Obama is Black :S
Birth Certificate if anybody wants
http://simmerdown3.files.wordpress.com/ ... 72x460.jpg
Birth Certificate if anybody wants
http://simmerdown3.files.wordpress.com/ ... 72x460.jpg
What does it matter if..
- Thread starter katy perry is hot
- Start date
the one who keeps giving zero facts and is hypocritical beyond belief. you talk about right wing media, but fail to acknowledge left wing media. you pick and choose what you can and cant reply to because you know it'll expose you. for example this reply ignored the whole thing. thats why they put separation of church and state. they kept scripture and religion in the constitution because they wanted a country of morals and stuffIrviding said:
gqgk said:
Hey, hi 😀 Im posting becuz
1) you ignored my earlier post.
2) Because i sense you get easily agitated with debates...
3) Your constant essays of right and wrong seem to me...hypocritical.
4) i dont think "stuff" qualifies :lol:
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
That's probably the worst arguement for pro second amendment people.
" The government will take over "
The government CAN take over. No group of people with assault rifles can stand a chance against the US military... that said I am actually pro second amendment, but with regulation on assault rifles.
To ggqk:
As for them wanting a country of morals " and stuff " you don't know their intentions, guessing them isn't right at all. I only go by what's written in the constitution 🙂
" The government will take over "
The government CAN take over. No group of people with assault rifles can stand a chance against the US military... that said I am actually pro second amendment, but with regulation on assault rifles.
To ggqk:
As for them wanting a country of morals " and stuff " you don't know their intentions, guessing them isn't right at all. I only go by what's written in the constitution 🙂
i go by what they wrote in their journals. and the fact they put scripture in it. but you wouldnt know that. and tbh that is the actually reason for the second amendment. wanna know the first law most political leaders made before becoming a dictator? they took guns away. hitler did it. sadam did it. you really seem to know very little about what you argue about. and yes argue, because so far you have given no evidence for it to be a debate. my evidence is in your face. journals written by the founding fathers. scripture in the constitution. yet so far your only thing you say is "you dont know their intentions." hmmm well what they wrote in their private time seems to be valid evidence.Irviding said:
and wednesday: your even worse. you ignore entire facts because you see they make you look bad. all you point out is stuff because you realize the rest of the post proves your incorrect. debates dont frustrate me because evidence is shown. so far this has been far from a debate. you have brought nothing to it except speculation and to point out minuscule words that mean nothing. so why do you keep posting when you have brought no facts the entire time you've been in this forum. it seems pointless to me. and i have hypocrisy of right and wrong? that makes me laugh, because so far you havent even stated your opinions in here. you just randomly posted about religion and race being the same. anyone that thinks that hasnt gotten out and around the world enough. so until you bring any decent facts or evidence or at least something we can look for that relates to the debate all your posts have been pointless :roll:
Thats a lil harsh...all my posts pointless? damn...im wounded..honest.
Though i would like to see some facts from you ...so far ive read about hypocrisy and dinosaurs....
Oh and i didnt say race and religion where the same...i "stated" If you are against race or religion..it boils down to bigotry. But thanks for trying to read my posts ...means alot yanno.
Though i would like to see some facts from you ...so far ive read about hypocrisy and dinosaurs....
Oh and i didnt say race and religion where the same...i "stated" If you are against race or religion..it boils down to bigotry. But thanks for trying to read my posts ...means alot yanno.
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
ggqk, in this day and age, even if people had guns, the government would be able to overthrow them within seconds. Trust me, if Obama wanted to overthrow us and turn America into a socialist muslim arab kenyan utopia, he could have done it already.
And, I'm not against the right to bare arms, so you can back off me there.
And, I'm not against the right to bare arms, so you can back off me there.
actually you obviously read over the facts that are in the constitution and it their journals i brought up. but o well. you dont read mine, i wont read yours. and yes, pointless. just like that post. there was still nothing of any evidence, fact or anything intelligent in itwednesday said:
only because they're regulated. and that is also false. because who would obey what he said? you think the army would? because thats the only way he could. so honestly no he couldnt if he wanted to.Irviding said:
he's only 30% black actually. his dad wasnt full african and his mom was white. he's actually combined arab, african, and 50% white. but who really cares about what his race is... that post doesnt provide us with any knowledge we didnt already knowiCrazy said:
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
gqgk, if EVERY citizen owned assault rifles, the army would be able to take them down. No untrainted idiot average citizen with an assault rifle can take down an armed services division.gqgk said:
And yes he could actually, the armed forces has to obey the Presidents orders no matter what. I'm sure the 25th amendment would be inacted to get him out of power, but still, just saying.
they dont have to. and if he said take over the u.s. and make it a dictatorship how many troops would listen? give me your estimate. if you said the entire army, your wrong. no matter whether they are supposed to or not, they arent going to do it. thats just insane for you to think that. and your saying with 99% of the population vs 1% of the population, the 1% is going to win. because that really is the percentage. the only time the military size has gone above 1% is during large wars. think rationally here. that means out of 98 people, they would only have to kill 1 military personnel to stay ahead in the body count.Irviding said:
Nuke said:
Nuke, honestly? The "founding fathers", or in other words, the people that made and inhabited the early government were colonists, are you really going to say they didn't trust themselves?
gqgk said:
Yes but you've forgotten something I think, tanks. Hard to kill those with shotguns. 😛
Although I personally don't think that most soldiers would want to assist in some kind of take over thingy, there would be ways of making them do it, blackmail, bribery and such. But there are more efficient ways of taking over a country.
Anyway, this topic isn't about government take-overs, I think most of us here know there aren't going to be government take-overs in the U.S, at least not while Obama is in office.
agentmanningctu
My Posts = Jack Bauer's Kills
I know plenty of Muslims. I don't care. I don't happen to like Obama, but it has nothing to do with his being Muslim.Irviding said:
he's actually right though. "that when any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it." they used the second amendment as a way for people to stay protected. and you're talking about tanks being hard to destroy. but the founding fathers wouldnt have cared if you had one. as long as you arent killing or endangering anyone with it, you could have itOaerkae said:
katy perry is hot
Seasoned Veteran
... gqgk you're really off your rocker now.
So you're saying allow citizens to own tanks? Tanks were not existent until the 1900's, a century+ years after the founding fathers died. Sorry, but an acceptable level of regulation needs to be in place on any weapon. Assault rifles and weapons of war do not belong in citizen hands. Pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles, fine, go right ahead, but weapons of war is a no no.
So you're saying allow citizens to own tanks? Tanks were not existent until the 1900's, a century+ years after the founding fathers died. Sorry, but an acceptable level of regulation needs to be in place on any weapon. Assault rifles and weapons of war do not belong in citizen hands. Pistols, shotguns, hunting rifles, fine, go right ahead, but weapons of war is a no no.
gqgk said:
I was responding to Nuke's lack of logic in his statement, I was stating that the members of the "government" of the early 1800s had been for the most part colonists under England rule, I was stating that I kinda doubt they were worried about any government take-overs anytime soon.
Next, if I can expand off your point Irviding, having a tank is a ridiculous idea. In the 1800s or now. 😛 Tanks are immensely dangerous. Aside from the fact that they can hit a target a mile away with ease, accidents would be almost too easy coming from an untrained civilian. And yes, the founding fathers would care if you had a tank, they would have to be incredibly stupid not to.
Also, the tank thing, it was designed for another point entirely.
----------------------------------
I want to respond to MamaHaven.
First off, I agree with you wholeheartedly on your first and third points. What religion any politician practices is meaningless in the long run.
Your second point I don't completely agree with. I used to feel the same way, but I kinda realized that that sentiment itself is somewhat closed-minded, as long as a person is able to turn off their religious biases the moment they walk in their office door, it doesn't matter. Although if a person is not able to, then there can be a problem.
Affiliates
