Vote Poll. Obama vs. Rick Perry

[gautama]

This Poll is not fair. Because everyone knows Democrats Vote more than once. So those 16 Votes for Obama are more like 8 or less. This Poll is rigged. I demand a Re-Count!

OK, now that is funny.

It is.

 

[gautama]

Regardless of it's constitutionality, I really, really wish that the red states would leave the union. I think that this would be a much better country if they did.

NEVER HAPPEN, you fucking Obamarrhoidal Twit ........ give up this Nation, the most successful Nation built on our Constitution & The Enlightened Capitalistic System which prospered for over TWO HUNDRED GLORIOUS YEARS for a TEMPORARY OBAMARRHOIDALLY MARXIST EXPERIMENT THAT SWERVED INTO AN UNQUESTIONABLE CATASTROPHE THAT IS NARROWLY MISSING A TOTAL DESTRUCTION WITH A RE-ELECTION OF THE MONUMENTAL MARXIST, RACIST, PROTECTOR OF MUSLIM & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, OBUMMER ?!?!?

NEVER HAPPEN, YOU FUCKING MORON !!!!

 

[gautama]

In the thread: "2012, close or landslide ?", I stated my optimistic reason why Obummer will be defeated in a close 50%/50% toss up with the narrowest of margins.

But, with a "hope against hope" Rick Perry/Rubio ticket it will be an UNQUESTIONABLE LANDSLIDE DEFEAT for the MONUMENTAL MARXIST, RACIST, PROTECTOR OF MUSLIM & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT FRAUD, OBUMMER !!!

It's a pity that Rick Perry is a religious whackjob. But, any price isn't high enough to defeat this MENDACIOUS POLITICAL CHARLATAN Obami Salaami !!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shackled, you will not find case law or precedent to support your assertion. You are making the same argument Jefferson made in 1803 and lost. You are making the same assertion as did Calhoun and the secessionists. You saw how well that went.

Because you believe it, don't make it so.

 

[Sallow]

Regardless of it's constitutionality, I really, really wish that the red states would leave the union. I think that this would be a much better country if they did.

NEVER HAPPEN, you fucking Obamarrhoidal Twit ........ give up this Nation, the most successful Nation built on our Constitution & The Enlightened Capitalistic System which prospered for over TWO HUNDRED GLORIOUS YEARS for a TEMPORARY OBAMARRHOIDALLY MARXIST EXPERIMENT THAT SWERVED INTO AN UNQUESTIONABLE CATASTROPHE THAT IS NARROWLY MISSING A TOTAL DESTRUCTION WITH A RE-ELECTION OF THE MONUMENTAL MARXIST, RACIST, PROTECTOR OF MUSLIM & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, OBUMMER ?!?!?

NEVER HAPPEN, YOU FUCKING MORON !!!!

I kinda hate Nazis. Could you and the other Nazis leave now?

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled, you will not find case law or precedent to support your assertion. You are making the same argument Jefferson made in 1803 and lost. You are making the same assertion as did Calhoun and the secessionists. You saw how well that went.

Because you believe it, don't make it so.

The Constitution trumps all precedent and case law. That is what the supremacy clause means. I quoted the federalist papers, not Jefferson. You have no Constitutional support for your position. Your arguments don't address any of my points, rather you simply dismiss my arguments over and over again with the same repeated false assumption that I refute every time. All you do is restate your position ad nauseum in slightly different words.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The federal law has never supported your opinion or Jefferson's for that matter on this issue.

Your opinion on the Constitution is not probative. It's merely your opinion.

 

[Sallow]

Shackled, you will not find case law or precedent to support your assertion. You are making the same argument Jefferson made in 1803 and lost. You are making the same assertion as did Calhoun and the secessionists. You saw how well that went.

Because you believe it, don't make it so.

The Constitution trumps all precedent and case law. That is what the supremacy clause means. I quoted the federalist papers, not Jefferson. You have no Constitutional support for your position. Your arguments don't address any of my points, rather you simply dismiss my arguments over and over again with the same repeated false assumption that I refute every time. All you do is restate your position ad nauseum in slightly different words.

Bwahahahaha..Federalist Papers.

Those are opinion pieces meant to get New Yorkers to sign on to the Union.

No legislation comes from the Federalist papers.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shackled is trying, Sallow, give credit.

The argument is political philosophy, it's just that it has never had legs but once, and the Confederates States were murdered for it.

 

[Sallow]

Shackled is trying, Sallow, give credit.

The argument is political philosophy, it's just that it has never had legs but once, and the Confederates States were murdered for it.

It never had legs. Washington was big on Federal government. The Whiskey Rebellion proved that.

The Civil war was an abomination. It never should have happened.

 

[gautama]

Regardless of it's constitutionality, I really, really wish that the red states would leave the union. I think that this would be a much better country if they did.

NEVER HAPPEN, you fucking Obamarrhoidal Twit ........ give up this Nation, the most successful Nation built on our Constitution & The Enlightened Capitalistic System which prospered for over TWO HUNDRED GLORIOUS YEARS for a TEMPORARY OBAMARRHOIDALLY MARXIST EXPERIMENT THAT SWERVED INTO AN UNQUESTIONABLE CATASTROPHE THAT IS NARROWLY MISSING A TOTAL DESTRUCTION WITH A RE-ELECTION OF THE MONUMENTAL MARXIST, RACIST, PROTECTOR OF MUSLIM & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, OBUMMER ?!?!?

NEVER HAPPEN, YOU FUCKING MORON !!!!

I kinda hate Nazis. Could you and the other Nazis leave now?

Callow Sallow,

Thanks for according me the privilege reserved for the truly great antagonists of the contemptible LOONY LEFT, and including the DEMS toeing their line, who smear anyone for anything if they do not kiss the arse of the MONUMENTAL MARXIST, RACIST, PROTECTOR OF MUSLIMS & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, FRAUD Obami Salaami !!!

Personally, I rather hate the IslamoFascist Swine.....especially the TERRORISTS even more than the Nazis......whom I despise with all my heart.

FIRST, you LOONY LEFT whackjobs labeled all of the decent, rational folks who realized what a Mendacious Political Charlatan Obummer was as "RACISTS" !!!

That didn't work at all.

But, the SMEAR TECHNIQUE to demonize the opponents of Obami Salaami has NOT evaporated.

Now, The LOONY LEFT's mantra is that the opponents of Obamatard are TERRORISTS !!!

So, since you fucking LOONY LEFT arseholes have labeled the T-Party, and all those who challenge your MENDACIOUS Messiah Obummer, such as Fox news, Boehner, etc...as TERRORISTS........I would like to be promoted from being a supposed NAZI to being a supposed TERRORIST by shitheads like you !!!

And, BTW, in case you are as stupid as you appear.....I'd like to make it crystal clear that I do not "kinda hate" Obamarrhoidal Idiots such as yourself.

I despise, hate, and wish you fucking LOONY LEFT arseholes and TRAITORS of America the worst possible !!!

So, why the fuck don't you kiss some IslamoFascist's camel in the arse (which I am firmly convinced that you would enjoy because that will earn you some additional points with the Muslim Swine), sing a bar of Yankee Doodle ....... and flush yourself down the nearest sewer.

 

[JakeStarkey]

States' rights in 1860 meant the right to own human property.

States' rights in 1960 meant the right to segregate the races.

 

[HenryBHough]

That traffic jam around Forest Lawn Cemetery?

Relax....it's just Libs ferrying computers to the inmates so they can vote in this poll as they voted in the last election.

 

[ShackledNation]

Shackled, you will not find case law or precedent to support your assertion. You are making the same argument Jefferson made in 1803 and lost. You are making the same assertion as did Calhoun and the secessionists. You saw how well that went.

Because you believe it, don't make it so.

The Constitution trumps all precedent and case law. That is what the supremacy clause means. I quoted the federalist papers, not Jefferson. You have no Constitutional support for your position. Your arguments don't address any of my points, rather you simply dismiss my arguments over and over again with the same repeated false assumption that I refute every time. All you do is restate your position ad nauseum in slightly different words.

Bwahahahaha..Federalist Papers.

Those are opinion pieces meant to get New Yorkers to sign on to the Union.

No legislation comes from the Federalist papers.

Strawman...

The bolded portion is my actual argument. The supremacy clause states that the Constitution is supreme, not federal law. Federal law is not automatically Constitutional, and Federal law that is unconstitutional is not a legitimate use of authority. As such, federal law that is unconstitutional is void. States, swearing an oath not to enforce federal law but to enforce the Constitution, would be violating that oath by enforcing illegitimate law. As such, they must refuse to enforce unconstitutional law. That refusal is called nullification. Nullification does not strike down federal law, it is a refusal to enforce unconstitutional federal law. If only California nullifies a law, all other 49 states would still be enforcing it unless they too nullified it. In a constitutional republic such as the United States, laws derive their legitimacy from the Constitution. Laws that do not adhere to said constitution are illegitimate and are not laws at all. States have not only a right but a duty and oath to nullify laws that violate the Constitution. The Constitution, not the federal government, is the supreme law of the land. Nullification was primarily used by the north (though opponents try to act as if Calhoun invented it) and was actually used against the fugitive slave act. It is common for opponents of nullification to shout "slavery! racism! neoconfederate!" when they are out of arguments.

Those against nullification desire to force states to violate the sovereignty of the people by demanding they apply unconstitutional law. Say the Supreme Court becomes incredibly corrupt (shouldn't be hard to believe) and Congress disregards the Constitution. The court essentially upholds anything the Congress does. To be consistent, opponents of nullification would have to demand that a state apply a law that mandates 10% of its population be killed, for not applying such a law would go against the courts. That, not nullification, is radical. Allowing the federal government to interpret its own laws is a radical. Forcing states to apply illegitimate unconstitutional law is radical. Allowing states to protect their people from centralized tyranny is common sense.

 

[gautama]

That traffic jam around Forest Lawn Cemetery?

Relax....it's just Libs ferrying computers to the inmates so they can vote in this poll as they voted in the last election.

The TRUTH of the continuous Dem Election Scams, and "dead people voting" is just one of them, are correctly becoming a National Joke !!!

A very sad National Joke.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Well those poll numbers pretty much wrap up any confusion about this topic. WOW

 

[JakeStarkey]

Shackled, there is no straw man.

You have your opinion about the Constitution and what it says. Your opinion is in the vast minority and will never be accepted as appropriate and never enforced in law.

 

[Sallow]

NEVER HAPPEN, you fucking Obamarrhoidal Twit ........ give up this Nation, the most successful Nation built on our Constitution & The Enlightened Capitalistic System which prospered for over TWO HUNDRED GLORIOUS YEARS for a TEMPORARY OBAMARRHOIDALLY MARXIST EXPERIMENT THAT SWERVED INTO AN UNQUESTIONABLE CATASTROPHE THAT IS NARROWLY MISSING A TOTAL DESTRUCTION WITH A RE-ELECTION OF THE MONUMENTAL MARXIST, RACIST, PROTECTOR OF MUSLIM & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT, OBUMMER ?!?!?

NEVER HAPPEN, YOU FUCKING MORON !!!!

I kinda hate Nazis. Could you and the other Nazis leave now?

Callow Sallow,

Thanks for according me the privilege reserved for the truly great antagonists of the contemptible LOONY LEFT, and including the DEMS toeing their line, who smear anyone for anything if they do not kiss the arse of the MONUMENTAL MARXIST, RACIST, PROTECTOR OF MUSLIMS & ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, FRAUD Obami Salaami !!!

Personally, I rather hate the IslamoFascist Swine.....especially the TERRORISTS even more than the Nazis......whom I despise with all my heart.

FIRST, you LOONY LEFT whackjobs labeled all of the decent, rational folks who realized what a Mendacious Political Charlatan Obummer was as "RACISTS" !!!

That didn't work at all.

But, the SMEAR TECHNIQUE to demonize the opponents of Obami Salaami has NOT evaporated.

Now, The LOONY LEFT's mantra is that the opponents of Obamatard are TERRORISTS !!!

So, since you fucking LOONY LEFT arseholes have labeled the T-Party, and all those who challenge your MENDACIOUS Messiah Obummer, such as Fox news, Boehner, etc...as TERRORISTS........I would like to be promoted from being a supposed NAZI to being a supposed TERRORIST by shitheads like you !!!

And, BTW, in case you are as stupid as you appear.....I'd like to make it crystal clear that I do not "kinda hate" Obamarrhoidal Idiots such as yourself.

I despise, hate, and wish you fucking LOONY LEFT arseholes and TRAITORS of America the worst possible !!!

So, why the fuck don't you kiss some IslamoFascist's camel in the arse (which I am firmly convinced that you would enjoy because that will earn you some additional points with the Muslim Swine), sing a bar of Yankee Doodle ....... and flush yourself down the nearest sewer.

This is why I don't like Nazis.

And don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

 

[Sallow]

The Constitution trumps all precedent and case law. That is what the supremacy clause means. I quoted the federalist papers, not Jefferson. You have no Constitutional support for your position. Your arguments don't address any of my points, rather you simply dismiss my arguments over and over again with the same repeated false assumption that I refute every time. All you do is restate your position ad nauseum in slightly different words.

Bwahahahaha..Federalist Papers.

Those are opinion pieces meant to get New Yorkers to sign on to the Union.

No legislation comes from the Federalist papers.

Strawman...

The bolded portion is my actual argument. The supremacy clause states that the Constitution is supreme, not federal law. Federal law is not automatically Constitutional, and Federal law that is unconstitutional is not a legitimate use of authority. As such, federal law that is unconstitutional is void. States, swearing an oath not to enforce federal law but to enforce the Constitution, would be violating that oath by enforcing illegitimate law. As such, they must refuse to enforce unconstitutional law. That refusal is called nullification. Nullification does not strike down federal law, it is a refusal to enforce unconstitutional federal law. If only California nullifies a law, all other 49 states would still be enforcing it unless they too nullified it. In a constitutional republic such as the United States, laws derive their legitimacy from the Constitution. Laws that do not adhere to said constitution are illegitimate and are not laws at all. States have not only a right but a duty and oath to nullify laws that violate the Constitution. The Constitution, not the federal government, is the supreme law of the land. Nullification was primarily used by the north (though opponents try to act as if Calhoun invented it) and was actually used against the fugitive slave act. It is common for opponents of nullification to shout "slavery! racism! neoconfederate!" when they are out of arguments.

Those against nullification desire to force states to violate the sovereignty of the people by demanding they apply unconstitutional law. Say the Supreme Court becomes incredibly corrupt (shouldn't be hard to believe) and Congress disregards the Constitution. The court essentially upholds anything the Congress does. To be consistent, opponents of nullification would have to demand that a state apply a law that mandates 10% of its population be killed, for not applying such a law would go against the courts. That, not nullification, is radical. Allowing the federal government to interpret its own laws is a radical. Forcing states to apply illegitimate unconstitutional law is radical. Allowing states to protect their people from centralized tyranny is common sense.

Dude...this is crazy talk.

If you don't like the system we have..move.

Simple as that.

 

[WillowTree]

Our man Perry has surged ahead in the polls.