quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
In the 2001 interview, Obama said:

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be OK
But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.
And that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

I am not the koolaide gulper, its the birthers, the nazis, the corporate capitulists, the teabaggers, the neo-cons, the ignorati, the imbecila on the right.    

Really? Have you not read the preamble? Have you not read anything as to why the Constitution was needed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
I see alot of bullshit sloshing around but nothing above pudpounding and kerr-dunning asswipe blowholing.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
That then, would give us leave to destroy corporations as entities.  Some guy who admittedly doesn't know Obama's legal name, notwithstanding.
Anybody with a valid point there amongst the hysterical red herrings?   
I guess it would clearly state that we are a country founded in the principles of socialism.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Hey, you are the one spouting preambles here.  
Promote the general welfare.
(corporate capitulism is decidedly not good for the general welfare.  isnt common defence and general welfare socialism?)

tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
1.a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
1.b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I see alot of bullshit sloshing around but nothing above pudpounding and kerr-dunning asswipe blowholing.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That then, would give us leave to destroy corporations as entities.  Some guy who admittedly doesn't know Obama's legal name, notwithstanding.

Anybody with a valid point there amongst the hysterical red herrings?   

I guess it would clearly state that we are a country founded in the principles of socialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Hey, you are the one spouting preambles here.  
Promote the general welfare.
(corporate capitulism is decidedly not good for the general welfare.  isnt common defence and general welfare socialism?)

LMAO!!

Promote -

tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
1.a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
1.b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.

Defense isn't socialism. Promoting something is much, much different from providing something.

quote:


Conspicuously you highlight only that which supports your ideology.
That then, would give us leave to deem you ideologically biased. Some guy who apparantly either doesn't know or refuses to acknowledge that Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah/Burnel or whatever his real legal name is has never proferred legal verification (legally valid documentation) that his real legal name is Obama (or anything else for that matter), withstanding.

Anybody care to proffer what legal verification (legally valid documentation) as to what his real legal name is? You get one shot, and one shot only.

I know that what the Constitution proscribes clearly trumps what the Preamble opines...Conspicuously you highlight only that which supports your ideology.

That then, would give us leave to deem you ideologically biased. Some guy who apparantly either doesn't know or refuses to acknowledge that Obama/Soetoro/Soebarkah/Burnel or whatever his real legal name is has never proferred legal verification (legally valid documentation) that his real legal name is Obama (or anything else for that matter), withstanding.

Anybody care to proffer what legal verification (legally valid documentation) as to what his real legal name is? You get one shot, and one shot only.

I know that what the Constitution proscribes clearly trumps what the Preamble opines...and it damn sure doesn't proscribe the principles of socialism. .

quote:


I know that what the Constitution proscribes clearly trumps what the Preamble opines...and it damn sure doesn't proscribe the principles of socialism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Really? Have you not read the preamble? Have you not read anything as to why the Constitution was needed?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
Hey, you are the one spouting preambles here.  
Promote the general welfare.
(corporate capitulism is decidedly not good for the general welfare.  isnt common defence and general welfare socialism?)

LMAO!!
Promote -

tr.v. pro·mot·ed, pro·mot·ing, pro·motes
1.a. To raise to a more important or responsible job or rank.
1.b. To advance (a student) to the next higher grade.
2. To contribute to the progress or growth of; further. See Synonyms at advance.
3. To urge the adoption of; advocate: promote a constitutional amendment.
4. To attempt to sell or popularize by advertising or publicity: commercials promoting a new product.
5. To help establish or organize (a new enterprise), as by securing financial backing: promote a Broadway show.

Defense isn't socialism. Promoting something is much, much different from providing something.

Laugh your ass off?  About what?   Promote meaning advance advocate and strive towards (thru legislation, policy, taxation, regulation,  and furtherance thru the offices of the various agencies) and providing ... and their subtle differences is not such a distinction without a difference that it defies a convergent meaning, but nevertheless it is a distinction without a difference that hasn't anything to do with anything under discussion, nor with the inauguration.
Laugh like woody woodpecker and slobber like cujo....your point that you actually don't have, is unmade.  And certainly does not address anything in answer or refutation of anything.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: ElChupa

And you people RE ELECTED this POS. Thanks. For nothing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim
Anybody care to proffer what legal verification (legally valid documentation) as to what his real legal name is? You get one shot, and one shot only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

$170M spent to celebrate the ascension of a man who has spent the last four years demonizing the wealthy.

Amazing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

quote:

ORIGINAL: LizDeluxe

$170M spent to celebrate the ascension of a man who has spent the last four years demonizing the wealthy.

Amazing.

Sour fucking grapes.


Did you want him to take the oath of office around back ?
Perhaps enter the white house from the rear ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim
Anybody care to proffer what legal verification (legally valid documentation) as to what his real legal name is? You get one shot, and one shot only.

Either version of his completely legal and fully authenticated birth certificate. You would need an action by a court, either adoption or legal name change, to contradict that. We all know you don't have that because no such thing exists.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

HAHHAHHAHAH, typical
Congrats Mr President, you are into your second term, and they are still frothing!!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

Don't fret. I am sure someone will be along soon not only to explain why it's ok but to give numerous example of someone else doing it first. It seems the only time we are supposed to worry about a politician saying one thing and doing another is when they are on the right side of the fence. If we are really lucky one poster might even get the chance to call him "the kenyan" for the hundreth time.

When thieves complain about thievery.....it looks pretty dumb.

When demonizers complain about being called names......it looks pretty dumb.

The Kenyan thing,is a dig at the stupidity of your party......

If you don`t like having it being pointed out.....perhaps you should find another leisure pastime...

I know why he constantly calls Obama "the kenyan". But what he fails to realize is it makes him look just as ignorant as anyone else who does it. For what ever reason they do it.