Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Fraud..
That's why I am encouraging everyone to vote for Obama.
After he wins in 2012
He is going to hold Israel's Zionist feet to the fire and force them to change.
And he will have 4 nice long years to do it.
Obama's second term is going to be great for America.
Israel..................not so much
I don't mean to derail the thread but Bush was on par with Obama on accomplishments and Mitt is just as bad off... Lets be honest, Mitt ran his state into the ground with one of the biggest grabs of power in HC that any state has ever done, then he made the rest of the country pay for it at about 500 million a year so he didnt have to raise taxes in his state.
As far as I know Mitts record in business is not all that stellar either, he in fact did nothing that most random people picked up of the street couldn't do.
Mitt never served in the armed forces and as far as I can tell he never held a job that didn't pay him millions for less than 15 hours a week of "work."
My point is not to defend Obama because Obama is in fact a stupid human being with almost no understanding of the constitution, but almost everything that proves Obama has a stunning lack of understanding of the constitution Mitt supported or even did as Governor Presidents today seem to be the anti American, like both sides have pushed so far from our rule of law that to debate who is worse has lost all meaning.
Who cares if Mitt made a bunch of money, he has ZERO plans to cut with the budget he offered up, in fact his budget would slightly add to the deficit spending Obama is currently doing if I remember correctly.
People easily forget that till Obama came along,how terrible the econony really was back then and how Bush wrecked the country so badly as well only because Obama has made things much worse than he did.
Only thing you left out there is you need to put Bushs head right next to Obamas in the middle between him and Stalin and that would be an accurate picture there.
Its only because Obama has made things much worse than he did expanding what Bush got started, that people easily forget that four years ago Bush had the most appalling presidency in the history of the united states.I still remember everywhere I went hearing people say-"Obama sure has quite a mess to clean up.Bush has left him such a mess he is going to have to have at least a second term to clean it up."Only problem is he did not clean it up.
Only thing you left out there is you need to put Bushs head right next to Obamas in the middle between him and Stalin and that would be an accurate picture there.
Its only because Obama has made things much worse than he did expanding what Bush got started, that people easily forget that four years ago Bush had the most appalling presidency in the history of the united states.I still remember everywhere I went hearing people say-"Obama sure has quite a mess to clean up.Bush has left him such a mess he is going to have to have at least a second term to clean it up."Only problem is he did not clean it up.
Bush has not been and is not an anti-capitalist. All those sorry mofos in the poster were or they are now!
You have your head up your ass anyway with your "9-11 inside job" bullshit!
the only bullshit is YOUR post.
The more wrong you are, the more pompous you get!"THAT IS TO SAY" you know the quote was taken out of context, in fact the exact opposite context you used, but you can't stop yourself from being a pompous ass."Rich with out of context quotes..."
As you inadvertently point out by the extended version of the Obama quote....I was totally within context.
Had you more than a passing understanding of the Constitution, the Framer's intentions, and the Obama 'perversions' of same, you would have understood that.
If you had considered the meanings of both, the argument that you attempt to advance would fail before it started, instead of starting before it failed.
Since instructing you seems to have become an avocation for me, let me continue:
1. The aim of the Constitution is to restrict the powers of government to enslave.
2. The aim of Progressives is to insist that government take from some citizens so as to purchase the loyalty of others, i.e., 'spread the wealth.'
You remain a compendium of fatuity….
I give you permission to copy my post so as to give the impression that you have actually learned something.
Must I continue to instruct you???
Watch casefully, if woefully, as I eviscerate your precis....
1. From the OP..
“In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.”
Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com
Now, a short quiz:
2. Is the OP a critique of Obama...
Yes or no?
3. In the item above, is Obama chastising the Warren Court as not going far enough...
Yes or no?
3. Does Obama believe that the US Constitution places restriction on government, i.e., limit it to 'negative liberties,'...
Yes or no?
4. By extension, is Obama in favor of 'positive liberties,' i.e., naming what government must give citizens...
Yes or no?
5. Is not the above encapsulated in the phrases 'spread the wealth,' and 'social justice'...
Yes or no?
6. Since government does not earn money, but only has what it gets from citizens, doesn't this suggest where Obama intends to get the money, i.e., confiscatory taxation...
Yes or no?
Now....you may continue to perform as the poster child for political ignorance, but try to do in an honest fashion: since the correct answer to each of the above is a resounding "YES," clearly my quote is in context.
Now...
a. admit you were wrong.
b. beg my forgiveness
c. print out your posts and have them for lunch.
Chop chop.
The more wrong you are, the more pompous you get!"THAT IS TO SAY" you know the quote was taken out of context, in fact the exact opposite context you used, but you can't stop yourself from being a pompous ass.
Must I continue to instruct you???
Watch casefully, if woefully, as I eviscerate your precis....
1. From the OP..
“In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.”
Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com
Now, a short quiz:
2. Is the OP a critique of Obama...
Yes or no?
3. In the item above, is Obama chastising the Warren Court as not going far enough...
Yes or no?
3. Does Obama believe that the US Constitution places restriction on government, i.e., limit it to 'negative liberties,'...
Yes or no?
4. By extension, is Obama in favor of 'positive liberties,' i.e., naming what government must give citizens...
Yes or no?
5. Is not the above encapsulated in the phrases 'spread the wealth,' and 'social justice'...
Yes or no?
6. Since government does not earn money, but only has what it gets from citizens, doesn't this suggest where Obama intends to get the money, i.e., confiscatory taxation...
Yes or no?
Now....you may continue to perform as the poster child for political ignorance, but try to do in an honest fashion: since the correct answer to each of the above is a resounding "YES," clearly my quote is in context.
Now...
a. admit you were wrong.
b. beg my forgiveness
c. print out your posts and have them for lunch.
Chop chop.
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
Only someone who doesn't think for themselves can read the full quote and answer yes to your questions.
Obama clearly said that the Warren court was not radical which only the most dishonest person would change that to say he wanted the Warren court to "go farther," especially after he made the point that it was wrong for the civil rights movement to depend on the court!!! That is precisely why you dishonestly left out the true context of the full quote.
OBAMA: I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.
No wonder you despise yourself so much!The more wrong you are, the more pompous you get!Must I continue to instruct you???
Watch casefully, if woefully, as I eviscerate your precis....
1. From the OP..
In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.
Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com
Now, a short quiz:
2. Is the OP a critique of Obama...
Yes or no?
3. In the item above, is Obama chastising the Warren Court as not going far enough...
Yes or no?
3. Does Obama believe that the US Constitution places restriction on government, i.e., limit it to 'negative liberties,'...
Yes or no?
4. By extension, is Obama in favor of 'positive liberties,' i.e., naming what government must give citizens...
Yes or no?
5. Is not the above encapsulated in the phrases 'spread the wealth,' and 'social justice'...
Yes or no?
6. Since government does not earn money, but only has what it gets from citizens, doesn't this suggest where Obama intends to get the money, i.e., confiscatory taxation...
Yes or no?
Now....you may continue to perform as the poster child for political ignorance, but try to do in an honest fashion: since the correct answer to each of the above is a resounding "YES," clearly my quote is in context.
Now...
a. admit you were wrong.
b. beg my forgiveness
c. print out your posts and have them for lunch.
Chop chop.
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
Only someone who doesn't think for themselves can read the full quote and answer yes to your questions.
Obama clearly said that the Warren court was not radical which only the most dishonest person would change that to say he wanted the Warren court to "go farther," especially after he made the point that it was wrong for the civil rights movement to depend on the court!!! That is precisely why you dishonestly left out the true context of the full quote.
OBAMA: I think the tragedies of the civil rights movement was, because the civil rights movements became so court-focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing, and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, in some ways, we still suffer from that.
1. No
2. No
3. No
4. No
5. No
6. No
There is very little that I despise more than dishonesty.
Step off.
1. Although Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar, he has never published a single scholarly article or book, although he was a lecturer at the University of Chicago. He subscribes to the Progressive liberal view that the Constitution is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever changing world. Got a problem with the Constitution? - USATODAY.com
2. He did not teach, and seems to have no knowledge of the structural aspects of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers, or of the nature of executive power.
a. Obama taught the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the liberals favorite clause, and the pretext for many of the radical Supreme Court rulings of the Warren Court era. Barack Obama, Constitutional Ignoramus | Power Line
b. The other courses he taught were Racism and the Law and voting rights. Politics | Kagan: From a mock Supreme Court to the real thing | Seattle Times Newspaper
3. In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice. Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com
a. Those constraints include protections of private property, and individual liberty. Based on this, how can Mr. Obama live up to the oath of President: to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"?
4. At a March 30, 2007, campaign fundraiser, then-candidate Barack Obama stated "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."
a. Of course, he immediately continued the practice of signing statements. Remember this: Were not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress. Obama to add signing statement to defense authorization opposing McCain-Levin amendment « Hot Air
b. Then, afraid of the court's view of ObamaCare: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint."
c. Seriously, Mr. President? The Supreme Court (or, as he's referred to them, "an unelected group of people") doesn't have the authority to strike down acts of Congress that violate the Constitution? For a supposed former "constitutional law professor," these statements betray a shocking level of ignorance about the concept of judicial review and the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, that enshrined it in American jurisprudence. Legally Speaking: President Obama, time for a refresher course on Constitutional Law" | Southeast Texas Record
d. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal . As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, that notion was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error. Texas Insider » State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution
5. In a way, Mr.Obama has done the nation a great favor by reviving public interest in the Constitution, and specifically the clauses, spelling out the few and defined powers, as James Madison put it, of the federal government. And that is what the Tea Party movement is about!
a. The election of 2012 could mark the end of a Progressive century,- from Woodrow Wilson, 1912- and a return to an older, sounder constitutional order. It is a reminder that the Constitution begins We the people
Above from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents," Steven Hayward
So, the resume of the President with the thinnest record of achievement of any modern President, got even thinner.
November....the choice is clear.
1. Although Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar, he has never published a single scholarly article or book, although he was a lecturer at the University of Chicago. He subscribes to the Progressive liberal view that the Constitution is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever changing world. Got a problem with the Constitution? - USATODAY.com
2. He did not teach, and seems to have no knowledge of the structural aspects of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers, or of the nature of executive power.
a. Obama taught the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the liberals favorite clause, and the pretext for many of the radical Supreme Court rulings of the Warren Court era. Barack Obama, Constitutional Ignoramus | Power Line
b. The other courses he taught were Racism and the Law and voting rights. Politics | Kagan: From a mock Supreme Court to the real thing | Seattle Times Newspaper
3. In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice. Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com
a. Those constraints include protections of private property, and individual liberty. Based on this, how can Mr. Obama live up to the oath of President: to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"?
4. At a March 30, 2007, campaign fundraiser, then-candidate Barack Obama stated "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."
a. Of course, he immediately continued the practice of signing statements. Remember this: Were not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress. Obama to add signing statement to defense authorization opposing McCain-Levin amendment « Hot Air
b. Then, afraid of the court's view of ObamaCare: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint."
c. Seriously, Mr. President? The Supreme Court (or, as he's referred to them, "an unelected group of people") doesn't have the authority to strike down acts of Congress that violate the Constitution? For a supposed former "constitutional law professor," these statements betray a shocking level of ignorance about the concept of judicial review and the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, that enshrined it in American jurisprudence. Legally Speaking: President Obama, time for a refresher course on Constitutional Law" | Southeast Texas Record
d. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal . As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, that notion was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error. Texas Insider » State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution
5. In a way, Mr.Obama has done the nation a great favor by reviving public interest in the Constitution, and specifically the clauses, spelling out the few and defined powers, as James Madison put it, of the federal government. And that is what the Tea Party movement is about!
a. The election of 2012 could mark the end of a Progressive century,- from Woodrow Wilson, 1912- and a return to an older, sounder constitutional order. It is a reminder that the Constitution begins We the people
Above from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents," Steven Hayward
So, the resume of the President with the thinnest record of achievement of any modern President, got even thinner.
November....the choice is clear.
Nobody cares.
332-206
Thick and Rich.
1. Although Obama claims to be a constitutional scholar, he has never published a single scholarly article or book, although he was a lecturer at the University of Chicago. He subscribes to the Progressive liberal view that the Constitution is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever changing world. Got a problem with the Constitution? - USATODAY.com
2. He did not teach, and seems to have no knowledge of the structural aspects of the Constitution, such as the separation of powers, or of the nature of executive power.
a. Obama taught the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the liberals favorite clause, and the pretext for many of the radical Supreme Court rulings of the Warren Court era. Barack Obama, Constitutional Ignoramus | Power Line
b. The other courses he taught were Racism and the Law and voting rights. Politics | Kagan: From a mock Supreme Court to the real thing | Seattle Times Newspaper
3. In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical." He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice. Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution - WSJ.com
a. Those constraints include protections of private property, and individual liberty. Based on this, how can Mr. Obama live up to the oath of President: to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution"?
4. At a March 30, 2007, campaign fundraiser, then-candidate Barack Obama stated "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president, I actually respect the Constitution."
a. Of course, he immediately continued the practice of signing statements. Remember this: Were not going to use signing statements as a way of doing an end run around Congress. Obama to add signing statement to defense authorization opposing McCain-Levin amendment « Hot Air
b. Then, afraid of the court's view of ObamaCare: "I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint."
c. Seriously, Mr. President? The Supreme Court (or, as he's referred to them, "an unelected group of people") doesn't have the authority to strike down acts of Congress that violate the Constitution? For a supposed former "constitutional law professor," these statements betray a shocking level of ignorance about the concept of judicial review and the 1803 case, Marbury v. Madison, that enshrined it in American jurisprudence. Legally Speaking: President Obama, time for a refresher course on Constitutional Law" | Southeast Texas Record
d. In the State of the Union Address, President Obama said: We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal . As the Internet meme goes these days: FAIL! Uh, uh, uh, that notion was enshrined in our Declaration of Independence, third paragraph, first sentence. One would think that this alleged professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School would have noticed such a simple, yet substantial, error. Texas Insider » State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution
5. In a way, Mr.Obama has done the nation a great favor by reviving public interest in the Constitution, and specifically the clauses, spelling out the few and defined powers, as James Madison put it, of the federal government. And that is what the Tea Party movement is about!
a. The election of 2012 could mark the end of a Progressive century,- from Woodrow Wilson, 1912- and a return to an older, sounder constitutional order. It is a reminder that the Constitution begins We the people
Above from "The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Presidents," Steven Hayward
So, the resume of the President with the thinnest record of achievement of any modern President, got even thinner.
November....the choice is clear.
Nobody cares.
332-206
Thick and Rich.
Abe Lincoln was a progressive also, if he were to survive and was not assassinated, one of his first major initiatives he had readied was a plan to ban alcohol like they did in 1920.
