Can't argue with you there CBS. I don't know what this guy in the white house said or didn't say the first time or the second time he was elected. I personally couldn't care less who the PEOPLE elect. And do you think it will make any difference anyway? Just out of curiosity, what is it that he said he was going to do that he is doing.
MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Did You Get Out And Vote!
- Thread starter pumpingiron22
- Start date
Yes and it's a result of way too many countrymen want the government to give them a life, instead of breaking a sweat and making a life on their own.
HuckingFuge
New Member
Where are all these people that talk about wanting less government. It seems that everytime I hear a candidate give a speech he say's "less government", and everybody runs out to vote for him/her. But it always turns out the same, no matter who wins. It grows. You'd think they'd learn by now. And look at the demographics today. There are people that don't, or can't, or won't go to college or even finish high school ( as if that would help). They can't raise a family or even take of themselves with the jobs available out there. So the government takes care of them... well it's you that are taking care of them, like it or not. It's happening more and more as the years go by. It's not going to change.
Agreed HF...And I believe you'll find that a great deal of the fraud is the candidate.
I think perhaps a military coup might be better. Joint chiefs of staff with different viewpoints running the country would be interesting.
I'm not saying voter fraud doesn't exist but Obama didn't get elected because of it, he got elected because the people wanted him. Both of his elections weren't even close.
HuckingFuge
New Member
sounds like a great idea, our Military will not have their hands and legs tied fighting wars anymore 
HuckingFuge
New Member
when you get 150% turn out, that is voter fraud. when illegals get to vote that is voter fraud. when dead people get to vote that is voter fraud. that was how Obama won by so much.
Let's assume what you say is true. How do you explain the fact that Obama was leading in the polls prior to both elections? The polling firms weren't polling dead people, nor were they polling 50% of the participants twice.
If Obama won only because of voter fraud, wouldn't you expect the pre-election polls to have shown him trailing his opponent in the days leading up to the election?
HuckingFuge
New Member
I saw Obama losing up until the end. even against McCain Obama was losing in the beginning.
Obama won because of media and educational institutional bias. Lots of voter fraud too. McCain would have had us in Iran by now anyway,. I don't know with Romney because he was a flip-flopper. Regardless, there are conspiracy theories that say Ron Paul won the 2012 primary. https://jaretglenn.wordpress.com/20...can-party-stole-the-nomination-from-ron-paul/
Obama won because he got more votes, period.
Hard to say but I'd like to think so.
There are conspiracy theories that say Elvis is still alive too. Ron Paul was never anything more than a fringe candidate.
Yes. Constitutionalism is definitely a fringe.
When someone gets time, define for me what it means to you by "going back to the constitution". Once it was accepted and signed It had to be interpreted and codified. I'm at a bit of loss as to just when, where and what do you want to go back to? I'd like to hear some opinions.
HuckingFuge
New Member
When someone gets time, define for me what it means to you by "going back to the constitution". Once it was accepted and signed It had to be interpreted and codified. I'm at a bit of loss as to just when, where and what do you want to go back to? I'd like to hear some opinions.
not that we need to go back to a certain time, but we need to use the Constitution. the politicians and judges are making their own rules.
When someone gets time, define for me what it means to you by "going back to the constitution". Once it was accepted and signed It had to be interpreted and codified. I'm at a bit of loss as to just when, where and what do you want to go back to? I'd like to hear some opinions.
The bill of rights is the basic, most important component of the constitution and was never intended on being ratified in any way. "A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on interference." -Thomas Jefferson. Other components such as the definition of a free man (you could not vote if you did not own land), race and gender needed to be ratified as well as other components. I do not want to go back to anything. I want the people to stand up for their constitution and hold all members of the government legally accountable for their transgressions against the constitution. Remember, all government employees from the president to a math teacher have to swear an allegiance to the constitution.
Last edited:
I disagree. Despite the poetic words of Jefferson and friends, the Bill of Rights had absolutely nothing to do with protecting the rights of individuals. It was inserted because the Constitution would never have been ratified without it. Ratified by the States, not the People. Its purpose was to address the concerns of the State governments, and sucker them into adopting a higher government than themselves.
Where in the Constitution is the federal government given the power to infringe on freedom of speech? Ask any Constitutional lawyer today and he will tell you the First Amendment. Ditto the power to regulate arms and the Second Amendment. Where in the Constitution were the States denied the power to do so (which would have been necessary, since they were already doing so)?
If the Bill of Rights had anything to do with individuals, it was violated by the first GW shortly after signing the thing when he levied taxes on whiskey sales and sent taxmen uninvited onto the properties of suspected merchants to collect. George didn’t fare too well in that endeavor, but Americans were a tougher breed back then.
“Who authorized them to speak in the language of We, the people, instead of We, the states? States are the characteristics and the soul of a confederation. If the states be not the agents of this compact, it must be one great, consolidated national government of the people of all the states.” - Patrick Henry
What problems with the 2nd?
Subject to interpretation is a manipulation of the stipulation. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's very clear that the 2nd was to empower the individual as much as the state. In regards to states rights, that is another manipulation. The basic premise was not to establish what was taboo and what was not.
