How many of you are ex-diehard Obama lovers

oh one more thing.. i am really starting to think that the movie idiocracy needs to be taken out of the comedy genre and placed in the future documentary section.. do to the prediction that it gives for this country...since all we do is bicker as a nation...and let corporations tell us what we should do..."Mondo , its what the plants crave...".
 

meowmix

Active Member
Don't blame the "free market". A free market probably would have prevented what happened. Lets not forget part of the big problem was the banks being forced into providing subprime loans by law(thank you bill clinton). Whats free about that?


i think its funny how far this post has spiraled from ex-obama lovers to health care, national debt , and now the constitution... it is the perfect example why we as a nation are not getting shit done and moving forward.. we're to busy worrying about our wallets, our beliefs, and our pride to work for the greater good of our fellow americans. everyone in this nation needs to take a step back ... a huge fucking step back, fire up the vaporizer .. and take a look at the bigger picture.

How did we get to this point in our country ? don't blame Obama or even Bush ( even though i think he was a corporate puppet ( what person in government isn't) and Iraq was a joke, Operation Iraqi Liberation O.I.L , and afghanistan would have been better left to the C.I.A), but as a nation we are at fault. we all gambled with our 401k or 403b and lost , because of the free market. Corporations run everything ( look at the blocks in the Norml commercials )when a dog runs away you need to put it on a chain. do I think they should have got bailouts.. yes and no ... to prevent market collapse yes ...but they didn't learn a lesson..

With health care , i think it should be universal , growing up as a kid i didn't have it , and when i went to the ER for bump or little cut it cost my parents 356.00 to hear " he will be fine" and we were working poor , but we paid. Health care is like car insurance in my state..i have to have uninsured drivers insurance to protect me from uninsured drivers, but if everyone had insure i wouldn't have to pay more money for dumb insurance.. in the end we pay for the uninsured in some form now. plus my wife works in hospital and she may take a pay cut , but we still support healthcare reform for the good of the people.

With Taxes and national debt, i just want to be happy and enjoy my life. Denmark The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita, then i am willing to do that...i am not a socialist .. i am a humanist, that wants to live a healthy, happy, and fulfilling life.

With religion. i respect and understand you have your beliefs, but what ever happen to separation church and state... if i hear one person talk about there god ,abortion, ,and health care in or around the same sentence on a national media network, i think we should just sent them to meet their maker and so they can personally ask it's opinion. this is coming from a poor male Independent pro-choice Catholic Buddhist social worker ( i hate being the majority and minority )

i look at canada across the lake, and wonder when i should get my application. i am not saying canada is a 100% right , but its a start..

I worry about that these things not for myself...i worry for my 11 month old daughter. and future generations...isn't there a saying United We Stand, Divided we Fall.......i guess the real question is how deep is the rabbit hole.

sorry .. just had to rant.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
oh one more thing.. i am really starting to think that the movie idiocracy needs to be taken out of the comedy genre and placed in the future documentary section.. do to the prediction that it gives for this country...since all we do is bicker as a nation...and let corporations tell us what we should do..."Mondo , its what the plants crave...".
I agree with you that the U.S., or whatever the U.S. will be called after the fall, will be an idiocracy; but not for the same reasons you cite.

The premise of the film is that stupid people out-breed smart people. Just add television and Shazaam! You have a nation full of dumb-asses before you can say Homer Simpson.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
You really must be denser than I thought, John. :?

It is your opinion that we have no reasonable expectation of privacy as guaranteed by the Constitution?
Security John, not privacy. A reasonable expectation of security in persons, houses, papers, and effects. And actually, John, nobody wants to seize the mothers fetus. Decent people want back the usurped constitutional authority to enact laws that say that beyond a certain point in a pregnancy, a child in the womb cannot be murdered unless certain, extremely specific, criteria are met (the mothers life in jeopardy, for instance).



The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

Wrong.

Once the dude squirts in his lady he relinquishes control of his wigglers.

When it comes to privacy, the dude has no standing in the scenario you describe.

It becomes her decision how to proceed. She has the right to be secure in her person. Her privacy is the only consideration when the jizz is inside her.
Right into the statist trap, as always, John. :mrgreen:

Paternity laws being what they are, if the "hapless horny dude" (unwitting father) doesn't pay child support, when the "load receiver" (mother) demands it, to support the "load of jizz" (child) he demanded be aborted, he has his cash commandeered and can do hard time if he refuses to concede payments to the "load receiver" (mother) and the "load of jizz" (child). To alleviate this huge infringement on the "cummers" (unwitting fathers) "privacy rights" (leftist dogma), 18 years worth to be exact, the "load receiver" (mother to be) can undergo a twenty minute procedure and have her right to privacy violated less than the "jizz shooting slave" (unwitting father) will have to endure.

Your specious arguments do amuse, however...:blsmoke:
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
You really must be denser than I thought, John. :?

Security John, not privacy. A reasonable expectation of security in persons, houses, papers, and effects.
Secure in your person, house, paper, and effects; is privacy.

And probable cause is a warrant in the form of either an oath or a document.

Meaning we have a reasonable expectation of privacy up to the point the coppers discover probable cause for a search. :wall:
And actually, John, nobody wants to seize the mothers fetus. Decent people want back the usurped constitutional authority to enact laws that say that beyond a certain point in a pregnancy, a child in the womb cannot be murdered unless certain, extremely specific, criteria are met (the mothers life in jeopardy, for instance).
Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the case now?
The right of the people to be secure...against unreasonable searches and seizures...and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause...and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
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.

Right into the statist trap, as always, John. :mrgreen:

Paternity laws being what they are, if the "hapless horny dude" (unwitting father) doesn't pay child support, when the "load receiver" (mother) demands it, to support the "load of jizz" (child) he demanded be aborted, he has his cash commandeered and can do hard time if he refuses to concede payments to the "load receiver" (mother) and the "load of jizz" (child). To alleviate this huge infringement on the "cummers" (unwitting fathers) "privacy rights" (leftist dogma), 18 years worth to be exact, the "load receiver" (mother to be) can undergo a twenty minute procedure and have her right to privacy violated less than the "jizz shooting slave" (unwitting father) will have to endure.
How is a man being held responsible for the results of a willful act of procreation a violation of privacy after he has relinquished control of his baby batter by delivering it into the body of his lady friend?
Your specious arguments do amuse, however...:blsmoke:
You are the King of specious reasoning.

And the Sheik of obfuscation.
You really must be denser than I thought, John. :???:

roflmfao.........
tickle me elmo.
If I want any shit out of you I'll squeeze your head, Bongspit.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
ChChoda believes I am a statist because I believe privacy is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

This thread is now officially Bizarro World.

I think we're done here.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
Secure in your person, house, paper, and effects; is privacy.



Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't that the case now?



How is a man being held responsible for the results of a willful act of procreation a violation of privacy after he has relinquished control of his baby batter by delivering it into the body of his lady friend?
Then why didn't the writers use the word privacy? Why was it "secure", instead? And why isn't it, "life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and privacy..."? You make stuff up to suit your cause, just like all liberal judges on the courts.


No, not since Roe v Wade. The high court struck down all state laws which in any way restricted a womans right to an abortion (right to privacy) if the woman can find an abortion doctor who will do it (say the pregnancy isn't viable).


What if the condom broke? Or the woman said she was on the pill, and wasn't? We should let the judges decide the specifics of the case, right?


Roger Brooke Taney

5th Chief Justice of the United States



:lol:...............:bigjoint:
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
ChChoda believes I am a statist because I believe privacy is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

This thread is now officially Bizarro World.

I think we're done here.
I believe you're a statist because you subscribe to the same old shit that every two bit dictator, in history, subscribed to. Because the people are too stupid to get it, they're wrong, say you statists.

Privacy is not an absolute, John. It's something that must be forfeited when the situation demands it (says the constitution). If you were fucked in the process, you have recourse. This shit is obvious, though...:roll:
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
ChChoda believes I am a statist because I believe privacy is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.
[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+2]
:blsmoke: http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/r100000_.html

Soviet Union (Former~) - Constitution

[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Chapter 7 Basic Rights, Freedoms, Duties[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
Article 54 [Personal Freedom]

Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No one may be arrested except by a court decision or on the warrant of a procurator.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 56 [Privacy]
The privacy of citizens, and of their correspondence, telephone conversations, and telegraphic communications is protected by law.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]Article 57 [Legal Remedies]
(1) Respect for the individual and protection of the rights and freedoms of citizens are the duty of all state bodies, public organizations, and officials.

(2) Citizens of the USSR have the right to protection by the courts against encroachments on their honor and reputation, life and health, and personal freedom and property.
[/FONT]
 

Mindmelted

Well-Known Member
Still do not get the fine me for not having health insurance.

Lets see pay for my house,food,electricity or pay for health insurance i can not afford.

And the premiums will not come down for anybody..

The Government is full of shit and top floater is Obama.
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
yea govco is crazy if they think the people ALL OF THEM WILL GIVE THEM A RED SENT WITHOUT EXACTING A MECYLESS REVENGE ON THEM FOR THIS DISGUSTING SOCIALIST ATTACK ON AMERICA

trust me, this burns a fire in the soul of all free men


IT WILL BE REPEALED and 37 states will be there in the courthouse on Monday morning suing the Government if this garbage passes on sunday


we let the devil in the whithouse house.
 

dukeofbaja

New Member
yea govco is crazy if they think the people ALL OF THEM WILL GIVE THEM A RED SENT WITHOUT EXACTING A MECYLESS REVENGE ON THEM FOR THIS DISGUSTING SOCIALIST ATTACK ON AMERICA

trust me, this burns a fire in the soul of all free men


IT WILL BE REPEALED and 37 states will be there in the courthouse on Monday morning suing the Government if this garbage passes on sunday


we let the devil in the whithouse house.

Maybe your message would not fall so hollow if you bothered to spell things correctly and use decent grammar. Otherwise, I feel like my 10 year old nephew is trying to preach to me about how fixing a broken system somehow equates to the end of humanity as we know it.
 

Big P

Well-Known Member
Maybe your message would not fall so hollow if you bothered to spell things correctly and use decent grammar. Otherwise, I feel like my 10 year old nephew is trying to preach to me about how fixing a broken system somehow equates to the end of humanity as we know it.

i cant spell because im partially dyslexic and english is my second language, i would bet that I am more successful than you bad spelling and all :blsmoke:


dont get mad at me cuz your trying to force me to do somthing by supporting socialist policies

your an ignorent boob as far as i can tell


 

max420thc

Well-Known Member
Hatch Says ‘Nuts’ to Think Sunday Vote Settles Issue (Update1)

Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A


By Nicholas Johnston




March 19 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican, said Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives are “nuts” to think that Sunday’s vote on health-care legislation will resolve the issue.
Senate Republicans have enough votes on at least two points of order to alter the measure and send it back to the House for a second round of votes, Hatch said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend.
“If those people think they’re only going to vote on this once, they’re nuts,” Hatch said as House Democratic leaders rounded up support before the scheduled March 21 vote on President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.
Hatch warned that the approach Democrats are using to pass the legislation in the House may be unconstitutional because the House and Senate aren’t voting on “exactly the same language.”
The second-ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Hatch also said Supreme Court Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, 89, the longest serving member of the court, is “likely” to announce he is stepping down next month.
That will allow Obama to name his replacement, and Hatch suggested Solicitor General Elena Kagan and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano as possibilities.
‘Pick Another Woman’
“I suspect he’s going to try and pick another woman or somebody from some ethnic group that hasn’t had a chance to be on the court,” Hatch said.
Replacing Stevens would be Obama’s second pick for the nine-member court. Last year he named Sonia Sotomayor, the first Hispanic justice, to the court to fill the seat vacated by David Souter.
On the issue of terrorism, Hatch, a member of the Senate intelligence committee, said the U.S. “may very well catch Osama bin Laden,” the leader of the al-Qaeda network.
“We are knocking off the top 20 one by one,” Hatch said. He criticized Attorney General Eric Holder for telling lawmakers March 16 that bin Laden isn’t likely to be captured alive.
“I don’t think he should have said that,” Hatch said.
Asked if he knew whether bin Laden’s capture is imminent, Hatch said, “I couldn’t say even if I did.”
On college sports, Hatch called the Bowl Championship Series, which oversees the college football national championship game, “a corrupt system” that funnels billions of dollars to “privileged conferences.”
The Department of Justice has told Hatch it is considering whether to investigate the BCS for possible violations of antitrust law.
‘Gravy Train’
“It’s a corrupt system and frankly we really do need to change it,” Hatch said. “And I understand why they’d try and hold onto it. It’s a gravy train to them that nobody seems to look at or supervise or review.”
Hatch said one of the points of order raised against the health-care legislation would be related to the effect on Social Security revenue, and he expects Republicans will have the votes to win on that because it would require 60 votes to overturn.
A proposed tax on high-end insurance plans would be scaled back under the House measure, which would mean less revenue for the Social Security system, Republicans say. That would violate Senate rules, they say.
Democrats and two independents have 59 seats in the 100- member body.
Price Tag
The legislation represents the most significant health-care revamp since the Medicare program for the elderly was created in 1965. Americans would have more access to preventive care and young adults could stay on their parents’ insurance until age 26, Democrats say. The measure has a 10-year $940 billion price tag.
Hatch predicted “outright warfare” in the Senate if Democrats use a process called reconciliation that would allow the Senate to pass the health-care measure with a simple majority.
“That’s going to be something they’re going to have to live with the rest of their lives,” Hatch said.
To contact the reporter on this story: Nicholas Johnston in Washington at [email protected]
Last Updated: March 19, 2010 16:57 EDT
 

mookie brown

Active Member
I'm an Obama supporter. Everyone knows 1 man alone can't make shit happen. You have so many politicians who are worried about what their constituents think that they will vote either way yes or no on national health care if it meant that when they rerun for office that they will be convinced they will get re elected. I've got mad respect for Obama. He's trying his hardest to get this to become a reality. I can't ask for anything more out of him on this issue. I'm glad I voted for him !! Every american deserves health care
 
Top