McCain Shocker!

[barbelith]

John McCain has reached across the aisle tons more then Obama has.

I agree. I had an enormous amount of respect for John McCain until he caved a few years ago and became a stooge for the same machine that smeared him eight years ago.

Again, you know squat about the 2nd.

So you keep saying. But you're confusing the amendment with its current interpretation. The US Supreme Court does not agree the amendment gives citizens the right to own every weapon ever made, let alone every firearm ever invented.

You've stated that the 2nd doesn't necessarily mean guns.

And it doesn't. The Supreme Court currently interprets it as meaning private ownership of some guns.

 

[hoodonit00]

Just to calm everyone down and shine a light on you all... i will share with you one of my favorite clips... Enjoy.

<embed FlashVars='videoId=125256' src='https://www.thedailyshow.com/sitewide/video_player/view/default/swf.jhtml' quality='high' bgcolor='#cccccc' width='332' height='316' name='comedy_central_player' align='middle' allowScriptAccess='always' allownetworking='external' type='application/x-shockwave-flash' pluginspage='https://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer'></embed>

Doesn't surprise me that a clip by 2 liberals would be your favorite.

 

[barbelith]

The right to bear arms is included in the Bill of Rights because individuals have a right to self-defense. There is absolutely no reason why anyone could possibly need a nuclear weapon unless they were intending to go to war.

That's an opinion, but not a rebuttal of my point.

The only reason why McCain could be criticized on the basis of his voting record is that the general perception is that Bush is a bad President. It is not predicated on the specific issues with which McCain agreed with him.

You're not even trying to follow the conversation. Nobody is denying what you wrote here.

Didn't you go to great lengths last night to make the point that simply because Obama and Wright were associates, Wright's poor ideas were not necessarily a reflection of Obama's character?

They would be if Obama endorsed them.

Deferring to the opinions of those who compose the mainstream consensus is no judge of whether McCain would make a good President.

Nobody is deferring to those opinions. You're missing the point .

 

[devilof76]

If you can't respond respectfully, ....

 

[Fubeca]

Whether or not McCain can pull in enough Reagan Democrats and Independents with this choice remains to be seen. Certainly he has taken the spotlight off Obama, at least for now. But there is nothing they can say or do that will convince me to vote for them now.

So good luck with that election thingy, John!

That's the spirit! Give up! Don't vote because you don't like who number two is so that the number one on the other side wins...Well that is weird!

 

[DarkArtist81]

Doesn't surprise me that a clip by 2 liberals would be your favorite.

It just sums up my feelings exactly... Guess we just have the same outlook.

 

[Fubeca]

And it doesn't. The Supreme Court currently interprets it as meaning private ownership of some guns.

Just like only SOME should have the right to freedom of speech while others should shut their mouths?

 

[devilof76]

That's an opinion, but not a rebuttal of my point.

It's not opinion. The Bill of Rights, like the Constitution and the Declaration before it, were composed as applications of Lockean political philosophy. Who knows what the Supreme Court is using to interpret the document. It certainly is not the philosophic intent with which it was written.

 

[hoodonit00]

Just like only SOME should have the right to freedom of speech while others should shut their mouths?

Damn, why did you go and post that pic. I had a good anger going and now I'm just thinking happy,,, but naughty thoughts.

 

[barbelith]

Just like only SOME should have the right to freedom of speech while others should shut their mouths?

That's a non sequitur.

It's not opinion. The Bill of Rights, like the Constitution and the Declaration before it, were composed as applications of Lockean political philosophy.

It's your opinion that this is relevant to interpretation of the text. The Supreme Court clearly disagrees.

 

[Anzik]

It depends what 'is' is.

 

[Fubeca]

I used to have a 4th Amendment. Now I don't.
I used to have a 5th Amendment. Now I don't.
I used to have a 6th Amendment. Now I don't.

That's not playing with words. That's telling you three things I had eight years ago and which I don't have now. You might not agree rights are important but denying I've answered the question is transparent posturing. However I must confess it's interesting to see self-proclaimed conservatives be so cavalier about the piecemeal dismantling of the Bill of Rights. Quite a change from the Clinton years!

Please share with us some of your own personal examples of how you enjoyed these 8 years ago and now you personally do not today?

 

[devilof76]

It's your opinion that this is relevant to interpretation of the text. The Supreme Court clearly disagrees.

Because I am not the authority, then my evaluation is mere opinion, regardless of the solidity of my stance? But, the Supreme Court, being the appointed czars of Constitutional dismemberment are speaking fact, merely on the basis of their appointments, even though their interpretations have absolutely nothing to do with the intent of those who composed the document?

So it's safe to assume that you have the same affection for verecundiam as you do hominem?

 

[Fubeca]

That's a non sequitur.



It's your opinion that this is relevant to interpretation of the text. The Supreme Court clearly disagrees.

oh big words you must done be'd educated!

And gotta love

"Legislating from the Bench!" screw government of the people and by the people!

 

[hoodonit00]

They would be if Obama endorsed them.

Lets put this to rest. If John McCain belonged to a church and the reverand of this church is caught on tape 2 times calling black people the N word and saying how the black race is ruining this country. And this preacher had another preacher come to his church and preach the same kind of rhetoric. And this same teacher taught the teachings of the Aryan brotherhood. Now John, he considers this preacher his spiritual advisor and leader. Johns been going to this church for 20 years, in fact he was married by him. Are you saying that none of this rubbed off on John.

 

[hoodonit00]

Please share with us some of your own personal examples of how you enjoyed these 8 years ago and now you personally do not today?

Good luck on that. We've been trying to get him to come up with something for 50 pages and he hasn't yet

 

[barbelith]

Please share with us some of your own personal examples of how you enjoyed these 8 years ago and now you personally do not today?

I'm not interested in chasing a series of shifting goal posts.

Because I am not the authority, then my evaluation is mere opinion, regardless of the solidity of my stance?

That's what opinions are.

But, the Supreme Court, being the appointed czars of Constitutional dismemberment are speaking fact, merely on the basis of their appointments, even though their interpretations have absolutely nothing to do with the intent of those who composed the document?

The difference is their opinions have force of law. You've also yet again made a false assumption about my position instead of just asking me. Not only have I not said the Supreme Court is speaking fact, I've repeatedly noted we're dealing with their interpretation.

 

[Fubeca]

Good luck on that. We've been trying to get him to come up with something for 50 pages and he hasn't yet

That is how it always goes!

 

[Fubeca]

I'm not interested in chasing a series of shifting goal posts.

Oh cuz that was like 2 or 3 pages ago...and you have no proof...

 

[hoodonit00]

I'm not interested in chasing a series of shifting goal posts.



That's what opinions are.



The difference is their opinions have force of law. You've also yet again made a false assumption about my position instead of just asking me. Not only have I not said the Supreme Court is speaking fact, I've repeatedly noted we're dealing with their interpretation.

So what do you think about Heller vs DC. The Supreme Court actually voted that it is an individuals right to have firearms. How are you going to spin this.