Go Back   tanTALK - Tanning Salon Business Owners Community > Off Topic > Say What ?????

Say What ????? This is a forum for tanning professionals to discuss topics and issues unrelated to the tanning industry.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-03-2008, 11:53 AM   #21 (permalink)
I love Derf!!
 
megatanman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 17 2007
Location: Ohio
Age: 48
Posts: 1,360
Rep Power: 17 megatanman is a jewel in the rough megatanman is a jewel in the rough megatanman is a jewel in the rough
Re: Alert! Ezliving Jim Agrees With Daily Kos Blog. Liberals Convulse.

Its obvious that Jim believes its "OK" to change the constitution for what he believes is good for the country,but not Ok when it doesn't benefit himself or he fails to believe its the right thing.

Our constitutional rights were violated with the patriot act,there is no argument for that and it was done "for the better of" our country.

So if the first and second amedment was changed "for the better of" our country,that would be ok Jim?Maybe I am misunderstanding your logic,but i think thats how we are interpreting it?
megatanman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-03-2008, 07:25 PM   #22 (permalink)
I love Derf!!
 
Ezliving_Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 12 2002
Location: Undisclosed Secure Location
Posts: 2,636
Rep Power: 26 Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future Ezliving_Jim has a brilliant future
Re: Alert! Ezliving Jim Agrees With Daily Kos Blog. Liberals Convulse.

The Constitution was not changed under the Patriot Act. If there is an infringing section, SCOTUS can deal with it. (as in civilian trials for enemy combatants (in which I disagree with SCOTUS.)
Quote:
So if the first and second amedment was changed "for the better of" our country,that would be ok Jim?
No, not at all. But that is what Obama believes, ie "sensible" gun laws. That infringes on the 2nd Amendment, a clear violation.

Obama attorney's going after the media that run ads he does not like leads me to believe that would be the direction of an Obama Justice Dept. That marginalizes the 1st Amendment.

Don't even get me started on his plan for a Civilian National Security Force with a budget as large as the US Military. What do you think he would be doing with that?
Ezliving_Jim is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google Blog Alert CHUNN General Tanning Industry Discussions 0 04-02-2008 02:04 AM
My Blog for the day! cametotalktan Say What ????? 10 03-31-2006 03:18 PM
EFT\'s Suck who agrees Jeni and Mike General Tanning Industry Discussions 52 09-02-2005 01:50 PM
American Royal agrees to help fund the NAC! Soakinuptherays General Tanning Industry Discussions 17 06-05-2002 10:00 PM
DON..Someone agrees with you on Botox.. fungirlz Tanning Salon Management 3 04-17-2002 10:38 PM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Copyright 2009 - tanTALK.com

click here for advertising info!