Favourite Obama quotes

  • 112 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for KiIIyou
#101 Posted by KiIIyou (27180 posts) -
Quit peeing in my river!
Avatar image for Rhazakna
#102 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Here is mine

"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right" - Barrack Obama.

Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.

BuryMe

He's right...

There are limits of free speech (hate speech laws, for example.)

There are limits on the second ammendment (you can't own absolutely any gun.)

There are limits on your social liberty (the government can put you in jail if you commit a crime)\

Freedoms ARE limited.

The United States does not have hate speech laws, and as far as I know is the only Western country without them. If the government can decide what constitutes free speech, by definition it is no longer free.
Avatar image for surrealnumber5
#103 Posted by surrealnumber5 (23044 posts) -

at the end of my first term the debt will be cut in half. at the end off his first term it doubled...... /2 and *2 are not the same mathematical operation, why cant we get a guy in the white house with greater than a new born's understanding of math.

Avatar image for D3nnyCrane
#104 Posted by D3nnyCrane (12058 posts) -
"Johnny, do you like gladiator movies?" Presidential debate with John McCain.
Avatar image for worlock77
#105 Posted by worlock77 (22552 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"] :lol: If this river doesn't pass through any land that is owned by anyone, then the question of who owns the river is meaningless because there's no one around to own it, and the river has absolutely no impact on the lives of anyone. That's like asking who owns a crater on the moon.

And thus it is not private property. So by dumping waste into the river I am affecting no one's private property.

By dumping waste into a river that flows through someone's property, you are affecting his property. Before he had a river of water flowing through his land. Now he has a river of sewage and/or toxic waste. Please explain how that does not affect his property. Surely you can't be serious.

Are you seriously this obtuse?
Avatar image for Laihendi
#106 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"] And thus it is not private property. So by dumping waste into the river I am affecting no one's private property.

By dumping waste into a river that flows through someone's property, you are affecting his property. Before he had a river of water flowing through his land. Now he has a river of sewage and/or toxic waste. Please explain how that does not affect his property. Surely you can't be serious.

Are you seriously this obtuse?

Yes, I am so obtuse that I am incapable of understanding how sending a river of sewage and toxic waste through someone's land does not damage his property. I suppose if you owned land somewhere and saw a bunch of poop and radioactive waste flowing through it you would not consider your property damaged right? :lol: Are you actually going to explain how pollution like this does not cause property damage, or are you just going to keep spewing baseless insults? I'm getting the impression that you don't even understand what I'm talking about and you're just trying to save face with poorly executed ad hominems.
Avatar image for Planeforger
#107 Posted by Planeforger (17347 posts) -

[QUOTE="BuryMe"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]

Here is mine

"But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can't constrain the exercise of that right" - Barrack Obama.

Actually Obama that is exactly what having an individual right means.

Rhazakna

He's right...

There are limits of free speech (hate speech laws, for example.)

There are limits on the second ammendment (you can't own absolutely any gun.)

There are limits on your social liberty (the government can put you in jail if you commit a crime)\

Freedoms ARE limited.

The United States does not have hate speech laws, and as far as I know is the only Western country without them. If the government can decide what constitutes free speech, by definition it is no longer free.

That sounds nice and all, but the US right to free speech is enshrined in their Constitution, and that document is open to the interpretation of the Supreme Court. They decide what free speech means.

So, assuming that the US legal system is in any way rational (and I have my doubts about that), the government is perfectly enabled by the Constitution to suppress free speech (and other constitutionally-enshrined rights) to the full extent that the Supreme Court will allow.

Avatar image for deactivated-598fc45371265
#108 Posted by deactivated-598fc45371265 (13247 posts) -

"The time has changed for come" -actual Obama quote

Avatar image for worlock77
#109 Posted by worlock77 (22552 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"]By dumping waste into a river that flows through someone's property, you are affecting his property. Before he had a river of water flowing through his land. Now he has a river of sewage and/or toxic waste. Please explain how that does not affect his property. Surely you can't be serious.

Are you seriously this obtuse?

Yes, I am so obtuse that I am incapable of understanding how sending a river of sewage and toxic waste through someone's land does not damage his property. I suppose if you owned land somewhere and saw a bunch of poop and radioactive waste flowing through it you would not consider your property damaged right? :lol: Are you actually going to explain how pollution like this does not cause property damage, or are you just going to keep spewing baseless insults? I'm getting the impression that you don't even understand what I'm talking about and you're just trying to save face with poorly executed ad hominems.

You seem to be unable to understand the very simple fact that the river is no one's property and does not run through anyone's property. Until you can grasp this notion further conversation is pointless.
Avatar image for Rhazakna
#110 Posted by Rhazakna (11022 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="BuryMe"]He's right...

There are limits of free speech (hate speech laws, for example.)

There are limits on the second ammendment (you can't own absolutely any gun.)

There are limits on your social liberty (the government can put you in jail if you commit a crime)\

Freedoms ARE limited.

Planeforger

The United States does not have hate speech laws, and as far as I know is the only Western country without them. If the government can decide what constitutes free speech, by definition it is no longer free.

That sounds nice and all, but the US right to free speech is enshrined in their Constitution, and that document is open to the interpretation of the Supreme Court. They decide what free speech means.

So, assuming that the US legal system is in any way rational (and I have my doubts about that), the government is perfectly enabled by the Constitution to suppress free speech (and other constitutionally-enshrined rights) to the full extent that the Supreme Court will allow.

There are plenty of people who would argue that The Supreme Court doesn't have the right to interpret the Constitution, just to evaluate the constitutionality of laws. But I won't make that argument. What I will say is that claiming "free speech is whatever the supreme court says it is" (which is what your claim amounts to) is absurd. If the Court decided that "free speech" could only happen in certain zones, and that speech outside said zones would be censored, would speech still be free? Your position reduces to absurdity, and your argument allows free speech to be whatever an unelected panel of judges decide it is. Asinine. You have no conception of what free speech is at all.
Avatar image for Laihendi
#111 Posted by Laihendi (5876 posts) -
[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="worlock77"] Are you seriously this obtuse?

Yes, I am so obtuse that I am incapable of understanding how sending a river of sewage and toxic waste through someone's land does not damage his property. I suppose if you owned land somewhere and saw a bunch of poop and radioactive waste flowing through it you would not consider your property damaged right? :lol: Are you actually going to explain how pollution like this does not cause property damage, or are you just going to keep spewing baseless insults? I'm getting the impression that you don't even understand what I'm talking about and you're just trying to save face with poorly executed ad hominems.

You seem to be unable to understand the very simple fact that the river is no one's property and does not run through anyone's property. Until you can grasp this notion further conversation is pointless.

Again, if a river passes through no one's property, and the pollution from it does not contaminate any other bodies of water that are in contact (directly or indirectly) with anyone's property, then said river has absolutely no impact on anyone's life and I don't know why you're even making an issue out of such a hypothetical river. What does that even have to do with anything? What point are you trying to make?
Avatar image for Ace6301
#112 Posted by Ace6301 (21389 posts) -
I'm starting to wonder if Laihendi lives in a region without rivers and isn't the vacationing type.