See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: ARG Poll has PA tied between Obama and Clinton at 45-45
Source:
Democratic Underground
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 7, 2008
Author: DU people
Post Date: 2008-04-07 17:42:11 by ghostdogtxn
Keywords: None
Views: 3882
Comments: 259
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-141) not displayed.
.
.
.
#142. To: ghostdogtxn (#128)
(Edited)
It's okay, I've been called worse, and I sleep okay. ;) You mentioned above: look how the critics lapped up "Charlie Wilson's War". That was an unapologetic ode to Zbigniew Breszinski's policies that would have made Monica Lewinski blush from under the table, and yet it was accepted non critically by most Americans. I tried to understand the logic of it, but apparently fell short. Can you help me understand what you meant? I've accepted reluctantly that we are down to 3 likely candidates for president. Obama, Clinton or McCain is going to inherit the expanded and ghastly powers of "Free World's Slavemaster". Who do you want to see in that office, among the 3? If you disagree that we're down to 3, please explain how that can be? Same here. There are 3. I will not vote for any of them, at all, no matter what happens from now till November, I reject all three. And their are many many reasons, but one huge common denominator is that all three are or are controlled by the CFR, that is intent on a one-world government controlled by pure evil beings. To all three, I say, I won't vote for our own suicide. I don't know if that helps.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Fortunately you don't have to be a "guilt laden White" to know he is the best candidate of the three the system offers. I could of re-registered as a Democrat to vote for him in the primary, but I didn't. I am a Green, not a Democrat. I ultimately want someone fare better then Obama to be POTUS; someone who doesn't belong to either half of the current one party running things. The system is co-opted and broken. It does not run as the founders intended and has become owned by too few of the wrong people. But I will vote for the least objectionable candidate and keep hoping that martial law and a war against "American insurgents" doesn't develop. I vote for the candidate I feel is the most vulnerable to pressure from dissidents to make right choices. I got over thinking I would see a competent POTUS that is the true choice of the American people in an unmanipulated election long ago. I put my choice out here mostly in response to bullying of people supporting Obama and ad hominem attacks against them instead of people arguing in good faith without the character assassination. As far as race goes, it's importance has always been over exaggerated. When I look at any person I see a human being first and foremost. Race is only as important as bigotry drives it to be, nothing more. I am glad he is doing so well in Pennsylvania, but I don't trust the system and won't believe it until I see the tallies come in. I believe McCain will get the same manipulate the vote attempt at a win Bush got twice and which was used to marginalized and neutralize Ron Paul whom I would very much support over Obama despite strong ideological differences I have with him. If those in power could no longer twist the result of the election, then Bush would keep it from happening, they do not intend on giving up power without a fight. And if Obama gets in and shows the same fierce independence and unwillingness to accede to the desires of this shadow government group running things, they would shoot him just as brutally and quickly as they did John Kennedy. I know how unstable and volatile the situation is. But I am going to stay in there nominally supporting the process going on, because when and if the facade comes off and martial law is declared I want to survive the first round-ups of people to the FEMA camps. And I want to make sure I do because my core notion is the Constitution and the ideas behind it should not ever go quietly. I am prepared to survive, and to fight for what I believe. But I am not going to belittle and browbeat people still trying to make the system work. Working through problems and bringing elections back to the people for them to make the choice is preferable to seeing martial law and an insurgency develop with people dying and imprisoned as they try to keep the revolution of 1776 alive. That is why I take the stance I do. It isn't because Obama has African heritage to him. Race and gender should never keep someone from being president, conversely they should never be elected solely to put someone of a different race and gender then has been in that office either.
You're ignoring the other major difference between Obama and the other candidates: civil liberties. Obama repeatedly calls for restoring habeas corpus in his speeches. The other candidates do not do that.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
The Catholics who voted for JFK in the 1960 primaries (as most of them did) had mostly voted for Adlai Stevenson in '52 and '56. (A lot of Catholics had voted for Eisenhower in those elections, but most of those Catholics did not vote in the Democratic primaries in 1960.) Stevenson was one of the Democrats running for the nomination in 1960. Again, no difference. I remember. I was a Catholic Irish-American who (mistakenly) supported Nixon that year (mainly out of resentment of how it seemed to be expected that I should support JFK). I remember how unpopular that was in my circles.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Whereas most of them have only recently come here.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
What are my options? Did I? Unless you choose to write someone in, then really, there are are none. Unless you decide not to vote at all. That's a tricky thing, because we know the process is corrupted and the outcome pre-determined...so playing along at all is hard to do. We've all known that though, and aren't deluded into false beliefs. It's nice to think millions more people will engage in the process, because as I see it, they are more apt to keep tabs on what 'their guy' does, and who is fighting him/her/it. Still, the argument that not voting means you no longer have a right to criticize is made all the time, and I don't agree with that either. If you have no faith, and decide not to vote, then you just saved yourself time and bit of grief, but as a taxpayer, and a citizen, you have every right to speak up. There are other options though to try and change the system from the ground up, and expend your energy there. Didn't you say a while back you were asked to run as a Ron Paul Democrat? I can't remember exactly, but it takes more than most people are willing and able to give to consider doing that, and usually for a boat load of ungrateful people. ;) Sorry this was an essay.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Better than someone who's open to being in Iraq for 100 years and sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran"? It's about impossible to imagine Obama be a worse choice, ergo, he must be at least a little better. Would that be wrong?
In which case, all discussion on (s)elections is for naught. Which I know is your main point.
So, in 1960 you were unpopular in your circles for supporting Nixon? I'm 58, so in 1960 I was busy trying to feel up Gracie Segona, the only girl w/boobs we knew. You were how old?
I will grant you that, let's say that there's 10% about Hillary Clinton that we don't know yet, I will grant you that, but I would say there's also about 50% about Barack Obama that we don't know yet," Ed Rendell said.
I was 14. I remember being punched in my high school for wearing a Nixon button. I hope my youth at the time serves to excuse the poor judgment I had in opposing JFK.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
A Clinton/Obama ticket would win with ease as many will write in or leave blank. There is no lesser of three evils currently in this race.
I've posted many articles from the Jerusalem Post where they find him quite acceptable.
I will grant you that, let's say that there's 10% about Hillary Clinton that we don't know yet, I will grant you that, but I would say there's also about 50% about Barack Obama that we don't know yet," Ed Rendell said.
What separates Obama from the others? This is the argument we've been having since RP did his duck and cover.
I will grant you that, let's say that there's 10% about Hillary Clinton that we don't know yet, I will grant you that, but I would say there's also about 50% about Barack Obama that we don't know yet," Ed Rendell said.
very nicely expressed, Mike (your entire post but that in particular)
My understanding is that he wants it restored for Gitmo detainees, as described here: In an e-mail to supporters, Sens. Chris Dodd (D-CT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT) announced that they were reintroducing the Habeas Corpus Restoration Act as an amendment to a defense authorization bill today. Last fall’s Military Commissions Act stripped detainees charged as enemy combatants of their right of habeas corpus. Watch Dodd introduce the bill on the Senate floor today: thinkprogress.org/2007/09...eintroduce-habeas-corpus- restoration-act/ I can't assume he means for all of us at this point. Do you have a reference?
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
That's why I hope he picks a good running mate. Jim Webb is my choice.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
It's about impossible to imagine Obama be a worse choice, ergo, he must be at least a little better. Would that be wrong? When you look at his advisors, and read how his position has shifted time and again, he is being politically cute to obtain the support he needs from the audience he speaks before. We know McCain is nuts. We know Barack is controlled. We know HIllary want's to be Queen and is as ruthless as they come. Obama could indeed be worse, by looking at his fiscal mentality, of which there is none. Spend spend spend, more more programs, and we are broke. He is well aware that we are in the ME forever. Sorry, he is the worst of the three without fully knowing his own true positions. That said, he could state them, and then bring the truth of the matter to the people. Example, before we establish more entitlement programs, we must balance our budget and fund current commmittments such as Social Security etc. No, we see he supports a global tax, (more cfr crap) as well as a mandated health care program. Where, is the money going to come from? Is that leadership? Or is that pandering? Is there even a possibility it could happen at all? We are being pushed into socialized healthcare no doubt, but the responsible thing is to be honest about the true economic state of the nation, and the truth about our foreign committments.
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
The American people must be able to trust that their president values principle over politics, and justice over unchecked power. I’ve been proud to stand with Senator Dodd in his fight against retroactive immunity for the telecommunications industry. Secrecy and special interests must not trump accountability. We must show our citizens – and set an example to the world – that laws cannot be ignored when it is inconvenient. Because in America – no one is above the law. It’s time to reject torture without equivocation. It’s time to close Guantanamo and to restore habeas corpus. It’s time to give our intelligence and law enforcement agencies the tools they need to track down and take out terrorists, while ensuring that their actions are subject to vigorous oversight that protects our freedom. So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States. From Obama's speech accepting Dodd's endorsement (late February). Google "Obama" and "habeas corpus" and you will find repeated statements made by him, starting in the Senate debate in 2006 on the habeas corpus issue.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Oh golly, that just makes me warm and fuzzy all over.
Just curious. I assume you consider Hillary a better selection than McCain, should Obama fail, would you hold your nose and select her?
I will grant you that, let's say that there's 10% about Hillary Clinton that we don't know yet, I will grant you that, but I would say there's also about 50% about Barack Obama that we don't know yet," Ed Rendell said.
Jeffrey Rosen’s TRB column in the February 27, 2208, New Republic is about how Obama would be the first truly civil libertarian president. That column really sums up what I like about Obama. As a libertarian, civil and fiscal, I don’t agree with a lot of his ideas, but I love his honest and strong civil libertarian bent. After the Bush 43 years this approach to personal liberty and privacy would be a welcome change. And as far as government spending goes, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess he’d be less “liberal” than Bush. Sure Obama’s spending will focus on different areas than Bush’s, but in pure government expansion it’s almost impossible for Obama, or any other “spend thrift liberal,” to match Bush’s woeful record. Plus an Obama presidency might push the GOP to look deep into the dark night and find a core that seems to be lost in Rovian factions and coalitions. The Rove gloat of creating a generation of GOP rule died, oh, about two or three years in. All that being said, I sincerely hope Obama wins either Texas or Ohio and forces Clinton out of the Democratic nomination race. Of course that would also involve Clinton conceding with grace. An outcome still in serious doubt at this time. Here is Rosen’s lede: To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
well, we have to start with the belief that our votes are counted. i happen to believe they don't and that the PTB choose who's going to be president years in advance. i think our elections have been manipulated and fraudulent for years (i read Votescam: The Stealing of America in 2001). i was a reluctant voter for RP from the getgo because of this conviction. that's the reason i was so disappointed and angered when he made the declaration that vote fraud hadn't affected his results in NH and the primary after that. imo, illuminating vote fraud would have been the biggest favor RP could have done for us and this country. for without honest elections, we have nothing. no government for, by, and of the people. this is probably the main issue that separates in the current debate. others, obviously, believe that they're electing. i won't ever vote for one of their selection. it would be an endorsement that i believe in it and will continue to accept it.
Coming from anyone besides Ron Paul and maybe Bob Barr, this is an ominous.....lie. Got to admit that.
But not like McCain. No one is getting into the WH w/o a certain level of acceptance from that quarter.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
He hasn't just taught the Constitution at probably the most conservative major law school in the country, the University of Chicago, he was repeatedly offered tenure there. (He didn't take it, because he didn't want to teach full-time.) Don't you think his fellow law professors there knew something?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Oh ye of little faith. Ari has already applied for tickets for Queen Hillarys coronation. Obama will be her batman.
No doubt he has a different view of what the Constitution means than you do. But he sincerely believes in civil liberties. Otherwise he wouldn't repeatedly call for restoring habeas corpus in his stump speeches.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Yes indeed, their eyes saw black. And their ears heard English, all that was required.
I don't think I could vote for Hillary. If she got the nomination, I think I would vote third-party.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You're ignoring the economic costs of a war with Iran, I think.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I resemble those remarks...well done Christine! I don't care to see what B.O., Hitlery OR McTraitor are going to do and doubt we'll get the opportunity to chat about it before long.
McCain and Hillary are not even mouthing these words, like restoring habeas corpus. Obama is saying them. It remains to be seen whether he will act on them or not. But a candidate who will not even say this, will never act on it.
'Individuals should not take responsibility for their own defense. That’s what the police are for. ... If I oppose individuals defending themselves, I have to support police defending them. I have to support a police state.”' Alan Dershowitz
ROFLMAO!
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
Yeah, B.O. subscribes to the "Steal from them to give to whoever votes for me" principles of the Constitution...LOLOL
Quite an argument.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
I am astounded you know every tiny nuance by Obama, bordering on idolatry. Yet you were never interested in Paul, the one man that made the rest look like the run of the mill politicians they are. i·dol·a·try (-dl-tr) n. pl. i·dol·a·tries 1. Worship of idols. 2. Blind or excessive devotion to something.
meant to PiNg you!
I recall Bush and his "compassionate conservatism" and "follow the Constitution"...
Yes, we are at war. If Iran is averted, it's not like our costs are going down now is it? Why more programs? We are 9T in debt, and he want's more programs. That costs money. Money we don't have. Jobs are leaving, people are losing jobs, so, shouldn't we pay the debt we have, rather than incur more debt for programs we can't afford? Cutting any programs will tick off that voting block. So, I suggest a 100% tax on a targeted segment society. Who should pay?
"The truth that makes men free is for the most part the truth which men prefer not to hear." -- Herbert Sebastien Agar (1897-1980) Source: The Time for Greatness, 1942
As I have said here repeatedly, the only presidential candidate I have contributed to this campaign season so far is Ron Paul. (And I made no effort to get my money refunded either, unlike some.) I heard Obama make that statement about restoring habeas corpus in another stump speech he made, when he took his campaign from Iowa to New Hampshire. (That's the same speech that Jeffrey Rosen heard and commented on.) I happened to have C-SPAN Radio on at the time his speech came on. And yes, I admit I was impressed by his statement. I think I even posted a thread here at the time. I know I posted one when he made the same statement when he accepted Dodd's endorsement a few weeks later. Unlike some, I do not have a closed mind.
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
You think a man who can joke about "bomb bomb Iran" will avoid war with that country?
To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.
Comments (183 - 259) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestYour second point has me wondering a bit, though. I usually don't try to turn a question around unless the poser of it is an asshole, and believe me, I don't think that of you at all, but where are you coming from here?
#143. To: Jethro Tull (#16)
"Rendell & Hillary are right. He can't win a national. There simply aren't enough guilt laden whites out here.......thank god."
Obama for president 2008
#144. To: Jethro Tull (#103)
For reasons I don't understand you've chosen to ignore countless articles detailing O's foreign policy as one that is closely aligned with the other two candidates.
#145. To: Jethro Tull (#99)
(Edited)
Sure there is a difference. Black Ds were Clintonites until a fellow black came into the mix. See? To them it's all about race, my fine diversity-loving friend.
#146. To: ghostdogtxn (#108)
I've been standing right where I have been since day 1.
#147. To: ghostdogtxn (#131)
You ducked the question.
#148. To: Peppa (#129)
So basically, without a record and believing what you don't see is proof that he is not bought and sold, you just sort of feel that his is better choice.
#149. To: christine (#132)
Obama's gotta get past the Dem party elite to secure the nomination first. that won't happen unless he's the selection.
#150. To: aristeides (#145)
I remember. I was a Catholic Irish-American who (mistakenly) supported Nixon that year (mainly out of resentment of how it seemed to be expected that I should support JFK). I remember how unpopular that was in my circles.
#151. To: Jethro Tull (#150)
(Edited)
#152. To: Pinguinite (#137)
#153. To: robin (#141)
If he is just like McCain, why doesn't Izzy like Obama?
#154. To: Ferret Mike (#143)
#155. To: Ferret Mike (#143)
I am prepared to survive, and to fight for what I believe. But I am not going to belittle and browbeat people still trying to make the system work. Working through problems and bringing elections back to the people for them to make the choice is preferable to seeing martial law and an insurgency develop with people dying and imprisoned as they try to keep the revolution of 1776 alive.
#156. To: aristeides (#144)
Obama repeatedly calls for restoring habeas corpus in his speeches. The other candidates do not do that.
#157. To: Ferret Mike (#143)
And if Obama gets in and shows the same fierce independence and unwillingness to accede to the desires of this shadow government group running things, they would shoot him just as brutally and quickly as they did John Kennedy.
#158. To: Pinguinite (#148)
Better than someone who's open to being in Iraq for 100 years and sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran"?
#159. To: Peppa (#156)
We know it’s time to time to restore our Constitution and the rule of law. This is an issue that was at the heart of Senator Dodd’s candidacy, and I share his passion for restoring the balance between the security we demand and the civil liberties that we cherish.
#160. To: aristeides (#159)
I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.
#161. To: aristeides (#159)
#162. To: Peppa (#156)
If Barack Obama were to win the Democratic nomination and the White House, he would be, among other things, our first civil libertarian president. This is clear not just from his lifetime rating on the ACLU’s scorecard (82 percent compared to John McCain’s 25 percent). It is clear from the fact that civil liberties have been among his most passionate interests–as a constitutional law professor, state legislator, and senator. On the campaign trail, he has been unapologetic about these enthusiasms. In New Hampshire, I heard him end a rousing stump speech by promising the cheering crowd, “We will close Guantánamo, we will restore habeas corpus, we will have a president who will respect and obey the Constitution.” Has a political consultant ever urged a candidate to brandish habeas corpus?
#163. To: Pinguinite (#149)
#164. To: aristeides (#159)
So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.
#165. To: Jethro Tull (#153)
#166. To: Cynicom (#160)
#167. To: Jethro Tull (#161)
#168. To: Pinguinite (#164)
#169. To: aristeides (#166)
Don't you think his fellow law professors there knew something?
#170. To: Jethro Tull (#161)
#171. To: Peppa (#158)
Obama could indeed be worse, by looking at his fiscal mentality, of which there is none. Spend spend spend, more more programs, and we are broke. He is well aware that we are in the ME forever.
#172. To: christine, Original_Intent, TwentyTwelve, wudidiz, JamesDeffenbach, buckeye, Cynicom, JethroTull, lodwick, Critter, _______, Pinguinite, FormerLurker, farmfriend, *North American Union* (#163)
(Edited)
All three will bring us fully into the NAU and complete bastardization of our nation to the globalist god.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#173. To: Cynicom (#160)
#174. To: aristeides (#159)
So let me be perfectly clear: I have taught the Constitution, I understand the Constitution, and I will obey the Constitution when I am President of the United States.
#175. To: aristeides (#168)
No doubt he has a different view of what the Constitution means than you do.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#176. To: Peppa (#174)
ROFLMAO!
#177. To: aristeides (#168)
But he sincerely believes in civil liberties. Otherwise he wouldn't repeatedly call for restoring habeas corpus in his stump speeches.
#178. To: Peppa (#172)
I don't care to see what B.O., Hitlery OR McTraitor are going to do and doubt we'll get the opportunity to chat about it before long.
What North American Union? STOP the North American Union!
~~~~~> Have you seen THIS yet? TIME IS RUNNING OUT!
#179. To: robin (#173)
#180. To: aristeides (#171)
Obama could indeed be worse, by looking at his fiscal mentality, of which there is none. Spend spend spend, more more programs, and we are broke. He is well aware that we are in the ME forever. You're ignoring the economic costs of a war with Iran, I think.
#181. To: Cynicom (#177)
(Edited)
#182. To: Peppa (#180)
If Iran is averted, it's not like our costs are going down now is it?
.
.
.