Time For An American President...

[Avorysuds]

Long answer: Haha, hell no.

Short answer: Ha, hell no.

 

[Dot Com]

Pamela Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pamela Geller: The Looniest Blogger Ever | loonwatch.com
So why not tell the truth about Obama and his reported strange sexual predilections? My question is, it is well known that Obama allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth. Very seedy stuff. Why aren’t they pursuing that story? Find the ho, give her a show!


Why isn’t CNN pursuing the nude pornographic photos of Obama’s mom…I never ran the pics, as it was unseemly and wasn’t relevant. But this assault on Palin is too disgusting. It’s time to tell the ugly truth about the enemy in the White House and his whores in the media.

yet she does have a following>

and if you can stand it>
YouTube - ‪Global Jihad Coming to Get Us!‬‏

This thread is comedy- gold. PoliChik cites a right- wing blogger, akin to Hannity, & expects everyone to take her seriously

​

 

[mudwhistle]

Atlas Jugs

So the defenders of Womanhood resort to sexist attacks.

Huh.......fitting for the hypocrites on the left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Since we have an "American" president, I'm not sure what this post is about? Oh, is it because he's "black"? Now I get it. Nevermind.

Tell me...ya' think that will ever get too old even for you?

Questioning whether the President is an American? You're right. It's old now.

1. No, read this carefully: the question, and it seems too obvious to be a serious question, is whether this President believes in our sovereignty, or supports global governance.

So, wadda' ya' think?

So, to put in simple terms for simple folk, isn't it time for a President who will support our independence from- to coin a phrase- 'foreign entanglements'?

2. The term sovereignty was rarely used before the 17th century, the time that people first came to think of representative assemblies as legislatures, reflecting the modern emphasis on law as an act of governing, i.e. government by consent.

a. This was also the time when professional armies came into being, serving distinct governments, and a seriousness about defense.

b. And during this period, discussions began about international law, the relations of sovereign nations. In fact, the Declaration of Independence refers to such a law, in its first sentence: “…necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station…” thus assuming that nations, like individuals, have rights.

3. Article VII is the cornerstone of American sovereignty. It describes ratification, an once ratified, announces that the people covered have entered into the “more perfect union” described in the Preamble.
Article VI announces that the Constitution, any treaties and laws become the “supreme law of the land.” For a treaty to be valid it must be consistent with the Constitution, the Constitution being a higher authority than the treaties. As Alexander Hamilton stated, “ A treaty cannot change the frame of the government.”
From a speech by Jeremy Rabkin, professor of law, George Mason School of Law, June 5, 2009 at Washington, D.C. sponsored by Hillsdale College.

 

[Seawytch]

Atlas Jugs

So the defenders of Womanhood resort to sexist attacks.

Huh.......fitting for the hypocrites on the left.

Hypocritical? Not at all. I happen to be equally sexist regarding progressive women. I think Randi Rhodes has a nice set of jugs and Stephanie Miller a killer ass!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Pamela Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pamela Geller: The Looniest Blogger Ever | loonwatch.com
So why not tell the truth about Obama and his reported strange sexual predilections? My question is, it is well known that Obama allegedly was involved with a crack whore in his youth. Very seedy stuff. Why aren’t they pursuing that story? Find the ho, give her a show!


Why isn’t CNN pursuing the nude pornographic photos of Obama’s mom…I never ran the pics, as it was unseemly and wasn’t relevant. But this assault on Palin is too disgusting. It’s time to tell the ugly truth about the enemy in the White House and his whores in the media.

yet she does have a following>

and if you can stand it>
YouTube - ‪Global Jihad Coming to Get Us!‬‏

This thread is comedy- gold. PoliChik cites a right- wing blogger, akin to Hannity, & expects everyone to take her seriously

​

Well, look who checked in: the USMB equivalent of the bacterium that causes enteritis.

Actually, the OP is for serious people....so I can understand why you feel left out.

Take a shot: the well-sources elements of the OP are open to dispute...but no one has been able to dispute them.'
Wonder why?

 

[The Rabbi]

Coulter with better t*ts.....

And who said the Left was all for treating women equally and not as sex objects??

 

[Sallow]

Coulter with better t*ts.....

And who said the Left was all for treating women equally and not as sex objects??

I treat women equally as sex objects.

 

[The Rabbi]

Coulter with better t*ts.....

And who said the Left was all for treating women equally and not as sex objects??

I treat women equally as sex objects.

Of course you do, hon.
Let' see your skin pics of Janet Napolitano and Babs Mikulski.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I feel a need to repeat my post above for I'm feeling somewhat nauseous. I quote from number 34 above:

Given PC is an unabashed troll, I see no reason to ever read the one-sided 'evidence' she offers as proof of her always and ever premises - conservatives good, liberals bad.
The non-ignorant recognize only extremists see the world as all black or all white and (sadly) do so ad nauseum. PC is one of many who try to dominate the debate with wholly partisan proclamatons and personally attack anyone who questions her 'authority'.

Let me see if I can validate that 'personally attack' thing....


You again? Who left the oubliette unguarded??

Rarely has a post exposed atavism as clearly! Wouldn’t you be more comfortable on all fours?

You poor thing, living under the constant duress of trying to keep up with intellectual superiors.



See, now you can celebrate today as your once-a-year-correct day!

 

[Dot Com]

We already had a referendum on "cowboy diplomacy" in 2008 PoliChic It may make you feel better but the U.S. ends up w/ the bill when the country, Bush II in this case, goes in unilaterally.

Also, let me take a shot in the dark, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the blogger isn't a vet either. Looks like an O'Donnell redux too LOL:
Pamela Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geller attended Lynbrook High School and Hofstra University, though she left before completing her degree

and she also jumped on the anti- islamic, community center, bandwagon that is supposed to be somewheres a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Wonder why she did that?

 

[Sallow]

1. Why don't you begin by informing yourself as to the meaning of 'sovereignty.'

2. "The United States should be good citizens of the world and play nice with it's neighbors."
This sounds like an eight-year-old...and an eight-year-old that had been subjected to a public school what-passes-for-an-education.
Grow up. Wise up.

3. "No where did I point out that international law supercedes domestic law."
Actually, that's pretty much what your post implied....but I understand this retreat.

There is no retreat.

What there is, is something that resembles an advocation for American Hegemony. That little act is a bit tiresome considering it's exactly what the Bush administration did for 8 years when it adopted PNAC doctrine, hook, line and sinker.

It was ruinous.

But don't let that stop ya.

It's not workin'...

...I clearly indicated how the policy differs from that of Bush.


But, if you want to jump ship, I'll accept you...as long as you agree that any call to submit Amereican imprimatur to atavistic proposals, i.e., the UN, are at the least, his guided.
As is the current President.

Let me give you a test...to see if you're worthy. What do you think of the following:

Consider the United Nation’s attitude toward free speech.

a. “The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism…. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general." "Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said. Nation & World | UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism | Seattle Times Newspaper The resolution was backed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc.

b. In a related story…” LAHORE, Pakistan, November 13 (CDN) — Attorneys for a Christian mother of five sentenced to death by hanging for allegedly speaking ill of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, have filed an appeal of the verdict, they said.” Pakistani Woman Appeals Death Sentence for

c. It is more than interesting to note that the UN’s Durban World Conference insisted on criminalizing ‘religious hatred’ speech, and, at the same time, proclaimed this to be consistent with ‘freedom of opinion and expression.’ http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf

Wonder how our liberal friends see this statement by Chairman of the OIC: “"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

d. “If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet. The Organization of the Islamic Conference will doubtless demand the suppression of websites that "insult Islam" or "encourage hatred," and a number of European countries may well go along.” Who Controls the Internet? | The Weekly Standard

e. From the OP:
b.“Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council… the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, FT.com / US & Canada - Obama to seal US-UN relationship

Not playing your cut and paste dime store lawyerism games PC..

Your argument here has been ripped to shreds. I didn't even attack your source..which is more then worthy of attack. I pointed to doctrine in the Constitution that recognizes the rule of law between nations. And recognition of that..a founding principle by the way..seems to be a "threat" to American "sovereignty" in the minds of people that follow the doctrine of Pax Americana. Nevermind that this country constantly breaks international protocol and law on almost a daily basis..even the most mild protests against that is somehow a breach of our "right to exist" in the minds of right wing loons like Geller.

In almost every case..I'll side with the Constitution..if you don't mind.

 

[Sallow]

And who said the Left was all for treating women equally and not as sex objects??

I treat women equally as sex objects.

Of course you do, hon.
Let' see your skin pics of Janet Napolitano and Babs Mikulski.

They exist?

 

[Dot Com]

And who said the Left was all for treating women equally and not as sex objects??

I treat women equally as sex objects.

Of course you do, hon.
Let' see your skin pics of Janet Napolitano and Babs Mikulski.

So you're a female? The only people who use the word "hon" are women. Are you a Rabbi too? I ask because Geller, the blogger, is Jewish.

 

[PoliticalChic]

We already had a referendum on "cowboy diplomacy" in 2008 PoliChic It may make you feel better but the U.S. ends up w/ the bill when the country, Bush II in this case, goes in unilaterally.

Also, let me take a shot in the dark, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the blogger isn't a vet either. Looks like an O'Donnell redux too LOL:
Pamela Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geller attended Lynbrook High School and Hofstra University, though she left before completing her degree

and she also jumped on the anti- islamic, community center, bandwagon that is supposed to be somewheres a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Wonder why she did that?

"...but I'm guessing the blogger isn't a vet either."
Veterinarian?
You mean I was correct about you being a bacillus?

Oh...veteran? As in military service?
They're the only ones entitled to an opinion??

Answered as follows:
"According to a ‘Military Times’ survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to John Kerry by about 73% to 18 %. Sixty % describe themselves as Republican, and less than 10% call themselves Democrat (the same 10% that MSNBC has on its speed dial.) Even among veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46% to 22%.

If those of us who didn’t fight are wimps who don’t know the real truth of war, I say, fine. Let’s allow only combat veterans and active e military members to vote. Everybody else shut up- including me and the vast majority of liberals. Kerry, Kerrey, Cleveland, Inouye, and Murtha- that’s it; they’ve got five votes."
Coulter

 

[Wry Catcher]

I feel a need to repeat my post above for I'm feeling somewhat nauseous. I quote from number 34 above:

Given PC is an unabashed troll, I see no reason to ever read the one-sided 'evidence' she offers as proof of her always and ever premises - conservatives good, liberals bad.
The non-ignorant recognize only extremists see the world as all black or all white and (sadly) do so ad nauseum. PC is one of many who try to dominate the debate with wholly partisan proclamatons and personally attack anyone who questions her 'authority'.

Let me see if I can validate that 'personally attack' thing....


You again? Who left the oubliette unguarded??

Rarely has a post exposed atavism as clearly! Wouldn’t you be more comfortable on all fours?

You poor thing, living under the constant duress of trying to keep up with intellectual superiors.



See, now you can celebrate today as your once-a-year-correct day!

Actually not, I'm correct quite often. ( btw) I've met and interacted with my "intellectual superiors", people I considered scary bright. You madam are simply scary. I'm surprised you believe in evolution though, being the good conservative I suspected you also believe the earth has existed for only 6,000 years. Good show PC, good show.

 

[PoliticalChic]

There is no retreat.

What there is, is something that resembles an advocation for American Hegemony. That little act is a bit tiresome considering it's exactly what the Bush administration did for 8 years when it adopted PNAC doctrine, hook, line and sinker.

It was ruinous.

But don't let that stop ya.

It's not workin'...

...I clearly indicated how the policy differs from that of Bush.


But, if you want to jump ship, I'll accept you...as long as you agree that any call to submit Amereican imprimatur to atavistic proposals, i.e., the UN, are at the least, his guided.
As is the current President.

Let me give you a test...to see if you're worthy. What do you think of the following:

Consider the United Nation’s attitude toward free speech.

a. “The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism…. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general." "Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said. Nation & World | UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism | Seattle Times Newspaper The resolution was backed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc.

b. In a related story…” LAHORE, Pakistan, November 13 (CDN) — Attorneys for a Christian mother of five sentenced to death by hanging for allegedly speaking ill of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, have filed an appeal of the verdict, they said.” Pakistani Woman Appeals Death Sentence for

c. It is more than interesting to note that the UN’s Durban World Conference insisted on criminalizing ‘religious hatred’ speech, and, at the same time, proclaimed this to be consistent with ‘freedom of opinion and expression.’ http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf

Wonder how our liberal friends see this statement by Chairman of the OIC: “"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

d. “If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet. The Organization of the Islamic Conference will doubtless demand the suppression of websites that "insult Islam" or "encourage hatred," and a number of European countries may well go along.” Who Controls the Internet? | The Weekly Standard

e. From the OP:
b.“Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council… the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, FT.com / US & Canada - Obama to seal US-UN relationship

Not playing your cut and paste dime store lawyerism games PC..

Your argument here has been ripped to shreds. I didn't even attack your source..which is more then worthy of attack. I pointed to doctrine in the Constitution that recognizes the rule of law between nations. And recognition of that..a founding principle by the way..seems to be a "threat" to American "sovereignty" in the minds of people that follow the doctrine of Pax Americana. Nevermind that this country constantly breaks international protocol and law on almost a daily basis..even the most mild protests against that is somehow a breach of our "right to exist" in the minds of right wing loons like Geller.

In almost every case..I'll side with the Constitution..if you don't mind.

You have done a particularly poor job in your attempts to answer and/or obfuscate the OP...

...but I haven't forgotten your brilliant performance in.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JOwxnVoG6Q]YouTube - ‪Li'l Red Riding Hood - Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs (1966)‬‏[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

It's not workin'...

...I clearly indicated how the policy differs from that of Bush.


But, if you want to jump ship, I'll accept you...as long as you agree that any call to submit Amereican imprimatur to atavistic proposals, i.e., the UN, are at the least, his guided.
As is the current President.

Let me give you a test...to see if you're worthy. What do you think of the following:

Consider the United Nation’s attitude toward free speech.

a. “The U.N.'s top human-rights body approved a proposal by Muslims nations Thursday urging passage of laws around the world to protect religion from criticism…. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general." "Defamation of religions is the cause that leads to incitement to hatred, discrimination and violence toward their followers," Pakistan's ambassador Zamir Akram said. Nation & World | UN body OKs call to curb religious criticism | Seattle Times Newspaper The resolution was backed by the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), the UN’s largest voting bloc.

b. In a related story…” LAHORE, Pakistan, November 13 (CDN) — Attorneys for a Christian mother of five sentenced to death by hanging for allegedly speaking ill of Muhammad, the prophet of Islam, have filed an appeal of the verdict, they said.” Pakistani Woman Appeals Death Sentence for

c. It is more than interesting to note that the UN’s Durban World Conference insisted on criminalizing ‘religious hatred’ speech, and, at the same time, proclaimed this to be consistent with ‘freedom of opinion and expression.’ http://www.un.org/durbanreview2009/pdf/Durban_Review_outcome_document_En.pdf

Wonder how our liberal friends see this statement by Chairman of the OIC: “"I don't think freedom of expression should mean freedom from blasphemy," said Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade, the chairman of the 57-member Organization of the Islamic Conference. "There can be no freedom without limits."

d. “If we give control of the Internet naming infrastructure to an international organization, we must expect attempts to censor the Internet. The Organization of the Islamic Conference will doubtless demand the suppression of websites that "insult Islam" or "encourage hatred," and a number of European countries may well go along.” Who Controls the Internet? | The Weekly Standard

e. From the OP:
b.“Barack Obama will cement the new co-operative relationship between the US and the United Nations this month when he becomes the first American president to chair its 15-member Security Council… the latest by the Obama administration to emphasise a shift from the strategy of the previous Bush administration, FT.com / US & Canada - Obama to seal US-UN relationship

Not playing your cut and paste dime store lawyerism games PC..

Your argument here has been ripped to shreds. I didn't even attack your source..which is more then worthy of attack. I pointed to doctrine in the Constitution that recognizes the rule of law between nations. And recognition of that..a founding principle by the way..seems to be a "threat" to American "sovereignty" in the minds of people that follow the doctrine of Pax Americana. Nevermind that this country constantly breaks international protocol and law on almost a daily basis..even the most mild protests against that is somehow a breach of our "right to exist" in the minds of right wing loons like Geller.

In almost every case..I'll side with the Constitution..if you don't mind.

You have done a particularly poor job in your attempts to answer and/or obfuscate the OP...

...but I haven't forgotten your brilliant performance in.....


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JOwxnVoG6Q]YouTube - ‪Li'l Red Riding Hood - Sam the Sham and the Pharoahs (1966)‬‏[/ame]

By..um..what? Sourcing the Constitution. Oh..my bad.

Anyway..cool song.

 

[Dot Com]

We already had a referendum on "cowboy diplomacy" in 2008 PoliChic It may make you feel better but the U.S. ends up w/ the bill when the country, Bush II in this case, goes in unilaterally.

Also, let me take a shot in the dark, I could be wrong, but I'm guessing the blogger isn't a vet either. Looks like an O'Donnell redux too LOL:
Pamela Geller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Geller attended Lynbrook High School and Hofstra University, though she left before completing her degree

and she also jumped on the anti- islamic, community center, bandwagon that is supposed to be somewheres a couple of blocks from Ground Zero. Wonder why she did that?

"...but I'm guessing the blogger isn't a vet either."
Veterinarian?
You mean I was correct about you being a bacillus?

Oh...veteran? As in military service?
They're the only ones entitled to an opinion??

Answered as follows:
"According to a ‘Military Times’ survey taken in September 2004, active-duty military personnel preferred President Bush to John Kerry by about 73% to 18 %. Sixty % describe themselves as Republican, and less than 10% call themselves Democrat (the same 10% that MSNBC has on its speed dial.) Even among veterans, Republicans outnumber Democrats 46% to 22%.

If those of us who didn’t fight are wimps who don’t know the real truth of war, I say, fine. Let’s allow only combat veterans and active e military members to vote. Everybody else shut up- including me and the vast majority of liberals. Kerry, Kerrey, Cleveland, Inouye, and Murtha- that’s it; they’ve got five votes."
Coulter

Ironic and funny that you should post that. You're prolly not aware of this so I posted it for you. You're welcome ;-)

# Mitch McConnell, the current Republican leader in the U.S. Senate: did not serve.
# Bill Frist,, the former Republican leader in the U.S. Senate: did not serve.
# Trent Lott, the former Republican leader in the U.S. Senate: avoided the draft, did not serve.
# Saxby Chambliss: did not serve.
* Rick Santorum: did not serve.
* John Ashcroft: did not serve. Seven deferments, to teach business.
* Richard Shelby: did not serve.
# Phil Gramm: did not serve.
# Spencer Abraham: did not serve.
# Jon Kyl: did not serve.
# Newt Gingrich – sought graduate school deferment, (too smart to die).
# Majority Leader Dick Armey – avoided the draft, did not serve.
# Majority Leader Tom Delay – avoided the draft, did not serve.
# Majority Leader John A. Boehner – did not serve.
# Jack Kemp: did not serve. "Knee problem," although continued in NFL for 8 years.
* G.O.P. Leader Roy Blunt: did not serve.
# JC Watts: did not serve.
# Bob Barr: did not serve.
# Katherine Harris: did not serve. .
# Mitt Romney, former governor of Massachusetts, and since presidential candidate: did not serve.
# Kenneth Starr : sought deferment (for psoriasis).
# Bill Bennett : sought graduate school deferment, (too smart to die).
# Ted Olson, (Starr's assistant, and since Solictor General)
# Rush Limbaugh – sought deferment (because of a cyst on his tail end).
# (Rush's conservative brother) David Limbaugh: did not serve.
# George Will – sought graduate school deferment, (too smart to die).
# Pat Buchanan – sought deferment (for bad knee).
# Pat Robertson – his US Senator father got him out of Korea as soon as the shooting began.
# John Wayne obtained deferments (but to his credit, it was for good, not superficial, reasons.
* Sean Hannity: did not serve.
* Bill O'Reilly: did not serve.
* Matt Drudge: did not serve.
* Steve Forbes: did not serve.
* Tony Snow: did not serve.
* Michael "Savage" (Weiner): did not serve.
* Brit Hume: did not serve.
* Roger Ailes: did not serve.
# Paul Gigot: did not serve.
# Bill Kristol: did not serve.
# Ralph Reed: did not serve.
# Michael Medved: did not serve.
# Anne Coulter: did not serve.
# Jerry Falwell: did not serve.
# Alan Keyes : did not serve.
# Ted Nugent: did not serve.

Nice deflection. I was asking about the vet-status of your beloved blogger.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I feel a need to repeat my post above for I'm feeling somewhat nauseous. I quote from number 34 above:

Given PC is an unabashed troll, I see no reason to ever read the one-sided 'evidence' she offers as proof of her always and ever premises - conservatives good, liberals bad.
The non-ignorant recognize only extremists see the world as all black or all white and (sadly) do so ad nauseum. PC is one of many who try to dominate the debate with wholly partisan proclamatons and personally attack anyone who questions her 'authority'.

Let me see if I can validate that 'personally attack' thing....


You again? Who left the oubliette unguarded??

Rarely has a post exposed atavism as clearly! Wouldn’t you be more comfortable on all fours?

You poor thing, living under the constant duress of trying to keep up with intellectual superiors.



See, now you can celebrate today as your once-a-year-correct day!

Actually not, I'm correct quite often. ( btw) I've met and interacted with my "intellectual superiors", people I considered scary bright. You madam are simply scary. I'm surprised you believe in evolution though, being the good conservative I suspected you also believe the earth has existed for only 6,000 years. Good show PC, good show.

"I've met and interacted with my "intellectual superiors", ..."

Did they have a secret ballot at Creedmoor Home For the Criminally Insane???
They trust you guys with pencils???