Obama Bin Stalin threatens EO on gun grab

[WillowTree]

Plasma. hands down, no contest.

Especially since I invited him here to try and take my weapons, meaning he would be the first person I shot and killed in that effort. I mean he is all bluster about rounding people up, let him come try.

dude stop trolling for gay sex.

^^^^^^^

creeper gonna creep.

 

[g5000]

Piss drinkers are too easily led.

The puppet masters lead them around by the nose, getting them all sweaty over Obama's unconstitutional Executive Orders. It never occurs to them to actually read the Executive Orders for themselves, or the relevant laws. No, they just take the puppet masters' word that Obama broke the Constitution, somehow.

And now all the puppet masters have to say is that Obama WILL break the Constitution again. It's already been established for the dumbos that Obama has done it in the past, see.

Of course, if and when Obama does issue an Executive Order to beef up background checks or improve database sharing, will the puppet masters inform the rubes they were wrong?

Make your own prediction about that outcome.

Past future perfect. Obama will break the Constitution with his gun EOs. This is already a "fact" in their minds.

So next time around, this will be their mental evidence to support the NEXT claim Obama is about to violate the Constitution.

This shit is practically seamless!

 

[squeeze berry]

Where your epic fail of an argument falls over the precipice of human logic is that Hitler (eventually) had the backing of the armed forces. Obama doesn't.

And considering for your Chicken Little, bed-wetting, champing at the bit, hard-on scenario (and believe me, I know you are dying for this to happen - this is a gun nuts Nirvana) to occur, your military and police would have to enforce these edicts. Gee, that's gonna happen considering most of them vote overwhelmingly GoP....

I'm still trying to figure out how it is any of your fucking business

Fuck off

The same way Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq [shall I continue] is any of yours....

what small coward country are you from?

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm still trying to figure out how it is any of your fucking business

Fuck off

The same way Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq [shall I continue] is any of yours....

what small coward country are you from?

Well, it is small. Dunno if I would call it coward though....NZ, but live in Oz...

 

[g5000]

There are three main reasons why such a numerous and strong group with fairly homogeneous views is not likely to be formed by the best but rather by the worst elements of any society.

In the first instance, it is probably true that in general the higher the education and intelligence of individuals becomes, the more their views and tastes are differentiated and the less likely they are to agree on a particular hierarchy of values. It is a corollary of this that if we wish to find a high degree of uniformity and similarity of outlook, we have to descend to the regions of lower moral and intellectual standards where the more primitive and “common” instincts and tastes prevail. This does not mean that the majority of people have low moral standards; it merely means that the largest group of people whose values are very similar are the people with low standards.

If, however, a potential dictator had to rely entirely on those whose uncomplicated and primitive instincts happen to be very similar, their number would scarcely give sufficient weight to their endeavours. He will have to increase their numbers by converting more to the same simple creed.

Here comes in the second negative principle of selection: he will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.

It is in connection with the deliberate effort of the skilful demagogue to weld together a closely coherent and homogeneous body of supporters that the third and perhaps most important negative element of selection enters. It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative programme, on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off, than on any positive task. The contrast between the “we” and the “they”, the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. It is consequently always employed by those who seek, not merely support of a policy, but the unreserved allegiance of huge masses. From their point of view it has the great advantage of leaving them greater freedom of action than almost any positive programme. The enemy, whether he be internal like the “Jew” or the “Kulak”, or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armoury of a totalitarian leader.

The Road to Serfdom - F. A. Hayek

I'm looking at you, piss drinkers. Lefties are not the only ones to whom Hayek's writing applies.

Clean your act up and make the right wing livable again.

 

[squeeze berry]

The same way Panama, Grenada, Vietnam, Kuwait, Afghanistan, Iraq [shall I continue] is any of yours....

what small coward country are you from?

Well, it is small. Dunno if I would call it coward though....NZ, but live in Oz...

then stopping the Japs from taking over the entire
Pac rim was none of our business too?

 

[Dr Grump]

what small coward country are you from?

Well, it is small. Dunno if I would call it coward though....NZ, but live in Oz...

then stopping the Japs from taking over the entire
Pac rim was none of our business too?

Oh god, not that nugget. Do a search, I've already commented on that fallacy three or four times on this board over the past seven years....can't be bothered doing it again. Let's just say everybody helped on that one...

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is debatable.

No, it isn't.

{No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. }

The summary assassination of two American citizens directly violates the constitution.

The question wasn't whether you would DEFEND Dear Leader violating the constitution, we knew you would,

George Bush established that enemy combatants are not entitled to Constitutional rights. So thank him for that.

Ah yes, BOOOOOSSHHH - who would have guessed that this would be the defense.

If Bush did it, and you criticize Obama for doing the same thing, then trying to poison the well to prevent someone from pointing our your naked hypocrisy just won't work, as it has not here.

So, you can show that Bush murdered United States Citizens, then?

No, you have not.

Of course I have. The only question is regarding your integrity.

But I have provided you with a specific prediction, and provided the evidence for it. None of you chickenshits have dared to make a specific prediction on record.

You've given a prediction, which is illogical. But Obama isn't particularly rational, so who knows.

I don't pretend to be a fortune teller, so I can't say WHAT Obama will do - only that he shows contempt for the Constitution and U.S. law.

All your smoke and mirrors are a piss poor attempt to cover up your intellectual shortcomings and cowardice.

zzzzzzz

Please cite the law it violated. And don't be so stupid as to say "the Constitution" and betray your ignorance.

Fast and furious? Are you kidding?

21 U.S.C. §§ 1901-08: Providing weapons to foreign nationals absent official diplomatic channels.

Cite the actual immigration law passed by Congress which Obama violated.

Sigh, you Obamabots are tedious.

Under Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution, the President has the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." Obama, by ordering that the 1986 Immigration control act be ignored, violates the constitution.

If he is not allowed to extend the stay of young illegal immigrants, there has to be a law which prevents him from doing so. Cite it.

"the constitution."

(Specifically, Article II, Section 3.)

False dichotomy. Try harder.

Spot on, and you know it.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

One thing is certain. There needs to be a womanly rush of emotions and expedited ACTION on behalf of bureaucratic know it alls before its all too late. Regardless . lol

 

[Uncensored2008]

He has skirted the law before.

According to Oblamer he is above the law and the Constitution.

Well, he has people like Catzshit and G5000 confirming this for him, so why would he not believe it?

 

[Plasmaball]

this is my new birthday wish!

More than being able to turn your neighbors in to DHS and have them dissappeared in the middle of the night?

i dont need dhs to do that.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

]

He doesn't need an EO for that. But lets play your little game.....What will YOU do if he does in fact issue an EO that violates current law and the Constitution?

You can feel free to quote my post and shout from the rooftops my prediction was wrong.

Unlike you chickenshits, I am not afraid to make a specific prediction and stand by it.



You have not proven the execution of enemy combatants is unconstitutional. Like the others, you are guilty of an ipse dixit logical fallacy.

This is all smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that when you idiots were called out on your hysteria to specify what Obama is going to go in the way of a "gun grab", you shit your pants and ran.

Now you are trying to throw up as much smoke as you can to cover up your cowardice.

You STILL won't make a prediction and stand by it.

You ASSUME he will somehow violate the Constitution based on a completely wrong understanding of the Constitution and the way government operates. Your mistaken beliefs about past events have snowballed into one giant mass delusion from which you all suffer.

So then you hear about Biden saying something about EOs, and it just seems natural as breathing that some kind of unconstitutional gun grab is afoot.

And you wonder how Obama keeps winning?

It is because you are all beating up an illusion.




What does that have to do with Obama considering a "gun grab" by Executive Order?

Nothing.

And Fast and Furious was no different from Bush's gunwalking program.

That's right, hypocrite. BOOOOOOSH.

You claim the law allows him to issue Immunity and amnesty to illegal aliens, as you keep saying to CK, CITE the specific law that provides that the President can unilaterally declare millions of illegal aliens legal.

No, I have said you have not proved Obama broke the law. The evidence is all over this topic. You keep stating it over and over and over, but have not proven it.

You claimed Obama broke the law, but you have not cited a single law. You have not proven your claim.

Ipse dixit.

The COURTS did rule on the Constitutional rights claim. They ruled that a US Citizens anywhere in the world had his rights and the Government could not just put him on a list and remove them. They affirmed it with the Taliban American and again when Pedallo or what ever his name was was being held with out trial.

The fact is that the Constitution is clear. Both in its body and its amendments that a President can not unilaterally strip any rights from a US Citizen with out due process. The Muslim and his son were never even charged with a crime. Yet they were specifically targeted and killed. That is MURDER.

Further there is NO evidence that the father was an enemy combatant and even less his son was one. The ONLY claim the Government ever made was that the father supported AQ. No evidence, no charges, no effort to apprehend, no evidence he was anything but a sympathizer. And the Son went to see his father, there is even less evidence he was anything but a boy looking for his father.

 

[Uncensored2008]

what small coward country are you from?

Gump? He's from Sheepshagger County, Queensland.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

]

He doesn't need an EO for that. But lets play your little game.....What will YOU do if he does in fact issue an EO that violates current law and the Constitution?

You can feel free to quote my post and shout from the rooftops my prediction was wrong.

Unlike you chickenshits, I am not afraid to make a specific prediction and stand by it.



You have not proven the execution of enemy combatants is unconstitutional. Like the others, you are guilty of an ipse dixit logical fallacy.

This is all smoke and mirrors to cover up the fact that when you idiots were called out on your hysteria to specify what Obama is going to go in the way of a "gun grab", you shit your pants and ran.

Now you are trying to throw up as much smoke as you can to cover up your cowardice.

You STILL won't make a prediction and stand by it.

You ASSUME he will somehow violate the Constitution based on a completely wrong understanding of the Constitution and the way government operates. Your mistaken beliefs about past events have snowballed into one giant mass delusion from which you all suffer.

So then you hear about Biden saying something about EOs, and it just seems natural as breathing that some kind of unconstitutional gun grab is afoot.

And you wonder how Obama keeps winning?

It is because you are all beating up an illusion.




What does that have to do with Obama considering a "gun grab" by Executive Order?

Nothing.

And Fast and Furious was no different from Bush's gunwalking program.

That's right, hypocrite. BOOOOOOSH.

You claim the law allows him to issue Immunity and amnesty to illegal aliens, as you keep saying to CK, CITE the specific law that provides that the President can unilaterally declare millions of illegal aliens legal.

No, I have said you have not proved Obama broke the law. The evidence is all over this topic. You keep stating it over and over and over, but have not proven it.

You claimed Obama broke the law, but you have not cited a single law. You have not proven your claim.

Ipse dixit.

Your last quote is from me. If you can not even pay enough attention to quotes and who did them why would we believe anything you have to say about laws? The President can NOT create new law. In order for a EO to give legal status to illegals he would need to be in accordance with a law passed by Congress and signed by a President. Cite the law. Failing that you have not proven he did not in fact violate the law and the Constitution.

 

[Plasmaball]

Especially since I invited him here to try and take my weapons, meaning he would be the first person I shot and killed in that effort. I mean he is all bluster about rounding people up, let him come try.

dude stop trolling for gay sex.

^^^^^^^

creeper gonna creep.

i won't have gay sex with you either.

 

[Uncensored2008]

i dont need dhs to do that.

Sure you do, the Stasi ain't coming back, no matter how many times you jerk off to the portrait of Eric Honeker on your wall. DHS is the ALL American KGB.

 

[Harry Dresden]

let me ask you a question.

When you call our president what you do in your thread title, do you think that people will take your posts seriously?

let me ask you a question? When you blindly ignore all the unconstitutional illegal things obama and company do, do you think anyone takes you seriously?

list of unconstitutional illegal things obama and co. Do

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Bo.....let me ask you something.....play along with me here.....if Obama and Company did come out and say and do what these people here are saying.....what would be your stance then?......

 

[RetiredGySgt]

let me ask you a question? When you blindly ignore all the unconstitutional illegal things obama and company do, do you think anyone takes you seriously?

list of unconstitutional illegal things obama and co. Do

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Bo.....let me ask you something.....play along with me here.....if Obama and Company did come out and say and do what these people here are saying.....what would be your stance then?......

They won't answer that. G5000 has been asked and he refuses to say. he also is abjectly stupid in regards the rights and protections afforded American Citizens.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Here's a few......

Let's start with #1...What makes it unconstitutional and illegal?

Congress considered it but it didn't have the support to pass so it wasn't law. He ignored Congress and put it into effect anyway (Dream Act)

Lets not get off topic though. You asked for I gave it. Look them up to see why they are unconstitutional

Illegals have been getting work permits for quite a long time.....Seasonal workers come into the US to pick whatever is in season and then leave and go pick down south of the border.....they are like a traveling troupe of "pickers".........

 

[Harry Dresden]

list of unconstitutional illegal things obama and co. Do

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Bo.....let me ask you something.....play along with me here.....if Obama and Company did come out and say and do what these people here are saying.....what would be your stance then?......

They won't answer that. G5000 has been asked and he refuses to say. he also is abjectly stupid in regards the rights and protections afforded American Citizens.

well if they wont answer.....then we know who the people are who would just roll over.....