Obama's Free Bus Rides

[DC Tom]

He's treasonous because he is knowingly endangering citizens he has sworn to protect. He is deliberately causing chaos Tom. I believe he will stop at nothing to collapse the country so his ilk can "transform" it into a socialist utopia he desires. Evil, evil man. imho.

 

That's not treason.

 

And he never swore to protect citizens.

[Dante]

That's not treason.

 

And he never swore to protect citizens.

He swore to uphold the Constitution and within that he is obligated to protect states against invasion. I interpret that as protecting citizens. He is deliberately promoting, then aiding the lowest of the low to come here to burden the system and cause instability. And of course, a fortunate(from Barry's perspective) by-product of this is that all or them will become loyal democrats and help the leftists gradually take away our freedoms. Edited June 25, 2014 by Dante

[TakeYouToTasker]

He swore to uphold the Constitution and within that he is obligated to protect states against invasion. I interpret that as protecting citizens. He is deliberately promoting, then aiding the lowest of the low to come here to burden the system and cause instability. And of course, a fortunate(from Barry's perspective) by-product of this is that all or them will become loyal democrats and help the leftists gradually take away our freedoms.

Interesting that you're use a leftist interpretation of Constitutional duties to attack leftists.

 

Seems nonsensical to me.

Edited June 25, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[DC Tom]

He swore to uphold the Constitution and within that he is obligated to protect states against invasion. I interpret that as protecting citizens. He is deliberately promoting, then aiding the lowest of the low to come here to burden the system and cause instability. And of course, a fortunate(from Barry's perspective) by-product of this is that all or them will become loyal democrats and help the leftists gradually take away our freedoms.

 

What in the Constitution supports your interpretation.

 

 

I don't entirely disagree with your judgement of Obama's motives (though I think it's simply the more prosaic desire to increase Democratic voter rolls in the Southwest). But you're being a histrionic little B word about it.

[Dante]

What in the Constitution supports your interpretation.

 

 

I don't entirely disagree with your judgement of Obama's motives (though I think it's simply the more prosaic desire to increase Democratic voter rolls in the Southwest). But you're being a histrionic little B word about it.

I'm thinking this. Although it doesn't mention borders specifically I think it kind of encompasses it.

I don't know. I could be a little B word I won't argue that.

Section 4, Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm thinking this. Although it doesn't mention borders specifically I think it kind of encompasses it.

I don't know. I could be a little B word I won't argue that.

 

Section 4, Article 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which states:The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

An invasion, as outlined in our Constitution, is defined as a military incursion for conquest or plunder. The armies of Mexico, Guatamala, etc. are not breaching our borders. Further, you'll note, that when the Constitution was written, there was an absolute open border policy.

 

The argument you're making hinges on a liberal reinterpretation of the Document to mean something other than what the Founder's intended. Either that, or you're insisting that James Madison intended to insulate locals from Cape Cod's annual summer tourist invasion.

[IDBillzFan]

I don't entirely disagree with your judgement of Obama's motives (though I think it's simply the more prosaic desire to increase Democratic voter rolls in the Southwest). But you're being a histrionic little B word about it.

 

There was a time when even I thought crazy those who would argue Obama's intent is to break the system to provide greater power to the government through greater government dependence by the broken.

 

Not any more. Forgive the repetition, but every time I hear about his office sending out invites to immigrants for a free ride...swapping traitors for grade A terrorists...leaving the Middle East as a prime ground for attacking the US again...passing his own laws at the podium...spending money we don't have...using the IRS to target and quiet opposition...it feels a little like scenes out of Demolition Man.

 

It's impossible for any thinking person to argue at this point that Obama has the nation's best interests in mind with his actions.

Edited June 25, 2014 by LABillzFan

[DC Tom]

It's impossible for any thinking person to argue at this point that Obama has the nation's best interests in mind with his actions.

 

I never thought he had the nation's best interests at heart. It's his interests (his "legacy"), then the party's.

 

And I honestly believe his notion of his "legacy" is strictly limited to how he views himself. I don't think he recognizes that others have valid opinions, particularly if they disagree with him.

[IDBillzFan]

I never thought he had the nation's best interests at heart. It's his interests (his "legacy"), then the party's.

 

And I honestly believe his notion of his "legacy" is strictly limited to how he views himself. I don't think he recognizes that others have valid opinions, particularly if they disagree with him.

 

Interestingly, beyond incompetency, his legacy seems destined at this point to be wrapped tightly in LGBT rights and, depending on how things go, the honey bee.

[Dante]

An invasion, as outlined in our Constitution, is defined as a military incursion for conquest or plunder. The armies of Mexico, Guatamala, etc. are not breaching our borders. Further, you'll note, that when the Constitution was written, there was an absolute open border policy.

 

The argument you're making hinges on a liberal reinterpretation of the Document to mean something other than what the Founder's intended. Either that, or you're insisting that James Madison intended to insulate locals from Cape Cod's annual summer tourist invasion.

I think what the founders intended was immigrants to come in and provide value. Again, I don't know this I'm only going by what makes sense and what I think they would have intended given what I know about them. I certainly don't think they would have wanted poor, ignorant souls that will immediately become wards of the state. That just doesn't mesh with what they were all about. That said I see this as an invasion albeit a non military one.. It's been provoked by Obama and his co conspirators and you can count some Rino republicans among them.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I think what the founders intended was immigrants to come in and provide value.

Hardly a position that one can take given historical realities.

 

Madison argued for unfettered immigration in Federalist 10, Thomas Paine did the same in his The Right's of Men, Jefferson echoed even stronger pro-immigration sentiments in his 1743-1826 Notes on the State of Virginia, and they were not alone.

 

Further, one of the very specific grievences laid forth against the English Crown in our Declaration of Independance shouts you down:

 

"prevent[ing] the population of these states" by "obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners" and "refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither."

 

Again, I don't know this I'm only going by what makes sense and what I think they would have intended given what I know about them.

Then you don't know anything about them. They founded a country that wouldn't have existed without unfetter immigration.

 

I certainly don't think they would have wanted poor, ignorant souls that will immediately become wards of the state. That just doesn't mesh with what they were all about.

Wards of the state, no, but that's where you should make your argument.

 

That said I see this as an invasion albeit a non military one.. It's been provoked by Obama and his co conspirators and you can count some Rino republicans among them.

Invasions, as outlined in our Constitution, are military incursions.

 

You can say otherwise as often as you'd like, but you'll still be wrong.

 

Now if you'd like to argue that the Founders were wrong, or that the Constitution requires amendment as it's intents are no longer applicable to the times, that's fine, but the course you're currently on is a non-starter.

Edited June 25, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[keepthefaith]

I never thought he had the nation's best interests at heart. It's his interests (his "legacy"), then the party's.

 

And I honestly believe his notion of his "legacy" is strictly limited to how he views himself. I don't think he recognizes that others have valid opinions, particularly if they disagree with him.

 

What's really disappointing is to see that those who painted him as a socialist like we've never seen in this country before his first election are turning out to be spot-on.

[Dante]

Hardly a position that one can take given historical realities.

 

Madison argued for unfettered immigration in Federalist 10, Thomas Paine did the same in his The Right's of Men, Jefferson echoed even stronger pro-immigration sentiments in his 1743-1826 Notes on the State of Virginia, and they were not alone.

 

Further, one of the very specific grievences laid forth against the English Crown in our Declaration of Independance shouts you down:

 

"prevent[ing] the population of these states" by "obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners" and "refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither."

 

 

Then you don't know anything about them. They founded a country that wouldn't have existed without unfetter immigration.

 

 

Wards of the state, no, but that's where you should make your argument.

 

 

Invasions, as outlined in our Constitution, are military incursions.

 

You can say otherwise as often as you'd like, but you'll still be wrong.

 

Now if you'd like to argue that the Founders were wrong, or that the Constitution requires amendment as it's intents are no longer applicable to the times, that's fine, but the course you're currently on is a non-starter.

I I appreciate and respect your points. But let me put this to you. Say a spy or insurgent enters from a foreign government. Tries to incite a revolt just by propaganda lets say by manipulating the press. Isn't he a danger to our country even though it's not a standing army? What if there were a bunch of these guys trying the same thing? Or someone stealing military info? Not an invasion as you referenced buy an aggressive action non the less. I guess we won't agree.

 

There was a time when even I thought crazy those who would argue Obama's intent is to break the system to provide greater power to the government through greater government dependence by the broken.

 

Not any more. Forgive the repetition, but every time I hear about his office sending out invites to immigrants for a free ride...swapping traitors for grade A terrorists...leaving the Middle East as a prime ground for attacking the US again...passing his own laws at the podium...spending money we don't have...using the IRS to target and quiet opposition...it feels a little like scenes out of Demolition Man.

 

It's impossible for any thinking person to argue at this point that Obama has the nation's best interests in mind with his actions.

What also worries me while all what you mentioned is going on, the definition of terrorist is also changing. If you look at the language the last couple months coming out of HIllary and Reids mouth they are redefining terrorist. According to Hillary everyone that believes in the 2nd ammendment are terrorizing Americans

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/19/hillary-those-second-amendment-supporters-are-terrorizing-everyone-or-something-n1853492

 

And of course Harry Reid calling everyone supporting Clive Bundy domestic terrorists.

In the mean time, every government agency is arming to the teeth. Every police force is being militarized acquiring heavy armor passed down from the military. The question is what for? Are they arming to fight us? Obama fast tracking us into civil discourse and at the same time everyone in the government is arming up? I'm not saying this is true but it sure makes me feel uncomfortable.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I I appreciate and respect your points. But let me put this to you. Say a spy or insurgent enters from a foreign government. Tries to incite a revolt just by propaganda lets say by manipulating the press. Isn't he a danger to our country even though it's not a standing army? What if there were a bunch of these guys trying the same thing? Or someone stealing military info? Not an invasion as you referenced buy an aggressive action non the less. I guess we won't agree.

 

What also worries me while all what you mentioned is going on, the definition of terrorist is also changing. If you look at the language the last couple months coming out of HIllary and Reids mouth they are redefining terrorist. According to Hillary everyone that believes in the 2nd ammendment are terrorizing Americans

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2014/06/19/hillary-those-second-amendment-supporters-are-terrorizing-everyone-or-something-n1853492

 

And of course Harry Reid calling everyone supporting Clive Bundy domestic terrorists.

In the mean time, every government agency is arming to the teeth. Every police force is being militarized acquiring heavy armor passed down from the military. The question is what for? Are they arming to fight us? Obama fast tracking us into civil discourse and at the same time everyone in the government is arming up? I'm not saying this is true but it sure makes me feel uncomfortable.

Mmmmm...

 

That's great and all, but stop using the Founders and the Constitution to make your argument, because they don't support it. At all.

 

[Chef Jim]

Mmmmm...

 

That's great and all, but stop using the Founders and the Constitution to make your argument, because they don't support it. At all.

 

 

Interesting. So you've talked to the Founders regarding this?

[TakeYouToTasker]

Interesting. So you've talked to the Founders regarding this?

Didn't have to. They opined very specifically on the issue. I've even provided you with the reading material relevant to the topic, including the Declaration of Independence, which a good deal of our Founders signed.

 

Stop introducing logical fallacies.

Edited June 26, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

Didn't have to. They opined very specifically on the issue. I've even provided you with the reading material relevant to the topic, including the Declaration of Independence, which a good deal of our Founders signed.

 

Stop introducing logical fallacies.

 

So what you're saying is the Founders would never adapt their thoughts to modern times? That's foolish.

[TakeYouToTasker]

So what you're saying is the Founders would never adapt their thoughts to modern times? That's foolish.

Hardly. I'm saying that anyone who says they can know what the Founders would have written in 2014 is a !@#$ing retard.

 

What's foolish is trying to divine, insinuate, or coopt what the "Founders would do", rather than simply amending their document, after acknowledging what they did do about what they did know.

 

Any other avenue is nothing more than an absolute authorization of the "living document" catastrophe, and a validation of everything our current document does.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

I'll, at least initially, leave it to you to figure out why.

Edited June 26, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker

[Dante]

Hardly. I'm saying that anyone who says they can know what the Founders would have written in 2014 is a !@#$ing retard.

 

What's foolish is trying to divine, insinuate, or coopt what the "Founders would do", rather than simply amending their document, after acknowledging what they did do about what they did know.

 

Any other avenue is nothing more than an absolute authorization of the "living document" catastrophe, and a validation of everything our current document does.

 

You can't have it both ways.

 

I'll, at least initially, leave it to you to figure out why.

No one can know for sure but can't we interpret or kind of assume by the spirit of the founders and Constitution? I mean they couldn't have for seen every situation. Like they couldn't have for seen our education system being infiltrated by leftists leading to our media being corrupted thus making it possible for a marxist to get elected. Now I know the founders didn't specifically account for this but can't we assume that they would be miffed? And by the way, I view the left wing infiltration of academia as a building block of a left wing coup. Which is pretty much what s happening at this point.

[Azalin]

Like they couldn't have for seen our education system being infiltrated by leftists leading to our media being corrupted thus making it possible for a marxist to get elected. Now I know the founders didn't specifically account for this but can't we assume that they would be miffed?

 

a bit of devil's advocate here - I believe they wouldn't even think of education in terms of a 'system', but rather as simply 'schools'; something local and not part of a massive public system. also, by the standards of the Brits, I believe the founders mostly considered themselves to be liberal, believing in strength of government coming from the people themselves, rather than from the top down.