| Author |
Message |
    
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 07:52 am: | 
|
>>> Just like every person on the planet should be read their miranda rights
Nonsense. Mirandizing is not in the constitution. Far as I can tell, it is just another hand-wringing idea from leftists. Mirandizing is certainly not a requirement of warfare, in any rules of war that I know. The administration chose to turn warfare against al qaeda and taliban into a police action, which is idiotic. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 09:41 am: |
|
Obama DOES NOT believe in individual rights.
Obama believes (and has surrounded himself with individuals who also believe) in group rights. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 09:44 am: |
|
"Just like every person on the planet should be read their miranda rights and provided representation when charged with a crime"
There's your mistake right there. Terrorists are not criminals. We're at war. The sooner we all admit that, the better off we'll be. |
Macbuell
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 01:55 pm: |
|
The best way for Term limits to become law would be for the people to vote on it. Unfortunately, there is no vehicle that I am aware of, that will allow citizens to vote to add a national law that does not require the politicians direct involvement. So, it will probably never happen.
Many states do have ways for laws to be added through ballots at the voter booth but it is not available nationally.
That is a true shame. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 02:05 pm: |
|
Constitutional convention. |
Cityxslicker
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 02:27 pm: |
|
If you follow the letter of the law, Spies Terrorists, Subversives, Pirates, can be shot on site, without trial, without tribunal, without public notification.
Go read the Geneva Convention, the actual source text. Kill em where you find them.
and the illegals coming over the border arent subject to the Miranda either as they are NOT US citizens and not subject to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights attached to it. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 02:34 pm: |
|
I fear a constitutional convention. Anything that would come out of that would be created by politicians and lawyers and be so voluminous it would be incomprehensible to all but the lawyers. I'm afraid of the things they'll sneak in there. The politicians wouldn't bother to read it.
I think we should deal with the one we have, and put people on the bench who will not continually discover new things the same same 200+ year old words. |
Blake
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 03:40 pm: |
|
The demands of the convention are such that I think they would need to craft very simple language. With 3/4ths of states needed to ratify I'm comfortable with the level of risk. I think we have more than 13 states that are strongly conservative. Don't the state governments choose their convention representatives?
State govs used to choose their federal senators. Might have been a mistake to change that as they did. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 04:42 pm: |
|
We have been trained for the last 50 years to fear and avoid the Constitutional Convention process. For the 190 years before and by the design of the framers, it WAS and IS the prescribed method for altering the Constitution and thereby increasing (or decreasing) the powers granted to the Federal Government.
If you read the previous Amendments, they have all been simple. Any new Amendment would by necessity and design have to be simple. Getting 38 states to agree would be impossible with a piece of complex legislation.
I don't fear a Constitutional Convention. I welcome it. At this point, it's the only way to reduce the size of the beast. |
Hootowl
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 04:46 pm: |
|
I hope you're right. It's just that any time they start monkeying with things, it only gets worse. |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 06:14 pm: |
|
Heavy Monkeying = No passage of Amendment |
Tnxbrider
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 09:58 pm: |
|
so should a politician give up current seat to attempt to gain another? |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 10:12 pm: |
|
so should a politician give up current seat to attempt to gain another?
Normally I'd say no, but if this were the rule we'd be rid of McCain and Kerry.
Would keep the Congressional riff-raff out of the Presidential running. |
Tnxbrider
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 10:20 pm: |
|
There are many candidates who run thinking what the hell...
I was thinking this is one way to get closer to term limit results without having set term limits... |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Tuesday, September 21, 2010 - 10:39 pm: |
|
It would limit or reduce the insestuous relationship between the Executive and Legislative branch when one crosses over.
Not a big fan of former Senator Presidents of late.
Former Senator candidates haven't been any too great either. |
Xbjelly9s
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 01:52 pm: |
|
My new favorite.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-21 -2010/meet-the-depressed |
Ft_bstrd
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 02:49 pm: |
|
"No We Can't Bot" Classic!  |
Moxnix
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 03:19 pm: |
|
Wow. When Lyndon B. Johnson said in 1968, "If I've lost Walter Cronkite, I've lost the country." And decided not to run again for the office of President.
Now that Obama has lost John Stewart, will he follow suit? |
Roadcouch98
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Jon Stewart clip is very funny !!! |
Gregtonn
| | Posted on Wednesday, September 22, 2010 - 11:08 pm: |
|
Dang that was funny!
G |
Macbuell
| | Posted on Thursday, September 23, 2010 - 10:37 am: |
|
Term Limits solve so many problem while still allowing people to have their voice. You can't get rid of special interest groups because people have the right to get together and advocate for something they are passionate about. Just like most of us support the AMA.
But you limit the power of those special interest groups and lobbyists when the congressman no longer feels like he has to pander to these groups for contributions and votes.
Then that candidates mission becomes one of doing what he thinks is right for his constituents rather than doing whatever will get him reelected and perpetuate his power.
If the Constitutional Convention is the way to get it done ... lets get it done.
I want to leave my son with a country that he can be proud of and one that he will want to be an active part of. Not this dysfunctional mess we have now that makes me sick to my stomach. |
Ezblast
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2010 - 11:25 am: |
|
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article /110813/why-jack-welch-is-wrong-about-obama?mod=bb -budgeting |
Geforce
| | Posted on Friday, September 24, 2010 - 11:33 am: |
|
"I want to leave my son with a country that he can be proud of and one that he will want to be an active part of. Not this dysfunctional mess we have now that makes me sick to my stomach."
It is that attitude and motivation that drives us to better ourselves not for ourselves, but for the sake of future generations. Thank you for that comment. I only wished millions of other folks shared the same wisdom. |
Bigdaddy
| | Posted on Saturday, September 25, 2010 - 06:33 pm: |
|
Great subject & discussion thus far:
1. Constitutional Convention to stop the madness. The state legislature selects the delegates for a CC. This is troubling if you live in a state being led by a bunch of dimwits (I happen to live in just such a state).
2. Repeal the 17th Amendment and hold these guys/gals accountable. |
Aesquire
| | Posted on Sunday, September 26, 2010 - 09:56 am: |
|
http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/
The Sunday cartoon. ( though most of these are pretty good. ) |
