Topic: Obama tells man questioning him about high gas prices: Buy a new car

[Alphabet Soup]

You're in Canada?

Google Alberta and you  tell me 

I did and google told me that you were an asshole.

I vote burn him.

[John Florida]

You're in Canada?

Google Alberta and you  tell me 

I did and google told me that you were an a-hole.

I vote burn him.

 Why? you got something better to do. He's sitting there reading and not posting. He might be out of gas.Loosen up and let him exchange his ideas and see where it goes. He can't really defend his countrys tax system so I don't get why he would defend Bambi.

[IronDioPriest]

Ahhhh, missed the Canuck bit... Dumbphone, tiny screen, no time....

Anyhoo, I've no mind to pat Canadian Leftists on the head either. Leftists waste time.

[Scrollbar]

Scrollbar, let me make something clear to you moving forward.

This is a conservative website for conservatives. Most of us have been heavily involved for years in the "free exchange of ideas with people like you. Most of us have determined that among your ideological comrades, there is no genuine discussion to be had, and that the attempt is all but worthless.

You're welcome to stay for now. Just know that any defense of Leftism or Leftists is viewed here as defending that which is indefensible, and will be treated as such.

I for one have determined that exchanging ideas with Leftists is an utterly worthless endeavor, unless the discussion is your unconditional surrender to the constitution and the restoration of the republic.

We're patriotic americans, or, what you and your ilk refer to as "right wing extremists".

We have nothing to discuss.

This post bothers me for a few reasons, but I'll start with the 1st  one, and that's the blanket broad brush comparison of liberals and left thinkers. We aren't all alike, just as I don't think all conservatives are the same.

Two. I enjoy the position of defending the ... and to quote you... "indefensible".  I welcome opposing view points, this is why I joined this forum. Going to a liberal site where I can sit there and agree with people all day is a boring idea to me. Also the  notion that left views are indefensible is a tad arrogant, and completely your point of view. Not factual.

Three. The constitution. The US constitution is an amazing document, and I think most-if not all-free countries in the world owe some sort of their freedoms to it. It's a a great document that inspired others like it. It's also important to divorce the idea of the constitution from certain conversations, as the two are mutually exclusive. A lot of modern day issues can't be solved by the constitution because they're problems that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have envisioned. This is why  it has amendments.

Fourthly, your strawman at the end of your post where you say patriotic Americans are "right wing extremists" in the eyes of my... "ilk". What you're saying here, by extension, is that patriotic Americans are right wingers, ipso facto, left wingers are NOT patriotic. This is a strawman and insulting. I'm sure you can find tens of thousands of soldiers in the US army who are liberal and putting their lives on the line for their country. Perhaps you could ask them how patriotic they are?
If you aren't interested in engaging me in enlightened and honest debate that's fine, it's your decision.
 

Why? you got something better to do. He's sitting there reading and not posting. He might be out of gas.Loosen up and let him exchange his ideas and see where it goes. He can't really defend his countrys tax system so I don't get why he would defend Bambi.

I can't respond to every post here... I am in the vast minority. If I tried to keep up with every zinger directed at me I'd have to quit my job and live on my socialist paradise wellfare!

[radioman]

socialist paradise wellfare!

There you go!! That's all you need to know about scrollbar. I think he could have included marxist in there somehow tho'.

[John Florida]

I can't respond to every post here... I am in the vast minority. If I tried to keep up with every zinger directed at me I'd have to quit my job and live on my socialist paradise wellfare!

 Why do you care what goes on down here don't you have enough problems there to keep you occupied?Why deal with our mess when you have a beauty right there at home. No blogs in Canada?

[Scrollbar]

socialist paradise wellfare!

There you go!! That's all you need to know about scrollbar. I think he could have included marxist in there somehow tho'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcasm

Why do you care what goes on down here don't you have enough problems there to keep you occupied?Why deal with our mess when you have a beauty right there at home. No blogs in Canada?

Thankfully I'm not in charge of the economic recovery, so I'm free to spend my time online as I please. Also, Canada's economy is in much better condition. Partly, if not largely, due to our banking industry having much tougher regulations... preventing our bankers from turning the stock market into a mob casino

[Pandora]

A lot of modern day issues can't be solved by the constitution because they're problems that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have envisioned. This is why  it has amendments.

Wrong.  That's the left's problem - the beginning and end of it - in a nutshell.

The Constitution was written based on certain eternal Principles, therefore, it was not intended to solve, nor address, every issue nor all issues.  It was written to contain, restrain and direct the Federal government, not the people, period.  The Founders were genius incarnate and knew their own failings; that they were no doubt aware not everything could have been foreseen, they left a mechanism to address such, which has been misused, as well, in the Prohibition Amendment, and then rectified.

The Federal government has eighteen (18) duties and responsibilities as authorized by the Document and the people.

Other issues and problems were rightfully left to the States and the people to solve as befits them, not the Feds.

[Scrollbar]

A lot of modern day issues can't be solved by the constitution because they're problems that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have envisioned. This is why  it has amendments.

Wrong.  That's the left's problem - the beginning and end of it - in a nutshell.

The Constitution was written based on certain eternal Principles, therefore, it was not intended to solve, nor address, every issue nor all issues.  It was written to contain, restrain and direct the Federal government, not the people, period.  The Founders were genius incarnate and knew their own failings; that they were no doubt aware not everything could have been foreseen, they left a mechanism to address such, which has been misused, as well, in the Prohibition Amendment, and then rectified.

The Federal government has eighteen (18) duties and responsibilities as authorized by the Document and the people.

Other issues and problems were rightfully left to the States and the people to solve as befits them, not the Feds.

Keep in mind my comment about the constitution was directed as a response to someone else saying leftists need to "surrender...?" to it. Or surrender to the whim ... of those who think they know the constitution better? Anyways.

The constitution is there not only to limit government, but to guarantee certain liberties. As great as this document was I'll give you an example of where you are incorrect, pandora. The constitution had to be amended to free african americans and recognize them as people. Seems like a pretty important piece that the founders got wrong and history needed to correct. Wouldn't you agree?

[Alphabet Soup]

Oh dear Lord...

[IronDioPriest]

Been here; done this.

[radioman]

The constitution had to be amended to free african americans and recognize them as people. Seems like a pretty important piece that the founders got wrong and history needed to correct. Wouldn't you agree?

Oh dear Lord is Right!!

So what scrollbar is saying that since we amended the constitution regarding the slave issue,
then the constitution is supposed to serve up every want(on) desire of all leftists marxists socialists to create a "socialist paradise welfare".

Got it!!

I don't know why they didn't teach that back in my political science class??

[Pandora]

A lot of modern day issues can't be solved by the constitution because they're problems that the founding fathers couldn't possibly have envisioned. This is why  it has amendments.

Wrong.  That's the left's problem - the beginning and end of it - in a nutshell.

The Constitution was written based on certain eternal Principles, therefore, it was not intended to solve, nor address, every issue nor all issues.  It was written to contain, restrain and direct the Federal government, not the people, period.  The Founders were genius incarnate and knew their own failings; that they were no doubt aware not everything could have been foreseen, they left a mechanism to address such, which has been misused, as well, in the Prohibition Amendment, and then rectified.

The Federal government has eighteen (18) duties and responsibilities as authorized by the Document and the people.

Other issues and problems were rightfully left to the States and the people to solve as befits them, not the Feds.

Keep in mind my comment about the constitution was directed as a response to someone else saying leftists need to "surrender...?" to it. Or surrender to the whim ... of those who think they know the constitution better? Anyways.

The constitution is there not only to limit government, but to guarantee certain liberties. As great as this document was I'll give you an example of where you are incorrect, pandora. The constitution had to be amended to free african americans and recognize them as people. Seems like a pretty important piece that the founders got wrong and history needed to correct. Wouldn't you agree?

I know to whom your comment was directed, however, as this is an open discussion site, I added my contribution.  And, yes, it's surrender to the document as written - by ceding the desire for control over other free individuals by using the government - not as some sort of "living document".

The Constitution enshrines and guarantees "certain liberties" by limiting the Federal government's ability to dink around with them - at least as it was written and the signers ascertained in voluminous writings, and The Bill of Rights does not list all rights, as is clearly stated.  The Amendment freeing the slaves was a further limit on government.

I would imagine a Canadian would not be as well-versed in The US Constitution as a US citizen who has remained loyal to it, and can read and interpret plain English, so inserting slavery as some sort of appeal moral authority is a FAIL.

[Pandora]

Been here; done this.

As we all have.  Don't tell me you don't need any more practice, however. 

[Alphabet Soup]

Been here; done this.

As we all have.  Don't tell me you don't need any more practice, however.  

I have (had) an inside kitty and an outside kitty. I was obliged from time to time to toss a ball of yarn or some other toy for the kitty in order to give it an outlet for it's natural stalking tendencies. The outside kitty deals with denizens of the dark on a regular basis. She needs no practice.

See where I'm headed?


edit: altard proofed

[Pandora]

Been here; done this.

As we all have.  Don't tell me you don't need any more practice, however.  

I have (had) an inside kitty and an outside kitty. I was obliged from time to time to toss a ball of yarn or some other toy for the kitty in order to give it an outlet for it's natural stalking tendencies. The outside kitty deals with denizens of the dark on a regular basis. She needs no practice.

See where I'm headed?


edit: altard proofed

Copy that.

[Scrollbar]

The Constitution enshrines and guarantees "certain liberties" by limiting the Federal government's ability to dink around with them - at least as it was written and the signers ascertained in voluminous writings, and The Bill of Rights does not list all rights, as is clearly stated.  The Amendment freeing the slaves was a further limit on government.

I would imagine a Canadian would not be as well-versed in The US Constitution as a US citizen who has remained loyal to it, and can read and interpret plain English, so inserting slavery as some sort of appeal moral authority is a FAIL.

Freeing slaves was... a limitation on government? Bollocks. It was extending rights to a group of people who didn't have rights to take away.

[Pandora]

The Constitution enshrines and guarantees "certain liberties" by limiting the Federal government's ability to dink around with them - at least as it was written and the signers ascertained in voluminous writings, and The Bill of Rights does not list all rights, as is clearly stated.  The Amendment freeing the slaves was a further limit on government.

I would imagine a Canadian would not be as well-versed in The US Constitution as a US citizen who has remained loyal to it, and can read and interpret plain English, so inserting slavery as some sort of appeal moral authority is a FAIL.

Freeing slaves was... a limitation on government? Bollocks. It was extending rights to a group of people who didn't have rights to take away.

Don't you presume to lecture me about American history.  It was guaranteeing Constitutional rights by limiting the power of Government to infringe.

[Scrollbar]

The Constitution enshrines and guarantees "certain liberties" by limiting the Federal government's ability to dink around with them - at least as it was written and the signers ascertained in voluminous writings, and The Bill of Rights does not list all rights, as is clearly stated.  The Amendment freeing the slaves was a further limit on government.

I would imagine a Canadian would not be as well-versed in The US Constitution as a US citizen who has remained loyal to it, and can read and interpret plain English, so inserting slavery as some sort of appeal moral authority is a FAIL.

Freeing slaves was... a limitation on government? Bollocks. It was extending rights to a group of people who didn't have rights to take away.

Don't you presume to lecture me about American history.  It was guaranteeing Constitutional rights by limiting the power of Government to infringe.

The level of semantics your reaching here is quite fantastic. What you're saying is, in effect, the constitution can't give anything, it only limits the government from taking things away. I get it. According to you the constitution didn't GIVE african americans, it stopped the government from denying them those rights.

I got news for your my American friends, there's no difference between the two in practice. It's only in theory and in argument is there any difference. Pure semantics.

[charlesoakwood]

Hey scrollbar, here ya go

Ramble On - Led Zeppelin