toldailytopic: Barack Hussein Obama. Will he serve another 4 year term? Or will he be
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
The Graphite
New member
If DrBrumley doesn't believe a person has the right to life, liberty or property, that certainly speaks volumes. I don't know why I bother to even discuss the issue with one who has such heinous and abominable beliefs.
It seems that he takes the King Saul position on the "flow of authority," falsely assuming that the highest level of government should follow the will of the people rather than the will of the Creator of the universe. I can only point to how that turned out for King Saul.
It seems that he takes the King Saul position on the "flow of authority," falsely assuming that the highest level of government should follow the will of the people rather than the will of the Creator of the universe. I can only point to how that turned out for King Saul.
drbrumley
Well-known member
I didnt take it you were a slanderer.
And what does King Saul have to do with how our nation was founded? More obfuscation on your part.....sad actually!
I do agree that the 'Citizenship Clause' should be amended, as it seems doubtful that its intention was to grant babies first citizenship. At least one parent should be a citizen, nationalized, or born as a citizen and in cases were the mother is the sole parent, she should be a citizen.
drbrumley
Well-known member
Yes, anchor babies are a problem in this country.
drbrumley
Well-known member
For the record numbskull, I am for personhood amendments thruout our nation. I have said it before and I will say it again, Bob Enyart's effort on these ballot iniatives are to be commended. And everyone else who works on them, including you if you are a part. But you fall off the turnup truck when you start talking about things you obviously no nothing about. Now you owe me a freaking apology.
WizardofOz
New member
drbrumley
Well-known member
Its rather simple KMO. Graphite here makes the silly argument that basically the Federal Government created the State Governments. And the State Governments need to bow down to the power of the Federal Government. Why, cause God said so. Yet he has shown no evidence to make such a claim. All he can rattle off is abortion is murder which he is right, and authority flows downhill. He is also right. Yet as I mentioned before, it was a treaty with certain things the Federal Government were not to intrude on. Cause absolute power corrupts absolutely. He has already admitted on this thread he is a statist. And he is an idiot for it.
The Graphite
New member
I'm not. You were the one who rejected recognition of the right to life, liberty and property in our Constitution. All I did was point it out.
Hey, you're the one who is scoffing at the idea that authority flows downhill from God through government to the people. That was King Saul's position. He should have acknowledged "downhill flow of authority," however he opted to instead accede to the "will of the people" (something you seem to prefer), and to a very tragic end for him.
I don't desire such a tragic end for you, or for our great nation, and that is why I warn you of your dangerous, false, humanistic doctrine.
I'm creating a separate thread for this. I asked the mods to move this conversation over to a new, separate thread but they haven't gotten around to it. Please stand by and I'll post a link to it, since this conversation has almost completely hijacked this thread, at this point.
The Graphite
New member
What about "Barack 'Love Child' Hussein Obama"?
Yes, that is about it, sadly. If the "Cat in the Hat' was in office and the economy boomed, he would be re-elected.
Ecumenicist
New member
Save the unborn and then ship 'em to Mexico. Brilliant.
Ecumenicist
New member
Yes, that is about it, sadly. If the "Cat in the Hat' was in office and the economy boomed, he would be re-elected.
At least he'd call in Thing One and Thing Two to clean up the mess at the end of the day.
If Ron Paul could show he really does care about the American holocaust coming to an end. Since I firmly believe he would write executive orders reversing all the illegal activity going on now. So would Keyes. They would be better than doc indicated. Reagan had Bush I afterall.
To answer the question, God I hope not. Because he is not an American, he hates God, he hates God's system of capitalism.
They think you have a sharp sword coming from your mouth, they really haven't seen anything yet. Think Acts 5 when the fullness of the gentiles comes in, and Israel repents.
:banana:
As for Obama and Keyes...
| The Truth | |
The Graphite
New member
Paul? Executive orders? What, for "illegal activity" like widespread infanticide?
I can't see that happening, since he has made it clear he believes the federal government should be blocked from enforcing the federal constitution in matters such as the right to life (and thus presumably the right to liberty and property, as those would logically follow).
Of course, making laws that endeavor to take away the federal government's authority to enforce the federal constitution pretty much invalidates the very purpose, meaning and value -- indeed, the very relevance -- of the U.S. Constitution. I mean, if life and liberty and property are strictly "states rights" issues, then we might as well throw out half of the U.S. Constitution right now.
Since Ron Paul says one thing one day, and not the next, I say let him prove it. I don't hold my breath.
Me said:
You don't know he signed a bunch of executive orders the day after his becoming steward?
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama-subjects.html
The Graphite
New member
Yes, it set down in writing some limitations of the federal government, primarily that it cannot allow the decriminalization of murder, theft, etc. It outlined various things the federal (and state) governments cannot do to violate the rights of individuals. It can't violate a person's rights in this way, that way or this other way. The government (in fact, no government) has the authority to deprive a person of their right to life, liberty or property without due process of law.
Further, it requires the government to enforce such laws against murder, theft, etc. In doing so, it grants the federal government the authority to do so. Which is a point I keep making - that rights have to do with freedom and liberty, while authority has to do with obligations and limitations and requirements and imperatives, which is the opposite of liberty and freedom and "rights."
Your point?
- Status