Prez Says NO to Teabaghistan!

Prez Says NO to Teabaghistan!

Posted in the Grand Rapids Forum

First Prev
of 3
Next Last
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#1 Jan 13, 2013
Awwww, this is just terrible news.

I was almost sure that the whiners would get to form their own country, and then Obama says you need to use the ballot box to change government.

Too bad the Grand Old White People's Party is now in the minority!

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/white-h...
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#2 Jan 13, 2013
Too bad you don't have a good grasp on reality. It's not all about the GOP, but you and the other progressives will never understand that.
vox veritatis

Grand Rapids, MI

#3 Jan 13, 2013
Bob wrote:
Awwww, this is just terrible news.
I was almost sure that the whiners would get to form their own country
If that's true, you're even more stupid than I thought you were...and I didn't think that was possible, captain clueless.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#4 Jan 13, 2013
Bob wrote:
Awwww, this is just terrible news.
I was almost sure that the whiners would get to form their own country, and then Obama says you need to use the ballot box to change government.
Too bad the Grand Old White People's Party is now in the minority!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/white-h...
Bu but but but they know better than a duly recognized constitutional law professor because he happens to be the president they despise so very much. To say nothing of being the first President of the United States to be so since the last of the Founding Fathers were. And none of the Founding Fathers were titled professor either.

And we wonder why this country is so much trouble.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#5 Jan 13, 2013
"No state, however frustrated some of its citizens may be with the present state of government in America, is going to be able to leave the Union and go its own way. That is one of the most firmly settled issues on the meaning of the Constitution. If the Civil War did not settle it on the battlefield, and it almost certainly did, the U.S. Supreme Court put it completely to rest constitutionally, 143 years ago. And it did so in a case involving the state where the idea of secession now seems to be attracting the biggest public following: Texas."
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/co...

And to think most of the text books for schools come out of TX. Sad. How very sad.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#6 Jan 13, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
"No state, however frustrated some of its citizens may be with the present state of government in America, is going to be able to leave the Union and go its own way. That is one of the most firmly settled issues on the meaning of the Constitution. If the Civil War did not settle it on the battlefield, and it almost certainly did, the U.S. Supreme Court put it completely to rest constitutionally, 143 years ago. And it did so in a case involving the state where the idea of secession now seems to be attracting the biggest public following: Texas."
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/co...
And to think most of the text books for schools come out of TX. Sad. How very sad.
To expound: The State referenced above was Texas. The Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White 1869;
In deciding the merits of the bond issue, the court further held that the Constitution did not permit states to unilaterally secede from the United States, and that the ordinances of secession, and all the acts of the legislatures within seceding states intended to give effect to such ordinances, were "absolutely null".
The "bond issue" spoken of is not all that relevant to this particular argument. Rather it points out the Supreme Court ruled it is not Constitutional for any state to unilaterally secede from the Union.
"The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to 'be perpetual.' And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained 'to form a more perfect Union.' It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?" - Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase
Dr X

Byron Center, MI

#7 Jan 13, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
"No state, however frustrated some of its citizens may be with the present state of government in America, is going to be able to leave the Union and go its own way. That is one of the most firmly settled issues on the meaning of the Constitution. If the Civil War did not settle it on the battlefield, and it almost certainly did, the U.S. Supreme Court put it completely to rest constitutionally, 143 years ago. And it did so in a case involving the state where the idea of secession now seems to be attracting the biggest public following: Texas."
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/co...
And to think most of the text books for schools come out of TX. Sad. How very sad.
Lawyers will be absent on the battlefield most probably. Liberal hack just trying to deny what's coming. You have your master to blame and none other.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#8 Jan 14, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
Bu but but but they know better than a duly recognized constitutional law professor because he happens to be the president they despise so very much. To say nothing of being the first President of the United States to be so since the last of the Founding Fathers were. And none of the Founding Fathers were titled professor either.
And we wonder why this country is so much trouble.
When said "duly recognized constitutional law professor" releases the records that verify such information, perhaps we will believe him. Until then, he's just another progressive flinging crap at the wall and you and others like you allow it to stick. He thinks we should just take his word for his arrogance? Doesn't work that way. Don't have anything to hide? Put it out there, otherwise, he appears to be an arrogant, narccisistic (sp) liar.
Really

Grand Rapids, MI

#9 Jan 14, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
"No state, however frustrated some of its citizens may be with the present state of government in America, is going to be able to leave the Union and go its own way. That is one of the most firmly settled issues on the meaning of the Constitution. If the Civil War did not settle it on the battlefield, and it almost certainly did, the U.S. Supreme Court put it completely to rest constitutionally, 143 years ago. And it did so in a case involving the state where the idea of secession now seems to be attracting the biggest public following: Texas."
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/11/co...
And to think most of the text books for schools come out of TX. Sad. How very sad.
Again, a blog? Perhaps it's time to revisit is issue? After all, it was ruled on how many years ago?? Obama and the progressives keep telling us the Constitution is constantly changing and outdated, perhaps we should visit this issue again? Of course, the way the progressives love to fling the constitution around when it suits them and ignore it the rest of the time is truly laughable.
Bob

Big Rapids, MI

#10 Jan 14, 2013
Dr X wrote:
<quoted text>Lawyers will be absent on the battlefield most probably. Liberal hack just trying to deny what's coming. You have your master to blame and none other.
Yawn.......

I think you are in for a rude surprise. If you ever grow a pair large enough to crawl out of your mother's basement, you'll find that it will be your side that is absent of everyone except for a select group of facists like yourself.

Have you ever considered that self immolation is the sincerest form of protest...... Try It - We'll Like It!
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#11 Jan 14, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>When said "duly recognized constitutional law professor" releases the records that verify such information, perhaps we will believe him. Until then, he's just another progressive flinging crap at the wall and you and others like you allow it to stick. He thinks we should just take his word for his arrogance? Doesn't work that way. Don't have anything to hide? Put it out there, otherwise, he appears to be an arrogant, narccisistic (sp) liar.
What "records" would that be? So the University of Chicago Law School confirming it doesn't matter to you.
"UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-cons...
You need YOUR OWN records to prove it?
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#12 Jan 14, 2013
Really wrote:
<quoted text>Again, a blog? Perhaps it's time to revisit is issue? After all, it was ruled on how many years ago?? Obama and the progressives keep telling us the Constitution is constantly changing and outdated, perhaps we should visit this issue again? Of course, the way the progressives love to fling the constitution around when it suits them and ignore it the rest of the time is truly laughable.
Okay then how about the actual Supreme Court ruling;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/histori...
Or are you going to dispute Cornell University Law School too?

Seriously Really all you serve to prove is you are more comfortable with the opinions you have gathered from divisive sources that fit into your desired out look proving you would rather go through life with fictions than facts. In short you have nothing useful to say, just something to say. You have the right to your own opinion but you don't have the right to your own facts.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#13 Jan 14, 2013
Dr X wrote:
<quoted text>Lawyers will be absent on the battlefield most probably. Liberal hack just trying to deny what's coming. You have your master to blame and none other.
Which only goes to prove you don't have any regard for the premise of the founding of this country and the Constitution. That this country was intended to be one of laws and not of men. You just want to hit the battle field when things don't go the way you want them to.

Since: Sep 08

Neon City Oh.

#14 Jan 14, 2013
The fact that voter registration is close doesn't say much for the Dems. The Dems should be so far ahead that the GOP would only be seen as a minor third party.
Chip

Madison, WI

#15 Jan 14, 2013
SeenItBefore wrote:
<quoted text>
What "records" would that be? So the University of Chicago Law School confirming it doesn't matter to you.
"UC Law School statement: The Law School has received many media requests about Barack Obama, especially about his status as "Senior Lecturer." From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School’s Senior Lecturers have high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined."
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-cons...
You need YOUR OWN records to prove it?
factcheck.org is a liberal funded organization

Anybody can lie and say Obama was offered this and he said no. Given his track record I would doubt they offered him anything.

From 1992 until 2004, Obama taught three courses:“Current Issues in Racism and the Law,”“Voting Rights and the Democratic Process,” and “Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process.”

Obama, Epstein said,“did the minimal amount of work to get through. No one remembers him. He was not a participant in luncheons or workshops. He was here and gone.”

“When you have faculty giving faculty lectures, you’d literally have packed rooms in which it’s not unusual to have just all the big names of the university. It wasn’t unusual to see Easterbrook and Posner, and it wasn’t unusual to see the Nobel laureates attending as well.”
Even so, Alt said,“I never remember ever seeing Obama in the audience.”

Obama was also a no-show for the faculty workshops, nonclassroom lectures and moot court cases judged by sitting members of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals of the U.S. Current Chicago Law School professor Lisa Bernstein said faculty lecturers are still encouraged to participate in as many such events as possible.

And during his lone term as a U.S. senator, according to Gov Track.us:“From Jan 2005 to Oct 2008, Obama missed 314 of 1300 recorded or roll call votes, which is 24.0%. This is worse than the median of 2.4%.”

Given the FACT that he is such a lazy POS in the white house I would say this is just par for the course in his lying lazy deceitful life.

http://mnprager.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/the-...
Chip

Madison, WI

#16 Jan 14, 2013
In 1999, only 23 percent of the students said they would repeat Obama’s racism class. He was the third-lowest-ranked lecturer at the law school that year. And in 2003, only a third of the student evaluators recommended his classes.His classes were small. A spring 1994 class attracted 14 out of a student body of 600; a spring 1996 class drew 13
Chip

Madison, WI

#17 Jan 14, 2013
A longtime professor and one-time dean of the University of Chicago Law School told The Daily Caller that Barack Obama was never offered tenure, despite the assertions of a New York Times reporter who covers the president and the first family.

“Other faculty members dreamed of tenured positions; [Obama] turned them down,” wrote Times White House Correspondent Jodi Kantor, author of “The Obamas,” in a July 30, 2008 profile of the president’s twelve years as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

And yet, according to longtime University of Chicago law professor Richard Epstein, Obama was never actually offered a tenured faculty position. Nor, for that matter, was he ever a “constitutional law professor.”

“I have no idea where Jodi got her story” about the tenure offer, said Epstein, adding that he immediately wrote Kantor to tell her she was wrong.

“Tenure offers require votes from faculties approved by the provost, and need a scholarly output. He was approached with the possibility of an entry level position without tenure, but it never got to the faculty for want of interest on his side,” Epstein confirmed via email.

Epstein was the law school’s interim dean during 2001. His account contradicts a claim Kantor has repeatedly made, that a tenure offer came from Dean Daniel Fischel.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#18 Jan 14, 2013
Well then Chip you had better contact the UC Law School and inform them they are inaccurate in their assessment of Barack Obama as being a constitutional law professor. I'm sure they would jump at the chance to hear from someone so more qualified than themselves like you and the rest of the individuals you cite.

But then your reading skills aren't all that keen. What I posted very clearly said he was offered tenure but turned it down.

And "IIf Obama had said he was a tenured professor, that would be an outright lie. But if a clinical or adjunct claims to be a law professor, fair enough.

Second and more crucially, context makes a difference. When Obama was in the classroom, he was a law professor. But if he says, I spent these years as a law professor—that's not true. So its fair to say that while he was in the midst of teaching, Obama was a professor, even if he wasn't actually a professor by occupation."

But apparently you are more qualified to make the distinction than anyone else IN THE COLLEGE.
SeenItBefore

Jenison, MI

#19 Jan 14, 2013
Oh ya and OMG "Obama, Epstein said,“did the minimal amount of work to get through. No one remembers him. He was not a participant in luncheons or workshops. He was here and gone.”

He didn't attend the luncheons, or workshops, So he wasn't a "joiner" he just wasn't. That's typical of the elitist mentality.

And surely anyone who was Editor of the Law Review at Harvard SURELY does the minimal amount of work to get through.

Some pretty strong arguments you've posted there Chip. <SARCASM!!!
No pants Bob

Lady Lake, FL

#20 Jan 14, 2013
Bob wrote:
Awwww, this is just terrible news.
I was almost sure that the whiners would get to form their own country, and then Obama says you need to use the ballot box to change government.
Too bad the Grand Old White People's Party is now in the minority!
http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/white-h...
bob the "judge-it kweer" is more stupid than I thought. keep dreaming sweetie pie.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Grand Rapids Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Local News Women (Apr '09) 3 hr wildcat123 2,387
Old things and places we remember from the Gran... (Feb '09) Sat Tommy Z 1,009
News College football roundup: Ohio State starts the... (Sep '13) Sat tom wingo 2,224
News WZZM13 WATER COOLER - Weird 'shoe tree' in nort... (May '08) Fri toni 15
What a [exletive-deleted] gal! Jul 1 bobolinq 1
WLLA channel 64 - off the air? (Feb '12) Jun 30 remembring 16
News Boy With Autism Gets A Special Gift At Field Day Jun 28 Really 23
More from around the web

Grand Rapids People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Personal Finance

Grand Rapids Mortgages