Constitution Means Nothing To This Administration

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Oct 6, 2008
126,747
62,571
2,300
Brooklyn, NY
John Bolton:
" A major problem for the United States at the United Nations is what is known as ‘norming.” “Norming” is the idea that the U.S. should base its decisions on some kind of international consensus, rather than making its decisions as a constitutional democracy. It is a way in which the Europeans and their left-wing friends here and elsewhere try and constrain U.S. sovereignty. The fact is that we’re sitting with a majority of countries that have no traditions or understanding of liberty. The argument of the advocates of “norming” is “one nation, one vote.” That sounds very democratic: Who could object to that? But its result would be very anti-democratic. As an illustration of this, a friend of mine once went to a conference on international law and heard a professor from a major European university say, “The problem with the United States is its devotion to its Constitution over international norms.” Consider this:

. An issue on which “norming” is brought to bear is gun control. The discussion turned out to have nothing to do with small arms and light weapons in African or Asian civil wars. Instead it was about gun control in the U.S., with advocates of “international norms” pressing for the prohibition of private ownership of firearms of any sort. The U.S. delegation made it clear that while we were concerned about the illicit flow of weapons into conflict areas, we were not going to sign on to any international agreement that prohibited private ownership of guns. I explained that we had a Constitution that precluded any such restrictions. This was treated as an entirely specious notion."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2008&month=04


"In fact, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton just announced the Obama Administration would be working hand in glove with the UN to pass a new “Small Arms Treaty.”

Disguised as legislation to help in the fight against “terrorism,” “insurgency” and “international crime syndicates,” the UN Small Arms Treaty is nothing more than a massive, GLOBAL gun control scheme.

So far, the gun-grabbers have successfully kept the exact wording of their new scheme under wraps.

But looking at previous versions of the UN “Small Arms Treaty,” you and I can get a good idea of what’s likely in the works.

If passed by the UN and ratified by the U.S. Senate, the UN “Small Arms Treaty” would almost certainly FORCE national governments to:

*** Enact tougher licensing requirements, making law-abiding citizens cut through even more bureaucratic red tape just to own a firearm legally;

*** CONFISCATE and DESTROY ALL “unauthorized” civilian firearms (all firearms owned by the government are excluded, of course);

*** BAN the trade, sale and private ownership of ALL semi-automatic weapons;

*** Create an INTERNATIONAL gun registry, setting the stage for full-scale gun CONFISCATION."
Townhall.com


Congress.org - : Letter to Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Virginia): OBAMA AND UN want to strip FREEDOMS and DESTROY GUN RIGHTS. NO NO NO.
 
From Bolton???

You must get a more credulous source there.



Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to John Bolton,World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.
 
Last edited:
PC, the people in authority positions really could care less about the law or the constitution. This did not happen overnight and if the people do not wake up real soon it will be much worse.
 
From Bolton???

You must get a more credulous source there.



Frequently a post on the message board includes either a link, quote, or reference to John Bolton,World Net Daily, or Rupert Murdoch, or Ann Coulter, or some other right-thinker, and rather than admit that the item is dispositive for the thread or question under discussion, too often the folks with the alternate view:

a. refuse to address the issue, because the citation is on the opposite side.
b. resort to an emoticon of laughter, or some sort of sign of disrespect, or the use of ‘lol.’
c. feel that some sort of “there you go again” response, rather than an actual refutation.
d. Attack the referred item with an Ad Hominem jab, pointing to an imagined physical or mental defect, or alter the name in some absurd manner.

What we have here is the kind of defense against opposing ideas that is indolent at best, and intellectually cowardly at worst. Rather than offering alternative or surrogate ideas, the above are faulty because:

a. To refuse to address the issue may mean that one has no faith in the argument of his side, or that the poster is not intellectually equipped to counter same. Nor does a citations political orientation ostensibly prove falsity.
b. The emoticon response, akin to ‘talk to the hand,’ is both rude and shows an inability to be articulate, a necessary skill for the board to retain interest.
c. Indicates that one is too lazy to state, or, possibly, re-state a position. But, then, one should say that, or find a succinct way to explain their position.
d. Possibly the most common, the ad hominem, combines both the lack of ability to argue, and contempt for the opponent. This exposes the weakness both in one’s perspective, and one’s upbringing.

My thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.

Yeah, but BOLTON?
 
Thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.

How's the weather on your high horse? You're smart enough to know those sources are right wing loons and that people dismiss the ravings of left wing loons as well.
 
Regardless of the source, this has some very dangerous ramifications to the 2nd amendment. Many have said that Obama was anti gun and many have claimed it was BS. If he signs onto a UN small arms treaty that affects the 2nd amendment in any way, shape, or form then we know his true colors. This bears some very close watching.
 
politicalchic, please post your sources, because your material is merely boiler plate defense material from some think tank or center. I suspect you are being paid to post it, which is fine, but be transparent please.

Also, John Bolton is known as a neo-con apologist.

The great majority of Americans are done with that nonsense.

Kill the thread and let's move on.
 
Thesis is that we should all be able to express our differences coherently in a public forum, and using the above methods is the hallmark of a loser.

How's the weather on your high horse? You're smart enough to know those sources are right wing loons and that people dismiss the ravings of left wing loons as well.

Instead of aspersion, so easy to cast, requiring no knowledge, how about contesting the post?

Care to take the challenge?
 
politicalchic, please post your sources, because your material is merely boiler plate defense material from some think tank or center. I suspect you are being paid to post it, which is fine, but be transparent please.

Also, John Bolton is known as a neo-con apologist.

The great majority of Americans are done with that nonsense.

Kill the thread and let's move on.

JS, time to clean the specs.

I always provide sources, as I have done in the OP.

"...The great majority of Americans are done with that nonsense..."

And " please post your sources."


Now, if it is possible for you to put aside the knee-jerk partisan response, consider responding to the essence of the post: do you agree with signing on to a UN treaty which will obviate a section of the Constitition?

Open your eyes.

American sovereignty or one-worldism?
 
Your boiler plate is a knee-jerk posting of tired, discredited, apolgetic sources.

Why should any of us invest any effort in dealing with this drivel? Really. You are smart, but even you can't think you can get away this type of material.
 
Your boiler plate is a knee-jerk posting of tired, discredited, apolgetic sources.

Why should any of us invest any effort in dealing with this drivel? Really. You are smart, but even you can't think you can get away this type of material.

"Why should any of us invest any effort ..."

Since you have posted twice on this thread, it kind of makes your statement empty.

And implied that you lack the ability to "invest any effort ..."

I keep looking for a higher level of retort or discourse from the other side. It would be a nice Christmas present if one or two of you guys would try to build a congent, pointed response.

I'm saddened that you won't be the one to provide it.

Try?
1. You could document differenced with John Bolton.

2. Your could explain why the United States should allow the United Nations to take over our Constitution and wield power over US citizens.


Or....
Have a Merry Christmas.
 
No one can offer anything constructive to your proposition other than "what you have is really not worth the time other than to tell you that." Bolton? Come on, pc, do better, please.
 
Supporting John Bolton is about like a lefty posting Michael Moore crap.

Now would a rightie expect someone on the left to explain why Moore was not whacked?

Or would they just ridicule?
 
No one can offer anything constructive to your proposition other than "what you have is really not worth the time other than to tell you that." Bolton? Come on, pc, do better, please.

You know the old saw about everyone having excuses?

Modesty prevents me from posting it.

But it applies here.
 
Chnage is upon you my children. Welcome to the 21st Century to my American, Conservative, red-neck cavemen. "YES WE CAN" said Obama, he will do what he said he'd do. Make no mistake Medicare will be the law. The Negro people have one chance and that chance is Obama.
 
Supporting John Bolton is about like a lefty posting Michael Moore crap.

Now would a rightie expect someone on the left to explain why Moore was not whacked?

Or would they just ridicule?



"Or would they just ridicule?" As in "5. "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage." Saul Alinsky

While ridicule is elegant in its simplicity, it is not honest nor intellectual.

If you have followed any of my posts, you must know that that is never my approach.

If you quoted Moore, I might dispute the veracity of his statement, or I might post some other statements by Moore and show how it is clearly untrue, with statements by authorities.

I don't believe that you can find my responses that use the source as the reason not to accept a point.

As I stated earlier, it is less than sophisticated to simply say "Bolton????" and feel that this is dispositive.

In fact, I claim that it is the hallmark of a dolt. Simple is as simple does.
 
Chnage is upon you my children. Welcome to the 21st Century to my American, Conservative, red-neck cavemen. "YES WE CAN" said Obama, he will do what he said he'd do. Make no mistake Medicare will be the law. The Negro people have one chance and that chance is Obama.

Is 'Chnage' a coat? A head-dress? A pet? Your real name?

In any case, get off me.


And, welcome to the 18th century:

"He that lives upon hope will die fasting."

Benjamin Franklin.
 

Forum List

Back
Top