Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

Rant

The REAL CHILD, Bob

Mar 28, 2018 4:34AM PDT
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/26/politics/barack-obama-million-young-obamas/index.html

You are constantly talking about Trump's childish ego....but here's proof from his own mouth AGAIN about how great he believes himself to be that he would want to CLONE himself and his whacked wife by the millions. He honestly is convinced that HE and HE ALONE have all the answers to making/TRANSFORMING America into HIS and HIS FATHER'S dream.

He tried it for eight years and caused total chaos but hasn't got enough vision to see what he's DELIBERATELY done to harm this country (or he actually DOES see it and believes ALL of that damage is the right course anyhow) and is convinced that he just ran out of time to finish the job so clones are the answer.

And you dare to question my 'paranoia'.....remember, 'if you believe someone is after you, they probably are' rings true more times than not. And having someone like Wasserman-Schultz's comments about how banning ammo (beginning with requiring background checks in order to buy it, which five States have already implemented) and former Justice Stevens saying publicly that the Second Amendment should be repealed et al proves my point again. (To be totally pc though, shouldn't Wasserman change her name to WasserPERSON?) And why isn't SHE being kicked out of the Senate for rigging the election against her fellow Senator who STILL isn't saying a thing about it?

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Is Obama
Mar 28, 2018 4:56AM PDT

STILL President?

- Collapse -
Re: point
Mar 28, 2018 5:50AM PDT

I fail to see what point of yours (regarding Obama or whatever) is proved by what former Justice Stevens said about the second amendment.

- Collapse -
RE:shouldn't Wasserman change her name to WasserPERSON?
Mar 28, 2018 8:31AM PDT

No more than you would change your name to TONI Haggler

hag·gle

dispute or bargain persistently, especially over the cost of something.
"the two sides are haggling over television rights"
synonyms: barter, bargain, negotiate, dicker, quibble, wrangle;

I know you are NOT a Hackle


/Hackle
The hackle is a clipped feather plume that is attached to a military headdress. In the British Army and the armies of some Commonwealth countries, the hackle is worn by some infantry regiments, especially those designated as fusilier regiments and those with Scottish and Northern Irish origins.

You seem to be more of a Haggler than a Hackler....

See what ya' started?

- Collapse -
You still can't carry on even a semblence
Mar 28, 2018 9:32AM PDT

of debate, but keep convincing us how incoherent you really are......and you more often than not revert to name calling rather than discuss anything. Carry on..........

I'm not pc, JP.....LIBERALS are....for everybody but themselves.

- Collapse -
RE:how incoherent you really are
Mar 28, 2018 10:49AM PDT

ME?....incoherent?

Claims the person that thinks another person should change THEIR name from Wasserman to WasserPERSON?

What is "coherent" about THAT suggestion?

WAZ UP!!!! with that?

See how I worked the first part of her name in the post?

- Collapse -
RE:you more often than not revert to name calling
Mar 28, 2018 10:59AM PDT

LIBERALS are

Name calling?


Pot...Kettle?

notice I didn't "edit" my earlier post?

Devil

- Collapse -
(NT) My app says it's semblance.
Mar 29, 2018 4:37PM PDT
- Collapse -
BO had an agenda
Mar 28, 2018 11:01AM PDT

Whether I agreed or disagreed with that agenda does not matter.

BO is not driving the bus.

The child we have now who is driving the bus seems to have an agenda of convincing congress and other world leaders that nothing he says can be believed.

The 2nd is based on the need for a militia....we don't have such a thing.
Saying the 2nd gives someone the right to own a gun gets a little iffy......yes I'm aware what SCOTUS said.

If congress wants to give you the right to own a gun that's fine.
Pass some kind of rule/law/amendment that says that in plain English.
Then toss the 2nd.

- Collapse -
It's only "iffy" to people who don't like the ruling....
Mar 29, 2018 8:53AM PDT

As for the 'we don't have such a thing' regarding a militia.....The 2nd is based on the POSSIBLE need of a militia in the future. Congress doesn't have to pass anything regarding the right to own a gun....we already have that in the 2nd, and it's in plain English. The 2nd isn't going away even if you wish it to be so.

- Collapse -
I'll start with
Mar 29, 2018 10:26AM PDT

I don't have a problem with people owning a gun.

The 2nd was added because there was a need for a militia at the time.

We don't have that need today and it's highly unlikely we will ever have that need.

I don't expect the 2nd to be put in the bin unless an alternative is created first.

- Collapse -
It wasn't ADDED, Bob
Mar 29, 2018 1:34PM PDT

It was the SECOND priority of our Founders and they made SURE it would stay that way.....

Things like "Roe v Wade" and "Gay Marriage" garbage are ADD-INS, and were never even voted on by Congress which is mandatory for making law.

As for, "We don't have that need today and it's highly unlikely we will ever have that need.", don't be so sure......It's already found to be needed once.

- Collapse -
Added
Mar 29, 2018 3:00PM PDT

It was an amendment.

Looks to me it was added.

- Collapse -
Remember that the "Bill of Rights"
Mar 29, 2018 3:32PM PDT

were actually a clarification of what would otherwise be considered as "givens" in the constitution. Also remember that the constitution wasn't written as a pronouncement of the limitations of the people but of the limits of government prior to it's passing of any law.

- Collapse -
I heard that the Tories of New York
Mar 29, 2018 5:07PM PDT

[notorious king-huggers] would have blocked acceptance of the Constitution WITH the rights in it. Compromise, as usual. Could be wrong.
Article 1, Section 9, ¶ the first, opened the floodgates of importation of slaves until 1803, when Congress could have stopped their importation. Like stocking up on guns in case ... Of course any civilized nation runs its slavery in a businesslike manner, so there was provision for a tax. "Not exceeding ten dollars for each person".*
Ibid., ¶ the third, provides that "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed." Like the "well-regulated militia" amendment, no longer needed in any civilized country; not even in England.
All this comes from a little booklet "The Constitution", by those nice folks at the ACLU.

*Interesting. If a slave is a "person" here, why didn't they have the rights of persons in the various legal actions of the next century or so? And, if they were not human, as some slaveowners averred, what can we call those of the Founding Fathers who had sexual intercourse with them? I'm referring to the Fathers who established the US as a 'Christian nation'. That's in Article ... just a minute ... well, I'll find it later. Lev 18:23. As the noted political commentator Stan Freberg said, "George Washington was the Father of His Country in every possible way."

- Collapse -
The North were the slave traders
Apr 4, 2018 4:10PM PDT
http://slavenorth.com/profits.htm

http://slavenorth.com/exclusion.htm

3. Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, transl. George Lawrence, Harper & Row, 1966, p.343.

"So the Negro [in the North] is free, but he cannot share the rights, pleasures, labors, griefs, or even the tomb of him whose equal he has been declared; there is nowhere where he can meet him, neither in life nor in death.

In the South, where slavery still exists, less trouble is taken to keep the Negro apart: they sometimes share the labors and the pleasures of the white men; people are prepared to mix with them to some extent; legislation is more harsh against them, but customs are more tolerant and gentle
".[3]

When the Civil War ended, 19 of 24 Northern states did not allow blacks to vote. Nowhere did they serve on juries before 1860. They could not give testimony in 10 states, and were prevented from assembling in two. Several western states had prohibited free blacks from entering the state. Blacks who entered Illinois and stayed more than 10 days were guilty of "high misdemeanor." Even those that didn't exclude blacks debated doing so and had discriminatory ordinances on the local level.