Thread: Republicans are in trouble!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I'm glad only their medicine is socialized. Obama wants to go far beyond that.

http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/...ed_medi_8.html

I believe in health care for everyone. I just think everyone should pay for it. A lot of these people you claim to care so much about would be able to afford it if they would not reproduce when they can't afford to do it. How much are you spreading that message?

The government needs to get a better way to do it than that. No one is refused in Canada or England. I've never heard Obama say that he wasn't to go beyond that, in fact, he's pushing universal health care which isn't even socialized, just a step in the right direction. If you mean he wants to give more money to police forces and such, then you can hire additional security for your house if you wish, it doesn't mean you have to rely entirely on the american police force.

Bush is not all-powerful. Bush's brush ups with the constitution have turned all kinds of checks his way. He does have other branches of government to answer to. We also have the ability to recall him out of office, and his term is about to end. He is far from a totalitarian leader. Prisoners of war have NEVER had constitutional rights. Dumb people think Obama is strong. The rest of the people who claim it are flat out lying. Practically nobody is saying Obama is a terrorist, so please stop using that strawman. You keep using "their" when you should be using "there".

Congress said that they would not finance permanent bases in Iraq. Bush said that he could override that decision. He doesn't believe in checks and balances. Cheney is presiding over the Senate and the constitution clearly states that the only power the VP has in the senate is to cast a deciding vote.

You need to read The Patriot Act. It clearly states in Title II that it applies to both non-Us citizen and US citizens. It's in black and white, no way to misconstrue it. US citizens are supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights, non Us citizens are supposed to be protected by the Gineva Convention. Bush got rid of both.

No, dumb people think that continuing the policies that screwed the country up will somehow save it.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

The government needs to get a better way to do it than that. No one is refused in Canada or England. I've never heard Obama say that he wasn't to go beyond that, in fact, he's pushing universal health care which isn't even socialized, just a step in the right direction. If you mean he wants to give more money to police forces and such, then you can hire additional security for your house if you wish, it doesn't mean you have to rely entirely on the american police force.

Don't ever trust the government to stop at what they say they are going to do.

The people in Japan are refused treatment because the hospitals are so backed up because they are so slow. That is what socialized medicine does to health care systems. It is not the wonderful dream you think it is.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Congress said that they would not finance permanent bases in Iraq. Bush said that he could override that decision. He doesn't believe in checks and balances. Cheney is presiding over the Senate and the constitution clearly states that the only power the VP has in the senate is to cast a deciding vote.

If you want to argue that Bush merely THINKS he is all powerful, then you are making an entirely different point from what you said a few posts ago. He does have executive powers, and perhaps he overestimates them debatably. That is not the same thing as BEING all powerful.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You need to read The Patriot Act. It clearly states in Title II that it applies to both non-Us citizen and US citizens. It's in black and white, no way to misconstrue it. US citizens are supposed to be protected by the Bill of Rights, non Us citizens are supposed to be protected by the Gineva Convention. Bush got rid of both.

That is what you call a conflict of laws. Now U.S. citizens can be considered enemy combatants, and I disagree with that. Bill of Rights before warfare considerations... always.

While we are on the topic of preservation of the Bill of Rights, what do you think about keeping the Second Amendment?

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, dumb people think that continuing the policies that screwed the country up will somehow save it.

Most people who support Bush and McCain over Obama and Kerry and shit like that think Bush and McCain are too liberal economically but far better than socialists who love terrorists. That is an intelligent position. Dumb people look at the failures of socialism and still want it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

The people in Japan are refused treatment because the hospitals are so backed up because they are so slow. That is what socialized medicine does to health care systems. It is not the wonderful dream you think it is.

Oh, so that's where you got the idea that socialized medicine is slow while. The fact that one country doesn't do it right doesn't make the entire system bad. Care to talk that way about Canada (where I have family and first hand knowledge) or England (where we have DV members who we can ask)?

If you want to argue that Bush merely THINKS he is all powerful, then you are making an entirely different point from what you said a few posts ago. He does have executive powers, and perhaps he overestimates them debatably. That is not the same thing as BEING all powerful.

If he thinks it then that means that he wants to make it true. He may not be the all powerful dictator that he wants to be, but has pushed the limits of his power at every chance. McCain supported him all the way.

That is what you call a conflict of laws. Now U.S. citizens can be considered enemy combatants, and I disagree with that. Bill of Rights before warfare considerations... always.

In the United States a person is innocent until proven guilty. End of discussion. If they can prove that the person is a terrorist then do it. Also, if they have credible evidence that a person is a terrorist, then they should have no trouble getting the warrant. The reason for the patriot act is for when they don't have that proof.

While we are on the topic of preservation of the Bill of Rights, what do you think about keeping the Second Amendment?

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.

Keeping a militia now would be considered terrorism, you just contradicted yourself. I'm sure your "unrepent" domestic terrorist would have something to say about this. The people have the right to fight the government (with force if necessary) if they feel threatened.

People do have the right o have guns, but this is not absolute. Machine guns should be allowed in the use of a militia, but otherwise they are not used for hunting or self defense and should be illegal. No where in the amendment does it say that extensive background checks can't be performed and if you've been convicted of a crime, then you shouldn't have a gun.

Most people who support Bush and McCain over Obama and Kerry and shit like that think Bush and McCain are too liberal economically but far better than socialists who love terrorists. That is an intelligent position. Dumb people look at the failures of socialism and still want it.

Funny, most people who support Obama and Kerry think that what a man did when Obama was a kid is irrelevant and the fact that he served in a charity organization with him shows his commitment to charity. We also know the definition of socialist. They are better than totalitarians who don't believe in the US Constitution.

The election isn't over yet... there's still a terribly large American population who will say they are voting for a black man when publicly questioned but wouldn't dream of doing so when it comes down to the consequential private ballot.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Oh, so that's where you got the idea that socialized medicine is slow while. The fact that one country doesn't do it right doesn't make the entire system bad. Care to talk that way about Canada (where I have family and first hand knowledge) or England (where we have DV members who we can ask)?

No, I am mainly thinking of Canada when I say it. However, the list is long.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

If he thinks it then that means that he wants to make it true. He may not be the all powerful dictator that he wants to be, but has pushed the limits of his power at every chance. McCain supported him all the way.

Bush wants to be all powerful because he pushes the limits of the Constitution? That is a major stretch.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

In the United States a person is innocent until proven guilty. End of discussion. If they can prove that the person is a terrorist then do it. Also, if they have credible evidence that a person is a terrorist, then they should have no trouble getting the warrant. The reason for the patriot act is for when they don't have that proof.

I agree.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

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.

Keeping a militia now would be considered terrorism, you just contradicted yourself. I'm sure your "unrepent" domestic terrorist would have something to say about this. The people have the right to fight the government (with force if necessary) if they feel threatened.

People do have the right o have guns, but this is not absolute. Machine guns should be allowed in the use of a militia, but otherwise they are not used for hunting or self defense and should be illegal. No where in the amendment does it say that extensive background checks can't be performed and if you've been convicted of a crime, then you shouldn't have a gun.

Militias are not automatically terrorist groups. You made that up. If the government ever goes nuts and attacks me, I will shoot back. That is not terrorism.

By the way, a militia can be one person.

Why do you not have a problem with domestic terrorists?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I am mainly thinking of Canada when I say it. However, the list is long.

So you're weighing first hand experience of the Canadian Health Care system against right wing propoganda? Have you even ever been out of the USA?

Bush wants to be all powerful because he pushes the limits of the Constitution? That is a major stretch.

Not all powerful, just more powerful than the constitution allows him to be.

Militias are not automatically terrorist groups. You made that up. If the government ever goes nuts and attacks me, I will shoot back. That is not terrorism.

By the way, a militia can be one person.

Why do you not have a problem with domestic terrorists?

You have to stop putting words into liberals' mouths. I do have a problem with domestic terrorism, that's why I agree that he should have been in jail and serve his time (which he did.) Liberals believe in people's ability to change. That doesn't mean he has to apologize for what he thought was right, but has he done any terrorism in the last 30 years? No, he devoted his life to charity and education.

No, a militia can not be one man. Either you don't understand commas or choose to ignore them. You criticize my grammar on DV. It's an informal forum and I'm typing quickly (in literature it's called stream of conscious). I'm a published novelist, I know quiet a bit more about grammar than you think.

The 2nd amendment clearly states that the state has the right to have a militia. That means it has to be funded by the state and the state has the right to administer (an therefore control firearms.) That's what made the souther succession legal (not right, but legal.)

Notice that Arms is capitalized. That means that it refers to Arms as an entity, such as a militia or military.

You were referring to my support of NYC to ban guns (which by the way was passed by a right wing hero Rudy Guiliani.) It is explicit in the amendment that those rights are to be delegated by local governments so it is not a violation of the Bill or Rights. It is the only right in the bill with the word State in it, why do you think that is?

Despite what the NRA tells you, Barrack Obama has no intention of taking your guns, but you have to realize that extremist views like theirs are dangerous.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

So you're weighing first hand experience of the Canadian Health Care system against right wing propoganda? Have you even ever been out of the USA?

I am weighing what YOU say against what tons of others say and what I know socialism does.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Not all powerful, just more powerful than the constitution allows him to be.

We agree on that, but I'm not totally sure that he does.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You have to stop putting words into liberals' mouths. I do have a problem with domestic terrorism, that's why I agree that he should have been in jail and serve his time (which he did.) Liberals believe in people's ability to change. That doesn't mean he has to apologize for what he thought was right, but has he done any terrorism in the last 30 years? No, he devoted his life to charity and education.

I did not put words in your mouth. I noticed that this is the first time you have said the first negative thing against William Ayers, who did not do prison time because the case got botched.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

No, a militia can not be one man. Either you don't understand commas or choose to ignore them. You criticize my grammar on DV. It's an informal forum and I'm typing quickly (in literature it's called stream of conscious). I'm a published novelist, I know quiet a bit more about grammar than you think.

A militia can be one man. Why do you say it can't? Explain why I supposedly don't understand commas. You are not making sense.

Besides, the militia justification was justification for the broad right to bear arms, not merely the right of a militia to bear arms.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

You were referring to my support of NYC to ban guns (which by the way was passed by a right wing hero Rudy Guiliani.) It is explicit in the amendment that those rights are to be delegated by local governments so it is not a violation of the Bill or Rights. It is the only right in the bill with the word State in it, why do you think that is?

Despite what the NRA tells you, Barrack Obama has no intention of taking your guns, but you have to realize that extremist views like theirs are dangerous.

No, I was not referring to that or anything else in particular. I just asked a question.

Remember that I am not a Republican. You seem to be so prejudiced against people who are not liberal all the way that you assume all such people are Republicans. Society has a lot more diversity than you seem to realize.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I am weighing what YOU say against what tons of others say and what I know socialism does.

Canada is a Parliamentary system. In fact, they just had an election. I know what socialism is. You don't understand the difference between socialized medicine and socialism.

I did not put words in your mouth. I noticed that this is the first time you have said the first negative thing against William Ayers, who did not do prison time because the case got botched.

Oops. It doesn't change the fact that for 30 years he has been dedicated to charities and education.

A militia can be one man. Why do you say it can't? Explain why I supposedly don't understand commas. You are not making sense.

Besides, the militia justification was justification for the broad right to bear arms, not merely the right of a militia to bear arms.

For the security of the State. The state has to approve such a militia. It could be one man, but I don't know why the state would approve that.

And no, the right to bear arms came from the right to have a militia.

No, I was not referring to that or anything else in particular. I just asked a question.

Remember that I am not a Republican. You seem to be so prejudiced against people who are not liberal all the way that you assume all such people are Republicans. Society has a lot more diversity than you seem to realize.

I never said the word republican, nor have I ever called you one. I always call you conservative.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Canada is a Parliamentary system. In fact, they just had an election. I know what socialism is. You don't understand the difference between socialized medicine and socialism.

I didn't say Canada is soclialist in general. You don't understand my points. Canada has socialized medicine.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Oops. It doesn't change the fact that for 30 years he has been dedicated to charities and education.

That doesn't excuse shit. He is unrepentant.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

For the security of the State. The state has to approve such a militia. It could be one man, but I don't know why the state would approve that.

That is not at all what the amendment says.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I never said the word republican, nor have I ever called you one. I always call you conservative.

I didn't say you called me one. I said you seem to think I am one. I am also not, in general terms, a conservative. I am conservative on economics and foreign policy. That does not make me "a conservative".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't say Canada is soclialist in general. You don't understand my points. Canada has socialized medicine.

So why do you call them socialists? America has socialized police.

That doesn't excuse shit. He is unrepentant.

I never said it excuses it. Unrepentant is not unchanged.

That is not at all what the amendment says.

Yes it is. I'm afraid I forgot to answer your question on commas. Commas can be used for two reasons: a list, and to link two parts of a sentence together. A list can not be multiple phrases, only multiple related items, unless introduced via a colon. A comma means that what comes after it is a continuation of what comes before it, not a separate thought. A separate though within a sentence must be separated with a semicolon, not a comma.

If the amendment read: "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."
Then it would state that the people have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is not separate from the part about the security of a free state ergo does allow people to have guns for any reason other a state's security.

The framers of this bill were some of the smartest men at the time, they knew exactly what they wrote and revised it many times.

And yes, I checked, semicolons have been in common use since the 1500s.

I didn't say you called me one. I said you seem to think I am one. I am also not, in general terms, a conservative. I am conservative on economics and foreign policy. That does not make me "a conservative".

And I don't believe in the legalization of drugs. That doesn't make me a liberal.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

So why do you call them socialists? America has socialized police.

I didn't. I called their health care system socialist.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

I never said it excuses it. Unrepentant is not unchanged.

If he were changed, he would repent.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

Yes it is. I'm afraid I forgot to answer your question on commas. Commas can be used for two reasons: a list, and to link two parts of a sentence together. A list can not be multiple phrases, only multiple related items, unless introduced via a colon. A comma means that what comes after it is a continuation of what comes before it, not a separate thought. A separate though within a sentence must be separated with a semicolon, not a comma.

If the amendment read: "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."
Then it would state that the people have the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is not separate from the part about the security of a free state ergo does allow people to have guns for any reason other a state's security.

The framers of this bill were some of the smartest men at the time, they knew exactly what they wrote and revised it many times.

And yes, I checked, semicolons have been in common use since the 1500s.


And I don't believe in the legalization of drugs. That doesn't make me a liberal.

I agree with your point about continuation, but that does not refute my point. The need for militias is a justification, not a limitation. It does not say anything about limitation to militias.

Did the founding fathers complain at all that people who were not in militias had guns after the ratification of the Constitution? Find me some juice on that, please.

This is annoying me



I responded to your posts in the other thread, please move conversation there.