Obama - Fascist and hater of the US Cons ution

[ChumpDumper]

At 22, you are a sore loser who has made up more than most people have in an entire lifetime.

[JoeChalupa]

22!? You belong to the age group that BHornet deplores. I was voting before you were even born and the only thing you have a grasp on is yourself

[2centsworth]

Sore loser? Is this a sporting event?

At 22, I have a greater grasp of reality than you kool-aid drinkers.


my edited link was ownage. Too bad elnono caught my ninja edit.

they treat it as a sport. actually, they want to shame you in being quiet. otherwise, they will have to pass legislation to shut you up.

[ChumpDumper]

they treat it as a sport. actually, they want to shame you in being quiet. otherwise, they will have to pass legislation to shut you up.

Now you guys are going to pretend there are no losers in politics.

That's the way losers make themselves feel better.

I would never want to shut up that kind of loser talk.

[2centsworth]

Now you guys are going to pretend there are no losers in politics.

That's the way losers make themselves feel better.

I would never want to shut up that kind of loser talk.

you have self-esteem issues dude. I'm happy politics makes you feel this good about yourself.

btw, what do we win or lose?

It's up to me to bank no matter who's in power. However, is there something I should be afraid of if Obama is elected?

[George Gervin's Afro]

Most you should be ashamed for not even questioning Obama for yourselves.


Why do you think he is so articulate in 2001, then stutters and stammers in 2008? It's because he is trying so hard to hide his true intentions while on the big stage.

We can fire him in 4 yrs if he shows his 'true' self. Simple solution.

[ChumpDumper]

you have self-esteem issues dude. I'm happy politics makes you feel this good about yourself.

I just read your loser talk to make me laugh.

btw, what do we win or lose?

Your candidates and party lose an election. Did you really not know this?

It's up to me to bank no matter who's in power. However, is there something I should be afraid of if Obama is elected?

That's what you people have been talking about all year. Did you just take a blow to the head and forgot it all?

[2centsworth]

I just read your loser talk to make me laugh.

please tell me what I have lost?

Your candidates and party lose an election. Did you really not know this?

more confirmation you're rooting for a team.

That's what you people have been talking about all year. Did you just take a blow to the head and forgot it all?

"you people". Now that's loser talk. Please tell me what I have lost with an Obama victory?

your best bet is to change the line of questioning and answer things that haven't been asked in typical Chump fashion.

[ChumpDumper]

please tell me what I have lost?

Already told you.

more confirmation you're rooting for a team.

When politicians stop using sports analogies, you can act like that means something.

"you people". Now that's loser talk. Please tell me what I have lost with an Obama victory?

Are you voting for Obama? If not and he wins, your candidate and party lose. Because they don't win. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

your best bet is to change the line of questioning and answer things that haven't been asked in typical Chump fashion.

Losing is what happens when you don't win. It happens in sports and elections.

[FromWayDowntown]

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.

Right, so when George W. Bush appointed 2 justices who would interpret the Cons ution in a manner that he was more likely to agree with, he wanted the Cons ution changed.

Freakin' Bush, that Cons ution-changing power fiend!!!!!


Wait -- actually, that's pretty much right.

[2centsworth]

Already told you.

When politicians stop using sports analogies, you can act like that means something.

Are you voting for Obama? If not and he wins, your candidate and party lose. Because they don't win. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that.

Losing is what happens when you don't win. It happens in sports and elections.

politics is more than just an election. now this may sound naive, but it supposed to be about real life. In real life, what have I lost because of this election?

[FromWayDowntown]

politics is more than just an election. now this may sound naive, but it supposed to be about real life. In real life, what have I lost because of this election?

Given all of the concerns voiced about the economic difference that one choice will make over another, I would think that the outcome could potentially create great losses for you and others. Unless all of that talk about economic differences was just bluster.

[2centsworth]

Right, so when George W. Bush appointed 2 justices who would interpret the Cons ution in a manner that he was more likely to agree with, he wanted the Cons ution changed.

Freakin' Bush, that Cons ution-changing power fiend!!!!!


Wait -- actually, that's pretty much right.

are you purposely creating ambiguity so that judges have more power? the broader the interpretations that we allow, the more power we put in the hands of judges. the legislative branch should be in control of creating boundaries, no?

[ElNono]

are you purposely creating ambiguity so that judges have more power? the broader the interpretations that we allow, the more power we put in the hands of judges. the legislative branch should be in control of creating boundaries, no?

Actually, there's an opinion by two renowned conservative judges that specifically say that the ruling on the 2nd amendment was nothing but a political stance, and equated it to roe vs wade. I'll try to find it, it makes for an interesting read.

EDIT: Here's an article about it: LINK

[ChumpDumper]

politics is more than just an election. now this may sound naive, but it supposed to be about real life. In real life, what have I lost because of this election?

The election. There are sides and winers and losers. This is how representative politics works. Again, I can't make it any more plain to you. Now if you need to rationalize your side's loss by saying you lost nothing in real life, by all means do. Losers do that kind of thing. There's nothing wrong with that.

[ChumpDumper]

are you purposely creating ambiguity so that judges have more power? the broader the interpretations that we allow, the more power we put in the hands of judges. the legislative branch should be in control of creating boundaries, no?

If they really want to take it out of the hands of the judges, that's when they should change the cons ution. Otherwise, the courts and their decisions will always somewhat reflect those who appointed them. So if Obama appoints some judge that takes some guns away, some time later some Republican will appoint some judge who will give them back.

[DarkReign]

politics is more than just an election. now this may sound naive, but it supposed to be about real life. In real life, what have I lost because of this election?

Do you make over $250k?

Thats rhetorical, but it is potentially one thing.

To be clear, Im not an "us", "we" sort either. Not with sports or sports teams and certainly not politics.

I think Obama would be/will be a good President. But with a super majority?

Absolute power....

[2centsworth]

Given all of the concerns voiced about the economic difference that one choice will make over another, I would think that the outcome could potentially create great losses for you and others. Unless all of that talk about economic differences was just bluster.

I lose the narrative, fair enough.

[RandomGuy]

This is a guy who sees the Cons ution and something that is outdated. That does not work, does not need to stand. It is exactly the same reason why the Democrats said no more power for this long with FDR. It is the same reason why the Democrats stopped FDR from packing the court. This is what FDR wanted to do. This is Liberal Fascism. And it is our final wake-up call, America. It is our final wake-up call. We are not going to get anything more clear from Senator Obama than this. You are not going to see it any plainer than this. I cannot believe how crystal clear this is. Now will America wake up. This is not about John McCain. I am not a supporter of John McCain.

and when it doesn't happen in 8 years?

Gawd, I am going to print a bunch of this kind of hand-wringing apocolyptic bull , and save it up.

You might not be posting here in 8 years, but whereever I end up posting in a political forum, and I am going to spend a few days posting all of the "oh my god, he's a closet muslim that is going to impose sharia" and "oh my god we're on the road to "liberal fascism"" and laugh.

If it doesn't happen in 8 years, will you admit you were wrong?

Or will you bury the memory of your hysteria so deep that you will have forgotten it?

[FromWayDowntown]

are you purposely creating ambiguity so that judges have more power? the broader the interpretations that we allow, the more power we put in the hands of judges. the legislative branch should be in control of creating boundaries, no?

Oh, I agree with that. I think most people would agree that the legislative and executive branches should be rule-making bodies and that the Supreme Court functions largely to assess whether those enactments (or the acts of States) violate Cons utional principles.

What I'm responding to is impenetrable's notion that a Supreme Court opinion interpreting the Cons ution "changes" the Cons ution and functions like an amendment. If that's going to be true under an Obama administration, he has to admit that the same has been true under every other administration since the beginning of the nation.

The difference is that he doesn't like what he thinks an Obama Court will do in interpreting the Cons ution. But his ultimate point -- preaching fear that this will happen (aside from its absurd absence of any mooring in reality) -- is precisely what the Supreme Court does, regardless of who the President is. And, frankly, lots of people don't agree with lots of those decisions. The suggestion that an Obama Presidency and its impact on the Court will somehow be unique in having the Court interpret the Cons ution ignores nearly 250 years of history.

[Mr. Peabody]

I was listening to Dennis Prager (?) today and he played the audio clip at issue in this thread. Before he played it, he said "Now, you have to listen to this intelligently and keeping in mind the other things Barack has said to get the full meaning of this"

In other words, "This clip really really doesn't say much without me spinning it for you afterward."

It's hard to believe that this is the last week of the election and this is it. This is what the GOP is hoping will turn the election. This is the "game-changer" as Prager put it. This issue is so lame.....

[Mr. Peabody]

Oh, I agree with that. I think most people would agree that the legislative and executive branches should be rule-making bodies and that the Supreme Court functions largely to assess whether those enactments (or the acts of States) violate Cons utional principles.

What I'm responding to is impenetrable's notion that a Supreme Court opinion interpreting the Cons ution "changes" the Cons ution and functions like an amendment. If that's going to be true under an Obama administration, he has to admit that the same has been true under every other administration since the beginning of the nation.

The difference is that he doesn't like what he thinks an Obama Court will do in interpreting the Cons ution. But his ultimate point -- preaching fear that this will happen (aside from its absurd absence of any mooring in reality) -- is precisely what the Supreme Court does, regardless of who the President is. And, frankly, lots of people don't agree with lots of those decisions. The suggestion that an Obama Presidency and its impact on the Court will somehow be unique in having the Court interpret the Cons ution ignores nearly 250 years of history.

This is similar to the whole "legislating from the bench" issue drummed up by the GOP in 2006/2007. I don't hear the Republican outrage in Texas when our Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals issue decisions that eviscerate existing state law.

[FromWayDowntown]

I was listening to Dennis Prager (?) today and he played the audio clip at issue in this thread. Before he played it, he said "Now, you have to listen to this intelligently and keeping in mind the other things Barack has said to get the full meaning of this"

In other words, "This clip really really doesn't say much without me spinning it for you afterward."

It's hard to believe that this is the last week of the election and this is it. This is what the GOP is hoping will turn the election. This is the "game-changer" as Prager put it. This issue is so lame.....

I'd be curious to hear the interview in its unedited form. I hate to pull the Wild Cobra context card, but the snippets I've heard, dissected as they have been, suggest that it could be that Obama was asked to discuss the victories and failings of the civil rights movement, argued that if the goal of the civil rights movement was to right economic inequities that it failed, suggested that those goals could have been achieved through legislative or executive action, explained that community organization might have been a means to achieve those ends (he was a community organizer, after all), and noted that it would have be a truly "radical" act by the Warren Court to both interpret the Cons ution to fulfill those goals and attempt to administer that fulfillment -- and radical because it would fundamentally change the Cons utional function of the Court.

Now, I'll admit to that being a decidedly pro-Obama suggestion, but without more context, it seems just as likely (to me) that Obama was speaking in those terms as it is that he was laying the roots for the political/economic/cons utional philosophy that he intended to pursue when he was elected President 7 years later.

[FromWayDowntown]

This is similar to the whole "legislating from the bench" issue drummed up by the GOP in 2006/2007. I don't hear the Republican outrage in Texas when our Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals issue decisions that eviscerate existing state law.

Precisely.

Implacable doesn't like the way that he anticipates the Cons ution will be interpreted by a Court with Obama appointees, so he argues that such a Court will be fundamentally changing the Cons ution (in a manner indistinguishable from amendment) by its opinions. Of course, when the Roberts Court interprets the Cons ution in way that implacable likes, that interpretation isn't one that changes the Cons ution at all.

I'm not sure that you can have it both ways -- just like the sanctimonious arguments about judicial activism.

[hitmanyr2k]

Just more pathetic "I have a crystal ball" bull . That's all these guys have left. Day after day the same old pathetic crap. "Obama is going to do this, Obama is going to do that...BOO!! ". Did I scare ya?