the total population in their states, wanted them counted as whole persons despite their legal status. The three-fifths number was a ratio used by the Congress in contemporary legislation and was agreed upon with little debate.
In Article 1, Section 9, Congress is limited, expressly, from prohibiting the "Importation" of slaves, before 1808. The slave trade was a bone of contention for many, with some who supported slavery abhorring the slave trade. The 1808 date, a compromise of 20 years, allowed the slave trade to continue, but placed a date-certain on its survival. Congress eventually passed a law outlawing the slave trade that became effective on January 1, 1808.
The Fugitive Slave Clause is the last mention. In it, a problem that slave states had with extradition of escaped slaves was resolved. The laws of one state, the clause says, cannot excuse a person from "Service or Labour" in another state. The clause expressly requires that the state in which an escapee is found deliver the slave to the state he escaped from "on Claim of the Party."
It has been said that the seeds of the Civil War, which was fought, despite revisionist theory to the contrary, over the issue of slavery, were sown in the compromises of the Constitution on the issue. This is probably true. Slavery, which was started in violence in the kidnapping, shipment, and commerce of human chattel, needed violence to bring it to an end. After the devastation of the Revolutionary War and the unrest in the U.S. under the Articles, a time of peace and recovery was needed to strengthen the nation to a point where it could survive a civil war. The greatest tragedy is that in the nearly 100 years between the start of the Revolutionary War and the end of the Civil War, millions of slaves served, suffered, and died so that the nation could prosper.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_slav.html
Quit trying, IB, they simply ignore what people say to get their venom out. Odd, they call us the "haters". I wasn't feeling the love from them. Notice they didn't address any of my points either, but they laugh at our ignorance. I just don't get it. Obama has broken more campaign promises than anyone, yet they still support him. That is blind obedience, and we know where that has led in the past. Quite frightening, really.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Of Obama's top 25 campaign promises.
Six kept
Six broken
Nine in the works
One stalled
Three compromise
Total promises
Kept 160
Compromise 50
Broken 56
Stalled 65
In the works 175
Not rated 2
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...ises/obameter/
Hmmm . . . Let's see
Close Gitmo? No
End wars? No (forced out of Iraq against his will)
Transparency in government? No
Reduce unemployment? No
Fiscal responsibility? No
Bi-partisan health care reform? No
However, he didn't promise to not sign a bill allowing American citizens to be arrested on American soil if they are suspected of engaging in "terrorist" activity, however he decides to define it. So that wasn't a broken promise.
I do not understand why people support this guy. Nothing is getting better, and in fact, we are in much worse shape than we were before.
Hmmm . . . Let's see
Close Gitmo? No
End wars? No (forced out of Iraq against his will)
Transparency in government? No
Reduce unemployment? No
Fiscal responsibility? No
Bi-partisan health care reform? No
However, he didn't promise to not sign a bill allowing American citizens to be arrested on American soil if they are suspected of engaging in "terrorist" activity, however he decides to define it. So that wasn't a broken promise.
I do not understand why people support this guy. Nothing is getting better, and in fact, we are in much worse shape than we were before.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
You could just use the link and see what campaign promises he made.
There is that "bi-partisan" healthcare reform promise you pull out of your ass. Are you ever going to include a link to that? It's not listed as a campaign promise.
He promised meetings and discussions. He didn't give the minority party a veto.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/24/fact-checking-obama-bipartisan-health-care-reform-/
Where were the meetings and discussions? Hell, most of them didn't even read the damn bill before they voted on it. It was crammed down their throat. Even Pelosi admitted she didn't know what was in it, but wanted to pass it so they could find out. Meetings and discussions. Bullshit.
Where were the meetings and discussions? Hell, most of them didn't even read the damn bill before they voted on it. It was crammed down their throat. Even Pelosi admitted she didn't know what was in it, but wanted to pass it so they could find out. Meetings and discussions. Bullshit.
Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy
Nice try. So now you are a repub shill.
Look it up....no wait. I gave you a link.
You only have to click and read.
But we know you won't. Your house of cards would come down.