User Panel
Posted: 1/29/2010 6:40:53 AM EDT
|
|
It's hard to remember all the fine details of something you don't support or defend.
|
|
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.
|
|
nothing is over till we say it is !
Quoted: I'll bet he thinks that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor! |
|
Who cares?
They are irrelevant in today's modern lifestyle. Both were written by thoes rich, old, racist white dudes. Sarcasm. |
|
Betcha $20 he blames it on the teleprompter or his speech writer.
_MaH |
|
|
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. |
|
Technically there is no fault in his statement, the 14th amendment applies to what he is saying there.
|
|
Quoted:
I'll bet he thinks that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor! ...in 1861. |
|
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. 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... |
|
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:
Yep, this man has a degree in constitutional law. This is why grading on a curve is a bad idea. |
|
Quoted: Fucking jug-eared, purple lipped jackass. Oh shit, he is! |
|
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. I think he means giving rights Americans have to alleged terrorists -Space ETA in red |
|
i bet he trys to play it off saying he was talking about the 14th amendment. He's still a fucking idiot.
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. There are a shit ton of things to go after Obama with... but this is probably last on the list. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll bet he thinks that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor! ...in 1861. And that started the Vietnam World War II |
|
Quoted:
Betcha $20 he blames it on the teleprompter or his speech writer. _MaH Betcha he doesn't blame anything, because nobody 'important' calls him on it. |
|
Quoted: Which we would have won, it Poncho Villa had not interfered.Quoted: Quoted: I'll bet he thinks that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor! ...in 1861. 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. Thats funny. I don't care who you are. Unless your a member of the professional victim class. Then FUCK YOU! |
|
He was probably assuming that 90% of those who watched and listened to the SOTU speech wouldn't know if he was making a "mistake" or not, since we are all stupid teabaggers anyway.
AB |
|
Quoted:
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. 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... 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:
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. 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... 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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uVZHZmkb58 "We find unity in our incredible diversity, drawing on the promise enshrined in our Constitution: the notion that we are all created equal The notion that we should all be equal…." Constitutional scholar? What he meant. What they always mean when they bring up being created equal. |
|
You guys are fucking assholes.
He can't help what's written on the teleprompter. Dicks. |
|
Quoted:
You guys are fucking assholes. He can't help what's written on the teleprompter. Dicks. So he's Ron Burgandy's missing dark complexioned twin? |
|
Quoted: And if you don't assume his common value of being a welfare parasite then are you declared wolf's bane and are legal prey for anyone?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:
Quoted:
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. 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... 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. That was the first thing that crossed my mind as well. |
|
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. NPR? Really? |
|
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. You just described every speech that man has ever delivered. |
|
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. Apparently your rights are now conditional on accepting what the gov't (i.e. Obama) tells you. |
|
I caught that as soon as he said it.
Its Obama though, he can say whatever he wants and then play the race card. |
|
Constitution, Declaration of Independence, toilet paper––it's all the same to President fuckface
|
|
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. Too many half-truths and outright lies in that speech for it to not be deliberate misdirection. |
|
"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"
And if I don't? (BTW, that is a typical atheistic Cummunist perspective and I am not one bit surprised it came from Obama) -3D |
|
I'd like to know what these common values are that I am supposed to adhere to. If there is some adhering to get done, I would like to start now.
|
|
Quoted:
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. NPR? Really? Apparently (left cold, because who knows?): http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123055643 ETA: Well, it's not a scathing rebuke, but it's not bad coming from them. |
|
Quoted:
Yep, this man has a degree in constitutional law. imagine that 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: Quoted: Yep, this man has a degree in constitutional law. imagine that 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. He only TAUGHT Constitutional law, IIRC. Like he tried to teach the SCOTUS during the speech. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep, this man has a degree in constitutional law. imagine that 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. He only TAUGHT Constitutional law, IIRC. Like he tried to teach the SCOTUS during the speech. I wonder if there's a course syllabus available of this sterling moment in academic history. |
|
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. Nice. I have been preaching that for the last year and a half. I simply cannot understand how people were so mesmerized by this know-nothing, no experience, lightweight. Every time he spoke (and speaks) it's a bunch of gibberish that doesn't hold up to any scrutiny whatsoever. I believe he literally is an idiot who has ridden the coat-tails of people who believed that he possessed some kind of charm to be used for their own advantage. He is the poster boy for affirmative action. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: 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. 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... 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. I DVR'ed the SOTU so my wife wouldn't get pissed off at me for yelling at the TV, plus she has zero desire to hear him say anything. I was fast forwarding through parts of it that were obviously the same shit he's been spewing for months. Then I got the part above. At first it sort of made some sense and some hit me wrong about it and I backed up and listened to it a couple of more times. It really does sound like he's talking about giving terrorists destructive people protection under the BOR but the context in which he said it is kind of odd to assume that. Listening to the whole thing again it certainly seems like he's talking about people in general who don't agree with his view of Amerika. We already know he believes he can and should do whatever it takes to accomplish his agenda. Not granting BOR guarantees to, for lack of a better term, non-believers is certainly in line with the thinking of the people he surrounds himself with. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Which we would have won, it Poncho Villa had not interfered.
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll bet he thinks that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor! ...in 1861. And that started the Vietnam World War II Had Villa not negotiated treaties with Britain and Scranton, maybe they wouldn't have entered the war. |
|
This is why he usually has a teleprompter in front of him...
|
|
... and they laughed at Dan Quayle over one misspelled word.
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.