Obama - Fascist and hater of the US Cons ution

[DaDakota]

McCain/Palin = LOSERS !

[implacable44]

Sure I do. Already did.

It's quite difficult to change the cons ution, especially in this current political climate. Therefore I am not worried about anyone's changing the cons ution and anyone who plagiarizes another guy's words saying he is afraid of changes being made to the cons ution is an idiot.

no you didnt. You had nothing to offer and what do you mean by this political climate? do you mean the one of today -- with Bush and the democratically held congress -- then yes.. I agree - but Obama will walk into a "righteous wind" with (more than likely) a super majority and have free reign. Under that political climate two things for sure will get attacked immediately - gun rights (especially with 5 of the justices 70+) and the fairness doctrine will come back.

PLease explain how Marxism and Fascism are oppposites - one from the left and one from the right ? with the understanding that the right is for very very small centralized government while the left is for HUGE central government. ELABORATE>

[ChumpDumper]

no you didnt. You had nothing to offer and what do you mean by this political climate? do you mean the one of today -- with Bush and the democratically held congress -- then yes.. I agree - but Obama will walk into a "righteous wind" with (more than likely) a super majority and have free reign. Under that political climate two things for sure will get attacked immediately - gun rights (especially with 5 of the justices 70+) and the fairness doctrine will come back.

Still not enough to change the cons ution. You really don't know how the cons ution is changed, do you? Get back to me when find a Glenn Beck page that tells you.

PLease explain how Marxism and Fascism are oppposites - one from the left and one from the right ? with the understanding that the right is for very very small centralized government while the left is for HUGE central government. ELABORATE>

You're so busy rationalizing your plagiarism, you can't even keep track of who posted what.

[implacable44]

I didnt think I had to address all you liberal geniuses by name when I responded .. is that a requirement for you girls ?

I don't have time to educate you on how to change it .. on of your like minds earlier made a comment about only the states can change it -- which is not true. There are several ways to change or ammend the cons ution Dungdrinker. Get educated. Take a course or ask Keith.

[clambake]

@ dungdrinker.

[Centaur of the Sun]

Fascism isn't really a political view... more of a political state.

Xenophobia, extreme nationalist views, police state... I'm not sure if it's ever been concretely defined.

[Tully365]

Ah, I remember in 1992 how nearly every person belonging to a certain party warned that the the young charismatic Governor from Arkansas would bankrupt the country with his leftist tax an' spend policies... I mean, he was sooo far left that he was practically a dang comm-u-nist! He would turn the USA into a hodgepodge cultural economic combination of atheist commie soviets and sissy commie frenchies! Beware! Beware!

And what happened? Bill Clinton turned out to be a brilliant fiscal conservative/social liberal who gave us the first yearly surplus in decades and left behind a legacy of massive wealth expansion, low unemployment, low crime, and too many other positives to list. And so, knowing they were dead wrong on all charges, what was the next strategy for his enemies? Yeah-- a sex scandal!

Give me a break with this boy who cried wolf post. I hope you stick to your word and make it the final warning, which will mean you can't post something else in a few days claiming that Obama wants to give Florida away to Kenya for free or make the entire state of Nebraska a reservation for White Women.

[Drachen]

no you didnt. You had nothing to offer and what do you mean by this political climate? do you mean the one of today -- with Bush and the democratically held congress -- then yes.. I agree - but Obama will walk into a "righteous wind" with (more than likely) a super majority and have free reign. Under that political climate two things for sure will get attacked immediately - gun rights (especially with 5 of the justices 70+) and the fairness doctrine will come back.

PLease explain how Marxism and Fascism are oppposites - one from the left and one from the right ? with the understanding that the right is for very very small centralized government while the left is for HUGE central government. ELABORATE>

"Fascism, modern political ideology that seeks to regenerate the social, economic, and cultural life of a country by basing it on a heightened sense of national belonging or ethnic iden y. Fascism rejects liberal ideas such as freedom and individual rights, and often presses for the destruction of elections, legislatures, and other elements of democracy. Despite the idealistic goals of fascism, attempts to build fascist societies have led to wars and persecutions that caused millions of deaths. As a result, fascism is strongly associated with right-wing fanaticism, racism, totalitarianism, and violence. "

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...5/fascism.html

"Fascism opposes communism, liberalism, conservatism and international socialism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism...eatwellhist-10
sourced from
^ Eatwell, Roger. Fascism: A History. University of Michigan. ISBN 071399147X.
^ a b c d Payne, Stanley. A History of Fascism, 1914-45. University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0299148742.
^ Nolte, Ernst. Three Faces of Fascism: Action Française, Italian Fascism and National Socialism. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
^ Fritzsche, Peter. Rehearsals for Fascism: Populism and Political Mobilization in Weimar Germany. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195057805.
^ "Collectivism", Encyclopædia Britannica (8 January 2008).
^ Roger Griffin, The palingenetic core of generic fascist ideology, Chapter published in Alessandro Campi (ed.), Che cos'è il fascismo? Interpretazioni e prospettive di ricerche, Ideazione editrice, Roma, 2003, pp. 97-122. (Speaks of fascism seeing international socialism as a threat.

[Centaur of the Sun]

Fairness Doctrine will not be implemented. It may be discussed, but there is no way it passes... even with a large Democratic majority. That's political suicide.

Even if it DOES somehow pass, the Supreme Court would deem it uncons utional at the word "go".

[ChumpDumper]

There are two ways to originate an amendment, one of which has never been used.

There are two ways to ratify an amendment, one of which has only been used once.

Both ratification schemes require approval of three fourths of all the states. That is the main reason no radical change to the cons ution is going to happen. If you want everyone to be scared like Glenn Beck told you to be, please give us a scenario in which three fourths of the states approve a radical amendment to the cons ution.

We're waiting.

[Drachen]

Article V of the Cons ution prescribes how an amendment can become a part of the Cons ution. While there are two ways, only one has ever been used. All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

The other method of passing an amendment requires a Cons utional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States. That Convention can propose as many amendments as it deems necessary. Those amendments must be approved by three-fourths of the states.

http://www.lexisnexis.com/cons uti...howitsdone.asp

Either way 75% of the states have to approve the amendment.

Me: DOH!
Sorry CD I didn't see you posting this already. Well at least now he can't argue that there is no source.

[implacable44]

Fairness Doctrine will not be implemented. It may be discussed, but there is no way it passes... even with a large Democratic majority. That's political suicide.

Even if it DOES somehow pass, the Supreme Court would deem it uncons utional at the word "go".

we have already lived under the fairness doctrine for many years.

[ChumpDumper]

Me: DOH!
Sorry CD I didn't see you posting this already. Well at least now he can't argue that there is no source.

No worries. He needed to be educated about the amendment process anyway. You have provided a valuable service, provided he actually reads it. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

[implacable44]

There are two ways to originate an amendment, one of which has never been used.

There are two ways to ratify an amendment, one of which has only been used once.

Both ratification schemes require approval of three fourths of all the states. That is the main reason no radical change to the cons ution is going to happen. If you want everyone to be scared like Glenn Beck told you to be, please give us a scenario in which three fourths of the states approve a radical amendment to the cons ution.

We're waiting.

there are two ways ? Well I guess you could try and make it a debate about the third and most probable way that your guns might be taken - via the US Supreme court who is open to "interpreting" the cons ution - and although you might debate and say it does not "amend" it the law will be establised by the court and it will be followed and thus it will be an "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment very different from the way it is now. Same result as an amendment proposed either trough legislation of from the States and passed.

of course there is also the line item veto power the President holds which also can effectively change an amendment (proposed).

[Centaur of the Sun]

we have already lived under the fairness doctrine for many years.

If I'm not mistaken it was a policy used in the the 50's and 60's. Large scale media was in its infancy back then. Even the SCOTUS said that it was only applicable when sources of information were limited. In today's world it just wouldn't happen. The media, the internet... everything is too big and complex to implement such a crock of .

[implacable44]

No worries. He needed to be educated about the amendment process anyway. You have provided a valuable service, provided he actually reads it. I'm not holding my breath waiting for that.

I have no need of an education from dungdrinker - least of all on the merits and understanding of the United States Cons ution.

[implacable44]

If I'm not mistaken it was a policy used in the the 50's and 60's. Large scale media was in its infancy back then. Even the SCOTUS said that it was only applicable when sources of information were limited. In today's world it just wouldn't happen. The media, the internet... everything is too big and complex to implement such a crock of .

Sure hope you are right - it has already been proposed and has lots of support. We will see if those words come back to bite you in the tush

[Centaur of the Sun]

Nobody is taking your guns away, nobody is taking your God away, nobody is taking your children away, and nobody is taking your liberties away.

It's all designed to get you worked up... which of course it has clearly succeeded.

[ChumpDumper]

there are two ways ? Well I guess you could try and make it a debate about the third and most probable way that your guns might be taken - via the US Supreme court who is open to "interpreting" the cons ution - and although you might debate and say it does not "amend" it the law will be establised by the court and it will be followed and thus it will be an "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment very different from the way it is now. Same result as an amendment proposed either trough legislation of from the States and passed.

So you don't have any scenario of how the cons ution could be changed.

Classic.

of course there is also the line item veto power the President holds which also can effectively change an amendment (proposed).

Ok, you REALLY don't know what an amendment is or how government works.

Stick to plagiarism, you ignorant turd.

[FromWayDowntown]

there are two ways ? Well I guess you could try and make it a debate about the third and most probable way that your guns might be taken - via the US Supreme court who is open to "interpreting" the cons ution - and although you might debate and say it does not "amend" it the law will be establised by the court and it will be followed and thus it will be an "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment very different from the way it is now. Same result as an amendment proposed either trough legislation of from the States and passed.

of course there is also the line item veto power the President holds which also can effectively change an amendment (proposed).

Of course, all er did was provide an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That you or I happen to agree with that interpretation doesn't make it objectively correct. It makes it an interpretation that we agree with.

You presume that an Obama Court will necessarily change those things. But it will, of course, take one of the conservative Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees to retire before the voting balance on the Court actually changes -- given the Rasputin-like staying power of Supreme Court justices when non-ideologically similar Presidents are in power, that will likely take a very long time to occur.

And, even then, the interpretation won't amend the Cons ution.

[byrontx]

Republicans are worried about the Cons ution?

"The Cons ution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas,'' Gonzales told Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing Jan. 17.

Gonzales acknowledged that the Cons ution declares "habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless ... in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.'' But he insisted that "there is no express grant of habeas in the Cons ution.''

Specter was incredulous, asking how the Cons ution could bar the suspension of a right that didn't exist -- a right, he noted, that was first recognized in medieval England as a shield against the king's power to dispatch troublesome subjects to royal dungeons.

Later in the hearing, Gonzales described habeas corpus as "one of our most cherished rights'' and noted that Congress had protected that right in the 1789 law that established the federal court system. But he never budged from his position on the absence of cons utional protection -- a position that seemingly would leave Congress free to reduce habeas corpus rights or repeal them altogether.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...NGDONO11O1.DTL

Habeas Corpus
habeas corpus n. Law A writ issued to bring a party before a court to prevent unlawful restraint. [<Med. Lat., you should have the body] Source: AHD

The basic premise behind habeas corpus is that you cannot be held against your will without just cause. To put it another way, you cannot be jailed if there are no charges against you. If you are being held, and you demand it, the courts must issue a writ of habeas corpus, which forces those holding you to answer as to why. If there is no good or compelling reason, the court must set you free. It is important to note that of all the civil liberties we take for granted today as a part of the Bill of Rights, the importance of habeas corpus is illustrated by the fact that it was the sole liberty thought important enough to be included in the original text of the Cons ution.

http://www.uscons ution.net/glossary.html

[implacable44]

So you don't have any scenario of how the cons ution could be changed.

Classic.

Ok, you REALLY don't know what an amendment is or how government works.

Stick to plagiarism, you ignorant turd.

I just gave you one you re . The judiciary has more power than the cons ution alludes because it is allowed to inpterpret it as a matter of law - so if the US Supreme court gets a case -- like the recent one regarding Washington DC's ban on handguns that was overturned by the slimmest of margins (5-4). Obama will likely appoint a few justices to the courts. BReyer, Stevens, Ginsburg (all left leaning) exceed the age of 70 -- while Scalia is 72 (leans right).. Kennedy is 72 as well and some of his decisions lean right - some lean left -- often he is the deciding vote. So - should Scalia or Kennedy pass or retire then the court is changed ( or Thomas, Alito or Roberts) and the next right to bear arms case ( say one from New York) hits the supreme court.. you have a different decision and the understanding of that 2nd amendment clause about the right to bear arms is changed - altered and the law is in effect.

[implacable44]

Of course, all er did was provide an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. That you or I happen to agree with that interpretation doesn't make it objectively correct. It makes it an interpretation that we agree with.

You presume that an Obama Court will necessarily change those things. But it will, of course, take one of the conservative Reagan/Bush/Bush appointees to retire before the voting balance on the Court actually changes -- given the Rasputin-like staying power of Supreme Court justices when non-ideologically similar Presidents are in power, that will likely take a very long time to occur.

And, even then, the interpretation won't amend the Cons ution.

It doesn't make it an interpretation that we agree with - it makes it an interpretation that 5 of the 9 justices agreed with. That "interpretation" of the wording in the 2nd amendment serves the same purpose as an actual change to the Cons ution. When an issue arises about the interpretation -the final say rests with the 9 justices and what they deem it to be and accordingly they have the power to change -- alter - amend - choose your verb Mr. dungsemantics .. either way it is changed.

[ChumpDumper]

So this argument really has nothing at all to do with Glenn Beck's article.

Good idea to change the subject again.

[implacable44]

So this argument really has nothing at all to do with Glenn Beck's article.

Good idea to change the subject again.

that is what we are discussing - Obama and his desire to change the cons ution. I know it is hard to follow along from the kiddie table