Originally posted by KidRock
I am saying it makes me worry when a politician can cut out pieces of the Bill of Rights.
Does that include "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense". Or is that okay if Bush and McCain want to cut that out?
Originally posted by KidRockBarack Obama has said that the Constitution does include an individual right to own a gun, and the Supreme Court agrees; it was the biggest development in 2nd Amendment interpretation since the late 19th century.
Well this is where the problem is. Some of Obama's thoughts and ideas seem to say otherwise
What else in the Bill of Rights does Obama allegedly want to change?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Does that include "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense". Or is that okay if Bush and McCain want to cut that out?
Were they Americans that had this right constricted?
Originally posted by Strangelove
Barack Obama has said that the Constitution does include an individual right to own a gun, and the Supreme Court agrees; it was the biggest development in 2nd Amendment interpretation since the late 19th century.What else in the Bill of Rights does Obama allegedly want to change?
He wants to change the Second..that alone makes me worry and if he is allowed to change it, it would open the door to others to change the rest.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That doesn't say it only applies to Americans.
Why would the Bill of Rights apply to citizens of other countries???
Originally posted by Strangelove
Your allegation is flimsy at best.
Ok Obama didn't support the DC gun ban, didn't support an Illinois handgun ban, doesnt want to ban the sale or transfer of all forms of semi-automatic weapons.
Have you read your own thread at all?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Snip of a finger is certainly overstated. But I assume it can be done easier than some other things. And it is quite nauseating.
I think I made this same point earlier...
Yes, I'd dissolve the very useless and problem making organization known as the DEA, legalize a plethora of drugs, and implement a regulation and taxation of drugs. (In no particular order, of course.)
I also watched Sicko. Mr. Moore, as usual, makes some great points in his semimentaries*. It was, at times, very easy to see where he was stretching it or very illogically using anedotes to prove a point.
Watch "Michael Moore Hates America". I'm much more inclined to believe the content of that movie than I am in any film Michael Moore made. Am I wrong?
*This word is something I made up just now. It is "semi-documentary". Mix in some truth, real facts, and truthy footage with some lies, false progoganda, illogic, and hyperbole and you have a Michael Moore film.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I made this same point earlier...
YEAH YOU MADE EVERY POINT EARLIER, HAVEN'T YOU?
I'm jesting, of course.
Originally posted by dadudemonI can understand trusting things that say bad stuff about Michael Moore, he seems like a dishonest *******. Nonetheless, as you say he does have a good point at times, it's just...well...so dishonest.
Yes, I'd dissolve the very useless and problem making organization known as the DEA, legalize a plethora of drugs, and implement a regulation and taxation of drugs. (In no particular order, of course.)I also watched Sicko. Mr. Moore, as usual, makes some great points in his semimentaries*. It was, at times, very easy to see where he was stretching it or very illogically using anedotes to prove a point.
Watch "Michael Moore Hates America". I'm much more inclined to believe the content of that movie than I am in any film Michael Moore made. Am I wrong?
*This word is something I made up just now. It is "semi-documentary". Mix in some truth, real facts, and truthy footage with some lies, false progoganda, illogic, and hyperbole and you have a Michael Moore film.
Oh, also, I think you should get a woscar. It's a word I just made up, it's like an Oscar for Wankers.
Originally posted by Bardock42
YEAH YOU MADE EVERY POINT EARLIER, HAVEN'T YOU?I'm jesting, of course.
PARROT! argue
Originally posted by Bardock42
I can understand trusting things that say bad stuff about Michael Moore, he seems like a dishonest *******. Nonetheless, as you say he does have a good point at times, it's just...well...so dishonest.
Indeed. When you can go down a "documentary's" facts and arguing points and go:
True
False
True
False
Staw Man
etc.
When does it stop being a documentary? (BTW, people have done that to his films. Even people interviewed in his films get pissed with the way he edits, cuts, and rearranges the content. There's several followup interviews with those people, too.)
Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh, also, I think you should get a woscar. It's a word I just made up, it's like an Oscar for Wankers.
😆 😆 😆
I gladly except. When do I get TV time to accept my speech? I would love to do wankerish things on national television.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. When you can go down a "documentary's" facts and arguing points and go:True
False
True
False
Staw Manetc.
When does it stop being a documentary? (BTW, people have done that to his films. Even people interviewed in his films get pissed with the way he edits, cuts, and rearranges the content. There's several followup interviews with those people, too.)
It's a thin line, I suppose most documentaries have some sort of bias, but a handy little rule of thumb I found works to determine which "documentaries" are a few steps beyond that line is whether more than 5 million people have seen it.
Originally posted by dadudemonThe Woscar Academy is dedicated to preventing, at all costs, their recipients from getting any TV time, ever.
😆 😆 😆I gladly except. When do I get TV time to accept my speech? I would love to do wankerish things on national television.
Originally posted by Bardock42
It's a thin line, I suppose most documentaries have some sort of bias, but a handy little rule of thumb I found works to determine which "documentaries" are a few steps beyond that line is whether more than 5 million people have seen it.
That's actually a good rule.
Originally posted by Bardock42
The Woscar Academy is dedicated to preventing, at all costs, their recipients from getting any TV time, ever.
Too bad for them, I've already gotten local tv time. WOOT!
Originally posted by Bardock42NO! Kill dem terrists.
Does that include "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense". Or is that okay if Bush and McCain want to cut that out?