OHIO MARK
BTW, regarding your alleged examples of Democrats holding the
Constitution in contempt:
"unfairness doctrine"
I believe it was Sen Diane Feinstein (who has outrageously supported
most of Bush's attacks on fundamental civil liberties over the years)
who once muttered something about "bringing back the Fairness
Doctrine".
The idea went nowhere, of course, and it was later dropped by
Feinstein herself. But it has since become a gigantic fund-raising,
audience-collecting bugaboo among rightwing radio blowhards and others
on the Right. (Despite the fact that they're apparently the ONLY ones
talking about reviving it!)
<<hate speech,>>
Examples, please?
<<religious suppression,>>
Again, examples please?
Actually, it's the Right that has worked tirelessly to undo the First
Amendment and two and a quarter centuries of secular government, and
replace it with what they call a "Christian Republic" (Just as Iran is
an "Islamic Republic").
Hell... here in my state of Georgia, conservative Republicans even
tried to block constructions of both a Moslem mosque and a Hindu
Temple!
And wasn't it Republicans who had such a big problem with that Moslem
elected representative taking his Oath of Office on a Koran?
Or, for that matter, who dishonestly tried to paint Barack Obama as a
Moslem (as if even if he was -- which he wasn't --- it would somehow
be "unAmerican" or something for a Moslem to become president?)
<<gun bans>>
There have been such attempts, of course, which I personally oppose.
But far more often than not, they have simply involved efforts to
restrict private ownership of automatic weapons, whole arsenals and
the like. Only rarely have any serious efforts involved simple
possession in appropriate places (like homes, legal hunting grounds,
target ranges, etc) of basic firearms by responsible, competent
owners.
And nearly all attempts at banning anywhere have been abandoned for
some years now, and show no real sign of being ressurrected any time
soon.
I own a rifle and a shotgun, and I've always enjoyed target shooting
(though I'm not into slaughtering animals. Or even people, for that
matter).
I believe strongly that I have a right to own them, as long as I don't
endanger others with them. But I do not consider that right to be
based on the Second Amendment (despite the most recent SCOTUS ruling),
which was not written with an individual right in mind, but with the
right of then-VERY sovereign states to maintain militias against,
among other things, an Army controlled by the central Federal
government.
For conservative 2nd Amendment fanatics, who not only have the intent
and history wrong, but who seem to believe that the Bill of Rights
begins with the 2nd Amendment and ends with the 2nd Amendment, the
first half of that Amendment ("A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State...") apparently doesn't even
exist!
=======================================================================
On Jan 31, 3:55 pm, Lobo <[email protected]> wrote:
> OHIO MARK
>
> <<President Bush never presented himself as the messiah, the chosen
> one, the one sent by God to make things right.>>
>
> Nor, to my knowledge, has Barack Obama or any of his supporters ever
> made such a silly claim.
>
> <<and anyone with half a
> functioning brain cell knows that in fact it is the dems who hold the
> constitution in contempt. unfairness doctrine, hate speech,
> religious
> suppression, gun bans, and on and on.>>
>
> I have no doubt whatsoever but that you're entirely right.
>
> But to those of us with a full complement of fully functioning brain
> cells (and to those of us who have actually READ the Constitution),
> the truth of the matter is quite different.
>
> There are numerous examples, but to take just one: Amendment Article
> IV clearly states that, "The right of the people to be secure in their
> persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches
> and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but
> upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and
> particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or
> things to be seized."
>
> Nowhere in that law or anywhere else in the Constitution, either
> explicit or implied, is there anything even remotely resembling a
> "Bush Exemption" or a "War On Terror Exception" to it and other
> fundamental rights, or to the express requirement of the government to
> first obtain a warrant from a judge, based upon probable cause,
> supported by oath, etc, etc, before searching us (ie, looking into our
> houses, breaking into our computers, listening in on our phone calls,
> etc).
>
> Everything we are as a Republic is summed up in that document. And the
> first duty of any President --- as stated in his Oath of Office --- is
> to "...Preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United
> States."
>
> A duty and an oath that President Bush has clearly violated!
> =======================================================================
>
> On Jan 31, 6:50 am, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > President Bush never presented himself as the messiah, the chosen one,
> > the one sent by God to make things right. and anyone with half a
> > functioning brain cell knows that in fact it is the dems who hold the
> > constitution in contempt. unfairness doctrine, hate speech, religious
> > suppression, gun bans, and on and on.
>
> > On Jan 31, 12:38 am, Lobo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > OHIO MARK
>
> > > LOL!!!
>
> > > NOW, after 8 nightmare years of the Right blindly goosestepping to the
> > > beat of the most out of control president in our history cracking down
> > > on the most fundamental American civil liberties, and contemptuously
> > > treating the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights
> > > as, at best, an annoyance... NOW all of a sudden conservatives have
> > > discovered the concept of "liberty"!he one sent by God to make things
> > > right.
>
> > > As for the story itself: even if one were to assume it to be true (and
> > > it sounds like just one more of a million similar silly rightwing
> > > paranoia tales dreamed up God-knows-where and passed up or down the
> > > Spin chain), it would obviously signify nothing more ominous than an
> > > overly eager-beaver teacher caught up in the hoopla of the moment.
>
> > > And just as obviously, a simple word from the principal not to display
> > > the image of anything but the flag during the Pledge would have
> > > sufficed.
>
> > > =======================================================================
> > > On Jan 30, 9:59 pm, Ohio mark <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > Hopey Change has reached an elementary school in Sin City:
>
> > > > At least three of the five classrooms have an overhead projector
> > > > and as the children stand to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, the
> > > > teacher turns on the classroom overhead and a full body image of
> > > > Obama, with six U.S. flags behind him, comes up about 4 feet away from
> > > > the flag that hangs on the wall. The screen is apparently around five
> > > > feet by six feet.
>
> > > > In the image, President Obama appears to be staring straight out
> > > > with no facial expression, just a serious look. All of the kids in
> > > > each class faced the President, instead of the flag that hangs in the
> > > > corner.
>
> > > > Fortunately, parents raised such a stink that the principal promised
> > > > to put an end to this particular indoctrination procedure. The price
> > > > of liberty is eternal vigilance.
>
> > > >http://www.moonbattery.com/-Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
