• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

North Korea is a horrific example of the dangers of far-right ideology

Why would we not disapprove of a President that opposes the constitution?

When has President Obama ever opposed the constitution? And please don;t just start citing Rush Limbaugh or the NRA, please cite an unbiased source.
 
When has President Obama ever opposed the constitution? And please don;t just start citing Rush Limbaugh or the NRA, please cite an unbiased source.

He opposes the 2nd Amendment.

The ACA is unconstitutional.

Let's start there
 
Barack Obama SUPPORTS the second amendment: Obama: I believe in the Second Amendment - CBS News

ACA was ruled constitutional by SCOTUS, which at the time, had a 5-4 CONSERVATIVE majority

:doh

Obama said he would close gitmo, he would end the wars, he said in 2006 raising the debt limit is a failure of government then added $10 in debt. Actions speak louder than words, he pushes for gun control every chance he gets. The 2nd opposes this.

The SCOTUS violated thier oath when they called a penalty a tax. Do you really think it is constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to buy goods and services, under penalty of law, from private entities that lobby congress?
 
Obama said he would close gitmo, he would end the wars, he said in 2006 raising the debt limit is a failure of government then added $10 in debt. Actions speak louder than words, he pushes for gun control every chance he gets. The 2nd opposes this.

The SCOTUS violated thier oath when they called a penalty a tax. Do you really think it is constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to buy goods and services, under penalty of law, from private entities that lobby congress?

The 2nd amendment as the founders intended meant that citizens could bear arms as members of well regulated militias: aka national guardsmen and policemen. The fact that Obama says he supports private gun ownership shows how absurd it is to say he opposes the 2a, since the 2a doesn;t say ANYTHING about private gun ownership.
 
The 2nd amendment as the founders intended meant that citizens could bear arms as members of well regulated militias: aka national guardsmen and policemen. The fact that Obama says he supports private gun ownership shows how absurd it is to say he opposes the 2a, since the 2a doesn;t say ANYTHING about private gun ownership.

No it says the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed not the milita. Since you seem to like the SCOTUS .... Look up Heller vs DC, then get back to me
 
No it says the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed not the milita. Since you seem to like the SCOTUS .... Look up Heller vs DC, then get back to me

Heller vs. DC is irrelevant, since Scalia is dead now, and will be replaced by a justice with an iq over 80.
 
Heller vs. DC is irrelevant, since Scalia is dead now, and will be replaced by a justice with an iq over 80.

Why do you want to relieve the people of thier right to defend themselves?
 
Why do you want to relieve the people of thier right to defend themselves?

The right to defend oneself is different from the right to own a killing device. You can defend yourself with alarm systems, guard dogs, calling 911, etc. Overturning Heller vs. DC won;t change that.
 
The right to defend oneself is different from the right to own a killing device. You can defend yourself with alarm systems, guard dogs, calling 911, etc. Overturning Heller vs. DC won;t change that.

You want people to defend themselves against armed assailants by calling 911?
 
You want people to defend themselves against armed assailants by calling 911?

That's the safest way. Give up the money and call 911 afterwards. Nobody gets hurt.
 
:doh Ok you do that I'll shoot the criminal

And in an ideal world, you'd go to jail for it.

Besides, if worst came to worst, I know martial arts and am in good physical shape, and can defend myself like a man, instead having to rely on a metal dildo to save me. Another plus is that I can take my attacker to the ground and keep him there, allowing the police to arrest him and avoid bloodshed, while your guns will needlessly cause a loss of life.
 
And in an ideal world, you'd go to jail for it.

Besides, if worst came to worst, I know martial arts and am in good physical shape, and can defend myself like a man, instead having to rely on a metal dildo to save me. Another plus is that I can take my attacker to the ground and keep him there, allowing the police to arrest him and avoid bloodshed, while your guns will needlessly cause a loss of life.

You would be shot and dead, meanwhile at my house the intruder will be shot.
 
I haz the lulz.
 
You would be shot and dead, meanwhile at my house the intruder will be shot.

No, I wouldn't be shot, since without easy access to firearms, the gun show loophole, etc. my intruder would not have a gun, and I could take him down with my Aikido training.
 
No, I wouldn't be shot, since without easy access to firearms, the gun show loophole, etc. my intruder would not have a gun, and I could take him down with my Aikido training.

In what reality would this be?
 
In what reality would this be?

The reality that would occur five to ten years after the second amendment was repealed or Heller vs. DC overturned.
 
The reality that would occur five to ten years after the second amendment was repealed or Heller vs. DC overturned.

You think hundreds of millions of guns are going to get confiscated? How old are you?
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cleanest_Race#Academic_reception

https://www.docdroid.net/nv0n/the-cleanest-race.pdf.html

Read the book The Cleanest Race by Brian Meyers. i/t is a groundbreaking explanation about how the backwards police state of North Korea is not socialist at all, but rather the result of right wing ideology.

North Korea has much in common with conservative ideology all around the globe, including the republican party in the USA. There is a heavy focus on a "traditional family" structure, with a mother, father, and children. There is extreme xenophobia, fear of immigration, and a belief that their race is the purest (much like the white racism so prevalent in the South.) There is a heavy focus on the military, much like the military worship in the U.S.A. In fact, in North Korea, just like the the red states of the U.S.A, black citizens (or in the case of North Korea, a black Cuban diplomat) live in constant fear of lynching.

This is in direct contrast to true socialism, which treats all human beings as equal, regardless of race, gender, or nationality. True socialism has lead to the development of China from a medieval state to one of the most developed countries of the world, and has led to the creation of the world's greatest healthcare system in Cuba. Cuba's Health Care System: a Model for the World

In fact, North Korea has OPENLY REJECTED socialism. There are no pictures of Marx, or Mao, or Lenin on classrooms or in public. There is ZERO mention of communism in the constitution. The focus is on "Juche" an avowedly far right, militaristic, xenophobic ideal that doesn't sound so different than what Donald Trump preaches.

The next time some idiot mentions North Korea as "communist," tell them that North Korea is actually very reminiscent of the American right wing, and that the party line of the Korean Workers Party and the party line of the GOP are frighteningly similar.

Ever been there? I have been as close as you ever want to, an you are as ignorant on this topic as every other thread topic you have started, you are at least consistent with these threads in your ignorance or is that those that feed you this "stuff" are consistent, makes no difference, same difference.
 
You think hundreds of millions of guns are going to get confiscated? How old are you?

Ohoooooo, I wanna answer that question, hey over here:2wave:
 
Ohoooooo, I wanna answer that question, hey over here:2wave:

The military swore an oath to uphold the constitution and the legal orders of their superiors. The second amendment doesn't cover privately owned firearms, and an order to confiscate all guns would absolutely be legal, so our soldiers would be obligated to follow that order. To help them do so, they would have access to M1 Abrams tanks, drones, and tactical nuclear missiles ready to turn the NRA headquarters into burning toxic rubble.
 
The military swore an oath to uphold the constitution and the legal orders of their superiors. The second amendment doesn't cover privately owned firearms, and an order to confiscate all guns would absolutely be legal, so our soldiers would be obligated to follow that order. To help them do so, they would have access to M1 Abrams tanks, drones, and tactical nuclear missiles ready to turn the NRA headquarters into burning toxic rubble.

Your ignorance is killing your own argument.
 
Back
Top Bottom