Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:25:09 PM   
Ronnie1986


Posts: 102
Joined: 1/15/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

quote:

where does it not say that... if its to fight tyranny would you want to use a fucking sharpened spoon?


No, lets use a fucking spork intead.

quote:

i mean none of this really matters because there is already groups forming.. if the president goes in the wrong direction as he is there is going to be a war whether you like it or not.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9sMv9mcdc4 that guys not alone


You mean the one that apologized.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/15/james-yeager-tactical-response_n_2478594.html

quote:

this shits allot more real than you morons realise.. none of you seem very educated i cant really speak as i never gave to fucks about english class but you guys seem kind of stupid.. this is a huge deal and many militias have actually started preparing for whats to come.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=W2kkax7WOKI ..dudes my hero lol


Wow, the "dude" who talked about going into the streets and killing people is your hero.... doesnt surprise me at all.

As far as the 2nd, you arent too swift about history are you. The second allowed for a well armed militia... in place of a standing army. We have a standing army.. no more need for a well armed militia.

The SC determined that the 2nd allowed you to own guns. No where in any writings does it detail that you are entitled to possessing weapons equal to that of the military.

Even the SC, which affirmed your right to own a gun, states the government has within its power to determine what guns you can have and how you should keep them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision





the entire reason behind the standing militia and armed citizens was the standing army as the founding fathers feared the government would mis use it.. which again is why we have the second amendment.. there was never suppose to be a standing army the founding fathers feared what it would be used for in times of peace

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:28:19 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
No, not the founding fathers, but the delegates from the states.  Trust me, if the autocratic plantation owners and other slavers we call fathers would have had their way completely, there would be no bill of rights.

And we have had plenty of examples of people holding a criminal justice degree that don't know much about the law, they are usually cops who, by definition, know nothing of law.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Ronnie1986)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:36:18 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

the entire reason behind the standing militia and armed citizens was the standing army as the founding fathers feared the government would mis use it.. which again is why we have the second amendment.. there was never suppose to be a standing army the founding fathers feared what it would be used for in times of peace


Exactly... 2 year terms.

So, how could it allow you to have weapons equal to the military that was never supposed to be standing to begin with?

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Ronnie1986)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:37:55 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: bossman777

It doesn't tazzy. You have to read more than one sentence. Like Tench Coxe, whom you probably never heard of due to a government run education, or Miller v. US, where the Supreme Court said the amendment *only* protected arms suitable for military service. Now I'm told it was meant only to protect guns for sport and hunting... not resistance to an out of control federal military-industrial complex that has us fighting undeclared wars in hundreds of locations around the globe and sucking us dry to pay for it... DO SOME RESEARCH. If you expect to remain ignorant and free, then you expect what never was and never will be.


Or you just toss a tin foil hat on your head and smile real purdy for the cameras.... Say Cheese!

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 1/16/2013 2:38:25 PM >


_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to bossman777)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:40:46 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
Look the only legit reason to impeach Obama is simple, he is an Extraterrestrial Alien. It was discussed at the Republican convention last year, and the story has a bit of a following on the internet, so it must be true.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:44:40 PM   
Ronnie1986


Posts: 102
Joined: 1/15/2013
Status: offline
here because you are to lazy to fucking click a link and you like talk shit you dont know i posted this so you would know..


Soon after the Denver shootings, President Obama said it was time to put stricter gun-control measures in place. With the failure of Attorney General Holder’s “Fast and Furious” ploy to void the 2nd Amendment, it seems Obama thought he might capitalize on the Denver shootings to further damage the Constitution. The negative public reaction to his words, however, sent Obama backtracking, and senior Democrats like Senator Reid and Representative Pelosi quickly made public remarks to bury the issue – for now.

Before moving on, it is worth noting that Obama said gun laws must be changed but only in a way that protected Americans’ cherished tradition of hunting. Well, hunting game is not the central concern of the 2nd Amendment. What is central is that the 2nd Amendment protects the right of Americans to be armed in case they decide there is a need, in Jefferson’s words, “to alter or to abolish [the government]” and “to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In creating the 2nd Amendment, the Founders – through James Madison‘s pen – took their cue from the British Bill of Rights (1689) which recognized that an unarmed populace could not protect its rights, liberty, and economic welfare against a king backed by a standing army, and so it allowed for an armed populace. The Founders also recalled that when London cracked down on New England’s resistance to the Crown, one of British General Thomas Gates’ first moves was to try to seize the munitions and ordnance the colonists had stockpiled around Boston. One reason for the British Army’s ill-fated expedition to Lexington and Concord in April, 1775, for example, was to capture the colonists’ stores of cannon, muskets, and munitions.

Even before Jefferson’s declaration, therefore, what in today’s parlance is called “gun control” was seen by Americans for what it was and is, a policy instituted by an oppressive government that fears its population and therefore aims at ensuring that citizens cannot arm to resist its will. The 2nd Amendment is meant, in part, to make sure that if the federal government created by the Constitution turns oppressive, Americans will have arms with which to defend their liberties and welfare.

And this right is much more important today than it was when the 2nd Amendment was drafted because the federal government has over time deliberately and probably unconstitutionally eradicated the 2nd Amendment’s other anti-oppression provision, the one that made sure the several state governments had well-regulated – that is, well-trained – militias at their command. The state militias were of course meant to assist the U.S. government’s standing army in case of foreign attack or domestic insurrection, but they also were meant to defend the states and their populations if the federal government used its standing army to willfully violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, or acted in a manner harmful to the peoples’ security, economic welfare, and/or their society’s social cohesion.

Except for Alexander Hamilton and a few other of the Founders, both Federalists and Anti-Federalists were very wary of – indeed, many hated – the idea of maintaining a strong standing army in time of peace, seeing it as an all-too-easy-to-use tool of would-be tyrants. The 2nd Amendment took cognizance of this historically genuine danger and established two hedges against it, an armed citizenry and effective state militias. The much stronger hedge – state militias – is long gone, and only the weaker hedge of an armed citizenry remains. And there seems nothing outrageous about the idea that, as the 2nd Amendment allowed citizens to be ready to resist federal-government oppression by matching it musket-for-musket in the 1790s, today’s citizens ought to be free to face the same potential threat of tyranny assault rifle-for-assault rifle.

Now, in response to the foregoing, I am sure President Obama and other recent presidents, their administrations, and their media shills would argue there is no chance of the federal government ever acting in a manner so oppressive to the liberty and welfare of Americans that the latter would decide to take up arms against it. And they may well be right. I hope they are.

But just for the sake of argument, let us imagine a future circumstance – far off and wildly unlikely though it may be – in which the federal government did violate the Constitution, threaten the destruction of the U.S. economy, tore the fabric of American society, and made the American political system a cesspool of financial corruption. And to add to the unreality of our scenario, let us further imagine that these actions are much more substantively threatening than those which motivated the Founding Fathers to rebel against Britain and those that led to the creation of the Confederate States of America and a civil war.

Just imagine, for example,

1.) That a single unelected federal bureaucrat issues a mandate that clearly violates the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom for more than 70 million American Catholics, Jews, and Muslims.

2.) That multiple U.S. presidents take the United States to war without the formal declaration of war irrefutably demanded by the U.S. Constitution, and then intentionally fail to win the wars they start and so kill thousands of America‘s solider-children for nothing.

3.) That the federal government each year reaches into its citizens’ pockets and takes between $40 and $50 billion dollars and then gives it to foreigners, even in times when 25-percent of America’s youngsters are malnourished, more than 8 percent of Americans are unemployed, and the country’s critical infrastructure is crumbling.

4.) That senior elected officials in both parties, as well as senior federal bureaucrats constantly leak highly classified intelligence information to advance their partisan interests and thereby knowingly undermine U.S. national security.

5.) That presidents and attorney generals from both parties pick and choose what laws they will enforce, in direct and flagrant violation of the oath to execute all laws that the Constitution mandates they swear on taking office.

6.) That a long list of presidential administrations under both parties refuse to enforce laws designed to control U.S. borders, thereby knowingly compromising U.S. security and causing several U.S. states to have their economies damaged and social fabric weakened. In addition, imagine that those federal administrations also take legal action to prevent state governors from defending their populations.

7.) That the Congress and the Senate regularly and knowingly act to bankrupt and destroy such essential national institutions as the Social Security Administration and the U.S. Post Office by siphoning off their funds for other pet or less-important projects.

8.) That cabinet members and would-be cabinet members who do not file income tax returns, leak classified intelligence information, mislead Congress, and knowingly hire illegal aliens are never prosecuted.

9.) That the federal government so overspends the public treasury that the national debt can never be repaid, and that in funding the debt it also compromises U.S. independence and citizens’ economic well-being via massive borrowing from malign foreign powers and by exacting half-a-year’s wages from each American taxpayer.

10.) That the unaccountable U.S. Supreme Court interprets the Constitution in a way that makes the nation’s political system a cesspool of financial corruption, endorses the murder of more than 50 million-plus unborn U.S. citizens, and empowers the federal government to wage unrelenting war on religion, especially on Christianity.

11.) That the federal government’s executive and legislative branches permit multiple lobbies to act as agents of foreign powers to corrupt our political system; to influence our foreign policy in a manner destructive of U.S. security and leading to war; and then protects them by not making them register as agents of foreign powers and by passing “hate-speech laws” – the latter a clear violation of the 1st Amendment.

12.) That the federal education department ensures the school curriculum taught to U.S. children negatively distorts U.S. history, denigrates the Founding Fathers, and keeps students ignorant of the meaning and purposes of the country’s founding documents – such as the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

While it is hard, nay, nearly impossible to imagine that even one – let alone all – of these severely oppressive and destructive actions could be deliberately perpetrated by the federal government, we each learn over the course of a lifetime never to say never. And if the sorry day ever dawns when one or more of the above depredations occur, I would suggest Americans might well think about taking recourse to the arms guaranteed them by the 2nd Amendment, arms with which to defend their liberty, economic welfare, national independence, and their Constitution’s viability.

And who knows what the future will bring, some of the foregoing hard-to-imagine actions may not be all so far fetched. If one or more came to pass, I suppose the 2nd Amendment would be the last, best resort for Americans after, as Jefferson recommended, a patient and prolonged effort to peacefully undo the oppressive measures imposed on them. “Prudence, indeed,” Jefferson wrote, “will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

At day’s end, then, the 2nd Amendment exists to permit American citizens to perform the “duty” Jefferson describes by resisting and defeating with arms a federal government that knowingly produces a “train of abuses and usurpations” that is designed “to reduce them under absolute Despotism.” The 2nd Amendment should not be altered or diluted a whit, but should stand, as the Founders intended, as a stark reminder to all elected federal officials and their bureaucrats that, in extremis, the 2nd Amendment ensures that Americans have the right and the means with which to hunt down and remove those who use the federal government to oppress them.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:47:41 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
FFS... that doesnt have a damn thing to do with me.

(in reply to tazzygirl)

Lower left hand corner.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Ronnie1986)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:51:05 PM   
Ronnie1986


Posts: 102
Joined: 1/15/2013
Status: offline
i know you didnt read it or your standing military question would have been answered and the other dumbasses founding father response would have been crushed.. it also explains meeting same weaponry with same weaponry

< Message edited by Ronnie1986 -- 1/16/2013 2:52:17 PM >

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:52:35 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
What part of Obama is an Extraterrestrial do you people not grasp. Members of the Republican party believed it at the convention. The scars on his head show where the antennae were removed to make him look more human.

I am only saying this because the foil hat crowd are strangely silent on the subject

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:56:16 PM   
Ronnie1986


Posts: 102
Joined: 1/15/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

What part of Obama is an Extraterrestrial do you people not grasp. Members of the Republican party believed it at the convention. The scars on his head show where the antennae were removed to make him look more human.

I am only saying this because the foil hat crowd are strangely silent on the subject

you mean barry soetoro as he cannot provide proof he ever changed his name from that.. and as far as we know is not a citizen but still an indonesian.. personally if we were gonna have a outsider as president i would pick arny.. the only thing he seems to lie about is steroids..

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:57:54 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ronnie1986

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, not the founding fathers, but the delegates from the states.  Trust me, if the autocratic plantation owners and other slavers we call fathers would have had their way completely, there would be no bill of rights.

And we have had plenty of examples of people holding a criminal justice degree that don't know much about the law, they are usually cops who, by definition, know nothing of law.

ok shit stain you obvious didnt even bother reading the link i gave you on tyranny it was most certainly a founding fathers fear that got us the second amendment.. and i really dont care if you dont like cops.. im not a cop but if i were id probably tase you for shits and giggles


No, I do not waste my time reading the blatherings of imbeciles.

Lew Rockwell is a pure cretin, and have no idea what other blogster you are quoting, but they have no CV that is worthy of my attention other than to wipe them off.

And my case is my case, and it is well documented.

Here is a watered down version:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/18a.asp
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-39.htm

If the founding fathers were interested in those rights, they would have wrote them into the constitution before ratification.

Your epic fail is demonstrated, in that the bill of rights are amendments introduced by the legislators protecting states, and not part and parcel of the autocratic FEDERAL constitution, otherwise, black people indians and women would have gotten the vote, and there would be no electoral college, and the house would have been constructed way differently.



_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Ronnie1986)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 2:58:11 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
Its cool he has a theory and all that. Doesnt mean I have to buy into his belief system. Considering he is a "Ron Paul" man, I can easily discount him. Doesnt help his case that he is believed to be involved in the "newsletters" involving Paul and racism.

But....

quote:

1.) That a single unelected federal bureaucrat issues a mandate that clearly violates the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of religious freedom for more than 70 million American Catholics, Jews, and Muslims.


This is enough for me not to read the rest. Thank you for confirming my original belief about you though.

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Ronnie1986)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 3:00:30 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Ronnie1986


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

What part of Obama is an Extraterrestrial do you people not grasp. Members of the Republican party believed it at the convention. The scars on his head show where the antennae were removed to make him look more human.

I am only saying this because the foil hat crowd are strangely silent on the subject

you mean barry soetoro as he cannot provide proof he ever changed his name from that.. and as far as we know is not a citizen but still an indonesian.. personally if we were gonna have a outsider as president i would pick arny.. the only thing he seems to lie about is steroids..


LOL< and nobody has provided proof that he changed his name to that.  And no, it is apparent that your knowledge is sorely lacking in all areas, TOS, politics, history, law and about everything else including effective argumentation.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Ronnie1986)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 3:01:01 PM   
Ronnie1986


Posts: 102
Joined: 1/15/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ronnie1986

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

No, not the founding fathers, but the delegates from the states.  Trust me, if the autocratic plantation owners and other slavers we call fathers would have had their way completely, there would be no bill of rights.

And we have had plenty of examples of people holding a criminal justice degree that don't know much about the law, they are usually cops who, by definition, know nothing of law.

ok shit stain you obvious didnt even bother reading the link i gave you on tyranny it was most certainly a founding fathers fear that got us the second amendment.. and i really dont care if you dont like cops.. im not a cop but if i were id probably tase you for shits and giggles


No, I do not waste my time reading the blatherings of imbeciles.

Lew Rockwell is a pure cretin, and have no idea what other blogster you are quoting, but they have no CV that is worthy of my attention other than to wipe them off.

And my case is my case, and it is well documented.

Here is a watered down version:

http://www.ushistory.org/us/18a.asp
http://countrystudies.us/united-states/history-39.htm

If the founding fathers were interested in those rights, they would have wrote them into the constitution before ratification.

Your epic fail is demonstrated, in that the bill of rights are amendments introduced by the legislators protecting states, and not part and parcel of the autocratic FEDERAL constitution, otherwise, black people indians and women would have gotten the vote, and there would be no electoral college, and the house would have been constructed way differently.



technicly the electoral college was created because it was felt the general public was to fucking dumb to vote and id have to say i agree lol

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 3:02:20 PM   
Ronnie1986


Posts: 102
Joined: 1/15/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ronnie1986


quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

What part of Obama is an Extraterrestrial do you people not grasp. Members of the Republican party believed it at the convention. The scars on his head show where the antennae were removed to make him look more human.

I am only saying this because the foil hat crowd are strangely silent on the subject

you mean barry soetoro as he cannot provide proof he ever changed his name from that.. and as far as we know is not a citizen but still an indonesian.. personally if we were gonna have a outsider as president i would pick arny.. the only thing he seems to lie about is steroids..


LOL< and nobody has provided proof that he changed his name to that.  And no, it is apparent that your knowledge is sorely lacking in all areas, TOS, politics, history, law and about everything else including effective argumentation.

you mean from that as that was his name when he was attending school in indonesia and while he was living with his grandparents..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ra8SJBEzhxc

< Message edited by Ronnie1986 -- 1/16/2013 3:03:28 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 3:02:40 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline
I have also heard rumors to the effect that tazzy is a operative for the Illuminati and NWO, and that she got Holly Madison involved with Hugh Hefner in an attempt to corrupt the man.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 3:03:32 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
NO, it was TECHINCALLY and FACTUALLY created as a compromise so that the south didnt have to pay taxes on their slaves, and that they had at least a partial representation of them in the voting, since they were very much outnumbered by the northern states.

Go read some history.  Not teabagger blogs and other dickwigglers idiotic asswipe. 


_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Ronnie1986)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 3:04:59 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline
See how rumors get it all wrong? It wasnt Holly... it was this lovely lady.

http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4354029

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to jlf1961)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 3:11:30 PM   
Nosathro


Posts: 3319
Joined: 9/25/2005
From: Orange County, California
Status: offline
Let me make sure I got this a Texas Representive and born again Christian, an account for IBM, never served in the military wants to impeach President Obama for using the powers granted by the Constitution to the President. Sounds about right to me, in my personal view, I really think we should try it without a government.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama - 1/16/2013 3:14:47 PM   
Ronnie1986


Posts: 102
Joined: 1/15/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

NO, it was TECHINCALLY and FACTUALLY created as a compromise so that the south didnt have to pay taxes on their slaves, and that they had at least a partial representation of them in the voting, since they were very much outnumbered by the northern states.

Go read some history.  Not teabagger blogs and other dickwigglers idiotic asswipe. 


The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power. Hamilton wrote in the Federalist Papers:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.


suppose i should provide the link so you can call whoever wrote it dumb http://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

< Message edited by Ronnie1986 -- 1/16/2013 3:17:26 PM >

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Latest threat of impeachment against President Obama Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.105