• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Any Disputes With "ANN" Here?

Mike

Well-known member
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OBAMA QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF SLAVERY BAN
August 20, 2008


This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.

Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.

After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.

Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."

If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!

The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"

This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!

In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."

By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."

He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president. :lol:

But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.

I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
This Obama is the best the Democrats could come up with? This is their rising star and "Great Leader"?

Well,I guess they could of brought in a septuagenarian as thier rising star :shock: ..Just like the concervatives did.. :eek: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Sandhusker said:
This Obama is the best the Democrats could come up with? This is their rising star and "Great Leader"?

Well,I guess they could of brought in a septuagenarian as thier rising star :shock: ..Just like the concervatives did.. :eek: :roll:

Yes, he's old, but he's done something! We know who he is, where he's been, what he's done. You can't pick out a lie a day from his statements. He hasn't chosen anti-american racists as his mentors and leaders. He hasn't made racist comments himself. He's not a %$*^%ing socialist. You know where he stands on the Constitution (WILL ONE OF YOU LIBERALS PLEASE TELL ME IF OBAMA SUPPORTS THE 2ND AMENDMENT OR NOT?!!!), how much further do I need to go? Could they of possibly gotten a worse candidate?
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
Sandhusker said:
This Obama is the best the Democrats could come up with? This is their rising star and "Great Leader"?

Well,I guess they could of brought in a septuagenarian as thier rising star :shock: ..Just like the concervatives did.. :eek: :roll:

Yes, he's old, but he's done something! We know who he is, where he's been, what he's done. You can't pick out a lie a day from his statements. He hasn't chosen anti-american racists as his mentors and leaders. He hasn't made racist comments himself. He's not a %$*^%ing socialist. You know where he stands on the Constitution (WILL ONE OF YOU LIBERALS PLEASE TELL ME IF OBAMA SUPPORTS THE 2ND AMENDMENT OR NOT?!!!), how much further do I need to go? Could they of possibly gotten a worse candidate?


Could some one in Nebraska please introduce Sandhusker to valium...I am worried about his mental health,if this worry and lack of sleep continue for him..
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thing is- where does McSame sit-on anything :???: He's been all over the spectrum now and in the past- usually depending upon which Big Lobbyist was putting up the most money....

All I see is a second Bush- and this country can't afford that....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm9rLDU-SiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related
 

hopalong

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
Well,I guess they could of brought in a septuagenarian as thier rising star :shock: ..Just like the concervatives did.. :eek: :roll:

Yes, he's old, but he's done something! We know who he is, where he's been, what he's done. You can't pick out a lie a day from his statements. He hasn't chosen anti-american racists as his mentors and leaders. He hasn't made racist comments himself. He's not a %$*^%ing socialist. You know where he stands on the Constitution (WILL ONE OF YOU LIBERALS PLEASE TELL ME IF OBAMA SUPPORTS THE 2ND AMENDMENT OR NOT?!!!), how much further do I need to go? Could they of possibly gotten a worse candidate?


Could some one in Nebraska please introduce Sandhusker to valium...I am worried about his mental health,if this worry and lack of sleep continue for him..[/quote

Do not think any one in Nebraska needs valium much less Sandhusker. at least he will answer the questions addressed to him.
Any LIB?
(WILL ONE OF YOU LIBERALS PLEASE TELL ME IF OBAMA SUPPORTS THE 2ND AMENDMENT OR NOT?!!!),
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
Well,I guess they could of brought in a septuagenarian as thier rising star :shock: ..Just like the concervatives did.. :eek: :roll:

Yes, he's old, but he's done something! We know who he is, where he's been, what he's done. You can't pick out a lie a day from his statements. He hasn't chosen anti-american racists as his mentors and leaders. He hasn't made racist comments himself. He's not a %$*^%ing socialist. You know where he stands on the Constitution (WILL ONE OF YOU LIBERALS PLEASE TELL ME IF OBAMA SUPPORTS THE 2ND AMENDMENT OR NOT?!!!), how much further do I need to go? Could they of possibly gotten a worse candidate?


Could some one in Nebraska please introduce Sandhusker to valium...I am worried about his mental health,if this worry and lack of sleep continue for him..

Can't attack the message so you go for the messenger? Show me where I'm wrong.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Thing is- where does McSame sit-on anything :???: He's been all over the spectrum now and in the past- usually depending upon which Big Lobbyist was putting up the most money....

All I see is a second Bush- and this country can't afford that....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm9rLDU-SiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

A second Bush is better than a first Obama, I'll guarentee you that. Speaking of affordability, have you compared spending plans? Do you realize what Obama's tax policies are going to do to total tax revenues? He's going to spend more and take in less - how is he more affordable?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Thing is- where does McSame sit-on anything :???: He's been all over the spectrum now and in the past- usually depending upon which Big Lobbyist was putting up the most money....

All I see is a second Bush- and this country can't afford that....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm9rLDU-SiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

A second Bush is better than a first Obama, I'll guarentee you that. Speaking of affordability, have you compared spending plans? Do you realize what Obama's tax policies are going to do to total tax revenues? He's going to spend more and take in less - how is he more affordable?

Actually I think some of the institutes that studied both Obama and McSames plans- that I posted on here earlier said that Obamas would be more fiscally responsible-while providing more building to US infrastructure and benefits for US citizens (not Iraqis who are sitting on a $70+ BILLION dollar surplus- while US taxpayers pay their way :roll: ) and would only raise taxes on those with taxable incomes over $600,000 a year.....

I don't know about you- but I'm no where in that tax bracket...
 

Larrry

Well-known member
and would only raise taxes on those with taxable incomes over $600,000 a year.....

I don't know about you- but I'm no where in that tax bracket...

What's the word for it when you take from somone over 600k and disperse it to others?

I can't think of that word, do you know what it is? :wink: :wink:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Thing is- where does McSame sit-on anything :???: He's been all over the spectrum now and in the past- usually depending upon which Big Lobbyist was putting up the most money....

All I see is a second Bush- and this country can't afford that....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm9rLDU-SiE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEtZlR3zp4c&feature=related

A second Bush is better than a first Obama, I'll guarentee you that. Speaking of affordability, have you compared spending plans? Do you realize what Obama's tax policies are going to do to total tax revenues? He's going to spend more and take in less - how is he more affordable?

Actually I think some of the institutes that studied both Obama and McSames plans- that I posted on here earlier said that Obamas would be more fiscally responsible-while providing more building to US infrastructure and benefits for US citizens (not Iraqis who are sitting on a $70+ BILLION dollar surplus- while US taxpayers pay their way :roll: ) and would only raise taxes on those with taxable incomes over $600,000 a year.....

I don't know about you- but I'm no where in that tax bracket...

I'm not quite to that level yet, but I don't think that wealthy people should be penalized for being successful. It generally takes hard work and commitment to attain success, and you shoud be rewarded for that, not rewarded for being a drain on society. That top 1% is already paying more than the bottom 50% - that's not enougH?

Just stand back, take a hard look at it, and then explain to me that he's not proposing wealth redisribution. We both know what philosophy embraces that concept.
 

Mike

Well-known member
I don't know about you- but I'm no where in that tax bracket...

Therein lies the problem.

Instead of the "have-nots" getting off their dead fat asses and making wise business decisions................

They wait around for a handout from the "haves".

Lyndon Johnson must be your hero. :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Here's the deal, OT. No matter what Obama calls his plan, it's wealth redistribution. He can say it's "making things equal", call it a special tax, a surcharge, he can call it Peter Pan, doesn't change the facts - what he is proposing is wealth redistribution. You can put frosting on a turd and call it a long john, but it's still a turd. He's taking legally obtained earnings from those with more and giving it to those with less regardless of the reasons behind the individual's situations. That is Marxism, my friend, is it not? Obama is going to change things, no doubt about that, but is Marxism change for the better?
 

loomixguy

Well-known member
Keep it in perspective.....The Messiah fully supports infanticide, or the murder of babies who through the grace of God survived an attempted abortion amd are living and breathing at the time........ :roll: AND the Messiah counts as one of his most trusted friends and advisors the most notorious American terrorist in history, co-founder of the Weathermen, bomber of the Pentagon, Wiliam Ayres.

How could anybody who has children or grandchildren, and obviously loves them, or anyone who has spent a career as either a law enforcement agent or a jurist give the Messiah a 2nd look, let alone full blown support, when the Messiah clearly stands against family values, and everything a law enforcement/legal career stands for? :shock:

Johnny Mac has an adopted child who is black. Would the Messiah ever adopt a white child? :shock: He can't even help out siblings living on $12 a year! :wink:
 

TSR

Well-known member
Mike said:
CONSTITUTIONAL SCHOLAR OBAMA QUESTIONS LEGALITY OF SLAVERY BAN
August 20, 2008


This week, Barack Obama's challenge is to select a running mate who's young, hip, and whose accomplishments in life don't overshadow Obama's. Allow me to suggest Kevin Federline.

The only thing we can be sure of is that Obama will choose someone who is the polar opposite of all his advisers until now. In other words, it will be a very, very white male who was probably proud of his country even before being chosen as Obama's running mate.

Obama's got a lot of ground to make up following that performance last weekend at the Saddleback presidential forum with pastor Rick Warren.

After seeing Obama defend infanticide with the glib excuse that the question of when life begins is above his "pay-grade," Rev. Jeremiah Wright announced that although he's known Obama for 30 years, he only recently became aware of how extreme the senator's viewpoints were. Wright, after all, has his reputation to consider.

Network heads responded by dashing off an urgent memo: During the main presidential debates this fall, ask NO questions about abortion, ethics or evil! Morality isn't the Democrats' forte.

Obama's defenders spin his abominable performance in the Saddleback forum by saying he's just too smart to give a straight answer. As Rick Warren charitably described Obama's debate performance: "He likes to nuance things ... He's a constitutional attorney." The constitutional lawyer "does nuance," as Bill Maher said on "Larry King Live," "and you saw how well that goes over with the Rick Warren people."

If that's Obama's excuse, he ought to know a few basics about the Constitution.

Did the big constitutional lawyer whose "nuance" is too sophisticated for Rick Warren's audience see the letter his wife sent out on his behalf in 2004? Michelle Obama denounced a federal law banning partial-birth abortion, writing that "this ban on a legitimate medical procedure is clearly unconstitutional." Clearly!

The Supreme Court later found the law not "unconstitutional," but "constitutional" -- which I believe may have been the precise moment when Michelle Obama realized just how ashamed she had always been of her country.

But most stunningly, when Warren asked Obama if he supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Obama said he did not "because historically -- because historically, we have not defined marriage in our Constitution."

I don't care if you support a marriage amendment or not. That answer is literally the stupidest thing I've ever heard anyone say. If marriage were already defined in the Constitution, we wouldn't need an amendment, no?

Say, you know what else was "historically" not defined in the Constitution? Slavery. The words "slavery" and "slave" do not appear once in the original Constitution. The framers correctly thought it would sully the freedom-enshrining document to acknowledge the repellent practice. (Much like abortion!)

But in 1865, the 13th Amendment banned slavery throughout the land, in the first constitutional phrase ever to mention "slavery": "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

On Obama's "historical" argument, they shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment because the Constitution "historically" had not mentioned slavery.

Do we know for a fact Barack Obama has read the Constitution? Obama's Facebook profile: "I'm pro-infanticide, I love sunsets, and I don't get the 13th Amendment!"

This is the guy who thinks he can condescend to Clarence Thomas? Asked at the Saddleback forum which Supreme Court justice Obama would not have nominated, Obama said ... the black one!

In Obama's defense, he said he thought Thomas wasn't experienced enough "at the time." So I guess Obama thinks Thomas should have to "wait his turn."

By contrast, Obama has experience pouring out of those big ears of his. Asked last year by Robin Roberts on ABC's "Good Morning America" about his lack of experience in foreign policy, Obama took umbrage.

Swelling up his puny little chest, Obama said: "Well, actually, my experience in foreign policy is probably more diverse than most others in the field. I'm somebody who has actually lived overseas, somebody who has studied overseas. I majored in international relations."

He actually cited his undergraduate major as a qualification to be president. :lol:

But on Saturday night, Obama said he didn't think Clarence Thomas was a "strong enough jurist or legal thinker" to be put on the Supreme Court.

I bet Thomas has heard of the 13th Amendment!

COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111

So there will be no questions asked during the debates about abortion, ethics, and last but not least EVIL. lol I guess we'll see if Ann is right.
Personally, I think the debates will decide the election. We will see if McCain knows geography (borders) and if Obama can do well without the teleprompter as many of you contend that he can't. But I always look at the questions. You can almost tell who is running the show if no truly tough questions are asked. I just wish they would allow a 3rd party to participate.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
loomixguy said:
Keep it in perspective.....The Messiah fully supports infanticide, or the murder of babies who through the grace of God survived an attempted abortion amd are living and breathing at the time........ :roll: AND the Messiah counts as one of his most trusted friends and advisors the most notorious American terrorist in history, co-founder of the Weathermen, bomber of the Pentagon, Wiliam Ayres.

How could anybody who has children or grandchildren, and obviously loves them, or anyone who has spent a career as either a law enforcement agent or a jurist give the Messiah a 2nd look, let alone full blown support, when the Messiah clearly stands against family values, and everything a law enforcement/legal career stands for? :shock:

Johnny Mac has an adopted child who is black. Would the Messiah ever adopt a white child? :shock: He can't even help out siblings living on $12 a year! :wink:

There are a lot of questions and circumstances that mans law or worldly law is not set up to answer or adjudicate-- they are decisions to be left to the Ultimate Judge....
I worked many years with the nicest guy in the world- that had one of the deepest haunting secrets you could carry...During his early career as a Highway Patrolman- back before they had much for radios- he came upon a semi tanker loaded with fuel on its side on fire...The driver was pinned in the truck- screaming for him to shoot him before the fire got to him and he would get burned alive...
What would you do :???: I know what this very brave mans choice was...

Some legal questions should be left between you and your God....
 
Top