• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama Voters -- Are you sorry?

Are You Sorry You Voted for Obama?

  • I voted for Obama and am very sorry.

    Votes: 1 2.0%

  • I voted for Obama and am worried.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I voted for Obama but not worried.

    Votes: 5 10.0%

  • I voted for Obama and am pleased with his actions.

    Votes: 16 32.0%

  • I voted against Obama and scared to death of his actions.

    Votes: 8 16.0%

  • I voted against Obama and am worried about his actions

    Votes: 5 10.0%

  • I voted against Obama but not worried about his actions.

    Votes: 2 4.0%

  • I voted against Obama but am pleased with his actions.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I did not vote but am afraid of his actions.

    Votes: 6 12.0%

  • I did not vote but am pleased with his actions.

    Votes: 7 14.0%
  • Total voters
    50
Harry Guerrilla said:
He signed the assault weapons ban which is clearly unconstitutional.

Politicians get away with anything they want as long as it's "legislation".
Click to expand...

Actually that was congress.

Last time I checked, not vetoing a law wasn't unconstitutional.
 
scourge99 said:
Actually that was congress.

Last time I checked, not vetoing a law wasn't unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

That's why I said signed.

Signing an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional.

tlmorg02 said:
The second ammendment only says the right to bear arms. It does not specify which type. Therefore, unless he banned all weapons, he is not in violation.
Click to expand...

The 1st amendment does not say which type of speech is acceptable therefor as long as they don't ban all speech it's ok.

See the flaw in your reasoning?
 
ronpaulvoter said:
After seeing the results of his actions, are you sorry you voted for Obama?
Click to expand...

I was scared of both the people (the ones my state allowed me to vote for)running for office,which is why I didn't vote for president in the last election.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That's why I said signed.

Signing an unconstitutional law is unconstitutional.



The 1st amendment does not say which type of speech is acceptable therefor as long as they don't ban all speech it's ok.

See the flaw in your reasoning?
Click to expand...

Is there not speech in this country that can be considered treasonous or dangerous to the public good? Is it legal to yell fire in a public place?
 
tlmorg02 said:
Is there not speech in this country that can be considered treasonous or dangerous to the public good? Is it legal to yell fire in a public place?
Click to expand...

It's not wrong, if no one gets hurt.

I don't care if anyone says anything that is considered treasonous.
Someone can talk all they want about killing a public official and I could care less.All those things are subjective, what one considers treason another does not.

Politicians say things all the time that are dangerous to the public good and they get a free pass.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's not wrong, if no one gets hurt.

I don't care if anyone says anything that is considered treasonous.
Someone can talk all they want about killing a public official and I could care less.All those things are subjective, what one considers treason another does not.

Politicians say things all the time that are dangerous to the public good and they get a free pass.
Click to expand...

I did not ask your opinion, I asked whether some forms of speech were illegal. It is a yes or no question.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A law banning a religion signed by the president is clearly unconstitutional.

Is it really necessary to wait for the courts?
Click to expand...

Even if it is obvious, why would it be unconstitutional for the president to sign it? Where in the constitution is that claim based?
 
scourge99 said:
its been 14 years and it still hasn't been ruled unconstitutional. Perhaps that is a hint that it may be constitutional.
Click to expand...

I think that The Constitution is pretty clear about what is and is not legal for the federal government to do. I don't have to wait for any court to rule on to make my decision.

Do remember that federal judges are appointed by politicians and they probably share many of their political ideologies which can carry over to their judicial decisions.
 
Hell No! I plan on doing it again:)
 
Kernel Sanders said:
Even if it is obvious, why would it be unconstitutional for the president to sign it? Where in the constitution is that claim based?
Click to expand...

Their oath of office, to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America.
It reads something like that. They swear on it in the presence of a judge, do you think it is just a ceremonial act?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I think that The Constitution is pretty clear about what is and is not legal for the federal government to do. I don't have to wait for any court to rule on to make my decision.

Do remember that federal judges are appointed by politicians and they probably share many of their political ideologies which can carry over to their judicial decisions.
Click to expand...
We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. That is, our representatives make decisions for us, that includes the appointment of supreme court justices who interpret the constitution for us. The mob doesn't get decide.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Their oath of office, to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America.
It reads something like that. They swear on it in the presence of a judge, do you think it is just a ceremonial act?
Click to expand...

And Clinton probably believed that the ban was constitutional.
 
scourge99 said:
We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. That is, our representatives make decisions for us, that includes the appointment of supreme court justices who interpret the constitution for us. The mob doesn't get decide.
Click to expand...

But they do get to decide.

The mob votes in representatives, the same people that reflect their general values and beliefs. The fact is we have democratic elections which is just as bad as a pure democracy itself.


scourge99 said:
And Clinton probably believed that the ban was constitutional.
Click to expand...

I'd love to hear his legal reasoning for that belief and he owes everyone a detailed explanation, especially if he is going to restrict something.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Their oath of office, to uphold The Constitution of the United States of America.
It reads something like that. They swear on it in the presence of a judge, do you think it is just a ceremonial act?
Click to expand...

I forgot the Oath of Office was a part of the constitution :doh
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
But they do get to decide.

The mob votes in representatives, the same people that reflect their general values and beliefs. The fact is we have democratic elections which is just as bad as a pure democracy itself.
Click to expand...

The point is that YOU don't get to decide what the constitution means. Only judges do. No matter how wrong you think they are.



I'd love to hear his legal reasoning for that belief and he owes everyone a detailed explanation, especially if he is going to restrict something.
Click to expand...
he's not required to so why would he?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Threatening violence is illegal, which is ludicrous because it hasn't been acted upon.
Click to expand...

Then Congress and/or local state governments have legislated against part of the 1st ammendment, have they not? They have not done away with free speech, only parts that may infringe on the rights of others.
 
scourge99 said:
The point is that YOU don't get to decide what the constitution means. Only judges do. No matter how wrong you think they are.
Click to expand...

There is nothing in The Constitution that says judges are the final deciders on what The Constitution actually means.

They didn't think that such a plainly explicit document would need so much scrutiny.

scourge99 said:
he's not required to so why would he?
Click to expand...

I mean he is taking something away, which is not based on any past legal precedent. What authority does he or congress have in doing so?

If they do have the authority and the reasons for doing so, it should be very simple.
 
Lakryte said:
Yes. I would prefer a President Palin over Obama.
Click to expand...

Hell, that's extremely worrying. And you enjoyed some thanks for it.

Looking from outside the 'goldfish bowl' Obama speaks from the same hymn sheet as a larger part of the world, unlike his predecessor. He has at least tried to 'include' rather than 'exclude' on many a contentious issue. Economically, you cannot portion blame for an inherited economy, not in meltdown, totally melted.....Pass judgement further down the line, rather than jumping in with two feet considering he has only just 'passed go'.

Paul
 
tlmorg02 said:
Then Congress and/or local state governments have legislated against part of the 1st ammendment, have they not? They have not done away with free speech, only parts that may infringe on the rights of others.
Click to expand...

They have and it doesn't make it right. One does not excuse the other.
What if they determine that speech regarding smaller government is treasonous?
Is that ok with you? What about speech against proposed programs, they can create an entire new definition for treason and it be legal.

How is saying something treasonous considered an infringement of another persons rights?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom