Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6944|Long Island, New York

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Why are people arguing with someone who tells himself at night and legitimately believes Obama is a fascist?

Really.
then I will ask you young troll, what part of


fas⋅cism  /ˈfæʃɪzəm/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
Use fascism in a Sentence
–noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


Does Obama not fit?

He was elected, so was Hitler (for all of you who want to compare)

He wants complete power to the govt. Sorry this is  not debatable since he is actively trying to put govt control in private enterprise

he wishes to forcibly suppress opposition and criticism, see the "fairness doctrine"

he is well on his way to the regimenting of industry and commerce, see the auto industry.

He is using nationalism and racism to do so. Already talked about nationalism and his racism has long been apparent with his relationship with Wright and now views of the police department when a black guy is arrested.
The troll of all trolls is calling me a troll? I'm honored.

Since you love to use definitions straight from the dictionary:

http://www.answers.com/fascist

Definition: authoritarian
Antonyms: democrat, liberal

although I'm waiting for you to find some way to write it off...

The door's that way, old troll.

This is exactly why I said arguing with someone who actually truly tells himself and believes Obama (or really anyone in government, republican, democrat, whoever) is a fascist is, on the whole, pretty pointless. They've clearly convinced themselves otherwise and do not think rationally.

But we already knew that didn't we...

Last edited by Poseidon (2009-08-14 05:42:50)

Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|6003|Vacationland

lowing wrote:

Narupug wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not need to think what a fascist is, there is the definition of it, and Obama fits it.

Please show me in the constitution where we have a constitutional right to healthcare. So because I do not want the govt. running my health I am uncompassionate? Sorry ya feel that way.

Also this goes beyond healthcare, Obama has stuck govt control in the free market and industry as well. He has something like 33 govt. czars in as little as 7 months. A fascist.
He fits the definition in your head, but as you well know what is a truth you is not neccessarily a truth to me.  Also I think you've mentioned a little thing called life liberty and pursuit of happiness, you'll have to tell me how denying people healthcare because they don't have insurance does not violate those 3 unalienable rights?
No actually he fits the definition as it is written. remember the only thing you could nit pick is the term nationalism. Well I contend he is using nationalism as part of his propaganda pitch to get his govt. control bullshit to me more palatable to the people. "It is the neighborly thing to do", and we should do it out of "fairness".


Who said anything about denying people healthcare? NOT being responsible for providing healthcare is waaayyyy different than DENYING it. I do hope you can at least see that. 

Yes I did mention the PURSUIT of life liberty and happiness. It does not guarantee your right to achieve it. It guarantees your right to pursue it. You kinda left out the pursuit part, was that unpurpose or does your govt. entitlement know any bounds?
I only nit picked the nationalism because if I denyed any of the other twisted lies you spewed I would simply be rebuffed with a "but IT IS TRUE" then we would be argueing over a yes or no question. 
It appears lowing that you did not take the time to look up the text of the Declaration of Independance, that or the copy you looked at eas slightly modified tp fit your conservative aims. 

Declaration of Independance wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7121|US

Narupug wrote:

I have not control or concern as to what you think is fascist or not.  The fact still remains that what Obama is doing is perfectly within the constitution, you may not like it because you have been told to believe he is taking your rights and the like by Conservative news outlets.  That does not change the fact that he has every right to provide health care for the uninsured and the fact that you oppose such action makes you sir uncompassionate.  You also deny the fact that you will have to pay for the uninsured one way or another, weather it is through a government plan or when the uninsured get into accidents and someone has to pay the doctors.  The debate is not just about health care either you get your shorts all in a knot over the modest propostion of getting all the guns off the market that are acutely dangerous and have little use other then to kill people.  You're gonna go hunting with an AR-15?  Your excuse about self defense is useless, is it not overkill to defend your house with a semi-auto?  Why not just place machine gun bunkers in all the windows?  I disagree with you in all other areas too, but here are two main ones, have fun.
Which part of the Constitution do you interpret as authorizing the federal government to run health care programs for the nation?

Quite a few people do use the AR-15 platform for hunting.  Since it is an intermediate caliber, can be configured in many ways, and the upper can be replaced quite easily, it can make an excellent, modular hunting rifle.  (Take a look at Remington's R-15, for example.)
I would most definitely want a semi-auto for a defensive situation.  Why would I want to be using a bolt-action rifle at a range of 20 feet?  If you miss/if there is more than one intruder, you have pretty much precluded getting a second shot.
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|6003|Vacationland

RAIMIUS wrote:

Narupug wrote:

I have not control or concern as to what you think is fascist or not.  The fact still remains that what Obama is doing is perfectly within the constitution, you may not like it because you have been told to believe he is taking your rights and the like by Conservative news outlets.  That does not change the fact that he has every right to provide health care for the uninsured and the fact that you oppose such action makes you sir uncompassionate.  You also deny the fact that you will have to pay for the uninsured one way or another, weather it is through a government plan or when the uninsured get into accidents and someone has to pay the doctors.  The debate is not just about health care either you get your shorts all in a knot over the modest propostion of getting all the guns off the market that are acutely dangerous and have little use other then to kill people.  You're gonna go hunting with an AR-15?  Your excuse about self defense is useless, is it not overkill to defend your house with a semi-auto?  Why not just place machine gun bunkers in all the windows?  I disagree with you in all other areas too, but here are two main ones, have fun.
Which part of the Constitution do you interpret as authorizing the federal government to run health care programs for the nation?

Quite a few people do use the AR-15 platform for hunting.  Since it is an intermediate caliber, can be configured in many ways, and the upper can be replaced quite easily, it can make an excellent, modular hunting rifle.  (Take a look at Remington's R-15, for example.)
I would most definitely want a semi-auto for a defensive situation.  Why would I want to be using a bolt-action rifle at a range of 20 feet?  If you miss/if there is more than one intruder, you have pretty much precluded getting a second shot.
Where does it say he's not allowed to?

I'll conced you can use it for hunting, but do you actually have 20ft of range in your house?  I mean you're carrying a semi auto with you to kill an attacker armed with what? an AK-47?
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|6017|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Narupug wrote:

Where does it say he's not allowed to?

I'll conced you can use it for hunting, but do you actually have 20ft of range in your house?  I mean you're carrying a semi auto with you to kill an attacker armed with what? an AK-47?
My house has a range of 50ft inside...

10th Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Constitution: Article 1, Section 8 wrote:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Constitution: Article 2, Section 2 wrote:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Constitution: Article 3, Section 2 wrote:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
I see nothing which delegates the running of Health Care programs to any branch of the Federal Government...
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|6003|Vacationland

nickb64 wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Where does it say he's not allowed to?

I'll conced you can use it for hunting, but do you actually have 20ft of range in your house?  I mean you're carrying a semi auto with you to kill an attacker armed with what? an AK-47?
My house has a range of 50ft inside...

10th Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Constitution: Article 1, Section 8 wrote:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;--And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Constitution: Article 2, Section 2 wrote:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

Constitution: Article 3, Section 2 wrote:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.
I see nothing which delegates the running of Health Care programs to any branch of the Federal Government...
Problem is the constitution was written well before the invention of anestesia, antibiotics, xrays, and the rise of HMOs.  When the founding fathers of the constitution were around bloodletting was still thought to be a viable treatment for just about anything, this actually possibly played a role in the death of George Washington when a Surgeon gave him a bloodletting for common pnemonia.  A vaccine for smallpox had just been invented.  None of the major operations that exist today which cost tens of thousands, so thus no need to have any healthcare at all. You are honestly gonna base you accusation of unconstitutionality on a document written 200 years ago, before the development of modern medicine?
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|6017|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Narupug wrote:

You are honestly gonna base you accusation of unconstitutionality on a document written 200 years ago, before the development of modern medicine?
Yes.

Government has no business in healthcare or anything else they are not delegated by the Constitution.

Last edited by nickb64 (2009-08-14 11:09:19)

Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7096|Tampa Bay Florida
nick, tell me, what health insurance plans existed at the time the constitution was written? 

Healthcare back then involved methods we would now consider pseudoscientific horse shit.  on a basic level.  Forget the fact that even the military back then was what we would consider today loosely organized groups of local militias. 

And lowing, I may be a bit younger than you but I do consider myself at least a little well read.  I was under the impression that fascism by its very nature included an incredibly high level of totalitarianism, al la Bush W. administration.  While Obama's goals may be ambitious, the Democrats in power now are trying very hard to create a bipartisan plan (because they dont have enough support, EVEN in their own party.  see - blue dogs).  If anything that is the opposite of fascism. 

I've got nothing against your opposition to anything but using the word fascism is to me very ironic since you turned a blind eye to anything remotely fascist during the Bush years (only because it was in the name of national security, important but healthcare is important as well).  Fascism and totalitarianism both need a high level of conformity and organization to work, and when the Democrats are anything but that I just cant take your words seriously.  Which is pretty common tho.  But not always.

Constitution : Article One, Section Nine wrote:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Guess who suspended the writ of habeas corpus?  And unless you say al Qaeda planned to either cause rebellion (because we know the US is full of muslim extremists on the verge of overthrowing the government) or invade (lmao) I call bullshit on both lowing and nick for their double standards regarding the use of the word fascism, at the very least.  I'd even call it doublethink.

wikipedia wrote:

Habeas Corpus is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.

Last edited by Spearhead (2009-08-14 11:12:36)

nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|6017|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

Spearhead wrote:

nick, tell me, what health insurance plans existed at the time the constitution was written? 

Healthcare back then involved methods we would now consider pseudoscientific horse shit.  on a basic level.  Forget the fact that even the military back then was what we would consider today loosely organized groups of local militias. 

And lowing, I may be a bit younger than you but I do consider myself at least a little well read.  I was under the impression that fascism by its very nature included an incredibly high level of totalitarianism, al la Bush W. administration.  While Obama's goals may be ambitious, the Democrats in power now are trying very hard to create a bipartisan plan (because they dont have enough support, EVEN in their own party.  see - blue dogs).  If anything that is the opposite of fascism. 

I've got nothing against your opposition to anything but using the word fascism is to me very ironic since you turned a blind eye to anything remotely fascist during the Bush years (only because it was in the name of national security, important but healthcare is important as well).  Fascism and totalitarianism both need a high level of conformity and organization to work, and when the Democrats are anything but that I just cant take your words seriously.  Which is pretty common tho.  But not always.

Constitution : Article One, Section Nine wrote:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Guess who suspended the writ of habeas corpus?  And unless you say al Qaeda planned to either cause rebellion (because we know the US is full of muslim extremists on the verge of overthrowing the government) or invade (lmao) I call bullshit on both lowing and nick for their double standards regarding the use of the word fascism, at the very least.  I'd even call it doublethink.

wikipedia wrote:

Habeas Corpus is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
I never said said fascism, the term I used is Statism... Show me one time where I said fascism...

I also never said that Health Insurance existed when the founders lived, but I said that government has no business in Healthcare...

The Constitution does not say he/the government has the job of providing healthare, therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, they do not.

10th Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|6003|Vacationland

nickb64 wrote:

Spearhead wrote:

nick, tell me, what health insurance plans existed at the time the constitution was written? 

Healthcare back then involved methods we would now consider pseudoscientific horse shit.  on a basic level.  Forget the fact that even the military back then was what we would consider today loosely organized groups of local militias. 

And lowing, I may be a bit younger than you but I do consider myself at least a little well read.  I was under the impression that fascism by its very nature included an incredibly high level of totalitarianism, al la Bush W. administration.  While Obama's goals may be ambitious, the Democrats in power now are trying very hard to create a bipartisan plan (because they dont have enough support, EVEN in their own party.  see - blue dogs).  If anything that is the opposite of fascism. 

I've got nothing against your opposition to anything but using the word fascism is to me very ironic since you turned a blind eye to anything remotely fascist during the Bush years (only because it was in the name of national security, important but healthcare is important as well).  Fascism and totalitarianism both need a high level of conformity and organization to work, and when the Democrats are anything but that I just cant take your words seriously.  Which is pretty common tho.  But not always.

Constitution : Article One, Section Nine wrote:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Guess who suspended the writ of habeas corpus?  And unless you say al Qaeda planned to either cause rebellion (because we know the US is full of muslim extremists on the verge of overthrowing the government) or invade (lmao) I call bullshit on both lowing and nick for their double standards regarding the use of the word fascism, at the very least.  I'd even call it doublethink.

wikipedia wrote:

Habeas Corpus is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
I never said said fascism, the term I used is Statism... Show me one time where I said fascism...

I also never said that Health Insurance existed when the founders lived, but I said that government has no business in Healthcare...

The Constitution does not say he/the government has the job of providing healthare, therefore, according to the 10th Amendment, they do not.

10th Amendment to the US Constitution wrote:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I didn't say it was in the constitution that it was their job I simply said that it is not against, orignially said inside, the constitution.
Spearhead
Gulf coast redneck hippy
+731|7096|Tampa Bay Florida
well I take it back then nick.  I havent read through all 5 pages.  sorry about that.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7058|USA

Nariko wrote:

lowing wrote:

Nariko wrote:


He fits the definition in your head, but as you well know what is a truth you is not necessarily a truth to me.  Also I think you've mentioned a little thing called life liberty and pursuit of happiness, you'll have to tell me how denying people health care because they don't have insurance does not violate those 3 unalienable rights?
No actually he fits the definition as it is written. remember the only thing you could nit pick is the term nationalism. Well I contend he is using nationalism as part of his propaganda pitch to get his govt. control bullshit to me more palatable to the people. "It is the neighborly thing to do", and we should do it out of "fairness".


Who said anything about denying people health care? NOT being responsible for providing health care is Way different than DENYING it. I do hope you can at least see that. 

Yes I did mention the PURSUIT of life liberty and happiness. It does not guarantee your right to achieve it. It guarantees your right to pursue it. You kinda left out the pursuit part, was that interpose or does your govt. entitlement know any bounds?
I only nit picked the nationalism because if I deny ed any of the other twisted lies you spewed I would simply be rebuffed with a "but IT IS TRUE" then we would be arguing over a yes or no question. 
It appears lowing that you did not take the time to look up the text of the Declaration of Independence, that or the copy you looked at ears slightly modified Twp fit your conservative aims. 

Declaration of Independence wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm
Well I am sorry if the truth of the matter is so inconvenient for you but none the less it is still truth, by definition. I even broke it down and showed how it is the truth

Look stop with the desperate attempt at Miss-direction already, you know what the argument is. and the key word that you left out of your argument is pursuit. It does not say guarantee
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7058|USA

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Why are people arguing with someone who tells himself at night and legitimately believes Obama is a fascist?

Really.
then I will ask you young troll, what part of


fas⋅cism  /ˈfæʃɪzəm/  Show Spelled Pronunciation [fash-iz-uhm]  Show IPA
Use fascism in a Sentence
–noun 1. (sometimes initial capital letter) a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.


Does Obama not fit?

He was elected, so was Hitler (for all of you who want to compare)

He wants complete power to the govt. Sorry this is  not debatable since he is actively trying to put govt control in private enterprise

he wishes to forcibly suppress opposition and criticism, see the "fairness doctrine"

he is well on his way to the regimenting of industry and commerce, see the auto industry.

He is using nationalism and racism to do so. Already talked about nationalism and his racism has long been apparent with his relationship with Wright and now views of the police department when a black guy is arrested.
The troll of all trolls is calling me a troll? I'm honored.

Since you love to use definitions straight from the dictionary:

http://www.answers.com/fascist

Definition: authoritarian
Antonyms: democrat, liberal

although I'm waiting for you to find some way to write it off...

The door's that way, old troll.

This is exactly why I said arguing with someone who actually truly tells himself and believes Obama (or really anyone in government, republican, democrat, whoever) is a fascist is, on the whole, pretty pointless. They've clearly convinced themselves otherwise and do not think rationally.

But we already knew that didn't we...
I do not ( for the most part troll) I contribute to every thread I post in without ( for the most part) belittling, or personally attack people. I only go after their posts. I think I have a low mod action ratio to kinda prove it.

Anyway, I am kinda confused, in your own link you post the word fascist then give the definition as authoritarian then provide the antonyms as democrat and liberal. I am wondering if you are trying to prove me right or wrong. As it is you are proving me right.


I do not need to convince myself of anything, it is in spades already with no imagination required. What Obama is doing is decribed in the definition of fascism. and like I said earlier, I even broke down the definition and pinned it exactly to what Obama is doing, has done or is trying to do.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7058|USA

Spearhead wrote:

nick, tell me, what health insurance plans existed at the time the constitution was written? 

Healthcare back then involved methods we would now consider pseudoscientific horse shit.  on a basic level.  Forget the fact that even the military back then was what we would consider today loosely organized groups of local militias. 

And lowing, I may be a bit younger than you but I do consider myself at least a little well read.  I was under the impression that fascism by its very nature included an incredibly high level of totalitarianism, al la Bush W. administration.  While Obama's goals may be ambitious, the Democrats in power now are trying very hard to create a bipartisan plan (because they dont have enough support, EVEN in their own party.  see - blue dogs).  If anything that is the opposite of fascism. 

I've got nothing against your opposition to anything but using the word fascism is to me very ironic since you turned a blind eye to anything remotely fascist during the Bush years (only because it was in the name of national security, important but healthcare is important as well).  Fascism and totalitarianism both need a high level of conformity and organization to work, and when the Democrats are anything but that I just cant take your words seriously.  Which is pretty common tho.  But not always.

Constitution : Article One, Section Nine wrote:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.
Guess who suspended the writ of habeas corpus?  And unless you say al Qaeda planned to either cause rebellion (because we know the US is full of muslim extremists on the verge of overthrowing the government) or invade (lmao) I call bullshit on both lowing and nick for their double standards regarding the use of the word fascism, at the very least.  I'd even call it doublethink.

wikipedia wrote:

Habeas Corpus is a legal action, or writ, through which a person can seek relief from the unlawful detention of him or herself, or of another person. It protects the individual from harming him or herself, or from being harmed by the judicial system. Of English origin, the writ of habeas corpus has historically been an important instrument for the safeguarding of individual freedom against arbitrary state action.
Bush had checks and balances in place. Obama has little if at all. He is running amuk and He has the media in his hip pocket. For to expose him now , would mean the media would have to admit a mistake. 


You are correct, during a time of war, special circumstances calls for special measures. I have no problem with the US govt. spying on questionable and potential terror groups in the US. To catch a rat sometimes you need to get dirty.


Again I am sorry the definition of fascism, which I already proved fits Obamas actions, is not appetizing to the Obama fans, but it does fit his agenda
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6852|The Land of Scott Walker

Narupug wrote:

... the modest propostion of getting all the guns off the market that are acutely dangerous and have little use other then to kill people.  You're gonna go hunting with an AR-15?  Your excuse about self defense is useless, is it not overkill to defend your house with a semi-auto?  Why not just place machine gun bunkers in all the windows?  I disagree with you in all other areas too, but here are two main ones, have fun.
Fully automatic weapons are already restricted to those who have been approved for a license and paid the fee to use it.  We have no need to restrict any other weapons from law abiding citizens of the US.  Guns can be used to kill people if needed, but they have many other uses including shooting sports and hunting.  Dangerous?  Only if you don't know what you're doing.  Hunt with an AR-15?  You bet.  Overkill to defend my house with a semi-auto?  Not really.  I wouldn't use an AR inside the home, but a shotgun or pistol are quite often semi-auto.
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|6003|Vacationland

Stingray24 wrote:

Narupug wrote:

... the modest propostion of getting all the guns off the market that are acutely dangerous and have little use other then to kill people.  You're gonna go hunting with an AR-15?  Your excuse about self defense is useless, is it not overkill to defend your house with a semi-auto?  Why not just place machine gun bunkers in all the windows?  I disagree with you in all other areas too, but here are two main ones, have fun.
Fully automatic weapons are already restricted to those who have been approved for a license and paid the fee to use it.  We have no need to restrict any other weapons from law abiding citizens of the US.  Guns can be used to kill people if needed, but they have many other uses including shooting sports and hunting.  Dangerous?  Only if you don't know what you're doing.  Hunt with an AR-15?  You bet.  Overkill to defend my house with a semi-auto?  Not really.  I wouldn't use an AR inside the home, but a shotgun or pistol are quite often semi-auto.
Ok I conceed about AR-15s okay?  But some of these small automatics like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-DC9 are quite useless for hunting, some are already banned but their are still some others out their that are of questionable intent.  You're gonna run up to a deer and pop it from 10 ft away?

Last edited by Narupug (2009-08-14 18:28:28)

Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6944|Long Island, New York

lowing wrote:

I do not need to convince myself of anything, it is in spades already with no imagination required. What Obama is doing is decribed in the definition of fascism. and like I said earlier, I even broke down the definition and pinned it exactly to what Obama is doing, has done or is trying to do.
Yeah, I know, he has total control over everything, there's no oversight and no checks and balances in place to stop him from taking over your good ol' faux conservative murrrika! It's just horrible.

I also see you don't know the meaning of antonym, awesome!
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6852|The Land of Scott Walker

Narupug wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Narupug wrote:

... the modest propostion of getting all the guns off the market that are acutely dangerous and have little use other then to kill people.  You're gonna go hunting with an AR-15?  Your excuse about self defense is useless, is it not overkill to defend your house with a semi-auto?  Why not just place machine gun bunkers in all the windows?  I disagree with you in all other areas too, but here are two main ones, have fun.
Fully automatic weapons are already restricted to those who have been approved for a license and paid the fee to use it.  We have no need to restrict any other weapons from law abiding citizens of the US.  Guns can be used to kill people if needed, but they have many other uses including shooting sports and hunting.  Dangerous?  Only if you don't know what you're doing.  Hunt with an AR-15?  You bet.  Overkill to defend my house with a semi-auto?  Not really.  I wouldn't use an AR inside the home, but a shotgun or pistol are quite often semi-auto.
Ok I conceed about AR-15s okay?  But some of these small automatics like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-DC9 are quite useless for hunting, some are already banned but their are still some others out their that are of questionable intent.  You're gonna run up to a deer and pop it from 10 ft away?
You're quite right, 9mm anything is not a hunting weapons.  Besides collectors, I don't think many law abiding citizens have any interest in a TEC-9.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6852|The Land of Scott Walker

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not need to convince myself of anything, it is in spades already with no imagination required. What Obama is doing is decribed in the definition of fascism. and like I said earlier, I even broke down the definition and pinned it exactly to what Obama is doing, has done or is trying to do.
Yeah, I know, he has total control over everything, there's no oversight and no checks and balances in place to stop him from taking over your good ol' faux conservative murrrika! It's just horrible.
Given Obama's party has control of the legislature, the supreme court is about the only thing in his way.
Narupug
Fodder Mostly
+150|6003|Vacationland

Stingray24 wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:


Fully automatic weapons are already restricted to those who have been approved for a license and paid the fee to use it.  We have no need to restrict any other weapons from law abiding citizens of the US.  Guns can be used to kill people if needed, but they have many other uses including shooting sports and hunting.  Dangerous?  Only if you don't know what you're doing.  Hunt with an AR-15?  You bet.  Overkill to defend my house with a semi-auto?  Not really.  I wouldn't use an AR inside the home, but a shotgun or pistol are quite often semi-auto.
Ok I conceed about AR-15s okay?  But some of these small automatics like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-DC9 are quite useless for hunting, some are already banned but their are still some others out their that are of questionable intent.  You're gonna run up to a deer and pop it from 10 ft away?
You're quite right, 9mm anything is not a hunting weapons.  Besides collectors, I don't think many law abiding citizens have any interest in a TEC-9.
So do we agree that things like that should be banned?
inb4attackofthelowing
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6852|The Land of Scott Walker
Full auto is already banned without the proper license.  The semi-auto versions are probably less accurate than a handgun and fire at the same rate.  Really don't see any reason to ban them.  If it's to keep them out of criminal hands that's kind of silly ... criminals don't follow laws in the first place.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7058|USA

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not need to convince myself of anything, it is in spades already with no imagination required. What Obama is doing is described in the definition of fascism. and like I said earlier, I even broke down the definition and pinned it exactly to what Obama is doing, has done or is trying to do.
Yeah, I know, he has total control over everything, there's no oversight and no checks and balances in place to stop him from taking over your good ol' faux conservative murrrika! It's just horrible.

I also see you don't know the meaning of antonym, awesome!
Use over exaggerated sarcasm if you wish, it is really all you have, since yo do not have the definition on your side

and you got me, a said antonym but was thinking synonym. Sorry 'bout that. Regardless, Obama is a liberal who has gone so far to the extreme he has become a fascist. Even your own link has a section in it where it concedes far extreme leftists can also be fascist.
lowing
Banned
+1,662|7058|USA

Narupug wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:

Narupug wrote:


Ok I conceed about AR-15s okay?  But some of these small automatics like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-DC9 are quite useless for hunting, some are already banned but their are still some others out their that are of questionable intent.  You're gonna run up to a deer and pop it from 10 ft away?
You're quite right, 9mm anything is not a hunting weapons.  Besides collectors, I don't think many law abiding citizens have any interest in a TEC-9.
So do we agree that things like that should be banned?
inb4attackofthelowing
I do not agree, just because not many people want one does not mean they shouldn't be able to get one if they so choose.
Poseidon
Fudgepack DeQueef
+3,253|6944|Long Island, New York

lowing wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

lowing wrote:

I do not need to convince myself of anything, it is in spades already with no imagination required. What Obama is doing is described in the definition of fascism. and like I said earlier, I even broke down the definition and pinned it exactly to what Obama is doing, has done or is trying to do.
Yeah, I know, he has total control over everything, there's no oversight and no checks and balances in place to stop him from taking over your good ol' faux conservative murrrika! It's just horrible.

I also see you don't know the meaning of antonym, awesome!
Use over exaggerated sarcasm if you wish, it is really all you have, since yo do not have the definition on your side

and you got me, a said antonym but was thinking synonym. Sorry 'bout that. Regardless, Obama is a liberal who has gone so far to the extreme he has become a fascist. Even your own link has a section in it where it concedes far extreme leftists can also be fascist.
Clearly neither do you. But I knew you'd try to squirm your way out of it, just like you always do.

And you say right there he's a liberal, which according to the dictionary is an antonym of fascist! The dictionary knows all, isn't that right lowing?
nickb64
formerly from OC (it's EXACTLY like on tv)[truth]
+77|6017|Greatest Nation on Earth(USA)

lowing wrote:

Narupug wrote:

Stingray24 wrote:


You're quite right, 9mm anything is not a hunting weapons.  Besides collectors, I don't think many law abiding citizens have any interest in a TEC-9.
So do we agree that things like that should be banned?
inb4attackofthelowing
I do not agree, just because not many people want one does not mean they shouldn't be able to get one if they so choose.
I have to say, I agree with lowing...

Law abiding citizens are not the problem:

Study by John Lott/David Mustard of University of Chicago(1997 Journal of Legal Studies) studied impact of Right to Carry Concealed Handgun Laws on Crime rate between 1977 and 1992: Reduced murder 8.5%, reduced rape 5%, and reduced severe assaults 7%. During that time, if right to carry had been common in US, there would have been 1,600 less murders, 4,200 less rapes, and 60,000 less severe assaults.

Vermont 1980(most freedom to carry concealed weapons): murder rate: 22% of National Avg., robbery rate: 15% of National Avg.

Trained Concealed Carry Permit Holders shoot innocents in error 1/3 as many times as Police annually.

Effect of "Shall Issue" Concealed Handgun laws in US: multi-victim public shootings down 84%, death in said shootings down 90%, injury in said shootings down 82%

Dade County, Florida created a tracking system to track the frequency of crimes committed by their 21,000 Concealed Weapon Permit Holders in 1987, between then and 1992, 4 crimes were committed by permit holders, none involving injuries, no innocents were harmed by a permit holder. The program was abandoned in 1992 because there were too few crimes to render it useful. The entire state of Florida recorded a total of 18 crimes by permit holders between 1987 and 1994. As of 1998, there was one incident when a permit holder shot someone after a traffic accident, but the shooter was determined to be acting is self defense. As of 1998, no permit holder had shot a police officer, while there were several cases of permit holders saving the life of an officer.

The Supreme Court and various lower courts have held that "police are not obligated to protect individuals from crime".

I can email all sources to anyone who wishes to dispute this information. (I did a research paper on the topic of Gun Control)

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard