Ladies and gentlemen,Hello everybody,
input this URL: === http://globalsell.org/ ===
shirts, bags, hat and the decorations.
you can find many cheap and fashion stuff (jor dan shoes)
(NBA NFL NHL MLB jersey)
( lv handbag)
(cha nel wallet)
(D&G sunglasses)
(ed har dy jacket)
(UGG boot)
and so on..welcome to our website:
( http://globalsell.org/)
we sincerely hope to establish the business relation with you.
Looking forward your visit.

Keep the politics simple:

Democrats = Appease Muslims (& their attack group, CAIR) resulting in the Fort Hood Massacre.

Republicans = Defend the rights Innocent Americans over the “rights” of Homicidal Jihadists.

Forget about the radical Islamists; it’s time to question the DEMOCRATS about THEIR loyalty!!

Frances, we’re all watching this so do yourself a favor and be VERY careful about how you spin this.

Dem4Ever said:
Frances, we’re all watching this so do yourself a favor and be VERY careful about how you spin this.

I’m sure Frances is shaking in her boots.

Watch how the “mainstream media” will play the BIAS CARD against Republicans this election.

They’ll use any SMEAR machination they can to enflame hatred of select voting groups (blacks, hispanics, muslims, gays…); and one of their main ploys is the “judgemental” slant they put on each story. Watch this carefully, and EXPOSE THEM!

Bennybombom said:
I’m sure Frances is shaking in her boots.

Why would she be shaking in her boots?

Dem4Ever said:
Why would she be shaking in her boots?

Why should she be VERY careful how she “spins” this?

Why is Newt there, his campaign imploded in 3 whole weeks

Dem4Ever said:
Why would she be shaking in her boots?

Maybe because you were advocating suicide for Con. Weiner a few hours ago?
Even Sarainitaly said you went over the line.

Romney & Bachmann hit it out of the park tonight ! John King was being hackish.

LMAO!

Here’s Ed’s OBJECTIVE panel on tonight!

LMAO!

Joan Walsh
E.J. Dionne
Michael Eric Dyson

They Report – THEY DECIDE!

LMAO!!

Glackin said:
Maybe because you were advocating suicide for Con. Weiner a few hours ago?
Even Sarainitaly said you went over the line.

oooooow

NORBIT said:
Keep the politics simple:

Democrats = Appease Muslims (& their attack group, CAIR) resulting in the Fort Hood Massacre.

Republicans = Defend the rights Innocent Americans over the “rights” of Homicidal Jihadists.

Forget about the radical Islamists; it’s time to question the DEMOCRATS about THEIR loyalty!!

You have GOT to be kidding me. There would be no need to even fathom the existence of Sharia courts if the GOP would read the frickin’ Constitution and stop trying to destroy the separation of church and state.

The best part of the debate was when CNN showed its PDS by asking the Palin question.

I was like OMG.

NORBIT said:
Watch how the “mainstream media” will play the BIAS CARD against Republicans this election.

They’ll use any SMEAR machination they can to enflame hatred of select voting groups (blacks, hispanics, muslims, gays…); and one of their main ploys is the “judgemental” slant they put on each story. Watch this carefully, and EXPOSE THEM!

Well, yes. Creating imaginary enemies (Sharia courts—um, try reading the First Amendment. Pretty sure it says something about church and state) just to attack a marginalized demographic sounds kinda biased to me.

Cain doesn’t think all that well on his feet, does he? You’d think a pizza delivery guy would be better at that, Well, it’s really krappy pizza.

I can’t wait to hear Rush tomorrow.

Comments on Glenn Beck’s “the Blaze” are great… Summary… Romney is a RHINO, Bachman has hijacked the “Tea Party”, What about Sarah, Ron Paul really gets the Constitution… Let the great Right Wing devolution proceed!

HILARIOUS DEBATE

THIS IS THE BEST THE GOP HAS?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJj

WCinWI said:
I can’t wait to hear Rush tomorrow.

I am sure that well be very illuminating, indeed, and I hope you enjoy it fully. I’m going to listen to a Beagle bellow “O Sacred Head Sore Wounded”. I’ll let you know how it is, although I have to admit I found his range on “Tangerine” surprisingly limited.

Uh, I wouldn’t want him to hire ANYONE who was “trying to kill Americans”. But what does that have to do with hiring a Muslim …?

Keep trying to dig yourself out of this one, Herm. To paraphrase Jaws, you’re gonna need a bigger shovel.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
I am sure that well be very illuminating, indeed, and I hope you enjoy it fully. I’m going to listen to a Beagle bellow “O Sacred Head Sore Wounded”. I’ll let you know how it is, although I have to admit I found his range on “Tangerine” surprisingly limited.

Despite the ethnic challenges, my beagles used to deliver a better than adequate “O Solo Mio.”

labman57 said:
Uh, I wouldn’t want him to hire ANYONE who was “trying to kill Americans”. But what does that have to do with hiring a Muslim …?

Nothing, unless you are looking for an opportunity to bash an easily marginalized demographic.

Dem4Ever said:
oooooow

Maybe he better check out his lefty friend Publius219 Who wishes the death of Glenn Beck, Rush any conservative.

THE REAL ROYAL KING said:
Cain doesn’t think all that well on his feet, does he? You’d think a pizza delivery guy would be better at that, Well, it’s really krappy pizza.

Racist.

Someone needs to introduce these schmucks to the First Amendment. It turns out there’s this whole thing about not mixing church and state in there…

lillyluminatus said:
Someone needs to introduce these schmucks to the First Amendment. It turns out there’s this whole thing about not mixing church and state in there…

Here, let me post it for you, I know liberals have a hard time reading-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I know that sentence is hard to understand, would you like me to explain it to you?

lillyluminatus said:
Someone needs to introduce these schmucks to the First Amendment. It turns out there’s this whole thing about not mixing church and state in there…

where?

lillyluminatus said:
Someone needs to introduce these schmucks to the First Amendment. It turns out there’s this whole thing about not mixing church and state in there…

No, there isn’t.
You clearly never read it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s it. There is nothing about “not mixing church and state in there”.
Typical, uneducated “liberal”.

DavidKramer said:
Here, let me post it for you, I know liberals have a hard time reading-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I know that sentence is hard to understand, would you like me to explain it to you?

Did you learn all about it at that eight day seminar with O’donnell the ditz of Delaware?
If you were there, Iv’e always wondered. Was that eight full days, or was there a weekend in there?

What an embarrassing answer from Mr. Cain.

He doesn’t want to admit his previous statements, and in clarifying them, he makes it very clear he is pro discrimination based on religious grounds. He says there are “good Muslims” and “extremists”, but doesn’t want to admit there are extremists in every denomination and in secular causes.

Mr. Cain wants to impress us with his credentials as the CEO of a Pizza chain, but fails to point out that what he just described would open up a corporation to a big discrimination lawsuit. See, unlike Mr. Cain apparently, we in *real* corporate America working in serious companies, have to take classes on what is allowed or not in an interview. For sure, asking about a persons religious affiliation is a big no-no, and I have to believe Mr. Cain knows this. However, using his example of how it’s done in business, you would think that’s not a problem.

How can Mr. Cain try to impress us with his corporate America credentials when he would say such an irresponsible thing?

Romney sounded reasonable of course, but Newt, possibly out of desperation didn’t want Mr. Cain to get all the credit for being a demagogue. Now the irony that Newt must know but won’t say, is that he’s a Catholic convert (full disclosure, Catholic here). Many fundamentalist protestants would question his loyalty too, specially when it comes towards obedience to the Pope. Newt should know this, but shame on Mr. King and CNN for not following up on this as I am curious in what his answer would be.

Really shameful stuff from Mr. Cain and Speaker Gingrich.

illusive man said:
No, there isn’t.
You clearly never read it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s it. There is nothing about “not mixing church and state in there”.
Typical, uneducated “liberal”.

So, How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

ElCapitanAmerica said:
What an embarrassing answer from Mr. Cain. He doesn’t want to admit his previous statements, and in clarifying them, he makes it very clear he is pro discrimination based on religious grounds. He says there are “good Muslims” and “extremists”, but doesn’t want to admit there are extremists in every denomination and in secular causes. Mr. Cain wants to impress us with his credentials as the CEO of a Pizza chain, but fails to point out that what he just described would open up a corporation to a big discrimination lawsuit. See, unlike Mr. Cain apparently, we in *real* corporate America working in serious companies, have to take classes on what is allowed or not in an interview. For sure, asking about a persons religious affiliation is a big no-no, and I have to believe Mr. Cain knows this. However, using his example of how it’s done in business, you would think that’s not a problem. How can Mr. Cain try to impress us with his corporate America credentials when he would say such an irresponsible thing? Romney sounded reasonable of course, but Newt, possibly out of desperation didn’t want Mr. Cain to get all the credit for being a demagogue. Now the irony that Newt must know but won’t say, is that he’s a Catholic convert (full disclosure, Catholic here). Many fundamentalist protestants would question his loyalty too, specially when it comes towards obedience to the Pope. Newt should know this, but shame on Mr. King and CNN for not following up on this as I am curious in what his answer would be. Really shameful stuff from Mr. Cain and Speaker Gingrich.

kennedy had the same problem as a candidate…..catholic

lillyluminatus said:
Someone needs to introduce these schmucks to the First Amendment. It turns out there’s this whole thing about not mixing church and state in there…

Uh, no. Please try reading the Constitution.

All it says is that no American law can stand that directly respects a religion. Which happens to make the entire “debate” on Sharia law not only moot but terribly hilarious. I mean, a bunch of candidates publicly supporting a position that directly contravenes the Constitution and suggests that we make additional laws to outlaw things that are already illegal (all the while campaigning for smaller government) is just hysterical, right?

Or sad. Hmmm…I’ll have to think on that one.

Glackin said:
Did you learn all about it at that eight day seminar with O’donnell the ditz of Delaware?
If you were there, Iv’e always wondered. Was that eight full days, or was there a weekend in there?

Now why would you go and say something so idiotic right after you got your ass handed to ya?

cjd ohio 1 said:
kennedy had the same problem as a candidate…..catholic

Exactly, and I’m sure Speaker Gingrich knows his history well, but of course he’s just pandering here even though intellectually he knows he’s being dishonest.

BTW, feel free to keep voting my comment down, not really that interested in that but let me know what part of the comment you disagree with … with reasonable arguments of course.

ElCapitanAmerica said:
BTW, feel free to keep voting my comment down, not really that interested in that but let me know what part of the comment you disagree with … with reasonable arguments of course.

i never do the thumbs up/down thing………everyone has a opinion

illusive man said:
No, there isn’t.
You clearly never read it.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That’s it. There is nothing about “not mixing church and state in there”.
Typical, uneducated “liberal”.

Oh my God, to ALL of the geniuses who are convinced they know exactly what the Constitution means (despite obviously never spending a day in their lives studying it under any sort of informed guidance):

No, the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the First Amendment–that phrase was borrowed from that crazy liberal/founding father Thomas Jefferson. But that does not change the fact that over 100 years of well-settled constitutional jurisprudence has interpreted the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses to mean EXACTLY THAT.

Sorry, friends. This “typical, uneducated liberal” didn’t spend 3 years studying Constitutional law at a top 25 law school for nothing.

lillyluminatus said:
This “typical, uneducated liberal” didn’t spend 3 years studying Constitutional law at a top 25 law school for nothing.

Wow, you sure fooled us!

jalmos said:
Uh, no. Please try reading the Constitution.

All it says is that no American law can stand that directly respects a religion. Which happens to make the entire “debate” on Sharia law not only moot but terribly hilarious. I mean, a bunch of candidates publicly supporting a position that directly contravenes the Constitution and suggests that we make additional laws to outlaw things that are already illegal (all the while campaigning for smaller government) is just hysterical, right?

Or sad. Hmmm…I’ll have to think on that one.

I feel like you misunderstood me, because that’s precisely my point…

You “studied” at a “top 25″ law school? Is that like the best of the worst?

DavidKramer said:
Here, let me post it for you, I know liberals have a hard time reading-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I know that sentence is hard to understand, would you like me to explain it to you?

No thanks. I’m pretty sure that three years studying under some of the most preeminent constitutional scholars in the nation was enough “explanation” for me. You, on the other hand, could obviously stand a few lessons in constitutional law. You see, it turns out that there is this entire body of law–we simpletons refer to it as “jurisprudence”–that explains how various provisions of the constitution are to be interpreted…

lillyluminatus said:
Someone needs to introduce these schmucks to the First Amendment. It turns out there’s this whole thing about not mixing church and state in there…

lillyluminatus said:
Oh my God, to ALL of the geniuses who are convinced they know exactly what the Constitution means (despite obviously never spending a day in their lives studying it under any sort of informed guidance): No, the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the First Amendment–that phrase was borrowed from that crazy liberal/founding father Thomas Jefferson. But that does not change the fact that over 100 years of well-settled constitutional jurisprudence has interpreted the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses to mean EXACTLY THAT. Sorry, friends. This “typical, uneducated liberal” didn’t spend 3 years studying Constitutional law at a top 25 law school for nothing.

your first statement was vague, what was it 1946,47 when the supreme court started to cited that phrase more

Jaurez said:
You “studied” at a “top 25″ law school? Is that like the best of the worst?

Uh … it means that it’s better than most law schools in the nation.

Jaurez said:
You “studied” at a “top 25″ law school? Is that like the best of the worst?

Are you kidding? There are 200 ABA-accredited law schools. If you consider being in the top 12.5% to be the “best of the worst,” I guess so…

And where did you get YOUR constitutional law credentials?

lillyluminatus said:
No thanks. I’m pretty sure that three years studying under some of the most preeminent constitutional scholars in the nation was enough “explanation” for me. You, on the other hand, could obviously stand a few lessons in constitutional law. You see, it turns out that there is this entire body of law–we simpletons refer to it as “jurisprudence”–that explains how various provisions of the constitution are to be interpreted…

but i think people get a little upset with the free exercise part, like events where prayer or what ever is banned, and by the way i believe in God, but not part of a organized religion

lillyluminatus said:
Oh my God, to ALL of the geniuses who are convinced they know exactly what the Constitution means (despite obviously never spending a day in their lives studying it under any sort of informed guidance): No, the words “separation of church and state” do not appear in the First Amendment–that phrase was borrowed from that crazy liberal/founding father Thomas Jefferson. But that does not change the fact that over 100 years of well-settled constitutional jurisprudence has interpreted the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses to mean EXACTLY THAT. Sorry, friends. This “typical, uneducated liberal” didn’t spend 3 years studying Constitutional law at a top 25 law school for nothing.

You don’t need to rationalize your ignorance. We know you are a fool.

One example, Jefferson was no “liberal” by today’s standards. Don’t believe me? Look him up. You will see that there is a big difference between the classic / true liberal( which is closer to modern libirtarianism) and the abomination / cancer / plague that we know today as modern “liberalism”. Jefferson would be embarrassed to be associated with your kind. So please, don’t do that again.

Jaurez said:
Now why would you go and say something so idiotic right after you got your ass handed to ya?

OFF TOPIC!

cjd ohio 1 said:
your first statement was vague, what was it 1946,47 when the supreme court started to cited that phrase more

Believe it or not, it actually goes back to an 1878 case. But you’re also right in a sense; it wasn’t until 1948 that the Establishment Clause was first applied to the states. Either way, it strikes me as funny that people don’t realize that, while that phrase may not appear word-for-word in the Constitution, it does appear word-for-word in the cases interpreting the Constitution. If Supreme Court cases were a dictionary, that phrase would be the definition of “Establishment Clause.”

illusive man said:
You don’t need to rationalize your ignorance. We know you are a fool.

One example, Jefferson was no “liberal” by today’s standards.

It’s called sarcasm, jackass. Hence the “crazy” right in front of the “liberal.”

lilly, you aren’t fooling me.

lillyluminatus said:
Are you kidding? There are 200 ABA-accredited law schools. If you consider being in the top 12.5% to be the “best of the worst,” I guess so…

And where did you get YOUR constitutional law credentials?

Juarez and illusive man are two of our resident “Experts On Everything.”
If you don’t believe me. ask them. They have yet to let a fact get in their way.
In truth, they might not recognize one if they tripped over it.
They graduated cum loudest from the Beck School of Con Law (accent on the “con”).

DavidKramer said:
Here, let me post it for you, I know liberals have a hard time reading-

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

I know that sentence is hard to understand, would you like me to explain it to you?

lackin said:
Did you learn all about it at that eight day seminar with O’donnell the ditz of Delaware?
If you were there, Iv’e always wondered. Was that eight full days, or was there a weekend in there?

lackin said:
So, How many angels CAN dance on the head of a pin?

lackin said:
Beck

*drink*

lillyluminatus said:
Believe it or not, it actually goes back to an 1878 case.

Which one?

You should really ask them if they have sworn their allegiance to our alien overlords, since that has about as much a chance of happening as Shaira law taking over.

Jaurez said:
Which one?

You ARE losing it. My condolences to WC.

One of the best neighbors I ever had in my life was living next door to me in Asheville, NC about 7 years ago.

Guess what, he was Muslim!

I dislike and fear radical Islam, but to group all Muslims in with them disgusts me to no end.

Glackin said:
You ARE losing it. My condolences to WC.

Can’t name the case? LOL!

catfishjuggling said:
You should really ask them if they have sworn their allegiance to our alien overlords, since that has about as much a chance of happening as Shaira law taking over.

Shaira law is not happening here anytime soon.
It is typical fear mongering.
Apparently it works as Bibi is feted like a God and money keeps pouring into Israel unquestioned. I love Israel and her people, but the right wing radicalism occurring there will ultimately threaten her existence.
The 1967 borders more or less need to return in an ideal world.

Cain’s comments towards gays and Muslims will bite him in the arse for the rest of his political career.
This is what happens when your not ready for primetime, I appreciate Herman’s honesty but he needs to understand there are consequences to his opinions.

I think it is awesome that an argument over the “Establishment Clause” is occurring on this thread.
We need more arguments like this whatever your opinions are.

illusive man said:
You don’t need to rationalize your ignorance. We know you are a fool.

One example, Jefferson was no “liberal” by today’s standards. Don’t believe me? Look him up. You will see that there is a big difference between the classic / true liberal( which is closer to modern libirtarianism) and the abomination / cancer / plague that we know today as modern “liberalism”. Jefferson would be embarrassed to be associated with your kind. So please, don’t do that again.

He would be considered a liberal in todays standard and he wanted to control corporate businesses and banks because he was afraid their were going to abuse their power. He established public education. You need to do some research.

Yoda002 said:
He would be considered a liberal in todays standard and he wanted to control corporate businesses and banks because he was afraid their were going to abuse their power. He established public education. You need to do some research.

Illusive man’s avatar should be a horse.
You can lead him to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.

Sounds like Hitler talking about Jews in the 1930s. This is really dangerous stuff.

lillyluminatus said:
Are you kidding? There are 200 ABA-accredited law schools. If you consider being in the top 12.5% to be the “best of the worst,” I guess so…

And where did you get YOUR constitutional law credentials?

Are you kidding Notsofast/Juarez/and countless other sock puppets would never have anytime to study he is too busy creating sock puppets on Mediate and avoiding his wife.

The reality is the teaching of Islam are not compatible of individual freedom, liberty, or the constitution.

murf said:
Romney & Bachmann hit it out of the park tonight ! John King was being hackish.

Fact: Bachmann yes. Bachmann is interesting candidate. Romney care no. Romney had his mouth open wide the whole time and had the dullest of answers as if he was about to start flip flopping on stage.

labman57 said:
Uh, I wouldn’t want him to hire ANYONE who was “trying to kill Americans”. But what does that have to do with hiring a Muslim …? Keep trying to dig yourself out of this one, Herm. To paraphrase Jaws, you’re gonna need a bigger shovel.

Fact: What did it take about a year after 9/11/2001 to have any Muslim organization to even attempt to say that religion and the Koran followers did not like the attack on America? You’re a buffoon if you think the Koran has peace in mind for anyone who doesn’t believe in that book. I wished they would of denounced them until it’s clear to all that they will stop the radicals in their own faith.

The reality is that what Mr. Cain is saying is un-American, and in the corporate world, reckless as it would lead to a big lawsuit.

Just4thefax said:
Fact: Bachmann yes. Bachmann is interesting candidate. Romney care no. Romney had his mouth open wide the whole time and had the dullest of answers as if he was about to start flip flopping on stage.

Romney won the night and will get the nomination, it is his turn. The biggest surprise was how bad Pawlenty did. The question John King asked him about Obmneycare was a fatal hit. He looked like such a wimp.

So Mad Newt is equating Muslims with Nazis. Well done.

This was one of the more poorly-moderated debates I’ve seen in a while. 30 seconds to answer questions to the nations problems? And I couldn’t help but wanting to punch John King every time he tried to cut the candidate off for 20 seconds by going “um, um um.” And of course, of all the questions that were asked, this site focuses on the Muslim and Social issues…

The big loser in this debate was John King and CNN…

the gameshow format has got to go…

not sure who I am more disappointed with, CNN or King…

If tenets of sharia law conflict with our Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional, why then is it necessary to legislate against it? By definition sharia law is unconstitutional. It is a complete waste to debate it.

Alex Radcliffe said:
This was one of the more poorly-moderated debates I’ve seen in a while. 30 seconds to answer questions to the nations problems? And I couldn’t help but wanting to punch John King every time he tried to cut the candidate off for 20 seconds by going “um, um um.” And of course, of all the questions that were asked, this site focuses on the Muslim and Social issues…

If this is going to be how CNN conducts these debates from now on, this is going to be a disaster. He kept cutting them off because of time restraints, only to ask inane questions about Conan vs. Leno. MSM is a failure.

Paul D. Powell said:
If tenets of sharia law conflict with our Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional, why then is it necessary to legislate against it? By definition sharia law is unconstitutional. It is a complete waste to debate it.

Because the GOP refuses to acknowledge what is indisputably in the Constitution. It rejects the well-settled notion of the separation of church and state, and then freaks out over the imaginary problem it’s theocratic sympathies have created.

Jaurez said:
Which one?

Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878/9).

Since you obviously have no training or education in constitutional (or, more likely, any) jurisprudence, let me explain to you what that is. It is a case citation; the first part (Reynolds v. U.S) is the name of the case, the second (98 U.S. 145) is where it can be found in the annals of Supreme Court cases, and the third (1878/9) is the year it was decided.

Seems like many of the candidates LEFT THEIR FLAG PINS AT HOME

UNAMERICAN!!!!!!

A unique “Gathering Of Pigeons.”

lillyluminatus said:
Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878/9).

Since you obviously have no training or education in constitutional (or, more likely, any) jurisprudence, let me explain to you what that is. It is a case citation; the first part (Reynolds v. U.S) is the name of the case, the second (98 U.S. 145) is where it can be found in the annals of Supreme Court cases, and the third (1878/9) is the year it was decided.

Reposted in gratitude and honor. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!

lillyluminatus said:
Because the GOP refuses to acknowledge what is indisputably in the Constitution. It rejects the well-settled notion of the separation of church and state, and then freaks out over the imaginary problem it’s theocratic sympathies have created.

IILLYLUMINATUS,

I suggest the Democrat/Socialists “refusue(s) to acknowledge what is indisputably in the Constituion”.

Also, there is the sticky issue of hermeneutical vs. originalist.

Furthermore, you are a confident individual, hmm?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

A majority of my friends voted for Obama. Some even bought his book and with it created mini shrines in their homes.  I’m sure the Mediaite crew know some folks who did the same. Maybe even they themselves did this.

Before the election I tried to reason with them and urged them to take a second look at Barrack. I practically begged them to think about his policies and credentials (and the lack there of) and reconsider their decision, but they were adamant and unmoving and nothing in heaven or on Earth was going to change their minds.

I watched in dismay as they threw away their vote and sealed our collective fate.

I mention the above only to illustrate the sharp fall from grace Obama has experienced. For now, not a single one of them will admit that they even knew he was on the ballot in 2008.

None come out and blatantly lie by saying they voted for someone else. They don’t lie to me or to each other about it. They just quietly deny it to themselves. It is sad to watch and to this day they have a difficult time looking me and each other in the eye.

I suspect strongly that I’ll need not beg nor plead with them this election cycle. I don’t believe they’ll ever vote for Barrak Obama again. And for the sake of the country I sure as hell hope not.

Paul D. Powell said:

If tenets of sharia law conflict with our Constitution and are therefore unconstitutional, why then is it necessary to legislate against it? By definition sharia law is unconstitutional. It is a complete waste to debate it.

PAUL D POWELL,

I suppose we could blame Chief Justice John Marshall? No, that wouldn’t right, maybe Andrew Jackson as he is the first President to defy the SupremeCourt.

Either way, way too many cases come before the Court, that have no business there. (Just like some Justices)

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

Dem4Ever said:

A majority of my friends voted for Obama

DEM4EVER,

You Posted this same piece on another site, verbatim. The site was the Gene SImmons (KISS) regrets voting for Obama.

I am not sure if this is considered inappropriate, unethical or impolite, but…

illusive man said:
This “typical, uneducated liberal” didn’t spend 3 years studying Constitutional law at a top 25 law school for nothing.

Yet you refer to Thomas Jefferson as a “crazy, founding father, liberal”. I find that a bit incongruous, meaning, your professed education and your reference to our 3rd President.

Perhaps you lacked undergraduate study in History when you, um, entered Law School?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

MY MISTAKE!

THE QUOTE ABOVE SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO LILLYLUMINATUS, NOT ILLUSIVEMAN

purveyor said:
DEM4EVER,

You Posted this same piece on another site, verbatim. The site was the Gene SImmons (KISS) regrets voting for Obama.

I am not sure if this is considered inappropriate, unethical or impolite, but…

A majority of my friends voted for Obama. Some even bought his book and with it created mini shrines in their homes.  I’m sure the Mediaite crew know some folks who did the same. Maybe even they themselves did this.

Before the election I tried to reason with them and urged them to take a second look at Barrack. I practically begged them to think about his policies and credentials (and the lack there of) and reconsider their decision, but they were adamant and unmoving and nothing in heaven or on Earth was going to change their minds.

I watched in dismay as they threw away their vote and sealed our collective fate.

I mention the above only to illustrate the sharp fall from grace Obama has experienced. For now, not a single one of them will admit that they even knew he was on the ballot in 2008.

None come out and blatantly lie by saying they voted for someone else. They don’t lie to me or to each other about it. They just quietly deny it to themselves. It is sad to watch and to this day they have a difficult time looking me and each other in the eye.

I suspect strongly that I’ll need not beg nor plead with them this election cycle. I don’t believe they’ll ever vote for Barrak Obama again. And for the sake of the country I sure as hell hope not.

This needs repeating…enjoy!

AND AGAIN…FOR GOOD MEASURE!

A majority of my friends voted for Obama. Some even bought his book and with it created mini shrines in their homes.  I’m sure the Mediaite crew know some folks who did the same. Maybe even they themselves did this.

Before the election I tried to reason with them and urged them to take a second look at Barrack. I practically begged them to think about his policies and credentials (and the lack there of) and reconsider their decision, but they were adamant and unmoving and nothing in heaven or on Earth was going to change their minds.

I watched in dismay as they threw away their vote and sealed our collective fate.

I mention the above only to illustrate the sharp fall from grace Obama has experienced. For now, not a single one of them will admit that they even knew he was on the ballot in 2008.

None come out and blatantly lie by saying they voted for someone else. They don’t lie to me or to each other about it. They just quietly deny it to themselves. It is sad to watch and to this day they have a difficult time looking me and each other in the eye.

I suspect strongly that I’ll need not beg nor plead with them this election cycle. I don’t believe they’ll ever vote for Barrak Obama again. And for the sake of the country I sure as hell hope not.

DEM4EVER

Your mother wears Army boots!

purveyor said:
DEM4EVER

Your mother wears Army boots!

LOL

Muslims are loyal to their Satan enity, Allah, and their sick murdering pedphile prophet, Mohammud, only, never to a land or flag, that is one reason none of the animals should have been allowed to ever come to America! Anyone but B. Hussein Obama in 2012! We know now that Obama is not Loyal to America and certainly is not proud of his country. We do not need lowlife scum like this sitting in the Oval Office. We need a leader we can respect and there is nothing about Barry to respect unless your an AntiAmerican or AntiChristian. My pet pig, Mohammud, could do a better job than the Ba$tard Child, Obambi!

DEM4EVER,

That is a relief, as I liked your post. (in fact, had similar experiences) Truthfully, I incorrectly thought you might be another of the lengthy, repetitive, semi-propaganda pieces that are starting to clutter up the joynt! My mistake.

Question, if I may? Your Posts are Conservative, yet, your “handle” is DEM4EVER… Ohh, you once thought you’d be a Democrat forever, but…? Ahh.

Anyway, “that a relief” as I prefer to have you as a protagonist, not an antagonist. LOL

I have stumbled on LILLYILUMINATUS, above. Have you read her conversation over the two previous pages? WOW, she’s meaner than a snake! (And I once had a Hog-nosed snake for a pet) I think, she is, Conservative?

Anyway, this comes precariously close to gossiping. Nice to make your acquaintance.

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

billwhit1357 said:

Muslims are loyal to their Satan enity, Allah, and their sick murdering pedphile prophet, Mohammud, only, never to a land or flag, that is one reason none of the animals should have been allowed to ever come to America! Anyone but B. Hussein Obama in 2012! We know now that Obama is not Loyal to America and certainly is not proud of his country. We do not need lowlife scum like this sitting in the Oval Office. We need a leader we can respect and there is nothing about Barry to respect unless your an AntiAmerican or AntiChristian. My pet pig, Mohammud, could do a better job than the Ba$tard Child, Obambi!

BULLWHIT,

I hope you are not Left wing plant keeping a list of people who agree with you? But, I can’t say I disagree with you. Also, I am angry too.

Have you ever heard the Arabic word or term “Taqiyya”? Google it, as it will curl your toes. WE, you and I are infidels and Muslims can lie or abrogate any contract they make with an infidel–us–you and I.

purveyor said:
IILLYLUMINATUS,

I suggest the Democrat/Socialists “refusue(s) to acknowledge what is indisputably in the Constituion”.

Also, there is the sticky issue of hermeneutical vs. originalist.

Furthermore, you are a confident individual, hmm?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

On the meaning of the First Amendment? After spending three years studying it under some of the most respected legal scholars in the nation, yes, I am. You see, it turns out that there is an ENTIRE BODY OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS that explain this quite clearly.

purveyor said:
Yet you refer to Thomas Jefferson as a “crazy, founding father, liberal”. I find that a bit incongruous, meaning, your professed education and your reference to our 3rd President.

Perhaps you lacked undergraduate study in History when you, um, entered Law School?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

And perhaps you are unable to understand sarcasm…?

lillyluminatus said:
On the meaning of the First Amendment? After spending three years studying it under some of the most respected legal scholars in the nation, yes, I am. You see, it turns out that there is an ENTIRE BODY OF SUPREME COURT DECISIONS that explain this quite clearly.

You chose to respond to my “backhanded” compliment, (“perhaps you are unable to understand sarcasm…?) Yet ignore my substantive remarks. Hmm, immodest and conceited, yet, lacking understatement. Hmm.

Also, my deliberate choice of a an arcane word used almost exclusively by “legal scholars” Rakove, Dworkin and Bork, etc. Yet, you chose (or avoided) comment on such? Hmm.

LILLY, Among other things, I have studied argumentation and tactics, hence, I set a snare or two, and you stumbled in.

Are you an Astronaut too?

PURVEYOR OF RHETORIC

LILLY,

purveyor said:
Anyway, “that a relief” as I prefer to have you as a protagonist, not an antagonist. LOL

I have stumbled on LILLYILUMINATUS, above. Have you read her conversation over the two previous pages? WOW, she’s meaner than a snake! (And I once had a Hog-nosed snake for a pet) I think, she is, Conservative?

Anyway, this comes precariously close to gossiping. Nice to make your acquaintance.

LILLYLUMINATUS,

Purely for honest diclosure, I Posted the above, earlier, after reading your Posts.

King’s pawn to King’s pawn 4 (e4)

Australia has seen the light on this issue. In the interview process, one is permitted to aks questions of the applicant; clearly, one of the questions must be about the applicant’s loyalty to the Constitution, and the First Amendment is a most germane topic.