We Told You So

travisw

travisw

Well-Known Member
thecoolman said:
The primary difference is that under Busch the guns were tracked.
Under Obama the program was run so criminally and stupid one must wonder if deaths were desired as a way to get gun control.
Oh lets not forget the Busch administration didn't continuously lie about it or get anyone killed
with there inept behavior while running the program.
Click to expand...
The might have been tracked but "the vast majority of the guns were never recovered." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/the-guns-that-got-away-11172011.html

I am not sure how you can claim no one was killed if they are still out there.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
Our constitution was framed for the government to have limited powers, building interstate highways, a federal post office were two examples of the limited powers.

You seem to be all over the place by mixing state laws and federal laws and claiming them all to be socialism, that's not what conservatives are arguing about when they're against socialism.
Click to expand...
The constitution was clearly not framed to limit gov't, since it clearly has not been violated by all of the expansions of gov't. Also, I think maybe you should be able to define socialism if you want to do any kind of arguing about it.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
max420thc said:
Murdering people to further a political agenda. If the maniac is capable of killing thousands of people to further a political agenda he is capable of killing millions for the same.
THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
Wait until the BIG HUNGER comes for most of you.
That is always one of the steps in total population control.Control the food source.Mao did it, Stalin did it AND THE DEMOCRAT COMMUNIST PARTY WILL DO IT..SOON.
Click to expand...
In this instance I'll defer judgment until the numbers pull close.

I'm not holding my breath.
Under Obama's watch, thousands died in military service. No different from s many other Presidents. There was and is no deliberate extermination (with massive sadistic overlay) by ethnic/cultural/religious affiliation. I think you're wrong in this instance.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
abandonconflict said:
The constitution was clearly not framed to limit gov't, since it clearly has not been violated by all of the expansions of gov't. Also, I think maybe you should be able to define socialism if you want to do any kind of arguing about it.
Click to expand...
I'm beginning to suspect that you have never read the constitution or you wouldn't have made such an irresponsible claim.

Likewise for you in respect to socialism, I've yet to hear your version of it.
 
M

max420thc

Well-Known Member
cannabineer said:
In this instance I'll defer judgment until the numbers pull close.

I'm not holding my breath.
Under Obama's watch, thousands died in military service. No different from s many other Presidents. There was and is no deliberate extermination (with massive sadistic overlay) by ethnic/cultural/religious affiliation. I think you're wrong in this instance.
Click to expand...
We are not talking about military service members dieing needlessly in a un winnable war.He is president those are his pawns and it is his prerogative.
what we are talking about is transferring thousands of guns to known criminals to use to commit murder with for the intention of stricter gun control legislation.
You are trying to distinguish the murder of one person vs the murder of a thousand.IT IS STILL MURDER.IT IS STILL PUNISHABLE BY THE DEATH PENALTY.
It was still sanctioned by the government of obamaohitler.The murders are still continuing with the weapons supplied to the drug lords in Mexico.
Its intent is as Evil as anything Adolph or Mao or Stalin did..same shit..coupled with the IRS spying on political opponents and everything else these ass holes have been doing.
Yea you elected a muslim terrorist to be president of the US. Good job.
Right now it is being predicted that the Democrat communists are going to lead the charge to repeal obamaohitler care.LOL.what about all those crazy wacky doodle people like the tea party people who told you ALL ALONG..that this was a pile of crap? Now you are going to have to eat crow and say..all those people who have been calling crazy stupid tin foil hat wearing flat earthers are right and we were wrong..To bad we fucked up the whole country.
This next election you all are going to get beat like rented mules.I dont even care for the republicans honestly.But your communist senators KNOW this is going to go real bad for them and they are trying to head it off at the pass..if not they will try and repeal it them self's.LOL.
It is estimated by the guy who has been right about ALL OF THIS CRAP ALL ALONG..No reason to think he would be wrong about his assumptions about obamaohitler care as he has been right about it for at least 4 years..and you clowns have been wrong about everything every time.There will be around 160 million Americans lose their health care because of obamaohitler care.
For those of you that cant count..that is OVER HALF THE COUNTRY.Good job clowns,.The idiots will be lucky just to be able to leave office with their heads still attached to their bodys.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
max420thc said:
It was still sanctioned by the government of obamaohitler.
Yea you elected a muslim terrorist to be president of the US. Good job.
Right now it is being predicted that the Democrat communists are going to lead the charge to repeal obamaohitler care.
But your communist senators obamaohitler care obamaohitler care.
The idiots will be lucky just to be able to leave office with their heads still attached to their bodys.
Click to expand...

Your Words
Lol
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
I'm beginning to suspect that you have never read the constitution or you wouldn't have made such an irresponsible claim.

Likewise for you in respect to socialism, I've yet to hear your version of it.
Click to expand...
If it was such an irresponsible claim, then which expansion of gov't in the history of the country was unconstitutional? Not the New Deal, not abolition, not Obamacare. The constitution has never limited gov't, only empowered it.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I am constrained to quote one of your heroes' maxims. One Joey "the Stallwatcher" Stalin opined prophetically that quantity has a quality all its own. So size does matter. Imvho of course.
 
cannabineer

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
at Max, who thinks that intention and action are the same thing. I have a dissenting opinion.

ceterum censeo "Toward whom is this directed?" sidesteps the inelegance of the terminal preposition. Jmo.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
abandonconflict said:
If it was such an irresponsible claim, then which expansion of gov't in the history of the country was unconstitutional? Not the New Deal, not abolition, not Obamacare. The constitution has never limited gov't, only empowered it.
Click to expand...
You're not talking about how the constitution was framed, you're talking about how it's been abused.

The abolition of slavery was the 13th amendment.
FDR's first attempt of the new deal was struck down and found unconstitutional.
He didn't stop there, FDR tried to subvert the supreme court by adding six new liberal judges to overturn the previous ruling.

So yes, the new deal was unconstitutional. Supreme court decisions are interpretations, not constitutional amendments.

You've got a lot to learn about the constitution, claiming it empowers a centralized government only solidifies that.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
beenthere said:
You're not talking about how the constitution was framed, you're talking about how it's been abused.

The abolition of slavery was the 13th amendment.
FDR's first attempt of the new deal was struck down and found unconstitutional.
He didn't stop there, FDR tried to subvert the supreme court by adding six new liberal judges to overturn the previous ruling.

So yes, the new deal was unconstitutional. Supreme court decisions are interpretations, not constitutional amendments.

You've got a lot to learn about the constitution, claiming it empowers a centralized government only solidifies that.
Click to expand...
So many contradictions in one post. First off, no, claiming that the constitution was framed in order to limit gov't is the GOP platform's central thesis. It is not found within the constitution. What is found in the constitution is the impetus for every argument that has led to the expansion of gov't. The New Deal was not unconstitutional, no matter how fucking stacked and packed and bribed and blackmailed the supremes are and no matter what FDR had to do to get them to read the shit his way, they did fucking read it his way and he went on to get reelected twice and yet we still have the same constitution. Before he threatened to stack em, they were bought and sold by other interests, so he replaced corrupt supremes with different corrupt supremes. There is nothing in the constitution about it. There is nothing in the constitution about filibustering for that matter.

Interpretations and ammendments, while being two different things, are both opportunities for increased role of gov't and both are also opportunities for the constitution to either impede or bless gov't expansions. Yet either way, gov't always seems to get bigger and pubs say it is unconstitutional and then get butt hurt when someone quotes the constitution to them.

The constitution is the foundation of gov't. A class of people needed a state to protect their property, hence the revolution.
 
B

beenthere

New Member
abandonconflict said:
So many contradictions in one post. First off, no, claiming that the constitution was framed in order to limit gov't is the GOP platform's central thesis. It is not found within the constitution. What is found in the constitution is the impetus for every argument that has led to the expansion of gov't. The New Deal was not unconstitutional, no matter how fucking stacked and packed and bribed and blackmailed the supremes are and no matter what FDR had to do to get them to read the shit his way, they did fucking read it his way and he went on to get reelected twice and yet we still have the same constitution. Before he threatened to stack em, they were bought and sold by other interests, so he replaced corrupt supremes with different corrupt supremes. There is nothing in the constitution about it. There is nothing in the constitution about filibustering for that matter.

Interpretations and ammendments, while being two different things, are both opportunities for increased role of gov't and both are also opportunities for the constitution to either impede or bless gov't expansions. Yet either way, gov't always seems to get bigger and pubs say it is unconstitutional and then get butt hurt when someone quotes the constitution to them.

The constitution is the foundation of gov't. A class of people needed a state to protect their property, hence the revolution.
Click to expand...
Like most of your posts, it's all fluff and no substance.

If the founding fathers strove for a centralized government, please clarify their intent when writing the 10th amendment.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
max420thc said:
You silly illiterate fucks.Did you read what was in the bill?Did you read the Federalist papers? Have you read the Anti federalist papers? Have you ever read sal alinski?You ever read 1984?
You liberals sit around calling people names all the time and never pick up a fucking book.
All the people you have been calling names the last several decades have been right all along and you have been wrong all along.The deal is you still support a proven liar who is president.
By putting all of your eggs in his basket you associate yourself's with a criminal and liar.Hes dropped the basket you are branded along with him a criminal and liar.
I am John Galt.750K John Galts fell off of the grid last month alone and will no longer be paying you any tax's to support.
There is a employment participation rate of 63%.That means right now there are around 100 million John Galts not paying tax into the system.Or if you want to look at it this way a 37% unemployment rate.
They are dropping off of your tax roles at the rate of 3/4 of a million every month.
The governments solution to it has been to print massive amounts of money devaluing the currency.SOON your money will not even purchase your food. It will start at the bottom with the hunger and work its way up through the ranks of what was once the middle class of this country.
You will see a escalation in crimes that will steadily get worse and worse.
There is a two year waiting list of people renouncing their citizenship at the US embassy in London.Anyone with two nickles to rub together along with a brain is getting the fuck out of here.
Havnt you seen all of these communist havens like California and New York. Every company that can is leaving those states.The states are so broke they are squeezing business so hard they cannot make a profit and leave.Making even larger budget short falls for those states causing them squeeze harder on the fools who are still left and them more of them leave.
All you will have left almost are welfare collectors and criminals.
You communists keep telling us to listen to you. I have to ask WHY?All you have managed to do is fuck up and corrupt everything you touch. Why would anyone with a brain who has seen the results of your actions give you any cred?They wont here shortly after 160 million people lose their insurance. Even doctors are losing their insurance.
Click to expand...
not a single thing you just said was true.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top