AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

My education desires in a leader has much less to do with where they were educated, and much more to do with their ability to display their intelligence and education through their words and actions. Palin was absolutely horrendous at this. Obama is great at it. It's the difference between the two popular politicians.

So what you are saying is that Obama was the better speaker.
Palin may have been as well educated as Obama, but since she wasnt a good public speaker she isnt educated.
So thats why she didnt deserve to win?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

You sound a bit like MM, the truck-driving constitutional expert. O has in no way violated the constitution. Had he, you can be assured there would be a plethora of lawsuits filed against him. You are aware, I guess, that he was a law professor.

Where did I ever claim to be a "constitutional expert"?
I am not, nor have I ever been.
I can however, read the Constitution, and I believe it means exactly what it says, no more and no less.

Where did I ever say that Obama has EVER violated the Constitution?
You wont find so much as one example of me saying that.

So the next time you want to drag me into your little pissing contest, check with me first.
You wont look like such a fool that way.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

If the constitution is as you say, no more nor no less than what it says, why hasn't the conservative congress members charged him with a crime?

Doesn't make any sense if it's so obvious.

As a matter of fact, there will be a firestorm of suits from the right if what you say is true.

Strange.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Charged Who with a crime?
If you mean Obama, as far as I know he hasnt committed any crimes.
Do you know of crimes he committed?
If not, why are you asking the conservative congress members to charge him with something?

I see you edited your post while I was responding.
Thats ok.

But why should Obama be charged with a crime if he hasnt committed one?
Are you suggesting that he HAS committed crimes?

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
My education desires in a leader has much less to do with where they were educated, and much more to do with their ability to display their intelligence and education through their words and actions. Palin was absolutely horrendous at this. Obama is great at it. It's the difference between the two popular politicians.

So what you are saying is that Obama was the better speaker.

Does that have to be said?

Quote:

Palin may have been as well educated as Obama, but since she wasnt a good public speaker she isnt educated.
So thats why she didnt deserve to win?

Well, there's no doubt whatsoever that she was not as well educated as Obama, either traditionally or on her own.

Nobody 'deserves' to win the presidency. She didn't win for a variety of reasons, one of which being her penchant for displaying incompetence when confronted with questions politicians should be able to answer with ease.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Nobody 'deserves' to win the presidency. She didn't win for a variety of reasons, one of which being her penchant for displaying incompetence when confronted with questions politicians should be able to answer with ease.

You mean like how many states there are?

Sorry, but Obama made a fool out of himself with his comment about 57 states.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

No, I was just following the thinking from Advocate's post. If I assumed wrong, my apologies.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

What thinking?
The one where he tried to drag me into his pissing match?

There was no thinking there, just his attempt to paint with a very wide brush.

0 Replies

@JamesMorrison,

JamesMorrison wrote:

I am interested but both my senators are hopelessly liberal democrats. I don't think either one will listen...any suggestions?

I recommend you try to convince as many NJ Republican members of the House of Representatives as you can to make/support the motion to impeach Obama. Once such a motion is actually made, getting the support of millions of Americans will be a lot easier.

Living in Texas, I have more TX Republican members of the House to work on than you have NJ Republican members of the House..

However, in both our cases we need to convince one or more Conservative organizations to support us. I recommend you start by trying to enlist the aid of the Institute of Justice. Here are some links you can use to try and persuade one or more such organizations or persons to help:
[email protected]
www.cato.org
[email protected]
www.ij.org
[email protected]
[email protected]

However, do not expect quick progress. On the otherhand, doing nothing will make zero progress. There's far too much at stake to just give up and do nothing.

Do you have children and/or grandchildren? If you do, that ought to be enough motivation to persevere regardless of disappointments along the way. It's enough motivation for me.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Nobody 'deserves' to win the presidency. She didn't win for a variety of reasons, one of which being her penchant for displaying incompetence when confronted with questions politicians should be able to answer with ease.

You mean like how many states there are?

Sorry, but Obama made a fool out of himself with his comment about 57 states.

Sure. Like I said, all politicians have gaffes. Some of them however make up for it by coming off as intelligent the vast majority of the time and screwing up rarely. Palin was the exact opposite of that.

Of course, you know this, why are you even pushing this? It's not a partisan thing to realize she was dumb as a sack of hammers.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Of course, you know this, why are you even pushing this? It's not a partisan thing to realize she was dumb as a sack of hammers.

I'm not pushing anything.
You are the one that said that candidates should have a certain level of education.
There is nothing in our Constitution that mandates that, nor should there be.

I am simply wondering WHY you want something that clearly violates the constitution.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

Quote:
Of course, you know this, why are you even pushing this? It's not a partisan thing to realize she was dumb as a sack of hammers.

I'm not pushing anything.
You are the one that said that candidates should have a certain level of education.
There is nothing in our Constitution that mandates that, nor should there be.

I am simply wondering WHY you want something that clearly violates the constitution.

MM, are you even reading my posts?

Did you see this line -

Quote:

I don't believe we should bar ANYONE from running; a genius who had the ability to get people to vote for them deserves a shot.

What about that says to you that we should bar people from running based on their level of education?

C'mon, man. Our candidates SHOULD have a certain level of education. That doesn't mean we should bar anyone who doesn't have that level from attempting.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I am reading you posts, and I admit I misread what you wrote.
That was my fault and for that I apologize.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

I am reading you posts, and I admit I misread what you wrote.
That was my fault and for that I apologize.

No worries. I should have been clearer myself on the other thread with what I meant to write.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mm, Glad to see I'm not the only one "misreading" posts.

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Weeeeellllll, maybe treason is a bit strong as there is no stated intent to violate the Constitution or overthrow the government or attack the people of the United States.

Perhaps it "is a bit strong," BUT I can find nothing in the Constitution that says or implies that there has to be a "stated intent to violate the Constitution or overthrow the government or attack the people of the United States" for these acts of treason to have actually been committed.

Quote:
Article III. Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Congress controls the power of the purse. The congressional passage of an economic recovery bill does not equate to treason. You're very silly.

Your many skewed and irrational interpretations of the constitution are amusing. Now you are suggesting that treason is a strict liability crime. Perhaps you should educate yourself concerning the issue of criminal culpability. Start here:

United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394 (1980):

The Supreme Court wrote:

In certain narrow classes of crimes, however, heightened culpability has been thought to merit special attention. Thus, the statutory and common law of homicide often distinguishes, either in setting the "degree" of the crime or in imposing punishment, between a person who knows that another person will be killed as the result of his conduct and a person who acts with the specific purpose of taking another's life. See LaFave & Scott 196-197. Similarly, where a defendant is charged with treason, this Court has stated that the Government must demonstrate that the defendant acted with a purpose to aid the enemy. See Haupt v. United States, 330 US 631, 641, 91 L Ed 1145, 67 S Ct 874 (1947).

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

ican doesn't have even a reasonable understanding of laws or reality; his posts/opinions are "always" off the wall - and he hopes that some of his shite will stick.

His misread of our Constitution is but a symptom of his inability to understand the basics. He seems to make his own interpretation of laws as if they have any meaning. LOL

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

I worry that 2010 might be way too late! That's why I recommend we work to sooner impeach them all for treason.

Who's going to impeach whom?

You expect the members of Congress to impeach themselves for treason? For what? For passing a bill by a majority vote? Is that before or after they impeach the new president for treason for signing the bill that Congress passed?

You must live in some alternative reality where irrationality reigns supreme.

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

It's really funny seeing these conservatives stretching their own views of our Constitution now after eight years of Bush who never vetoed any budget item that created the biggest deficit for our country. Now that congress is attempting to stop the bleeding of our economy, they want to make our government criminals. They have no common sense or any semblance of understanding the economic crisis - all created by Bush and "his" congress.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

It's really funny seeing these conservatives stretching their own views of our Constitution now after eight years of Bush who never vetoed any budget item that created the biggest deficit for our country. Now that congress is attempting to stop the bleeding of our economy, they want to make our government criminals. They have no common sense or any semblance of understanding the economic crisis - all created by Bush and "his" congress.

I agree. They're a bunch of self-centered myopic fools.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know