And Speaking Of The Constitution

[Sailor Steve]

The Constitutional Convention opened in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on May 25, 1787 - 223 yeas ago today. :rock:

[Platapus]

Good historical trivia. :yeah:

Oh to be a fly on the wall of that convention. :o

[TLAM Strike]

Oh to be a fly on the wall of that convention. :o

I think it went something like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yn23wXtbw)

[frau kaleun]

Today would've been my dad's 92nd birthday. I never realized it was also a special date in American history. :oops:

But hey I always remember July 4th! 'Course I get a paid day off for that one, so.... :O:

[Platapus]

But hey I always remember July 4th! 'Course I get a paid day off for that one, so.... :O:


Yeah, but why should you remember July 4th? :D

[frau kaleun]

Yeah, but why should you remember July 4th? :D

Because it's National Fireworks Day, moran. Why do you hate America? :O:

[Sailor Steve]

I think it went something like this. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0yn23wXtbw)
:rotfl2: I've never seen that one.:rock:

As to being a fly on the wall, you can find copies of James Madison's notes on the proceedings. Probably the best book ever written on the subject is Miracle At Philadelphia, by Catherine Dinker Bowen. It covers just about everything, and is both readable and entertaining.
http://www.amazon.com/Miracle-Philadelphia-Constitutional-Convention-September/dp/B000JBY0OM/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1274845978&sr=1-1

Or if a movie is more to your taste, try this. It isn't great, but it's pretty good, and it covers all the major personalities and arguments. I really like it.
http://www.amazon.com/MORE-PERFECT-UNION-AMERICA-BECOMES/dp/B000LLULI4/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1274845551&sr=1-1

[SteamWake]

Because it's National Fireworks Day, moran. Why do you hate America? :O:

LOL classic

and Memorial day is offical cook out day :yeah:

[Platapus]

Because it's National Fireworks Day, moran. Why do you hate America? :O:

That's probably the most correct answer, for it sure ain't the day we declared our independence. :yeah:

[TLAM Strike]

That's probably the most correct answer, for it sure ain't the day we declared our independence. :yeah:

No it was the day Will Smith and that dude from Jurassic Park defeated the Space Aliens... :DL

That movie was based on a true story you know...

[Sailor Steve]

Because it's National Fireworks Day, moran. Why do you hate America? :O:
Here in Utah we have an official State Fireworks Day, just twenty days later! Funny part is they celebrate the day the Mormon pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847. Funny because they came here to escape the United States and start their own kingdom, but now they fly the American flag every July 24.

That's probably the most correct answer, for it sure ain't the day we declared our independence. :yeah:
Sure it is. Richard Henry Lee proposed it on June 7, the Committee Of Five was formed on June 10, Jefferson gave the first draft to Adams and Franklin on June 30, Congress voted for Independence on July 2, but the document was published for all the world to see on...July 5!

I know, It says "In Congreff, July 4 1776", so that's the date that even Adams and Jefferson remembered as old men. Of course they also remembered signing it on the fourth, which they didn't actually do until August 2, but hey...

[Jimbuna]

What is this independance you speak so fondly of? :DL

[frau kaleun]

London, 8 November 2000

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In the light of your failure to elect a President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchial duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy. Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections. Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium". Check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part. Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise". You will learn that the suffix 'burgh is pronounced 'burra' e.g. Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary". Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed". There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

2. There is no such thing as "US English". We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize".

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to Cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles. While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon". If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as the good guys. Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters. British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up half way through.

6. You should stop playing American "football". There is only one kind of football. What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football. You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US rugby sevens side by 2005. You should stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders" which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

7. You should declare war on Quebec and France, using nuclear weapons if they give you any merde. The 97.85% of you who were not aware that there is a world outside your borders should count yourselves lucky. The Russians have never been the bad guys. "Merde" is French for "Sh!t". You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 8th will be a new national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day".

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts. You will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps". Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat. Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer", and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager". The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be refered to as "Near-Frozen Knat's Urine", with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine". This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

13. From November 1st the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline" as you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2001) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon - get used to it).

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your cooperation.

[Jimbuna]

Ah, the John Cleese proclamation :DL

[frau kaleun]

Ah, the John Cleese proclamation :DL

Which, judging from the multitude of variations available, seems to have been composed, contributed to, and expanded upon by almost everyone in Britain except John Cleese, who apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Seems to be the UK's version of the "George Carlin" phenomenon.

[Jimbuna]

Which, judging from the multitude of variations available, seems to have been composed, contributed to, and expanded upon by almost everyone in Britain except John Cleese, who apparently had nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Seems to be the UK's version of the "George Carlin" phenomenon.

TBH I prefer John Cleese :DL

[Platapus]

H

Sure it is. Richard Henry Lee proposed it on June 7, the Committee Of Five was formed on June 10, Jefferson gave the first draft to Adams and Franklin on June 30, Congress voted for Independence on July 2, but the document was published for all the world to see on...July 5!

I know, It says "In Congreff, July 4 1776", so that's the date that even Adams and Jefferson remembered as old men. Of course they also remembered signing it on the fourth, which they didn't actually do until August 2, but hey...

:nope:

Congress voted to approve the Lee Resolution on 2 July, which is the day we declared our independence.

http://www.masshist.org/digitaladams/aea/cfm/doc.cfm?id=L17760703jasecond

The declaration of independence was signed on 4 July, but that was not the legal action that declared independence. That was just a document intended to get buy-in from a less than sympathetic population.

http://hnn.us/articles/132.html

[Platapus]

What is this independance you speak so fondly of? :DL
It is the day we exchanged one government who did not care about its citizens in favour of another government who also does not care about its citizens.

And for some reason this is celebrated as progress. :D

[Bubblehead1980]

Great Day in American history but also sad given our current times.I believe our founders would be very angry if they saw who is President and what he is attempting to do to the country they founded.

[Sailor Steve]

:nope:

Congress voted to approve the Lee Resolution on 2 July, which is the day we declared our independence.
Yes indeed. Congress voted for independence on the 2nd. But they had already decided to be independent the day they sent the committee in to write the thing. So the July 2nd vote made it official, and that is very important, but...

[/quote]The declaration of independence was signed on 4 July, but that was not the legal action that declared independence. That was just a document intended to get buy-in from a less than sympathetic population.[/QUOTE]
I this case you need to read your own link a little more closely. The document wasn't signed until August 2nd. And you're right, the document itself isn't the vote that passed the resolution, but...

Independence wasnt' declared until July 5, when the first copies were circulated to the public.

And since the final copy says "In Congress, July 4", that's what we get to live with. All of your (and my) objections don't add up to a hill of beans.:sunny:

[Sailor Steve]

Great Day in American history but also sad given our current times.I believe our founders would be very angry if they saw who is President and what he is attempting to do to the country they founded.
Which founders in particular? Adams, who signed a law that made it a crime to say anything negative about congress or the president? Jefferson, who was accused by religious leaders of the time of being an atheist, and by the political opponents of trying to sell us out to the French? Marshall, who was the first Chief Justice to be accused of "legislating from the bench", even though he ruled against himself? Of course he also set up the Supreme Court as the chief arbiter of what the Constitution means.

People like to talk about how horrible things are today. People have been talking about how horrible things are ever since 1787. You need to read more of what those people actually wrote before you complain about what someone is doing now. Just because you don't like a particular leader doesn't mean he's wrong. I don't like Obama's politics either, but the country has survived worse. Ask anybody on the other side of Lincoln. Or Jefferson. Even Washington was accused of all sorts of evil by the newspapers of his own day. If you really think things are bad, do something about it. Get yourself into office and try to make a change.

[CaptainHaplo]

Steve - does that mean I have your vote this go round?

[Platapus]

The declaration of independence was signed on 4 July, but that was not the legal action that declared independence. That was just a document intended to get buy-in from a less than sympathetic population.[/QUOTE]
I this case you need to read your own link a little more closely. The document wasn't signed until August 2nd. And you're right, the document itself isn't the vote that passed the resolution, but...

Independence wasnt' declared until July 5, when the first copies were circulated to the public.
[/QUOTE]

Well we are getting to the point in this discussion where we need to consider which version of the Declaration of Independence we are referring to. There were a few. The first was the Dunlap Broadside that was printed on the evening of 4 July which was did not have the signature of John Hancock and Secretary Thomson, but did have the words "Signed by Order and in Behalf of the Congress" and did have both their names printed.

There were about 200 copies of this made and distributed so an argument could be made that this was the first publication of the DoI.

There was on engrossed copy which had the signatures, but that was not published and was kept secure.

Later there was the Goddard Broadside (Jan, 1777) which was the first publication of the printed names of all who had signed the DoI as of that year.

What is commonly seen as the DoI is the Stone version which was printed in 1823. That is the version that has the signatures and was the first "signed" copy that was published to the public.

If you really want to have fun, read about the political debates in the 1790's where the first political parties fought over who "really" wrote the DoIi and whether the DoI was really important. It is a hoot! It seems like we have had childish political candidates from the very start.

[krashkart]

It seems like we have had childish political candidates from the very start.

That may be a given for all governments throughout the ages. :)

[Sailor Steve]

Of course the 'official' one has the 'July 4' header, so no matter what we say that's always going to be the fallback position and 'final' argument.:-?

If you really want to have fun, read about the political debates in the 1790's where the first political parties fought over who "really" wrote the DoIi and whether the DoI was really important. It is a hoot! It seems like we have had childish political candidates from the very start.
I'll check that one out. I always love it when someon asks "When did American politics become so nasty?" I simply point to the election of 1800.

[SteamWake]

It is the day we exchanged one government who did not care about its citizens in favour of another government who also does not care about its citizens.

Call me sentimental but I would prefer to believe that the founders did care.

But that was 200 years ago.

[Bubblehead1980]

Which founders in particular? Adams, who signed a law that made it a crime to say anything negative about congress or the president? Jefferson, who was accused by religious leaders of the time of being an atheist, and by the political opponents of trying to sell us out to the French? Marshall, who was the first Chief Justice to be accused of "legislating from the bench", even though he ruled against himself? Of course he also set up the Supreme Court as the chief arbiter of what the Constitution means.

People like to talk about how horrible things are today. People have been talking about how horrible things are ever since 1787. You need to read more of what those people actually wrote before you complain about what someone is doing now. Just because you don't like a particular leader doesn't mean he's wrong. I don't like Obama's politics either, but the country has survived worse. Ask anybody on the other side of Lincoln. Or Jefferson. Even Washington was accused of all sorts of evil by the newspapers of his own day. If you really think things are bad, do something about it. Get yourself into office and try to make a change.

Oh boy where to begin? Well first of all, I have read plenty about the founders so do not appreciate the "you need to read so and so before you complain" line, because I know plenty. To keep it short, I will just say the major difference between the founders you listed and Obama is that the founders loved America.Adam's was wrong but no doubts he loved his nation, a nation he helped create.The accusations against Jefferson were just his opponents playing politics.Does not matter if Jefferson was an atheist, means he was an exceptionally bright man in a time when even educated, intelligent people were way too wrapped up in religion but the label of atheist was used in politics to try and bring down an opponent.Thurgood Marshall is one of my least favorite justices.I was Pre-Law in college and had a bunch of praise about Marshall shoved down my throat but for the most part he was pretty racist and disagreed with most of his decisions.I start Law School in the Fall and sure I will have to hear about him much more, unfortunately.Lincoln did free the slaves which is a good thing but he pushed a pretty brutal military campaign on the South and absolutely abused his power, I am not a big fan of his.George Washington was attacked by some and it was just politics.Whatever my disagreement with the Presidents and Justice mentioned above, they did love this country, may have been wrong about some things but they did love the US even with some of it's faults.

The big difference as I stated is Obama does not have a real love of this country.Obama's lack of real roots and turbulent family life as a young man has left him rather bitter I believe.I believe in knowing they enemy so I have studied a bit about him.Have you read his books? The first book "Dreams of My Father" which was authored long before he was in politics is rather candid about his views on many things such as his feelings about race.From saying he felt his paternal grandfather in Kenya was a "house ******, uncle tom" etc because he worked for a white man to admitting that in order to not be seen as a sellout, he chose his friends carefully and sought out the politically active black students, the marxists, the chicanos etc so basically anything but white.Amazingly the book "Audacity of Hope" had a magic change in his views when he authored it while a Senator and planning to run for President.

Obama's associations with people like Wright, Ayers, Resko , Van Jones, etc etc going on the apology tour, passing that ridiculous health care bill against the will of the people, trying to bribe Joe Sestak out of the PA Senate race(hopefully theyll go after him for that, maybe send him the way of Richard Nixon) the stimulus, his racist reaction the Cambridge Police Incident, lackluster performance on the oil spill etc combine that with his apparent disdain for America as it is and has been, he is different that any other President and the criticism is not just political, its legitimate arguments against what he is trying to do.This is prob the most dangerous person to hold the office of President.

Finally, as far as doing something about it, well I am only in my 20's and about to begin Law School but who knows.I really have no desire in running for office but does not mean I can not speak on the issue of this terrible President that managed to sneak into office.Obama reminds me of the guy who takes advantage of a girl after she breaks up with her bf etc, he moves in for the rebound when shes weak and vulnerable but sooner or later she gets over it and is like "what the hell was I thinking?" well that is pretty much what he did to America in 2008.Things went down under Bush, he came in and although an obvious lefty ran as a centrist and sweet talked a large portion of the nation that was hurting and he got in, then has ran wild since with mostly ridiculous policies and all the wackjobs he associates with who have followed him in.Valerie Jarrett, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, forgot her name but the deputy press sec who said her favorite political philosopher was Mao, yes Mao.Luckily and even though Im not a huge fan of his, Glenn Beck exposed them enough that they the Mao lover and Van Jones(an admitted communist who has some very disturbing racial views) resigned.

My original comment about the founders would be very upset to see who is President, I stand by it because they founded this nation and would be very upset to see what kind of trash we have running the show right now.The End.

[Bubblehead1980]

Call me sentimental but I would prefer to believe that the founders did care.

But that was 200 years ago.

They cared, they lived under the British and wanted a free nation, they cared a lot.

[Sailor Steve]

Oh boy where to begin? Well first of all, I have read plenty about the founders so do not appreciate the "you need to read so and so before you complain" line, because I know plenty. To keep it short, I will just say the major difference between the founders you listed and Obama is that the founders loved America.
.
.
.

My original comment about the founders would be very upset to see who is President, I stand by it because they founded this nation and would be very upset to see what kind of trash we have running the show right now.The End.
And you seem to have missed my point, which was that your political diatribe sounds just like the political diatribes from 200 and 100 years ago. I didn't agree with Bush going into Iraq, but all that means is that I disagreed. People who really trashed Bush for that move hated him long before - Iraq was just the excuse they needed to give their hatred validation - at least in their own minds.

It's the same here. I'm no fan of Obama, but your obvious hatred seems to predate anything he's actually done.

"The founders would have hated" this or that is what every generation says about their own politicians, at least the ones they disagree with. They themselves had as many different opinions as there were people to have them. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other with a passion. Aaron Burr managed to alienate Jefferson and his entire party, but did he really deserve to have Jefferson launch a vendetta against him?

I have my own opinions about what's good and bad for America, but I don't actually air them much because the one thing I have learned over the years is that I could be wrong. It doesn't matter which side of whatever issue they happen to be on; my beef is always with people who are convinced they are right, and therefore become incapable of having a real discussion about pretty much anything.

[Bubblehead1980]

And you seem to have missed my point, which was that your political diatribe sounds just like the political diatribes from 200 and 100 years ago. I didn't agree with Bush going into Iraq, but all that means is that I disagreed. People who really trashed Bush for that move hated him long before - Iraq was just the excuse they needed to give their hatred validation - at least in their own minds.

It's the same here. I'm no fan of Obama, but your obvious hatred seems to predate anything he's actually done.

"The founders would have hated" this or that is what every generation says about their own politicians, at least the ones they disagree with. They themselves had as many different opinions as there were people to have them. Jefferson and Hamilton hated each other with a passion. Aaron Burr managed to alienate Jefferson and his entire party, but did he really deserve to have Jefferson launch a vendetta against him?

I have my own opinions about what's good and bad for America, but I don't actually air them much because the one thing I have learned over the years is that I could be wrong. It doesn't matter which side of whatever issue they happen to be on; my beef is always with people who are convinced they are right, and therefore become incapable of having a real discussion about pretty much anything.

Steve, I did not vote for him and knew he was full of BS from reading his books , examining his record(or what little he had) but I vowed to give him a chance and I did.I approved of him reversing the ban on Federal money for stemcell research.I agreed with the troop surge in Afghanistan.I disliked his decision for closing Guantanamo Bay but figured he would not and would believe it when when it actually happens.I refused to to speak ill of him for a long time but things just kept coming ranging from the wacko leftists like Jones, Sunstein etc he allows to hold top positions in his admin to his apology tour and bowing to the saudi king, then having the nerve to let his muppet looking propaganda minister come out and try to say oh he was just leaning down.I saw it, millions of others did, it was a freaking bow.Then you add in the stimulus, that wretched health care bill, the lies and cheating etc, bailouts of GM, nominating Sotomayor to the Supreme Court and the list goes on and on.

No hate here, this guy just does not need to be President because he is damaging this country and if he is allowed to continue, possibly damaging us beyond repair.I am in my 20's and just out of college, starting Law School in the Fall, things he is doing will affect people my age the most as the next decade or so rolls in and we are trying to get our lives really going while dealing with the the crap his policies will send our way in the form of taxes, inflation, excessive spending, federal power grabs, appointing racist people to supreme court, trying to socially engineer the military, his mistreatement of Israel etc The US is in danger of ending up like Greece if we remain under Obama.Sounds crazy but it's possible.

I am always aware that I could be wrong, any sane person should be aware of that.However, there is so much evidence against Obama, it's just painfully obvious he is wrong.A large number of Americans feel this way according to his slide in the polls and he could care less because he feels as if the citizens are idiots and he knows what is best.

P.S. What the founders wanted is pretty clear in the Constitution:arrgh!:

[Sailor Steve]

No hate here, this guy just does not need to be President because he is damaging this country and if he is allowed to continue, possibly damaging us beyond repair.
Fair enough. I disagree, not because I like him but because I've seen it before.

P.S. What the founders wanted is pretty clear in the Constitution:arrgh!:
Sometimes it's not as clear as I would like. Literal costructionism is a problem because some parts are vague, at least vague enough that people on two sides of an argument can both claim that it 'clearly' supports their side.

Also by "what they wrote" I was referring to their own opinions on what was meant by certain sections (which varies considerably) and what they wrote about each other. Still, it's good to disagree. They certainly did.

[Bubblehead1980]

Fair enough. I disagree, not because I like him but because I've seen it before.

P.S. What the founders wanted is pretty clear in the Constitution:arrgh!:




I feel the Constitution for the most part, is not that vague.Although I disagree with Scalia on some decisions, I tend to count myself as an originalist(for the most part) when it comes to Constitutional matters.

Okay, was not aware you meant their writings and agree that disagreement is a great thing:)

I understand you disagree because you have "seen it before" but really have to emphasize that the US has not seen a President like this before, really can't think of any that have been as dangerous as he is.Obama has held back somewhat in first term, if he gets a second term when he literally has nothing to lose, we will see the real dangerous Ayers/Wright loving Lefty side of him.Hopefully this will not happen.