Quoted:


I'll bet he thinks that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

Quoted:
nothing is over till we say  it is !


 

Quoted:
I'll bet he thinks that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor!

Quoted:
He followed that up with a very odd statement, which shows an strange view of the Constitution and the bill of rights, IMO.

He said something to the effect of "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it.  If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different from anyone else"



Is it just me, or is that very weird?


I thought the Bill of Rights protected EVERYONE, not just those who obey the law.  In fact, big pieces of the BOR are about the rights that people accused of crimes have, and how criminals are treated.

Also, doesn't the whole implication that you won't be treated like everyone else UNLESS you adhere to common values kind of fly in the face of the entire notion of diversity that he just claimed was a strength?


It's the kind of thing that sounds good when you hear it at first, but when you look at what he actually says, it's just a bunch of nonsensical goggledygook.  

Quoted:
Yep, this man has a degree in constitutional law.

Quoted:

Fucking jug-eared, purple lipped jackass.

Quoted:
He followed that up with a very odd statement, which shows an strange view of the Constitution and the bill of rights, IMO.

He said something to the effect of "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it.  If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different from anyone else"



Is it just me, or is that very weird?


I thought the Bill of Rights protected EVERYONE, not just those who obey the law.  In fact, big pieces of the BOR are about the rights that people accused of crimes have, and how criminals are treated.

Also, doesn't the whole implication that you won't be treated like everyone else UNLESS you adhere to common values kind of fly in the face of the entire notion of diversity that he just claimed was a strength?


It's the kind of thing that sounds good when you hear it at first, but when you look at what he actually says, it's just a bunch of nonsensical goggledygook.  

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Quoted:
Strange that a Constitutional scholar such as himself would make such an error. It is almost as though he has as much understanding of his stated area of "expertise" as any other affirmative action hire.

Quoted:


...in 1861.

Quoted:
Betcha $20 he blames it on the teleprompter or his speech writer.

_MaH

Quoted:







And that started the Vietnam World War II

Quoted:
Strange that a Constitutional scholar such as himself would make such an error. It is almost as though he has as much understanding of his stated area of "expertise" as any other affirmative action hire.

Quoted:


To me, the red sentence goes beyond weird and enters the realm of the creepy.  IF we adhere to our common beliefs we get equal protection?  Whose beliefs?  What happens if we don't adhere to "our" beliefs?  Hmmm...

Quoted:


To me, the red sentence goes beyond weird and enters the realm of the creepy.  IF we adhere to our common beliefs we get equal protection?  Whose beliefs?  What happens if we don't adhere to "our" beliefs?  Hmmm...

Quoted:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uVZHZmkb58
   

Quoted:
You guys are fucking assholes.

He can't help what's written on the teleprompter.




Dicks.

Quoted:


He followed that up with a very odd statement, which shows an strange view of the Constitution and the bill of rights, IMO.



He said something to the effect of "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it.  If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different from anyone else"








Is it just me, or is that very weird?





I thought the Bill of Rights protected EVERYONE, not just those who obey the law.  In fact, big pieces of the BOR are about the rights that people accused of crimes have, and how criminals are treated.



Also, doesn't the whole implication that you won't be treated like everyone else UNLESS you adhere to common values kind of fly in the face of the entire notion of diversity that he just claimed was a strength?





It's the kind of thing that sounds good when you hear it at first, but when you look at what he actually says, it's just a bunch of nonsensical goggledygook.  

Quoted:


He and bill ayers have always believed that they would have to liquidate a large percentage of the population who won't convert to commie ideology. of course such enemies of progress don't have rights.

Quoted:
And the hits keep coming.  Apparently NPR did a little fact check report of their own yesterday, and came up with one statement that they said was a complete truth.  I don't know which statement, but that's pretty sad.

Quoted:

...
It's the kind of thing that sounds good when you hear it at first, but when you look at what he actually says, it's just a bunch of nonsensical goggledygook.  

Quoted:



He followed that up with a very odd statement, which shows an strange view of the Constitution and the bill of rights, IMO.





He said something to the effect of "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it.  If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different from anyone else"






Is it just me, or is that very weird?
I thought the Bill of Rights protected EVERYONE, not just those who obey the law.  In fact, big pieces of the BOR are about the rights that people accused of crimes have, and how criminals are treated.





Also, doesn't the whole implication that you won't be treated like everyone else UNLESS you adhere to common values kind of fly in the face of the entire notion of diversity that he just claimed was a strength?
It's the kind of thing that sounds good when you hear it at first, but when you look at what he actually says, it's just a bunch of nonsensical goggledygook.  

Quoted:
He followed that up with a very odd statement, which shows an strange view of the Constitution and the bill of rights, IMO.

He said something to the effect of "If you abide by the law, you should be protected by it.  If you adhere to our common values, you should be treated no different from anyone else"



Is it just me, or is that very weird?


I thought the Bill of Rights protected EVERYONE, not just those who obey the law.  In fact, big pieces of the BOR are about the rights that people accused of crimes have, and how criminals are treated.

Also, doesn't the whole implication that you won't be treated like everyone else UNLESS you adhere to common values kind of fly in the face of the entire notion of diversity that he just claimed was a strength?


It's the kind of thing that sounds good when you hear it at first, but when you look at what he actually says, it's just a bunch of nonsensical goggledygook.  

Quoted:



NPR?  Really?

Quoted:
Yep, this man has a degree in constitutional law.

imagine that

Quoted:







No, he doesn't. Obama has a general law degree. He has no specialized training or degrees in the field of Constitutional law or history.

Quoted:



He only TAUGHT Constitutional law, IIRC.

Like he tried to teach the SCOTUS during the speech.



 

Quoted:

It's the kind of thing that sounds good when you hear it at first, but when you look at what he actually says, it's just a bunch of nonsensical goggledygook.  

Quoted:







Bingo!  GTG as long as "we" agree with HIS socialist beliefs and views of what this country should be (in his mind).  Kinda scary actually.

Quoted:

Which we would have won, it Poncho Villa had not interfered.