If you think the right is hollering now, stay tuned as their numbers keep shrinking and their power and entitlement influences keep dwindling, and they find that others they have denied rights too are demanding theirs. That's what happens when you have lorded over others you have always deemed less than you and demanded they assimilate to your liking, and start placing the same demand on you as they exercise THEIR rights.

There is the hard way of doing this diversity thing, and an easier way... shame they choose the hard noisy way. Changes NOTHING!

They will be assimilated into the 21st century, and like the last civil war, they will lose. Fighting change and calling names is what they do, and all the hollering won't change that. So holler and scream about your rights and our faults Smoothy my friend, and call all the names you want but please get the hell out of the way because we are coming through.

I only say please as a courtesy.

You mean as opposed to the supposed SURGING numbers of lefties and those who love Obama? Despite any proof its actually happening like that? And all the proof to the contrary...

The last two national elections, and the right wing freakout, are proof enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

The last two national elections, and the right wing freakout, are proof enough.

---

No... it proved the Democrat party thinks nothing of committing massive voter fraud...

And even with all the fraud... they still barely pulled a majority. That's why the left fears a photo votor ID... it would squash most voter fraud.

It's true that most mass shooters seem to be under 25. I think another good law would be a minimum net worth of 250k for anyone to own a gun. Most mass shooters seem to be lower class and have nothing to lose so I think the net worth requirement would help keep guns out of the hands of angry losers. Some might call it discrimination but I say if you need a minimum income to get a credit card, why not for a deadly weapon. Sadly, Canada just had a mass shooting in Moncton, New Brunswick. 3 RCMP officers are dead and 2 others seriously hurt. Not surprisingly, the shooter, who is still at large is a 24 year old loser\weirdo known for disturbing internet posts and strange behavior.

The early 20s is often when mental illness rears its ugly head.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Hardly... but then... you have a far different and lower expectation of what you call freedom than we have. And you never had the enumerated rights that we have. We have rights... you have things your polititians allow you to have for the moment... always subject to be taken away on a whim.

---

Absolute nonsense.

Would you like to expand on our lack of expectations in the area of freedom and rights?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Hardly... but then... you have a far different and lower expectation of what you call freedom than we have. And you never had the enumerated rights that we have. We have rights... you have things your polititians allow you to have for the moment... always subject to be taken away on a whim.

You have the advantage at keeping the illegals out by virtue of having a whopper of a natural moat around your country.

---

as I said earlier ignorance and indoctrination. Our political system works pretty well to stop politicians whims, your rights haven't stopped assassinations in your country but we have only once ever come close to what could be called an assassination. You made a statement earlier that we cannot own guns, that is not true, we can own guns but certain types of weapons are restricted and the manner in which they can be used is also restricted. look, John Howard stated the other day that he doubted that he could enact the gun laws today that were enacted in the last decade but that has to do with the mood of the electorate not rights and it comes with the hindsight that tthe electorate no longer faces the threat of unbridled gun violence.

As to our moat, yes it is nice, but you may have noticed it doesn't stop those who would take an illegal route, but harsh laws on incarcaration does, a convienence for those politicians

Smoothy


Still waiting for you to tell us about how our Constitution works and how this creates "lower" expectations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

as I said earlier ignorance and indoctrination. Our political system works pretty well to stop politicians whims, your rights haven't stopped assassinations in your country but we have only once ever come close to what could be called an assassination. You made a statement earlier that we cannot own guns, that is not true, we can own guns but certain types of weapons are restricted and the manner in which they can be used is also restricted. look, John Howard stated the other day that he doubted that he could enact the gun laws today that were enacted in the last decade but that has to do with the mood of the electorate not rights and it comes with the hindsight that tthe electorate no longer faces the threat of unbridled gun violence.

As to our moat, yes it is nice, but you may have noticed it doesn't stop those who would take an illegal route, but harsh laws on incarcaration does, a convienence for those politicians

---

As I said... people who never had a particular right themselves... can't fathom why people that do won't give them up without one hell of a fight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Smoothy


Still waiting for you to tell us about how our Constitution works and how this creates "lower" expectations.

---

Near total lack of any guaranteed rights... plain and simple.

Get enough voting Muslims into your country... and they can vote to turn it into yet another Muslim hell on earth. And you have no protections from it happening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

No... it proved the Democrat party thinks nothing of committing massive voter fraud...

And even with all the fraud... they still barely pulled a majority. That's why the left fears a photo votor ID... it would squash most voter fraud.

---

Sheriff not buying stories from McDaniel staffer, others locked in courthouse on election night

What did you say about quacking like a duck?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Near total lack of any guaranteed rights... plain and simple.

Get enough voting Muslims into your country... and they can vote to turn it into yet another Muslim hell on earth. And you have no protections from it happening.

---

Latinos will take over first but they are Christians so it's okay. Oh wait you don't like them either. Can't wait until you are a minority hollering about YOUR rights. Then you might figure out that you aren't the ONLY one with guaranteed rights.

How do you live with all your phobias? Present ones and future ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Sheriff not buying stories from McDaniel staffer, others locked in courthouse on election night

What did you say about quacking like a duck?



Latinos will take over first but they are Christians so it's okay. Oh wait you don't like them either. Can't wait until you are a minority hollering about YOUR rights. Then you might figure out that you aren't the ONLY one with guaranteed rights.

How do you live with all your phobias? Present ones and future ones.

---

Latinos are swarming Autrailia? Must be the more well off ones that can afford the air fare, and leaky boats won't get them that far. We get the ones that can't even afford a beat up car....Clete said they have massive issues with the Muslim horde coming in boats from Malaysia.

And Incidently....contrary to what Obama claims since he has proven to have ZERO grasp of the law.....probibly why he lost his Liscense to practice law a long , long time ago... Illegals don't NOT have the right to violate our laws and cross our borders. Latino or otherwise. Or the RIGHT to be here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

As I said... people who never had a particular right themselves... can't fathom why people that do won't give them up without one hell of a fight.

---

No it isn't that at all, you have the idea that freedom must be defended with a gun even when there isn't any threat to freedom. You fail to see that the right to life is a much superior inalienable right than the right to own a gun, but noone suggests you shouldn't be able to own a gun, they just want the type of weapon restricted and who can own it restricted so that you don't continue to have these mass shootings of innocent people. You don't give criminals the right to roam the streets molesting at will, and yet they have a right to 'freedom". Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness has a price, one you are not prepared to pay, you see there are some important concepts that predate what was an afterthought in your constitution

LOL, Smoothy, I was talking about Latinos who are legal and citizens. Just like you.

U.S.-Born Latino Population Growing At Faster Rate Than Foreign-Born, Reversing Longtime Trend | Fox News Latino

Quote:

---

The study also showed that the states with the largest Latino populations are: California, with 14.5 million, Texas, with 10 million, Florida, with 4.5 million, New York, with 3.6 million, and Illinois, with 2.1 million.
The five states with the fastest-growing Latino populations are Tennessee, South Carolina, Alabama, Kentucky and South Dakota.

---

Hope you quack in Spanish. You do know minorities have as much rights as you do don't you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

probibly why he lost his Liscense to practice law a long , long time ago...

---

This is incorrect: Barack Obama did not "surrender" his law license. Like Michelle, Barack Obama had no need for an active law license for the work in which he was engaged, so in February 2007 (after announcing his candidacy for the presidency) he chose to have his law license placed on “voluntarily inactive” status, and after becoming president he opted to change his status to “voluntarily retired.” Neither of the Obamas was irrevocably stripped of their law licenses through the action of "surrendering" them.

Read more at snopes.com: Barack and Michelle Obama's Law Licenses


Q: Did Barack and Michelle Obama “surrender” their law licenses to avoid ethics charges?

A: No. A court official confirms that no public disciplinary proceeding has ever been brought against either of them, contrary to a false Internet rumor. By voluntarily inactivating their licenses, they avoid a requirement to take continuing education classes and pay hundreds of dollars in annual fees. Both could practice law again if they chose to do so.

http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/the...-law-licenses/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Latinos are swarming Autrailia? Must be the more well off ones that can afford the air fare, and leaky boats won't get them that far. We get the ones that can't even afford a beat up car....Clete said they have massive issues with the Muslim horde coming in boats from Malaysia.

---

WHAT? can't say latino's persee are a problem and we might like them better than Iranians and Indian's and Iraqi and Pakistani who are Muslim, not Christian and yes they are in plague proportions ask Indonesia which is a transit country

Quote:

---

And Incidently....contrary to what Obama claims since he has proven to have ZERO grasp of the law.....probibly why he lost his Liscense to practice law a long , long time ago... Illegals don't NOT have the right to violate our laws and cross our borders. Latino or otherwise. Or the RIGHT to be here.

---

It appears Obama gave up his licence to practice law, you don't need one when you are apolitician, more's the pity.. For the record noone has the right to violate your laws, must be the only right that wasn't put in the Bill of Rights. I guess having a Bill of Rights doesn't protect you from illegal immigration and lawbreakers, strange about that. mightas well repeal it as redundant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Near total lack of any guaranteed rights... plain and simple.

---

The only thing that is simple is your commentary on Australian and US Constitutional law. For some reason you want to demonstrate a lack of knowledge in terms of Australian and US Constitutional issues,yet you seem happy to come back with the same simplistic arguments time and time again. Why is that?

When it comes to federal elections we have high expectations in terms of free and fair elections. We don't have a system whereby elections can be "stolen by massive fraud". This is your argument smoothy, we see it posted here time and time again.

So talk to me about your high expectations and our low expectations.

I didn't repeat your last paragraph because I want to treat it with the contempt it deserves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

WHAT? can't say latino's persee are a problem and we might like them better than Iranians and Indian's and Iraqi and Pakistani who are Muslim, not Christian and yes they are in plague proportions ask Indonesia which is a transit country



It appears Obama gave up his licence to practice law, you don't need one when you are apolitician, more's the pity.. For the record noone has the right to violate your laws, must be the only right that wasn't put in the Bill of Rights. I guess having a Bill of Rights doesn't protect you from illegal immigration and lawbreakers, strange about that. mightas well repeal it as redundant.

---

THe problem we have is a Democrat party that commits so much fraud on elections it makes the "elections" of the Soviet Union and Under Hugo Chavez appear legitimate.

Only a fool hands over their law license just because they go into politics... if they ever left office they would need to pass the BAR again to practice... The majority of lawyers that go into politics don't give them up, they keep them. Its like surrendering your drivers license because you got elected and are chauffeured around... they didn't hand those over too. And they both handed them over under suspicious circumstances.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

The only thing that is simple is your commentary on Australian and US Constitutional law. For some reason you want to demonstrate a lack of knowledge in terms of Australian and US Constitutional issues,yet you seem happy to come back with the same simplistic arguments time and time again. Why is that?

When it comes to federal elections we have high expectations in terms of free and fair elections. We don't have a system whereby elections can be "stolen by massive fraud". This is your argument smoothy, we see it posted here time and time again.

So talk to me about your high expectations and our low expectations.

I didn't repeat your last paragraph because I want to treat it with the contempt it deserves.

---

How about taking a long hard look in the mirror... over your own numerous pompous posts, proclaiming expertise on OUR constitution and its laws... Have you ever even visisted this country much less lived here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

How about taking a long hard look in the mirror... over your own numerous pompous posts, proclaiming expertise on OUR constitution and its laws... Have you ever even visisted this country much less lived here?

---

I am not a qualified constitutional lawyer, but I do have a qualification in this area. Is this what you are getting at?

P.S. It's not United States constitutional law

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

I am not a qualified constitutional lawyer, but I do have a qualification in this area. Is this what you are getting at?

---

Right... an Australian who has never even been here is trying to tell me... someone who was educated on our constitution for years in school where at one point I had to have the entire thing INCLUDING the bill of rights memorized because were tested on it and actually had to write in out as parts of tests. Which I aced because I was on the honor role during those years...

Now I wasn't born yesterday... and while under today's school system many students can't find north America on a globe... unless it was printed on it in big letters... that wasn't the case back in the 60's and 70's before I graduated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Right... an Australian who has never even been here is trying to tell me... someone who was educated on our constitution for years in school where at one point I had to have the entire thing INCLUDING the bill of rights memorized because were tested on it and actually had to write in out as parts of tests. Which I aced because I was on the honor role during those years...

---

This is exactly what I am trying to tell you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Now I wasn't born yesterday... and while under today's school system many students can't find north America on a globe... unless it was printed on it in big letters... that wasn't the case back in the 60's and 70's before I graduated.

---

That, correct just because you have lived in a country all your life doesn't mean you have any useful knowledge. In fact an very large number of citizens would have no knowledge in this area.

Learning facts does necessarily mean you understand those facts. I can only gain your understanding from what I have read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

This is exactly what I am trying to tell you.



That, correct just because you have lived in a country all your life doesn't mean you have any useful knowledge. In fact an very large number of citizens would have no knowledge in this area.

Learning facts does necessarily mean you understand those facts. I can only gain your understanding from what I have read.

---

I won't disagree that a lot of people manage to somehow graduate high school these days while remaining dumb as stumps and that happens in a number of countries... and an even larger number graduating from College think they know everything there is to know. They will learn its otherwise when they manage to get their first REAL job someplace. That's when your real education just gets started in most career fields.


I however am not one of them. I did really well in school and college without having to study for hours to ace the tests. The political correct thing here was just getting started as I was nearing graduation.. and we still had corporal punishment in the schools until some point AFTER I graduated.

We didn't have advanced placement courses or curriculum when I was in high school (or at least at my school) or I would likely have been in it. I had already taken almost everything I could take before my Senior year....And I was in the curriculum preparing for college.

Schools taught facts and provided an education before then...they weren't there to make you feel good about yourself which today is apparently their focus..

I don't feel a need to impress anyone with big words.....I've done so well in a number of jobs because I have a knack for explaining things in a way non-technical people can understand technical issues.... I got drafted rewriting technical manuals on products I worked in the R&D department on out of college...because the other engineers weren't able to put things into easily understood terms for the users. Thankfully I didn't have to do it all that often, I only did a dozen manuals over 7 years, which was fine by me....I'm not a writer at heart. Never was...I still am not.

Not everyone has walked in your shoes, and for sure you have not walked in the shoes of many of your own country men. You don't have to judge, or hate, to understand that do you? Matter of fact how can you understand if you do either?

Or are you just a grouch? :D

Empathy is for women... I'm not a woman.

Many of my own countrymen are utterly clueless about a lot of every day things... I have every right to hate those who try to tell me things are NOT the way I've actually seen them to be... when they get 100% of their information from sources that are anything but accurate or unbiased.

Know the old saying "ignorance is bliss......" Most people have no idea how true that is... and how ignorant they are of many events that happen every day...

Has seeing this stuff for years jaded my perspective on a lot of things? Yes it has... it disgusts me... it pi sses me off to no end... and the fact I see so many sheeple just accept what they are told as irrefutable fact... (look at anything that's come out of the White House Spokesman in recent years) Yes politicians lie... but they didn't use to lie about practically everything all the time like now.

I'd LOVE to go back to living in some small rural town... oblivious to most of the crap that's going around on a daily basis. Only a pathological liar could find comfort or enjoy the steady stream of lies and misinformation that poses as "NEWS" these days. I dislike lies, misinformation and propaganda unless its in situations where they are actually called for. ERGO...time of war type stuff.

And only a idealistic fool like Snowden would gather up the proof and spread it around knowing what would happen to him.

A lions share of what I've seen over the years... will never be repeated to anyone because I'm no idealistic fool. I treat it as one of the responsibilities that went with the job. One that I knew and accepted going into it, and I know its actually worse everywhere else...

Meaning as bad as it is... I know for a fact it could always get a lot worse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Right... an Australian who has never even been here is trying to tell me... someone who was educated on our constitution for years in school where at one point I had to have the entire thing INCLUDING the bill of rights memorized because were tested on it and actually had to write in out as parts of tests. Which I aced because I was on the honor role during those years...

Now I wasn't born yesterday... and while under today's school system many students can't find north America on a globe... unless it was printed on it in big letters... that wasn't the case back in the 60's and 70's before I graduated.

---

Learning something by rote doesn't mean you understand it, look at the muslims they learn the Quoran by rote. what good does it do them?

You see smoothy knowledge is not much good to you unless you can apply it. If you were a constitutional lawyer having a perfect knowledge of the wording of the constitution might be useful.

I think it is quite possible many americans could not find north america, or anywhereelse for that matter, and whose fault is it, those teachers who thought it a great idea to have students learn the constitution by rote and salute the flag, in other places it is called brain washing
.

Quote:

---

Empathy is for women

---

You continue to prove how ignorant you are with statement like these. It's like a train wreck that fun to watch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

.


I however am not one of them. I did really well in school and college without having to study for hours to ace the tests. The political correct thing here was just getting started as I was nearing graduation.. and we still had corporal punishment in the schools until some point AFTER I graduated.

We didn't have advanced placement courses or curriculum when I was in high school (or at least at my school) or I would likely have been in it. I had already taken almost everything I could take before my Senior year....And I was in the curriculum preparing for college.

---

It is apparent you were beaten about the head with some very large books, you must have been to have a head as thick as that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Learning something by rote doesn't mean you understand it, look at the muslims they learn the Quoran by rote. what good does it do them?

You see smoothy knowledge is not much good to you unless you can apply it. If you were a constitutional lawyer having a perfect knowledge of the wording of the constitution might be useful.

I think it is quite possible many americans could not find north america, or anywhereelse for that matter, and whose fault is it, those teachers who thought it a great idea to have students learn the constitution by rote and salute the flag, in other places it is called brain washing
.

---

Unlike most laws... our constitution wasn't written in Legalese... it was written to be understood by the average person. And that IS the opinion of a number of Constitutional Lawyers as well as Constitutional Scholars. It is what it says....there are no hidden meanings to anything in it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

You continue to prove how ignorant you are with statement like these. It's like a train wreck that fun to watch.

---

Did someone piss in your Wheaties or did your dog bite you after getting tired of you kicking it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Unlike most laws... our constitution wasn't written in Legalese... it was written to be understood by the average person. And that IS the opinion of a number of Constitutional Lawyers as well as Constitutional Scholars. It is what it says....there are no hidden meanings to anything in it.

---

But the interpretation can be varied--note all the courtrooms and the lawyers who argue in them. The Second Amendment alone is wide open to interpretation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

But the interpretation can be varied--note all the courtrooms and the lawyers who argue in them. The Second Amendment alone is wide open to interpretation.

---

It was ALL written in the same language... the second amendment is no more open to interpretation than the first is... or any of the others... That concept is a liberal concept... writtien in it NOPLACE is anything to the effect of "EXCEPT this...... or EXCEPT that...."

Like Clinton testifiying " It all depends on what the interpretation of "is" is." Or trying to argue what he and Monica Lewenski did wasn't sex......and people defending him.

Except of course if THEIR spouse were to do the same exact thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

Unlike most laws... our constitution wasn't written in Legalese... it was written to be understood by the average person. And that IS the opinion of a number of Constitutional Lawyers as well as Constitutional Scholars. It is what it says....there are no hidden meanings to anything in it.

---

If the language is plain why does it take the Supreme Court to intrepret it, what isn't apparent in the wording is the idea behind it, that is what is open to intrepretation. For example does the use of the word militia preclude the use of a standing army, and suggest relying only on the citizen soldier. Does the wording make no laws actually mean religion is exempt from the law of the land. Does the term originate only acsent or does it preclude any money appropriated in any bill originating in the Senate. I ask this because it would seem later events have led to different intrepretations

So when the founder wrote all men are created equal they weren't just talking about white men who owned land? Or did they mean except poor people, women and slaves? What's your interpretation to that?

Jefferson wanted to bring up slavery in the Declaration, but that Franklin cautioned against it for fear of bringing disunity to the colonies when they need to unite against King George III.

So they compromised for the greater good, (probably over cognac and cigars). Knowing good and damn well the unwritten "except for slaves, women and poor" was understood. And it did stand until Lincoln came along.

and yet Jefferson died broke . Samual Adams had to borrow decent clothing to attend . Washington started out rich .But lost more than half his net worth while he served in the Continental Army ,without pay. The fact is that most of the wealthy in the colonies were loyalists . Yes some were rich .But most led very middle class existences .


The fact is that there were few efforts to abolish slavery before the Declaration . The Declaration turned the tide in the debate . The few efforts that were attempted were stopped by the Crown. The Revolution was a turning point in the national attitude against slavery—and it was the Founders who contributed greatly to that change. Founders John Dickinson, Ceasar Rodney, William Livingston, George Washington, George Wythe, John Randolph,all released their slaves after independence.

1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded America's first antislavery society; John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. When Constitution signer and Governor of New Jersey William Livingston heard of the New York society he wrote them a letter of support . Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift;all founders were also members of anti-slavery societies.
Pennsylvania and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.
Washington said “I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it [slavery].”

So your argument that the anti-slavery movement began with Lincoln is nonsense .
When they debated the Constitution ,they added the 3/5 compromise which was in fact an ANTI slavery provision to the Constitution. What the clause did was restrict the power of the Southern slave states by counting the slaves for the purpose of apportionment as less than a free person. Had slaves been counted as a full person then the power of the South would've been greater . Southern states were denied additional pro-slavery representatives in Congress.

You misunderstood my reference to the slaves being freed under Lincoln, as the war was over the unfair economic situation that the institution gave the south which was compromised with a deal about the new frontier states being formed, that fell through and the south decided screw Lincoln. Had the deal gone through part of the US would have slavery still.

It was all a big political game that leaves us with the same situation, who has the right to bestow rights on other. Its always been about power, money, and influence, and who has it. Even Lincoln would be a RINO to that end by today's standard and it still a war even though the shooting has ceased long ago.

It's no coincidence that the south is a republican stronghold, and poverty abound in republican influenced states.

it's still the Dems that want to keep minorities on plantations ....plantations run by the government .