vision wrote:It's like all of you forgot what it's like to be a kid. Ironic, on an old video game forum. Everyone weighed down by all these ridiculous worries about teen sex. Oh my! How horrible that children should be smarter about exploring their world with resources and knowledge we didn't have!
or.. you can do what i do. sit back, watch the old men complain about.. everything, and then rattle their teeth a few times to see what drops out.
-------------
Unless you didn't have parents and raised your self, then you had parental wisdom handed down to you. It would be the arrogance of youth to think other wise.
my parent (not parents, the dads in my life were a joke), taught me values and manners.. life taught me everything else.
----------------
oh, I get it.....you were demonstrating the depths of stupidity that has come to pass for political discourse. I see. And, right you are,
I do support a President that knows this sort of 'debate' over absolute drivel serves no purpose other than averting the focus of the nation away from real issues.
flip wrote:It goes towards the argument that he doesn't hold the Constitution or American ideals in very high regard. He's progressive .
that's utter nonsense. It merely speaks to some goofy fringe's pre-conception about him. Heck, the breakdown in the article you cite about Snopes notes that your 'evidence' is, at best, dubious. By the way, how do the Pledge or the Flag protocols bear any connection to the Constitution? Or, for that matter, American ideals(another very nebulous thing, as YOUR American ideals and mine are likely quite different)?
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Well, you outright call Duper a liar for saying that Obama feels the Constitution is outdated and I show you a picture where he obviously feels other long held traditions are outdated too. As the article says "Given how finely-attuned candidates for high office usually are to the importance of symbolism" He makes his debut and set his self apart by being the only irreverent person in the room.
flip wrote:Well, you outright call Duper a liar for saying that Obama feels the Constitution is outdated and I show you a picture where he obviously feels other long held traditions are outdated too.
Except the Constitution isn't a "long held tradition," it's a legal document. And while we do have the US Flag Code, there is no reasonable enforcement so it largely exists as a voluntary (thankfully) custom. I think the challenge at hand was providing proof Obama said the Constitution was outdated, not whether Obama wants to be bothered with frivolity.
YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! It all comes down to patriotism (love for or devotion to one's country). Alot of people jump at the chance to show their patriotism. They even run headlong into bullets to prove their patriotism. If we ask our soldiers to "prove" their patriotism, it is a small thing to demand it from a president.
Spidey wrote:tc, I was using underage to mean immature in this context, not a legal status, sorry I should have used immature instead.
Well, that's kind of a squishy metric too. Most humans don't have full frontal lobe development until around 25, so technically, were all immature until after 25 years of age. I think the problem is that we sexually mature well before we mature mentally, so that leaves it up to society on how early we allow sexual activity between children or young adults. But the earlier the age we restrict sexual activity, the more we have to fight hormones. I say that education and persuasion about sex and it's implications and impact on life are far better solutions than just trying to outright restrict or forbid sexual activity by age. Once something becomes forbidden, the desire to have that forbidden fruit skyrockets, then we're fighting hormones AND desire.
Cat (n.) A bipolar creature which would as soon gouge your eyes out as it would cuddle.
My question to you flip is why does he have to prove his loyalty to you? Why the ★■◆● are you so important? I give a ★■◆● if he puts his hand on his heart for the national anthem. It's not the pledge or anything else. I could care less if he wears a flag lapel pin, all of that crap is stupid (and you aren't supposed to wear the flag as clothing anyways).
At least those that disliked Bush did it for actual reasons. You know...lying about war, outing a CIA agent, the Patriot Act, the bailout, blah blah blah. You don't like Obama fine, but give up on this bull★■◆● where every little thing the guy does pisses you off for some reason. so goddamn annoying
oh...and just so you know, soldiers run into bullets because they are paid to.
Heh, simmer down. I have said very little ever about Obama personally. Oh, I have many reasons to think Obama is less than full-blooded American, but I was just taking issue with one member of this board blatantly calling another a liar for having what I think is a reasonable assumption. It's no wonder we're screwed. When the so-called leader of the United States and Commander in Chief is not held to the same standards as the soldiers that serve under his watch. No, he was making a statement by standing out, what that statement was is left to interpretation, but he didn't leave the impression of holding our customs in high regard. What's it to me? I won't even answer that question except to say you are the disease . Back to your regularly scheduled programming .
EDIT: I'm sure Slick can see some of the side-angles this could go. He seems pretty sure to think that everyone will accept this 'new' idea of capitalism over democracy. I think a country's army is emboldened when it knows or at least thinks it's cause is just. When they are fighting for God and country and their fellow man. Who's going to knowingly wage war and die in the friggin cold ass mud for an Oligarchy? Then, and only then will Zuruck be right in calling all our service people mercenaries, because I don't believe that ★■◆● is the case right now. Will be if Slick and Obama get their way though.
Zuruck wrote:At least those that disliked Bush did it for actual reasons. You know...lying about war,
and you have factual evidence that proves he lied about a war?
Zuruck wrote: outing a CIA agent,
and I'm sure you have factual evidence that can prove that accusation also, right?
Zuruck wrote:the bailout, blah blah blah.
Obama did the same thing so blah blah blah
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Another thing, Zuruck . I'm right with you on Bush and the Patriot Act....etc, but what irks me about you Obama lovers is that you don't see Obama as the continuation of that very same policy.
flip wrote:Another thing, Zuruck . I'm right with you on Bush and the Patriot Act....etc, but what irks me about you Obama lovers is that you don't see Obama as the continuation of that very same policy.
probably my most serious beef with the administration. I think what has happened is that a lot of that war or terror stuff is tough to
back out of without severe repurcussions.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
flip wrote:Well, you outright call Duper a liar for saying that Obama feels the Constitution is outdated and I show you a picture where he obviously feels other long held traditions are outdated too. As the article says "Given how finely-attuned candidates for high office usually are to the importance of symbolism" He makes his debut and set his self apart by being the only irreverent person in the room.
which, in any way shape or form does NOTHING to support Duper's lie. Traditions are just that, and have no bearing on the actual law of the land.
Note, if you will, that it has been several days now and Duper hasn't produced one shred of backup to his assertions. And, therein lies the problem with the rabid Obama-haters. They build arguments based on made-up assertions, false 'facts' and then repeat them to one another ad nauseum until THEY believe them. Don't think the rest of us do.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Duper wrote: we're talking about an individual that is on record as saying that the Constitution is outdated and needs to be re-written. Sounds like he's trying to do it all on his "own".
4. Find me the quote where Obama says(on record) that the Constitution is outdated. I dare you. And yes, I am calling you a liar.
"The executive branch also needs to change. Too often, it’s inefficient, outdated, and remote." Pres. Obama during the State of the Union address. Here.
The Constitution defines the executive branch. I believe the checks and balances in the Constitution should be adhered to. It isn't just that I don't want Obama to have the extra power, I don't want any president to have that extra power.
callmeslick wrote: 3. He has more 'czars' because, and only because, the Senate has chosen to block the appointments of over 80% of his administrative positions. 'Special advisors'(czars) don't require Senate approval.
I think that very fact shows how much he cares about the Constitution. He likes to find ways to work around it.
P.S. Just had to get that off my chest. I'll go back to lurking now
sorry, but neither example speaks to the point. NOTHING that Obama suggested changes anything about the Constitution, which didn't define the functionality of the Executive, merely the absolute limits and roles were defined. I don't see where the State of the Union proposals in ANY way diminish the Constitutional intent. All he wishes to do is streamline the structure of various departments, none of which were mentioned in the Constitution. Further, the appointment of advisors is not outside the Constitution, but I scarcely think the Framers had in mind a Senate in which individuals and minority parties block the actual formation of an Executive administration, merely for the point of attempting to ensure failure.
Bottom line: Obama is trying to make government work for the public. Under the circumstances, I think he's doing a damned good job of it. And NOT ONE of you has given ANY evidence that Obama thinks, or has stated that the Constitution is outdated, as was claimed.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
I have no hate for Obama, or anyone else for that matter. He opened up the door for the question.
which, in any way shape or form does NOTHING to support Duper's lie. Traditions are just that, and have no bearing on the actual law of the land.
Again, that's a matter of interpretation and then I call bull★■◆●. Traditions are what brings communities together and fosters single-mindedness. It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of his position as you call him "Leader". People die for those ideals and for that flag. For the idea that we are a sovereign nation. He sets a bad example and if you take that into account, his manner when dealings with foreign heads of state, his obvious inability to garner confidence or support.....etc so forth and so on. He has us in a stalemate. I have nothing personal against Obama, but he has done nothing but cause dissent and animosity between fellow Americans. I say a change of guard right now is what's in order. Take your pick. I watch them on TV. No different than any jackass I meet on the street.
flip wrote:IAgain, that's a matter of interpretation and then I call ****. Traditions are what brings communities together and fosters single-mindedness.
who the hell wants 'single-mindedness'? This nation was founded on the concept of diversity and inclusiveness, not ever on 'single mindedness'.
It's not a matter of law, it's a matter of his position as you call him "Leader". People die for those ideals and for that flag. For the idea that we are a sovereign nation. He sets a bad example and if you take that into account, his manner when dealings with foreign heads of state, his obvious inability to garner confidence or support.....etc so forth and so on. He has us in a stalemate. I have nothing personal against Obama, but he has done nothing but cause dissent and animosity between fellow Americans. I say a change of guard right now is what's in order. Take your pick. I watch them on TV. No different than any jackass I meet on the street.
and yet, presented with the alternatives, Obama keeps widening the gap of his lead amongst your fellow citizens. Maybe it's just that you don't see him as a leader. Worldwide, and nationwide, he is accepted as such. Explain what Obama has done to 'cause dissent and animosity', given the poisoned atmosphere of politics that has been evolving since Reagans attacks on 'liberals', and the all-out war on intelligence among the right for 30 years. If anything, Obama has attempted(admittedly with little positive result) to bring people together, and to the frustration of many on the left, refuses to give up on the concept of consensus building and unity of purpose. Just because YOU get your panties in a bunch over a bunch of made-up observations and bogus factoids, doesn't mean it is a universal phenomenon.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
Lol, Another reason I can't agree with Obama Lovers. These are my own observations, made-up, right on or totally delusional, they are mine. The only one getting upset is you and that's because you have nothing more than rally speech. You two go hand and hand. I obviously meant single-mindedness as in "United We Stand, Divided We Fall". It's you democrat's that are trying to draw the lines. IMNSHO, maybe I don't see a leader because I don't see a leader. I see someone who took 750 million dollars from people a lot richer and smarter than he. Only thing Obama has going for him is an unwavering cult following.
Obama wrote:U.S. has suffered from a fundamentally flawed Constitution that does not mandate or allow for redistribution of wealth.
Obama wrote:The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
the first one I never heard, Heretic. Care to provide the link to that? The second one merely spells out the obvious, and in NO way denigrates the Constitution or suggests changing it. Those are the facts inherent in the document.
edit: save yourself the effort. The source is WND, a 'news' outlet that is virulent in their Obama-hate, and in fact largely exists to
further that spewage. The first 'quote' is attributed to a WND source, not Obama directly and the secord is an out of context part of a discussion Obama had about income redistribution, at the academic level, back in 2001. The whole paragraph reads:
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf."
if anything, Obama, in this passage, is respectful of the constraints of the Founding Fathers, unless I'm not reading rather plain English properly. Once again, it's easy to cobble something together and then make a claim about Obama or damn near anyone, but that doesn't make it true. Once again, the old divisive politics of misinformation rather than actually providing a plan or a way forward for the nation. Now, I suppose some of you replying to me don't wish to EVER be considered Progressive, but the nation does need progress to keep pace with the rest of the planet. It's a shame that you've been presented with a President both willing and able to ponder alternatives and solutions, and that's all he's doing above, pondering, yet you stand ready to paint him as some sort of unpatriotic bomb-thrower. Sad actually that any of my fellow citizens are so willing to hold the nation back, and puzzling as well......
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Everyone else had their hand over their heart, Obama did not. Why? Those are facts. The rest is spin. I have to feel it was a deliberate act or i have lost even more confidence in his abilty. Why? It would have been easier to just do as everyone else but for some reason he chose not to. Maybe he is the good guy and he did it to show how corrupt things are and refused to align himself with it. I dunno, but, he did it for an obvious personal reason or conviction. Put that with other things I have witnessed myself, It causes suspicion.
Spidey wrote:The source of most of those Warren court quotes being bandied about happens to be NPR.
But don’t let the truth get in the way of your little spin job.
what spin job? In the context of the discussion, they are just fine. Obama is expressing the intent of the Warren court, NOT his opinion, if you read the whole thing.
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
flip wrote:Everyone else had their hand over their heart, Obama did not. Why?
who the feck cares? They weren't even facing the flag. I suppose you can show that EVERY single time, he fails to put hand over heart? If not, you have no point whatsoever, and even if he were completely consistent it says exactly nothing about his view of the Constitution.
Those are facts.
protozoa reproduce by simple cell division. Those are facts, too, and about as relevant as the ones you cite. You cite one picture, which predates his tenure as President, IIRC, and find that it causes doubt with you? Are you really that dimwitted or shallow as to not focus on the whole picture, the complete man involved? Sheesh!
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
That was one of several reasons I gave for my assumptions. Democrats try to convolute the facts or get immediately emotional when they feel threatened. It's just one picture Slick, but I bet you could not find one by God 'Merikan soldier that doesn't have his hand over his. Buncha pompous asses are what they are and we're not even discussing Republicans. I have many personal reasons to be wary of Obama. The table is open to discuss those also if you wish, but I've already said what i think about the picture. Bad example and unclear message and the merits that I personally base that opinion on. No rant is gonna change that.
flip wrote:That was one of several reasons I gave for my assumptions.
very good! Now, at least, you are admitting you are making assumptions. And, of course, we all know what happens when we assume, right?
Democrats try to convolute the facts or get immediately emotional when they feel threatened. It's just one picture Slick, but I bet you could not find one by God 'Merikan soldier that doesn't have his hand over his. Buncha pompous asses are what they are and we're not even discussing Republicans. I have many personal reasons to be wary of Obama. The table is open to discuss those also if you wish, but I've already said what i think about the picture. Bad example and unclear message and the merits that I personally base that opinion on. No rant is gonna change that.
any of those reasons have to do with, say, skin color? Just wondering........also, wondering why you called American soldiers 'Merikan, which seems disrespectful of our nation and it's troops, and then you go and call those soldiers pompous asses
(I suspect you didn't mean to, but sentence structure being what it is.....)
"The Party told you to reject all evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command."
George Orwell---"1984"
.
. Back to your regularly scheduled programming 
.
