Amend This (politics threads merged)

[yubba]

What a wonderful world it would beeeeeeeeeee, I could just amagine a whole world out of work with these chuckle heads, masterminds they are,, spend more money than we make,,those darn loopholes,,I ain't got a spending problem,,shoot two shots in the air,,ooooh let's pass it so we can see what's in it, tax the rich, let's call islamic terrorist freedom fighters, let's suspend our children from school for nibbling a poptart into the shape of a gun or march them around in a half time show with hammers and sickles celebrating communism, let's stomp on a piece of paper with Jesus's name on it, or better yet let's boo him. And even better yet there are people who believe that your kids don't belong to you,, don't take my word for it, ask her>>>>>brought to you by the progressive left sickening

[soopaman2]

Not the first time!!




Won't be the last either...

Not until, "We the People" manage to figure out how to take back our government from multinational corporations, without having to fight tanks and air strikes like the Syrians.

[Aramike]

Maybe I'm missing something, but Holy Ad-Hominem Attacks, Batman!

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Maybe I'm missing something, but Holy Ad-Hominem Attacks, Batman!

I don't think it is and I think he knows it's in fun. He even joins in and new words have been created.

It's not a personal attack to say you think someones ideas are balogna. I'm sure he thinks mine are as much and more so. Nobodies getting mad and talkin' about yo' mamma.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

I don't think it is and I think he knows it's in fun. He even joins in and new words have been created.

It's not a personal attack to say you think someones ideas are balogna. I'm sure he thinks mine are as much and more so. Nobodies getting mad and talkin' about yo' mamma.

Ad hominem responses are aimed at the source of an argument, and not the argument itself. All that aside, this thread is devoid of legitimate discussion about the topic in favor of attacking the source.

It's a case in point, actually.

[mookiemookie]

Because yubba has shown and proven and even admitted that he's not interested in legitimate discussion. You're wasting your time here.

Ad hominem responses are aimed at the source of an argument, and not the argument itself.

What arguement?

[yubba]

This week, maybe tomorrow they are going to bring provisions up for debate and vote on the senate floor {14 republican senators are threating to fillilibuster} on the second amendment that means change or amending and I believe is in clear violation of article V of the constitution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article...s_Constitution I believe their right by calling this democratic tyranny, got do this quickly before someone finds out what's going on like the gun confiscation that is going on in New York State right now...

[GoldenRivet]

I agree, the people have the right to bear arms, the purpose of this 2nd amendment is clear. and i shall not be giving mine up

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

I agree, the people have the right to bear arms, the purpose of this 2nd amendment is clear. and i shall not be giving mine up

+1

This is the reason we have the 2nd Amendment. To protect ourselves against an opressive government.

I will not give mine up.

[mapuc]

You have the right to bear arm(s)

But it doesn't say wich kind of arm(s) it is.

So Obama could easy say that from now you are only allowed to bear a hammer as your personal weapon.

Markus

[August]

Originally Posted by mapuc

You have the right to bear arm(s)

But it doesn't say wich kind of arm(s) it is.

So Obama could easy say that from now you are only allowed to bear a hammer as your personal weapon.

Markus

The first Amendment says, amongst other things, that we have the right to free speech. Now by your logic Obama could easily say that free speech is limited to non political topics. After all it doesn't say what kind of speech is free right?

[Wolferz]

We also have the right to peaceful assembly which is anything but peaceful when the jackbooted thugs wade into a crowd wearing their riot gear where there is no riot.

[Feuer Frei!]

Originally Posted by Wolferz

We also have the right to peaceful assembly

Depends on how you define peaceful assembly.
I doubt very much a riot squad would make a bee-line through a crowd of Daffodil Day Organisers, who are ever-so-peacefully telling onlookers to buy Daffodil merchandise.

[mapuc]

Originally Posted by August

The first Amendment says, amongst other things, that we have the right to free speech. Now by your logic Obama could easily say that free speech is limited to non political topics. After all it doesn't say what kind of speech is free right?

He could. However it's not the first Amendment that's on the table it's the 2nd amendment that is the big issue here.

And from what I have learned from it. is that the 2nd amendment gives every American the right to bear arms. BUT it doesn't say wich kind it is and how many(Arms is plural so it most be more than 1)

Markus