Politics Don't Be Distracted

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
dviss1 said:
You think that idiot you voted for is fit? HILARIOUS.

THEN, you double, triple, and quadruple down on the birther RACIST shit? Jesus...
Click to expand...
How does what country you were born in insinuate racism? Plenty of people of all races have been born within our borders. I didnt vote. And i didnt claim he's fit. He was a better choice than hitlery, ill make that statement.
 
dviss1 said:
And the only reason people did is because he's black. Plain and simple.

McCain Literally wasn't born in the US (Panama my fuckin' ass. US soil my ass.) and nobody said shit.

Willard's daddy moved to Mexico to have his harem of concubines and raised him there. Nobody said shit.
Click to expand...
You should have said shit. Be an activist. Do something that matters.
 
I actually wanted obama before his first term. He was promissing a lot of good shit, transparency for one. After the first scandal which didnt take long, i lost hope. It was a learning experience, havent believed a politician since.
 
rasheedfan2005 said:
I actually wanted obama before his first term. He was promissing a lot of good shit, transparency for one. After the first scandal which didnt take long, i lost hope. It was a learning experience, havent believed a politician since.
Click to expand...

"scandal"....

Yeah... no Obama had no scandals that weren't republican created.

And yes only racists questioned his birthplace.
 
MarAzul said:
Being born in Hawai makes him a citizen under the 14th amendment, but that does not address Natural Born Citizen, the true required qualification for the office of President.
Click to expand...

Amendment 14

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First of all, your ilk wants this shit amended so I'm not sure why you're touting it now. But since you did,

Hawaii was a state in the union BEFORE Barack was born (how stupid it is to argue against this...). He was born in the US. What part of this don't you get?
 
dviss1 said:
Amendment 14

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First of all, your ilk wants this shit amended so I'm not sure why you're touting it now. But since you did,

Hawaii was a state in the union BEFORE Barack was born (how stupid it is to argue against this...). He was born in the US. What part of this don't you get?
Click to expand...

Umm ... dviss ... President Obama is black. He can't be legitimately president.And I can guess you DO get that.
 
dviss1 said:
"scandal"....

Yeah... no Obama had no scandals that weren't republican created.

And yes only racists questioned his birthplace.
Click to expand...
Blah blah blah. Such a bad habit of making obviously false statements. I suppose it is similar to how I said nobody cares about Trump's tax returns. Why anyone would care now with Mueller on the job is beyond me but whatever.

Back to Obama's birthplace and whatnot.

Some people are opposed to any Democrat being in office. If they thought they could get him removed on a technicality they would. I wouldn't venture to guess the percentage of birthers as they are called who are racists.

Wasn't it Doc Rivers that made CJ skip a game due to a paperwork error? Some people will latch onto anything to win.

They're possibly going to elect a sex fiend Republican over a white Democrat in Alabama. That ain't racism, that's rooting for your side no matter the circumstances.
 
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
Blah blah blah. Such a bad habit of making obviously false statements. I suppose it is similar to how I said nobody cares about Trump's tax returns. Why anyone would care now with Mueller on the job is beyond me but whatever.

Back to Obama's birthplace and whatnot.

Some people are opposed to any Democrat being in office. If they thought they could get him removed on a technicality they would. I wouldn't venture to guess the percentage of birthers as they are called who are racists.

Wasn't it Doc Rivers that made CJ skip a game due to a paperwork error? Some people will latch onto anything to win.

They're possibly going to elect a sex fiend Republican over a white Democrat in Alabama. That ain't racism, that's rooting for your side no matter the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Doc Rivers is a Racist. :P
 
dviss1 said:
Amendment 14

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First of all, your ilk wants this shit amended so I'm not sure why you're touting it now. But since you did,

Hawaii was a state in the union BEFORE Barack was born (how stupid it is to argue against this...). He was born in the US. What part of this don't you get?
Click to expand...

Yes dviss, he was born in Hawaii right after it became a State. I know. That was the place of his birth and it made him a citizen. And yes I think it should be undone. We are nearly the only Nation with this anchor baby approach to citizenship.
Now tell me the specific qualification required to be President. And what does it mean? Where is this qualification defined?
 
MarAzul said:
Yes dviss, he was born in Hawaii right after it became a State. I know. That was the place of his birth and it made him a citizen. And yes I think it should be undone. We are nearly the only Nation with this anchor baby approach to citizenship.
Click to expand...

Uhm, his mother was a citizen. You want to undo that too?

Now tell me the specific qualification required to be President. And what does it mean? Where is this qualification defined?
Click to expand...

We've been through this a few times before. The answer hasn't changed since we last discussed it. The answer is not in something written before the USA even existed.

barfo
 
dviss1 said:
"scandal"....

Yeah... no Obama had no scandals that weren't republican created.

And yes only racists questioned his birthplace.
Click to expand...
His dads birth place is what was in question, thus questioning the natural born citizenship of berry. Fast and furious? Obamacare was pushed through just like the tax bill... how soon we forget.
 
barfo said:
Uhm, his mother was a citizen. You want to undo that too?
Click to expand...

>>> No.

barfo said:
The answer is not in something written before the USA even existed.
Click to expand...

>>> Of course it is. You don't really believe they crafted the Constitution entirely with orginal thought. So referrence material would be pertinent. Especially for terms left undefined but used in the Constitution.
 
MarAzul said:
>>> No.

>>> Of course it is. You don't really believe they crafted the Constitution entirely with orginal thought. So referrence material would be pertinent. Especially for terms left undefined but used in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Of course you don't believe that the constitution should be interpreted in the understanding of the founders when it comes to the 2nd amendment. Their definition of "arms" would certainly be different than the current interpretation.

The fact is, in both cases, and wherever the constitution is not completely specific and unambiguous, it is up to the courts to interpret it.
You don't get to pick and choose which undefined terms in the constitution should be reinterpreted and which should be 'original intent'. Be consistent.

barfo
 
barfo said:
reinterpreted
Click to expand...
This is your term. I don't think there is anything in the Constitution where a term is used that intent in it's use is not knowable.

The term Arms is the same, your bitch is guns have progressed and that has been debated much. Machine guns out, rifles in. Actually, I think offense arms and defensive was the original intent. Althought the destinction between the two hardly existed in that day.

Natural born is discussed much in letters between founders and is defined in known reference material. We even have copies with founders notes in the reference.

Just look and you can find.

Very consistent.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
This is your term. I don't think there is anything in the Constitution where a term is used that intent in it's use is not knowable.
Click to expand...

Ok, that was kind of my point. Either interpret things in the exact way the founders meant, ALWAYS, or accept that things 'progress'.

The term Arms is the same, your bitch is guns have progressed and that has been debated much. Machine guns out, rifles in. Actually, I think offense arms and defensive was the original intent. Althought the destinction between the two hardly existed in that day.
Click to expand...

So should we interpret arms in the way the founders meant or not? They certainly did not mean modern guns, since those had not yet been invented.

Natural born is discussed much in letters between founders and is defined in known reference material. We even have copies with founders notes in the reference.

Just look and you can find.
Click to expand...

Sure. But unless you agree that every word, including "arms", in the constitution should be interpreted in the way the founders meant, there's no reason to agree that we should interpret natural born in the way the founders meant.

Very consistent.
Click to expand...

Nope.

barfo
 
barfo said:
Ok, that was kind of my point. Either interpret things in the exact way the founders meant, ALWAYS, or accept that things 'progress'.



So should we interpret arms in the way the founders meant or not? They certainly did not mean modern guns, since those had not yet been invented.



Sure. But unless you agree that every word, including "arms", in the constitution should be interpreted in the way the founders meant, there's no reason to agree that we should interpret natural born in the way the founders meant.



Nope.

barfo
Click to expand...

Ok barf. No discussions needed.
 
euh8jf9zpj201.jpg
 
dviss1 said:
That's not true at all. "Just like the tax bill..." You been watching too much FOX.

They literally debated healthcare on TV bro...

https://www.c-span.org/video/?292260-1/white-health-care-summit-part-1

Seen any tax debates? yeah... No...
Click to expand...
They debate taxes on tv too. The healthcare bill was handed to everyone hours before the vote and was super long too. I remember rolling my eyes at the shit. At least they finally got the site working. I just had to apply since im jobless. It took about 45minutes for it to tell me you're too broke, try medicade you broke bitch!:biglaugh:
 
barfo said:
Ok, that was kind of my point. Either interpret things in the exact way the founders meant, ALWAYS, or accept that things 'progress'.



So should we interpret arms in the way the founders meant or not? They certainly did not mean modern guns, since those had not yet been invented.



Sure. But unless you agree that every word, including "arms", in the constitution should be interpreted in the way the founders meant, there's no reason to agree that we should interpret natural born in the way the founders meant.



Nope.

barfo
Click to expand...
The intent was arms keep you from being invaded so in theory we should have everything available. Ill take 2 tanks and one of those fighter jets please. Oh and if i could get my own personal nuke
 
Stevenson said:
Selectively picking which terms, like arms, get to be revised defeats your whole point
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree. You do know the Government has told us what the meaning of arms is, as applicable to our rights.
This is not the process prescribed in the Constitution. The amendment process is and that is the preferred process in my view.

There might be several changes agreeable to many but it appears we forgot we have a civil process for redefining what should be the law. Just hoping for judges to give our camps what we want seems to be a mindless process.
 
crandc said:
Umm ... dviss ... President Obama is black. He can't be legitimately president.And I can guess you DO get that.
Click to expand...
How can he be president? Shit I don’t know he ended up being president all 8 years, given the fact white people make up 76 percent of the US population seems to me a lot of white people voted for him if you do some simple math but I see how that wouldn’t fit yours and dviss constant narrative that the country is racist. Voted him in twice.
 
This is why I am not a strict constructionist nor a Scalia original intenter. "Arms" in the second amendment is a perfect example. That term necessarily must be re-interprted for today. It certainly doesn't mean "muskets" anymore. And if so, then the document must altogether grow and be applicable to new generations and interpretations.

giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top