Political signs

Page 7 of 11  
wrote:

Obama had his campaigm email supporters to get them to flood talk radio and TV shows where people were critizing Obama,to deny the opposing opinions to be aired.He asked the Justice Department to prosecute the NRA for running ads showing Obama's anti-gun record.He got Missouri officials to use their official powers to go after people whose opinions he didn't like.Obama favors bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine".

Obama claimed to "support the Second Amendment",yet didn't sign the Heller amicus brief as other DemocRATs did.He first said he believed DC was OK to ban guns,then reversed himself after the USSC ruled in favor of Heller.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Jim Yanik wrote:

I don't think he reversed himself. His position is (paraphrasing) "Local communities should have a right to tailor laws to fit their own circumstances."
The plain meaning of his position is that, while the 2nd Amendment provides a right to keep and bear arms, a city should have a right to restrict - or even eliminate - guns due to a compelling social need.
As a putative constitutional law expert, he should know that impinging on a constitutional right carries a high burden. It doesn't matter if the majority in a city doesn't like Jehovah Witnesses - the city can't ban the church. While the constitution says the accused should have access to a lawyer, a state can't prohibit legal representation to child molesters just because it's a compelling social goal to do whatever's necessary to get them off the street.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
After the election, can you take the wire out of his supporters, and use them for something?
--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
retired54 wrote:

## Oh boy, you've really opened a can of creepy things. Obama and the 2nd Amendment?
* While in the Illinois Senate, he voted to ban several hundred common firearms, * He endorsed a ban on ALL handguns, * As an Illinois senator, he voted to allow prosecution of homeowners defending their homes with firearms, * He voted to increase taxation of ammunition and firearms by 500%, * As a US Senator, he voted to ban virtually all common rifle ammunition, * He is on record as opposing all right-to-carry laws. (48 states have right-to-carry laws)
However, in 2006, he voted in the U.S. Senate to prohibit gun confiscation in an emergency (i.e., Katrina). This is his only known unequivocal pro-gun position, vote, or utterance.
Here's what he recently said regarding the Heller decision:
"As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use it."
He's correct in that state and local government can constrain a Constitutional right. But when they do, they must follow the "strict scrutiny" standard. Government can prohibit yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre or the use of a sound truck at midnight, but it can't curtail all speech nor all political functions.
In the case to which he referred, D.C. vs. Heller, the District prohibited ownership of ALL handguns. By no standard is this a 'reasonable restriction,' and the United States Supreme Court said so.

As for the 1st Amendment, the leadership of the Congress is already making noises about re-imposing the "fairness doctrine."
I don't think Obama has taken a position on that issue. We'll see.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

You keep saying that, but you haven't given an example of how Bush has violated the Constitution.
If you hold, as I suspect, that the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is an example, I suggest you and others who hold similar beliefs are wrong.
The prisoners at Gitmo are not criminals. As such, they are entitled to NONE of the Constitutional protections afforded by the Constitutions (i.e., "In all criminal proceedings..."). They are unlawful enemy combatants. Here are some interesting facts about unlawful enemy combatants:
* They include saboteurs, spys, guerrillas, fifth-columnists, and similar. * No Geneva convention or protocol has procedures for dealing with them. How they are handled is completely up to the belligerents involved. * The president may designate anyone, even you, as an unlawful enemy combatant and this designation cannot be gainsaid by legislative action or court intervention. * Under the normal rules of warfare, UECs may be taken out and summarily shot. * Our first UEC was Major Andre, caught behind our lines, wearing our uniform. George Washington ordered him hanged.
Now many on the left WANT UECs treated as criminals. That is, the folks at Gitmo, according to many on the left, should get lawyers, speedy trials, etc. This is like saying cancer victims should be treated as criminals, or members of a junior high soccer team, or vegetarians. UECs are not criminals and they don't get treated like criminals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

By your standards the founding fathers were UECs then. People defending their own land from oppression (as they see it.)
I also submit warrantless wiretapping and Cheney's "unique" interpretation of the status of the Vice Presidency as examples of blatant disregard for the rule of law. The scary thing is that I suspect it will take years if not decades to discover just what all this administration has done that we don't know about yet.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not even remotely really because the Geneva Conventions were a couple hundred years or so from being ratified.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

regardless,if they had been caught by the British,they would have been hanged as traitors.(as they were British citizens revolting against their own gov't)
They risked everything to secure liberty for us.Bless them.
al-qaida and similar terrorists are NOT protecting their own countries. Many of them are foreigners from elsewhere. They are advancing their religion by force.
heck,Nate cannot even comprehend OBLs own statements on why they are at war with the West.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

Yep. But it's not my standard. The United States Supreme Court coined the phrase "unlawful enemy combatant." How to deal with spys and the like captured on the battlefield has been worked out over thousands of years of military conflict and belligerents have converged, through countless trial-and-error methodologies, on the most practical solution. It's called the Black Flag.

The first intercepts of enemy electronic communications took place during the Second War of Independence when both the Union and Confederacy tapped the opposing side's telegraph lines. In every war since, reading the enemy's mail, so to speak, has been an accepted and necessary practice.
Not only enemies, but potential enemies. We were working on, and broke, Japanese codes long before they attacked Pearl Harbor. We had the diplomatic code cracked by December 7th, 1941. Had we had equal success with the Japanese naval code, we could have averted disaster.
Warrants are authorized by the 4th Amendment, but the president's authority to wage war is covered by Article II of the same constitution. The courts have unanimously said, over the centuries, that the president's war-making responsibility trumps the 4th Amendment.
As for Cheney, there's an interesting Op-Ed in today's NY Times on the constitutional role of the Vice President. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/27/opinion/27reynolds.html?_r=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&oref=slogin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

it all depends on who wins and gets to write the history.
you keep bringing out this "moral equivalence" nonsense.

and you would be wrong.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aemeijers wrote:

As the Color Sergeant in "Zulu" said: "Because we're here, lad. There's no one else. Just us. Now face to the front, mark your target when he comes. That's a good lad."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

But we weren't there. We took ourselves there. The "why" has yet to be explained to me.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No,it's that you just don't LISTEN when they do tell the public.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Nate Nagel wrote:

Because they're there, lad, and there's no one else. Just us.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

Fortunately, our sense of self-worth is not dependent on the approbation of others. We do what we feel is right without regard to the reading on the "Love Meter."
We guide the ship of state with a firm and sober hand on the rudder as opposed to those who would rather be propelled by the fickle current into uncharted shoals.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

OK, that was just over the top, now I KNOW you're just trolling.
Yanik, on the other hand, I think actually believes what he types. Sad.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yet I have seen many. Probably because we use the same definition of "reasonable", they agree with me.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Much of the claimed benefit of "the surge" is not directly related to it. The Anbar awaking, and the policy of paying off of groups to stop them from shooting at us have been a significant part of the improvement.
John McCains explanation of the connection between the awakening and the surge display a confused understanding of the reality of the occupation of Iraq.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Regardless, it was to Obama's advantage that the focus shifted from the war in Iraq to the economy. The public was buying McCain's story: Less deaths equal "we're winning".
what a fu#king mess!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Bob F wrote:

I agree that those who USE more government services should pay more. The rich don't send their kids to public schools, use food stamps, appear at the county hospital, end up in jail (as a rule), and so on.
The rich DO drive on public roads (or their driver does) and a few other things, so they should pay SOME taxes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.