Romney running as the most anti-American president ever

[jillian]

given the number of people who support romney's beliefs about marriage, you can hardly consider it anti american.

Segregation is unamerican, too, yet if it were put to a vote in certain parts of the county, it would pass resoundingly. The purpose of the constitution and the courts is to protect us from mob rule p

fair enough. but what exactly is un american then? are laws against polygamy un american?

I don't think that has to do with bias, per se, but I wouldn't care if polygamy were legal so long as the adults involved consented,

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Yeah, Americans have been brainwashed for so long that they think a return to the original intents and purposes of the Constitution is anti-American. I keep saying, we force people to take classes, pass an exam and get a license to paint someone's toe nails or cut their hair, but we let alomst any moron that shows up cast a vote for the leader of the free world and then we wonder why we have leaders that have led this nation to the very brink or destruction.

The original purpose of the Constitution was to ensure that some peoples rights are restricted because of the bigotry of other people?

I must have been high when I read that part, because I missed it.

 

[Qantrill]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," Buchanan told BuzzFeed. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

Adviser Reaffirms Romney Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment | TPM LiveWire

Speaking of anti-American presidents...

EXCERPT...

I guess the CPUSA won’t be fielding a candidate of it’s own in 2012. They have already endorsed Obama.

While noting he is disappointed with “some aspects” of the Obama administration’s domestic and foreign policy, Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA, threw his support behind Obama’s re-election bid.

COMMUNIST PARTY-USA ENDORSES OBAMA IN 2012

 

[Qantrill]

Yeah, Americans have been brainwashed for so long that they think a return to the original intents and purposes of the Constitution is anti-American. I keep saying, we force people to take classes, pass an exam and get a license to paint someone's toe nails or cut their hair, but we let alomst any moron that shows up cast a vote for the leader of the free world and then we wonder why we have leaders that have led this nation to the very brink or destruction.

The original purpose of the Constitution was to ensure that some peoples rights are restricted because of the bigotry of other people?

I must have been high when I read that part, because I missed it.

Not much doubt in my mind about that.

 

[Yurt]

Segregation is unamerican, too, yet if it were put to a vote in certain parts of the county, it would pass resoundingly. The purpose of the constitution and the courts is to protect us from mob rule p

fair enough. but what exactly is un american then? are laws against polygamy un american?

I don't think that has to do with bias, per se, but I wouldn't care if polygamy were legal so long as the adults involved consented,

i take it your view as to what is un american is something that restricts freedom? that may well be, however, i think it could also be argued that something that is un american is something the majority does not want. and i agree with you about mob rule, do did our founders. however, our country has a dichotomy with our "majority" rules way of thinking. i remember in grade school the raise your hand rule of law.

 

[jillian]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans.

"Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman," Buchanan told BuzzFeed. "Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."

Adviser Reaffirms Romney Support For Anti-Gay Marriage Amendment | TPM LiveWire

Speaking of anti-American presidents...

EXCERPT...

I guess the CPUSA won’t be fielding a candidate of it’s own in 2012. They have already endorsed Obama.

While noting he is disappointed with “some aspects” of the Obama administration’s domestic and foreign policy, Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA, threw his support behind Obama’s re-election bid.

COMMUNIST PARTY-USA ENDORSES OBAMA IN 2012

Loon

 

[jillian]

fair enough. but what exactly is un american then? are laws against polygamy un american?

I don't think that has to do with bias, per se, but I wouldn't care if polygamy were legal so long as the adults involved consented,

i take it your view as to what is un american is something that restricts freedom? that may well be, however, i think it could also be argued that something that is un american is something the majority does not want. and i agree with you about mob rule, do did our founders. however, our country has a dichotomy with our "majority" rules way of thinking. i remember in grade school the raise your hand rule of law.

My idea of what is unamerican are things that seek to use the constitution to institutionalize bias and hatred.

The court exists to intervene where majority rule is onerous

 

[Listening]

I don't think that has to do with bias, per se, but I wouldn't care if polygamy were legal so long as the adults involved consented,

i take it your view as to what is un american is something that restricts freedom? that may well be, however, i think it could also be argued that something that is un american is something the majority does not want. and i agree with you about mob rule, do did our founders. however, our country has a dichotomy with our "majority" rules way of thinking. i remember in grade school the raise your hand rule of law.

My idea of what is unamerican are things that seek to use the constitution to institutionalize bias and hatred.

The court exists to intervene where majority rule is onerous

Horsecrap.

The court exists to make sure federal law stays within the lines of the constitution.

Slavery was ended by amendment....not a court decision.

Unless of course, you like Earl Warren...one of Eisenhower's "mistakes".

 

[kaz]

Of course, I could be wrong, but I don't ever remember a candidate running on limiting the rights of Americans

Beam me up Scottie, there is nothing but troll life on this planet...

 

[kaz]

My idea of what is unamerican are things that seek to use the constitution to institutionalize bias and hatred.

The court exists to intervene where majority rule is onerous

Yes, we can't trust the majority of Americans to be decent, but we can trust 5 out of 9 lawyers with dictatorial powers appointed by other lawyers and confirmed by more lawyers to set them straight. The Supreme Politburo will save us...

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ravi, running as dumbest partisan bitch on usmb

 

[PaulS1950]

Jimmy Carter was the first US president to appologize for being the lkeader of the most powerful nation in the world and now its Obama.
Maybe they can farm and pick peanuts together.

 

[Zander]

Ooh!! How scary!!! Romney is mean!!

 

[Samson]

I don't think that has to do with bias, per se, but I wouldn't care if polygamy were legal so long as the adults involved consented,

i take it your view as to what is un american is something that restricts freedom? that may well be, however, i think it could also be argued that something that is un american is something the majority does not want. and i agree with you about mob rule, do did our founders. however, our country has a dichotomy with our "majority" rules way of thinking. i remember in grade school the raise your hand rule of law.

My idea of what is unamerican are things that seek to use the constitution to institutionalize bias and hatred.

The court exists to intervene where majority rule is onerous

Is that why the court exists?......Oddly, I thought it was supposed to interpret the constitution and descide whether or not a law contradicted the intent of the authors.

Now that you've clarified, I have a few grievances to air on behalf of octo-pron fans everywhere: We may be a small minority, but we're passionate.

 

[Immanuel]

Ravi,

There is an error in your title.

I think you meant: "Romney running against the most anti-American President ever".

In fact, there were two errors in your title. You forgot to capitalize President and you typed "as" when you had to mean against.

Immie

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ravi,

There is an error in your title.

I think you meant: "Romney running against the most anti-American President ever".

In fact, there were two errors in your title. You forgot to capitalize President and you typed "as" when you had to mean against.

Immie

She's a fucking retard, she can't help it. She's the female version of Franco. Dumb as they come

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whose right to marriage is being threatened?????

Marriage isn't a right.

really? on what planet?

read....

learn...

Loving v. Virginia | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law

That decision was a decision that supported marriage between a man and a woman. It didn't make it a right what it decided was if it was discrimination to enforce laws on skin color alone. I sure would be mad if I were a black person with the left always equating being black to being gay.

If marriage were a right then it would be legal for first cousins to marry.

Unsurprisingly, you still don’t understand.

Marriage is indeed a right, per the case law already cited.

And as with all other rights, the right to marry is not absolute; a state may place restrictions on marriage provided those restrictions are applied to everyone equally in accordance with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

Disallowing first cousins from marrying is Constitutional because it’s applied to everyone equally, no particular class of persons is singled-out for exclusion.

This is also why prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying is un-Constitutional: “A State cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its laws.” Romer v. Evans (1996). This would include marriage law as well.

Marriage is a fundamental right, subject to limitations by the government as is the case with all other rights; any limitations must be justified by objective evidence, be in accordance with due process and equal protection doctrine, and must further a proper legislative end.

Measures designed to restrict same-sex couples’ right to marry fail to meet any of the above criteria.

 

[blackhawk]

I'm starting to suffer from idiot fatigue on here.

 

[whitehall]

The ghost of Saul Alinsky must have taken over the radical left wing.

 

[Cheddarmelon]

Yeah, Americans have been brainwashed for so long that they think a return to the original intents and purposes of the Constitution is anti-American. I keep saying, we force people to take classes, pass an exam and get a license to paint someone's toe nails or cut their hair, but we let alomst any moron that shows up cast a vote for the leader of the free world and then we wonder why we have leaders that have led this nation to the very brink or destruction.

The original purpose of the Constitution was to ensure that some peoples rights are restricted because of the bigotry of other people?

I must have been high when I read that part, because I missed it.

Not much doubt in my mind about that.

Hyuk Hyuk Hyuk, I made a funnee. Now fetch me my washboard, let's have a hoedown.