Kenyan-unAmerican Hussein Barack Oba-Mao HATES the Constitution ! (speech, money, state)

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by shroombeanie

Ignorant thread. A couple of opinions on what Obama said about the constitution needing amending. Which IS part of the constitution anyway. Funny how people stretch, bend, and mold the facts to fit their own destructive agendas. This age of endless information (google, wikipedia) doesn't help the lack of comprehension in people. And it won't stop others from believing propaganda. Only those of us who aren't TOO LAZY to actually do some reading will have SOME idea of what is happening. Although, the "real truth" is never known...

How many amendments do you think Obama can get inserted before the end of his term in office? I say none at all but then I don't want the amendments to be done in any way other than what the Constitution calls for.

Do you know what it takes to amend that revered document? How soon can it be done?

[ergohead]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Not wholly true, sarge. Obama has said that our Constitution is outdated and he wants to make changes that will do nothing more than give his progressives more leeway to govern the way they want us to be. Now does just being the President give him the right to talk like that and have everybody accept it?

I know!

A Performance Based Constitution!

No requirements!

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by Wayland Woman

Wow, I would love to diagram your sentences here but I'm still too busy laughing at the ignorance and lies expressed in them.

DIAGRAMMING SENTENCES

When will you be listing the ignorance and lies for all? I know you are in here with a bunch of your buddies but some, like me,like to see these things pointed out.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by meson

In this case the messenger IS the butt, you know if it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and all that....
As far as you understanding you know what they say about birds of a feather sticking together.

Birds of a feather have been sticking together pretty tight in this thread but not one of them has mentioned what part of the opening post was either a lie or anything like that. Just progressive type howling and name calling is all I have seen here. BTW, progressives are just like ducks, if they walk like, talk like, and all that they must be pure progressives and here they have really enjoyed their walklike and talklike crap without mentioning all the lies in the opening post.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by theolsarge

When you assert with no qualification, you're just asking for abuse. The more absurd the assertion the harder the abuse.

Can't handle the heat? Stay out of the kitchen.

The OP would do better posting on stormfront. He'd get lots of pats on the back and ataboys.

Kind of like the pats on the back and ataboys you progs are spreading around here? Yep, that seems to be it.

[Wayland Woman]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Let me suggest that Obama has said some rather untoward things about out Constitution in public. Yep, he doesn't like the controls over him that are found in that document. He skirts it every time he needs to do so to make a point about some of his crap.

You're more of a Constitutional scholar than I am so correct me if I'm wrong but aren't the amendments to the constitution in existence because someone some where along the line thought it needed improving? Not liking something in the constitution is not in itself an evil act. The founding fathers gave us a way to make changes. Other than stopping parts of Bush's Patriot Act from expiring what exactly has Obama done to 'skirt' around the Constitution?

Not wholly true, sarge. Obama has said that our Constitution is outdated and he wants to make changes that will do nothing more than give his progressives more leeway to govern the way they want us to be. Now does just being the President give him the right to talk like that and have everybody accept it?

In a word, yes. It's called free speech. Don't hold your breath waiting for those changes. The founding fathers although they made it possible to make changes, those changes only come from jumping through a lot of hoops that no president alone can do on his own.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by ArtinChicago

In his own words, when he was a younger he was already well indoctrinated by his father? figure Frank Marshall Davis (Communist/child abuser/drug user).
I can be fairly certain that if you run with leftist radicals and seek out Marxist professors while under the tutelage of your commie mentor that your view of the Constitution of the United States is skewed and distorted

ESR | February 1, 2010 | State of the Union: Obama v. Constitution

"In his younger days, Obama was not concerned about such associations: "I chose my friends carefully," he wrote. "The more politically active black students; the foreign students; the Chicanos; the Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."

But when he announced his aspirations to become a U.S. senator in 2004, Obama began to cover his tracks. He stopped associating publicly with Leftist colleagues and mentors such as Jeremiah Wright, Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, Khalid al-Mansour, Rashid Khalidi, Bob Creamer and others."

Now it is time for the progs to attack you again without saying word one about the things you have pointed out that are all relevant and true.

[Boompa]

I think about some of the stuff I've been suspended for yet this thread still exists

[theolsarge]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Birds of a feather have been sticking together pretty tight in this thread but not one of them has mentioned what part of the opening post was either a lie or anything like that. Just progressive type howling and name calling is all I have seen here. BTW, progressives are just like ducks, if they walk like, talk like, and all that they must be pure progressives and here they have really enjoyed their walklike and talklike crap without mentioning all the lies in the opening post.

Labels, labels, so many labels.

Main Entry: 1pro·gres·sive
Pronunciation: \prə-ˈgre-siv\
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1612
1 a : of, relating to, or characterized by progress b : making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c : of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression
2 : of, relating to, or characterized by progression
3 : moving forward or onward : advancing
4 a : increasing in extent or severity <a progressive disease> b : increasing in rate as the base increases <a progressive tax>
5 often capitalized : of or relating to political Progressives
6 : of, relating to, or constituting a verb form that expresses action or state in progress at the time of speaking or a time spoken of
7 : of, relating to, or being a multifocal lens with a gradual transition between focal lengths<progressive bifocals>
8 : or, relating to, or using a method of video scanning (as for television or a computer monitor) in which the horizontal lines of each frame are drawn successively from top to bottom — compare interlaced


Main Entry: 1con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: adjective
Date: 14th century
1 : preservative
2 a : of or relating to a philosophy of conservatism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party professing the principles of conservatism: as (1) : of or constituting a party of the United Kingdom advocating support of established institutions (2) : progressive conservative
3 a : tending or disposed to maintain existing views, conditions, or institutions : traditional b : marked by moderation or caution <a conservative estimate> c : marked by or relating to traditional norms of taste, elegance, style, or manners
4 : of, relating to, or practicing Conservative Judaism


Main Entry: 1lib·er·al
Pronunciation: \ˈli-b(ə-)rəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin liberalis suitable for a freeman, generous, from liber free; perhaps akin to Old English lēodan to grow, Greek eleutheros free
Date: 14th century
1 a : of, relating to, or based on the liberal arts <liberal education> b archaic : of or befitting a man of free birth
2 a : marked by generosity : openhanded <a liberal giver> b : given or provided in a generous and openhanded way <a liberal meal> c : ample, full
3 obsolete : lacking moral restraint : licentious
4 : not literal or strict : loose <a liberal translation>
5 : broad-minded; especially : not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms
6 a : of, favoring, or based upon the principles of liberalism b capitalized : of or constituting a political party advocating or associated with the principles of political liberalism; especially : of or constituting a political party in the United Kingdom associated with ideals of individual especially economic freedom, greater individual participation in government, and constitutional, political, and administrative reforms designed to secure these objectives

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by Wayland Woman

Oh, his sentence structure is just fine. He's mastered the art of using adjectives which would be fascinating if his adjectives had even a grain of truth and relevance. So are you saying, for example, that you believe Obama was seriously abused/molested as a child? If so, it is up to you or the OP to prove it. Where is the documentation? Got any court records to back up those claims? Any eyewitness accounts?

I think that the OP provided much of what you want to see and all of it has been from the Obama books that progs accept as the only truth in the history of Obama. I haven't read either book but the parts that progs have insisted I read have said the very things that he has said. What more can you want than his own words?