Obama - Our Constitutional No Knothing - Part 8

[Plasmaball]

and this is why you are a partisan hack. See Lets go back to 04 when bush won by about the same margin. The talking point after he won was how he had a mandate to do what he wanted.

Now flash forward to now and we have this thread. Now because obama is basically stating the samething. We have you a partisan for the GOP team downplaying and calling Obama stupid.

Yet you are too stupid to realize Obama saying this is nothing new. Yet you are too stupid to realize how partisan you really are.

Maybe you should go back to some sort of "fan of crayola" messageboard and talk about how awesome the color magenta is or something.

Did they accidently put your catheter in your ear ?

I knew Bush was stupid in 2000. He only proved it again in 2004. And his "mandate" was horsecrap as shown by how the public tore congress away from him in 2006.

Obama claims to be smart. He's failing to prove it. Next.

that wasnt my point. thanks for missing it retard

 

[LoneLaugher]

From your sig line.

About my avatar: I lost a bet with Article 15 so the avatar is his idea. He could have chosen to be gracious in victory, but it seems he's not capable......Daveman being a pussy.

*****************

And needless to say, just like Schillian, you make no attempt to demonstrate that Obama isn't an idiot.

Move on.....

Are you that stupid?

What a comeback.

Home Run !!!!

I think you mean "Dave Run". Idiot.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well,

Here we go again.

Obama says electing him will show the GOP that Americans want us to follow his policies.

If Obama wins, it will be a slight margin. He won last time with 53%. That means that 47% didn't vote for him (and by reasoning voted against him). That is essentially half the country.

That is why we have an electoral college (it is theoretically possible to win the presidency with 35% of the popular vote) and a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is also why we have a 10th amendment.

This guy knows nothing or (worse) cares nothing about the Constitution.

The guy in the office next to mine knows more about the Constitution than Obama (and he's from India).

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...epublicans?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

******************

If you read the article...you'll see that Obama blames Bush for 90% of the debt. Obama just could not cut spending at all. He's so powerless. But he needs 4 more years. With a GOP House and a more GOP Senate (likely to be a majority). 4 more years of lame duck and blaming bush.

And still knows nothing about the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

As important as having a 10th Amendment is understanding its meaning in the context of Constitutional case law, something at which most conservatives consistently fail.

 

[Listening]

Are you that stupid?

What a comeback.

Home Run !!!!

I think you mean "Dave Run". Idiot.

"I think...."

I doubt that.

 

[LoneLaugher]

What a comeback.

Home Run !!!!

I think you mean "Dave Run". Idiot.

"I think...."

I doubt that.

Ohhhh! That Daves!

Keep on keepin' on, nutter. I own you.

 

[Listening]

Well,

Here we go again.

Obama says electing him will show the GOP that Americans want us to follow his policies.

If Obama wins, it will be a slight margin. He won last time with 53%. That means that 47% didn't vote for him (and by reasoning voted against him). That is essentially half the country.

That is why we have an electoral college (it is theoretically possible to win the presidency with 35% of the popular vote) and a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is also why we have a 10th amendment.

This guy knows nothing or (worse) cares nothing about the Constitution.

The guy in the office next to mine knows more about the Constitution than Obama (and he's from India).

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...epublicans?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

******************

If you read the article...you'll see that Obama blames Bush for 90% of the debt. Obama just could not cut spending at all. He's so powerless. But he needs 4 more years. With a GOP House and a more GOP Senate (likely to be a majority). 4 more years of lame duck and blaming bush.

And still knows nothing about the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

As important as having a 10th Amendment is understanding its meaning in the context of Constitutional case law, something at which most conservatives consistently fail.

You only want people to bow to that concept.

It's O.K. that Harry, the asshole, Blackmun changes 200 years of history by accepting Roe v. Wade and delivering an embarrassing piece of jurisprudence. That's case law....locked in stone (what happened to the first 200 years....it's only chopped liver...right ?). But let the SCOTUS overturn it ??? Never. Listen to "So Glad He's Dead" Ted Kennedy rage on about keeping his gains (now he's a f**king conservative ?)...in other words.....WE can change it.....YOU can't change it back.

Your statement is crap.

 

[jillian]

Well,

Here we go again.

Obama says electing him will show the GOP that Americans want us to follow his policies.

If Obama wins, it will be a slight margin. He won last time with 53%. That means that 47% didn't vote for him (and by reasoning voted against him). That is essentially half the country.

That is why we have an electoral college (it is theoretically possible to win the presidency with 35% of the popular vote) and a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is also why we have a 10th amendment.

This guy knows nothing or (worse) cares nothing about the Constitution.

The guy in the office next to mine knows more about the Constitution than Obama (and he's from India).

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...epublicans?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

******************

If you read the article...you'll see that Obama blames Bush for 90% of the debt. Obama just could not cut spending at all. He's so powerless. But he needs 4 more years. With a GOP House and a more GOP Senate (likely to be a majority). 4 more years of lame duck and blaming bush.

And still knows nothing about the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

As important as having a 10th Amendment is understanding its meaning in the context of Constitutional case law, something at which most conservatives consistently fail.

they get cranky when you talk about case law because they don't understand precedent or stare decisis... or anything else about constitutional construction.

 

[Listening]

Well,

Here we go again.

Obama says electing him will show the GOP that Americans want us to follow his policies.

If Obama wins, it will be a slight margin. He won last time with 53%. That means that 47% didn't vote for him (and by reasoning voted against him). That is essentially half the country.

That is why we have an electoral college (it is theoretically possible to win the presidency with 35% of the popular vote) and a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is also why we have a 10th amendment.

This guy knows nothing or (worse) cares nothing about the Constitution.

The guy in the office next to mine knows more about the Constitution than Obama (and he's from India).

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...epublicans?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

******************

If you read the article...you'll see that Obama blames Bush for 90% of the debt. Obama just could not cut spending at all. He's so powerless. But he needs 4 more years. With a GOP House and a more GOP Senate (likely to be a majority). 4 more years of lame duck and blaming bush.

And still knows nothing about the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

As important as having a 10th Amendment is understanding its meaning in the context of Constitutional case law, something at which most conservatives consistently fail.

they get cranky when you talk about case law because they don't understand precedent or stare decisis... or anything else about constitutional construction.

And you call people cranky when you've got no real contribution to make to an argument. You've become all to predictable. My guess is that you found those words on bubble gum cards too.

Or do you condemn the Roosevelt butt-nuggets who turned their backs on all kinds of precedent ?....or do you now need to look up the word to see what it means.

I am sure you are familiar with Roosevelts court packing scheme.

Oh, I can hear it now....that was 80 years ago.....

How long ago was Marbury v. Madison ? You had no problems bringing that one up.

 

[Plasmaball]

so whats next on your list listening? you going to make a redundant thread about how government people like power?

 

[Cowman]

What the fuck is a No Knothing?

 

[Luddly Neddite]

The guy in the office next to mine knows more about the Constitution than Obama (and he's from India).

That's another difference between left and right.

rw's check with guy in the next cubicle.

LOL

 

[Luddly Neddite]

What the fuck is a No Knothing?

A Yes Anything?

What the hell, ask the Indian guy in the next cubicle.

 

[Listening]

The guy in the office next to mine knows more about the Constitution than Obama (and he's from India).

That's another difference between left and right.

rw's check with guy in the next cubicle.

LOL

I don't recall saying cubicle...but since you probably clean them for a living I can see why you made that mistake.

Yes, the left checks their talking points......and then go on autopilot.

Is your head really that far up your ass ?

 

[OKTexas]

Well,

Here we go again.

Obama says electing him will show the GOP that Americans want us to follow his policies.

If Obama wins, it will be a slight margin. He won last time with 53%. That means that 47% didn't vote for him (and by reasoning voted against him). That is essentially half the country.

That is why we have an electoral college (it is theoretically possible to win the presidency with 35% of the popular vote) and a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is also why we have a 10th amendment.

This guy knows nothing or (worse) cares nothing about the Constitution.

The guy in the office next to mine knows more about the Constitution than Obama (and he's from India).

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...epublicans?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

******************

If you read the article...you'll see that Obama blames Bush for 90% of the debt. Obama just could not cut spending at all. He's so powerless. But he needs 4 more years. With a GOP House and a more GOP Senate (likely to be a majority). 4 more years of lame duck and blaming bush.

And still knows nothing about the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

As important as having a 10th Amendment is understanding its meaning in the context of Constitutional case law, something at which most conservatives consistently fail.

The Constitution means exactly what is says, that's why they wrote it down. Just because a slick lawyer can convience a judge otherwise doesn't change that. Many decisions have been amended or overturned by subsequent decisions, try reading Men in Black and get an idea how often they get it WRONG.

 

[jillian]

As important as having a 10th Amendment is understanding its meaning in the context of Constitutional case law, something at which most conservatives consistently fail.

they get cranky when you talk about case law because they don't understand precedent or stare decisis... or anything else about constitutional construction.

And you call people cranky when you've got no real contribution to make to an argument. You've become all to predictable. My guess is that you found those words on bubble gum cards too.

Or do you condemn the Roosevelt butt-nuggets who turned their backs on all kinds of precedent ?....or do you now need to look up the word to see what it means.

I am sure you are familiar with Roosevelts court packing scheme.

Oh, I can hear it now....that was 80 years ago.....

How long ago was Marbury v. Madison ? You had no problems bringing that one up.

you get the responses you deserve. you want to be a rightwingnut bully, you get treated like the ijit you are. funny how life works.

as for roosevelt. he didn't pack the court. he only threatened to. your point? other than to add a little anti-roosevelt rant to your already ignorant posts....

marbury v madison is still good law. roosevelt's threat? nothing and gone with the wind.

perhaps the difference between law and something that never occurred confuses you..... more than usual.

carry on.

 

[jillian]

Well,

Here we go again.

Obama says electing him will show the GOP that Americans want us to follow his policies.

If Obama wins, it will be a slight margin. He won last time with 53%. That means that 47% didn't vote for him (and by reasoning voted against him). That is essentially half the country.

That is why we have an electoral college (it is theoretically possible to win the presidency with 35% of the popular vote) and a HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

It is also why we have a 10th amendment.

This guy knows nothing or (worse) cares nothing about the Constitution.

The guy in the office next to mine knows more about the Constitution than Obama (and he's from India).

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/ar...epublicans?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|Frontpage

******************

If you read the article...you'll see that Obama blames Bush for 90% of the debt. Obama just could not cut spending at all. He's so powerless. But he needs 4 more years. With a GOP House and a more GOP Senate (likely to be a majority). 4 more years of lame duck and blaming bush.

And still knows nothing about the Constitution.

Unbelievable.

As important as having a 10th Amendment is understanding its meaning in the context of Constitutional case law, something at which most conservatives consistently fail.

The Constitution means exactly what is says, that's why they wrote it down. Just because a slick lawyer can convience a judge otherwise doesn't change that. Many decisions have been amended or overturned by subsequent decisions, try reading Men in Black and get an idea how often they get it WRONG.

does it mean exactly what it says? what does "due process" mean absent the caselaw? what does equal protection mean absent the caselaw? what does reasonable search and seizure mean absent the case law?

what is a well-regulated militia absent the caselaw? the disrespect paid to a brilliant document and our founders by trying to reduce it to absolute BS and ignoring 200 years of caselaw is offensive....

 

[Listening]

they get cranky when you talk about case law because they don't understand precedent or stare decisis... or anything else about constitutional construction.

And you call people cranky when you've got no real contribution to make to an argument. You've become all to predictable. My guess is that you found those words on bubble gum cards too.

Or do you condemn the Roosevelt butt-nuggets who turned their backs on all kinds of precedent ?....or do you now need to look up the word to see what it means.

I am sure you are familiar with Roosevelts court packing scheme.

Oh, I can hear it now....that was 80 years ago.....

How long ago was Marbury v. Madison ? You had no problems bringing that one up.

you get the responses you deserve. you want to be a rightwingnut bully, you get treated like the ijit you are. funny how life works.

as for roosevelt. he didn't pack the court. he only threatened to. your point? other than to add a little anti-roosevelt rant to your already ignorant posts....

marbury v madison is still good law. roosevelt's threat? nothing and gone with the wind.

perhaps the difference between law and something that never occurred confuses you..... more than usual.

carry on.

Wow,

Ignorance at it's worst......

He didn't threaten to...he tried to. And you have the infamous "switch in time that saved nine" (but did it really save them ?).

The court that fought off Roosevelt grew old and died/retired. The replacements (Roosevelt lackeys including former KKK members) took the precedent (you so love to hold up) the earlier judges set when the kept knocking down new deal legislation and threw it out the window....thus reversing several key decisions.

That happened. It's history and a fact. So, let's hear it for precedent and the unstable nature of the supreme court.

 

[Listening]

As important as having a 10th Amendment is understanding its meaning in the context of Constitutional case law, something at which most conservatives consistently fail.

The Constitution means exactly what is says, that's why they wrote it down. Just because a slick lawyer can convience a judge otherwise doesn't change that. Many decisions have been amended or overturned by subsequent decisions, try reading Men in Black and get an idea how often they get it WRONG.

does it mean exactly what it says? what does "due process" mean absent the caselaw? what does equal protection mean absent the caselaw? what does reasonable search and seizure mean absent the case law?

what is a well-regulated militia absent the caselaw? the disrespect paid to a brilliant document and our founders by trying to reduce it to absolute BS and ignoring 200 years of caselaw is offensive....

Those items means just what they say. The fact that people can't get by them when they don't agree with them isn't my issue. You seem so bent on pulling up case law....but when it changes...what then ?

I'll be waiting.

 

[Chris]

Poor Listening.

Still talking to that empty chair.

 

[Listening]

Poor Listening.

Still talking to that empty chair.

Join in Chris and show us how much you know.

That would be a first for you.