Jump to content
Advertise With Us!
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.

Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.
Sign in to follow this  
Cinnamon

Remember when George Bush kept saying (and some red flags)

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 Cinnamon    16,461

"They hate us for our freedoms."  I was like, wtf freedom is he talking about?  The Patriot Act was already in effect and that bill combined with lots of others stripped us of a ton of rights, the 4th amendment was attacked mercilessly. It just dawned on me that the freedom he was talking about was the ability to be manipulated by ads for big corporations foisted on us by electronic devices showing ads day in and day out. Oh, look, you're so free, you don't have to wear a Burka and you can shop online with your app, thanks a lot!  I mean, really?  Bush solidified the culture of buying tons of junk you didn't need to keep the economy going. And I thought he was not very bright all this time. 

My point is that I knew that the government has been after what they are taking from us, for a really long time. The internet has been under siege for years. They just don't stop.  When one bill gets rejected, they come up with another one worse than that and ram it through, to hell with what the people want. We want our internet and 1st Amendment and all the other ones, too. 

Trump better keep his eyes open to reality because unreality is quite evil and THAT is how we've been ruled over, unrealistically. 

As a side note: This really bothers me bout Trump as well. He was not schooled on the Electoral College OR he is for direct democracy which does not resemble what this Republic is supposed to look like.  He said he thought the popular vote should be how presidents are elected.  Either he really believes that or he was ignorant of how the EC works and why. It was a huge mistake for someone who is going to adhere strictly to the Constitution.  

That has been bothering me since I heard him say it. The reason I am concerned is because there are moves afoot to legally change the EC. The only thing I would change is the second vote with Electors.  That's where the "Hamiltonians" come in with wanting to keep that enclave of the few so they can overthrow the EC at a later date. They didn't have enough time to prepare this time, but now, they've got 4 years to do it instead of weeks like their attempt. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1962 versus 2004   
1962 versus 2004
Just now, 1962 versus 2004 said:

 

Why did the 2004 remake omit the key part of wanting this type of candidate. COMMIE INVASION!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1962 versus 2004   
1962 versus 2004

lolmocracy.... seriously. CTs don't know by know everyone is placed into office....there is no democracy other than the idea in government....

 

"it is enough that the voters know there was an election. the voters count for nothing. whose counting the votes decide everything.' -a person

 

is the above statement not true? perhaps voting MAY actually work on a much smaller scale when less is at risk. perhaps in towns so small they 

 

actually believe in it and practice it...but at this level? no way. looks like they put a real dummy in office and it's super easy to manipulate a narcissist. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 majoga    429

Being that the EC is a constitutional provision, it seems to me that the only way it can be legally affected is with an amendment. They don't have the juice to even try it for at least a couple of years. Anything short of an amendment is bogus and if any other sort of attempt is made successfully, I'd assume it would guarantee that civil war everyone is expecting at some point.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cinnamon    16,461
1 hour ago, majoga said:

Being that the EC is a constitutional provision, it seems to me that the only way it can be legally affected is with an amendment. They don't have the juice to even try it for at least a couple of years. Anything short of an amendment is bogus and if any other sort of attempt is made successfully, I'd assume it would guarantee that civil war everyone is expecting at some point.

Yes, it would take an amendment which means calling a Constitutional Convention. The way America is divided right now, you might go in for a tweak on the EC and come out without a 2nd Amendment. It's dangerous either way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cinnamon said:

Yes, it would take an amendment which means calling a Constitutional Convention. The way America is divided right now, you might go in for a tweak on the EC and come out without a 2nd Amendment. It's dangerous either way. 

Yeah, the Continental Congress of 2009 detered from wanting to do a Con-Con, because it had dangerous implications in the current time...if our Founding Fathers, of course that wouldn't happen now, but if they tried it now, it wouldn't have a chance...it'd be one world dictatorship (funny, how is that different from now?), but of course that's all violating the Constitution that we have for "something better"? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 DarkKnightNomeD    1,651
10 hours ago, Cinnamon said:

And I thought he was not very bright all this time. 

He was known for spoken eloquently sometimes, showed you he is smart. Just his second term he played along, acted dumb.

10 hours ago, Cinnamon said:

That's where the "Hamiltonians" come in with wanting to keep that enclave of the few so they can overthrow the EC at a later date.

Don't worry, we know some "Burrians" that are good shots if things get out of hand. :D

 

7 hours ago, 1962 versus 2004 said:

Why did the 2004 remake omit the key part of wanting this type of candidate. COMMIE INVASION!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I still need to watch the 1962 version of it. And some vids by Orson Welles.

 

45 minutes ago, counterintelligence said:

Yeah, the Continental Congress of 2009 detered from wanting to do a Con-Con, because it had dangerous implications in the current time...if our Founding Fathers, of course that wouldn't happen now, but if they tried it now, it wouldn't have a chance...it'd be one world dictatorship (funny, how is that different from now?), but of course that's all violating the Constitution that we have for "something better"? 

Need a Convention of states to stop the FED GOV , not a Con Con.

Edited by DarkKnightNomeD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 Cinnamon    16,461
9 minutes ago, DarkKnightNomeD said:

He was known for spoken eloquently sometimes, showed you he is smart. Just his second term he played along, acted dumb.

Don't worry, we know some "Burrians" that are good shots if things get out of hand. :D

 

I still need to watch the 1962 version of it. And some vids by Orson Welles.

 

Need a Convention of states to stop the FED GOV , not a Con Con.

Article V of the Constitution provides two methods for adding Amendments. Congress introduces amendments by one method; the states initiate them under the other.

The only method ever used is the congressional method. It lets Congress pass constitutional amendments by a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. Such amendments must then be ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures or special state conventions, as Congress determines. Over 10,000 amendments have been introduced into Congress since 1789. Only 33 have been approved. Of these, 27 have been ratified and added to the Constitution.

The other way of amending the Constitution has never been successfully used. Under this procedure, the states initiate the amending process by petitioning Congress for a constitutional convention. When two-thirds of the states have submitted petitions, Congress must call a convention. Any amendments approved by such a convention must be ratified by three-fourths of the states. Congress decides whether state legislatures or state conventions will ratify these amendments.

Since the Constitution went into effect, there have been about 400 petitions from state legislatures calling for a convention to consider one thing or another. None of these efforts ever succeeded, but some came close. For years Congress ignored requests to pass an amendment allowing for the direct election of U.S. senators. Finally, in 1912, Congress passed the 17th Amendment, but only after supporters of the amendment were just one state short of triggering a constitutional convention.

Since the 1960s, state legislatures have submitted petitions for constitutional conventions when Congress refused to pass controversial amendments. Three of these amendments would have allowed prayers in the schools, prohibited busing for racial balance, and permitted the states to make abortions illegal. In each of these cases, however, supporters fell short of getting the 34 states needed for calling a constitutional convention.

<snip>

http://www.crf-usa.org/america-responds-to-terrorism/do-we-need-a-new-constitutional-convention.html

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, DarkKnightNomeD said:

He was known for spoken eloquently sometimes, showed you he is smart. Just his second term he played along, acted dumb.

Don't worry, we know some "Burrians" that are good shots if things get out of hand. :D

 

I still need to watch the 1962 version of it. And some vids by Orson Welles.

 

Need a Convention of states to stop the FED GOV , not a Con Con.

They should implement the Convention of States even with Trump being president, so that this wrecking ball that we've been under for the last 50 years won't happen again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up to our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  1. Jump To Top
×