What the 2012 election taught us

Nov 6, 2012 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: The Washington Post

We've been scouring the data for clues as to what we should learn from what happened tonight as President Obama relatively easily claimed a second term.

Comments
7,041 - 7,060 of 10,324 Comments Last updated Oct 1, 2013

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7723
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can register anyway you like.
There is no test, tea bagger.
always been a Democrat not a Leninist that call themselves Democrats.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7724
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fifth Amendment.
That is what the SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES says.
PS: as I have pointed out to you five times: the "loophole" was fixed in the revision in 1968.
Haynes Vs United States is legal Precendent set forth by the Liberal SCOTUS which Stands and still stands for the whole United States and is the legal precendent set in place that is challenging the New York State Ban and it just prove that these Modern Liberals(Leninist) will pass and sign a bill into law that goes against the US Constitution and New York State just proved it.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7725
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
always been a Democrat
there is not a test to claim to be a political party member.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7726
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Felons are not forced to incriminate themselves anymore by registering.
Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968.
Even though you are a felon, honey, you can register your stolen hand gun.
Call me if you have any problems and I'll represent you for free...
So what you are saying is that any law that makes an act illegal against law abiding citizens and all the laws that are currently on the books violates the Criminals 5th amendment rights because laws are designed to self incriminate Criminals since Crimianls Occupation requires them to break the law so under the modern Liberal thinking of 1968 any criminal is free to walk because they can claim that the laws have caused the criminals to self incriminate themselves because they have to break the law so becomes self incrimination since the Liberal SCOTUS was looking out the convicted felons & not the law abiding citizen.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7727
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text> So what you are saying is .
We know whenever a gun gnutter starts with "So what you are saying is..." he is going to follow with a lie and a straw man, because he can't find the quote that he needs me to say.

So last we left you denying Haynes was about the Fifth Amendment.

So says SCOTUS.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7728
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
the Criminals 5th amendment rights
PS: Everyone in the USA has Fifth Amendment rights.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7729
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
We know whenever a gun gnutter starts with "So what you are saying is..." he is going to follow with a lie and a straw man, because he can't find the quote that he needs me to say.
So last we left you denying Haynes was about the Fifth Amendment.
So says SCOTUS.
lies is all your posting, lies and left wing propaganda.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7730
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
... lies is all your posting,
you sure showed me!

All I have are facts...

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7732
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
This is funny.
You're obsessed with defending Obama, even though it's overwhelmingly obvious he's just a fraud. He's never done anything in his life but ride in the gold seat on the government gravy train. He's supposedly a constitutional lawyer, but watching hiim you'd think he has never even read the constitution in his life.
Or, perhaps I'm wrong.
Tell us about the cases Obama represented someone or something in a courtroom.
Date place docket number client/plantiff
... got a problem there, don't you?
That's because Obama has never passed the bar and has never even seen the inside of a court room as a lawyer.
Perhaps you can tell us how a person who has no experience can get put on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School.
I'm just dying to get an answer from you for this question....
Is Obama white, or black?
Of course you're wrong - you're almost always wrong.

"Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases -- about 30 -- and spent only four years as a full-time lawyer before entering politics.

Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration.

But the firm also handled routine legal matters and real estate. Obama spent about 70% of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.

In one instance, Obama defended a nonprofit corporation that owns low-income housing projects against a lawsuit in which a man alleged that he slipped and fell because of poor maintenance. Obama got the suit dismissed."

Senior attorneys at the small firm where he worked say he was a strong writer and researcher, but was involved in relatively few cases -- about 30 -- and spent only four years as a full-time lawyer before entering politics.Obama arrived in Chicago in 1993 with a degree from Harvard Law School and was hired as a junior lawyer at the firm then known as Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Gallard. He helped represent clients in civil and voting rights matters and wrongful firings, argued a case before a federal appellate court, and took the lead in writing a suit to expand voter registration.But the firm also handled routine legal matters and real estate. Obama spent about 70% of his time on voting rights, civil rights and employment, generally as a junior associate. The rest of his time was spent on matters related to real estate transactions, filing incorporation papers and defending clients against minor lawsuits.In one instance, Obama defended a nonprofit corporation that owns low-income housing projects against a lawsuit in which a man alleged that he slipped and fell because of poor maintenance. Obama got the suit dismissed.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/06/natio...

Feeling dumb now?

“JESUS WOULD IMPEACH THE GOP!!!”

Since: May 09

Lake Success, N.Y.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7733
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DBWriter wrote:
<quoted text>
Obama also supposedly has a degree from Columbia, where nobody in his class year ever met him. Obviously, he never attended classes.
Having a law degree is not the same thing as passing the bar exam. And, having a law degree could be just as significant as supposedly having a degree from Columbia where he never attended any classes.
Obama has never passed the bar.
Obama has never even seen the inside of a court room as a lawyer.
Or, I could be wrong. Please identify the cases where Obama represented anyone in a court room:
date... place... docket number... client/plantiff
... got a problem there, don't you? That's because Obama never passed the bar exam and has never even seen the inside of a court room as a lawyer.
Kindly explain to us how a person with no experience as a lawyer could possibly be placed on the faculty of the University of Chicago Law School to teach constitutional law.
Then, kindly explain to us how a former professor of constitutional law can be so ignorant of what's written in the Constitution.
He did in fact pass the bar stupid;

http://www.experts123.com/q/did-barack-obama-...

"1991 (President Barack Obama was licensed to practice law in Illinois on December 17, 1991.)
http://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp...

ARDC | Lawyer Search: Attorney's Registration and Public Disciplinary Record

Full Licensed Name: Barack Hussein Obama
Full Former name(s): None
Date of Admission as Lawyer by Illinois Supreme Court: December 17, 1991
Registered Business Address: Not available online
Registered Business Phone: Not available online
Illinois Registration Status: Voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law
Malpractice Insurance: No malpractice report required as attorney is retired.
Public Record of Discipline and Pending Proceedings: None"

http://askville.amazon.com/year-Barack-Obama-...

Still living in Faux News land?

Finally, one last piece of conclusive proof;

http://www.avvo.com/attorneys/20500-dc-barack...

You are one stupid pollster.
Shakalaka

Morrow, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7735
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I personally think that it is time for America to adopt a new form of government. We all know this capitalism isn't working. Greed has caused too many problems and have some folk believing that the more money they amass, the closer to "getting wings" they are,is pure insanity. Something about the chances of a rich man getting into heaven and a camel going through the eye of a needle. I know...I know...I too like the things money can buy. especially chocolate. ummmmm.

Many Americans talk about "socialism" as if it is a bad thing and as if Everyone thinks so. Not True. Socialism is for "social beings" Only those who are tripping, selfish, and greedy seem to love this system and slam the rest.

Capitalism vs Socialism

Differences › Economics
Capitalism and socialism are somewhat opposing schools of thought in economics. The central arguments in the socialism/capitalism debate are about economic equality and the role of government: socialists believe economic inequality is bad for society and the government is responsible for reducing it via programs that benefit the poor. e.g. free public education, free or subsidized healthcare, social security for the elderly, higher taxes on the rich. On the other hand, capitalists believe that government does not use economic resources as efficiently as private enterprise and therefore society is better off with the free market determining economic winners and losers.

The U.S. is widely considered the bastion of capitalism and large parts of Scandinavia and Western Europe are "socialist democracies." However, the truth is every developed country has some programs that are socialist.

An extreme form of socialism is communism. An extreme form of capitalism is Slavery.

Instead of wrongfully labeling the President as a "socialist" which is pure propaganda... look at his ideas from an "equitable" stand point. If you are on the lower end of the totem pole you will support the ideas of the president. Most of us are. vs being on the upper end where only 1% of the population dwells. My logic tells me that unless you're in that 1% margin, you're an idiot if you don't support the socialist part of this administrations agenda.

It is either that or CIVIL WAR! pick and choose.
Shakalaka

Morrow, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7736
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I believe that in a perfect society, there are no poor. Knowledge is to be shared for the upward mobility of the masses. The Western world need to learn lessons from Africa, the East and Far East. Lighten up on the selfishness and "walk a mile" in another man's moccasins before flying off at the mouth with worthless opinions.

As I sit gazing out of my hotel window at dusk, I can hear the roar of tires on pavement and through the trees, see the traffic zooming by in both directions. But I see more than that...I can see far away, in another realm, There, a child is dying of starvation, too weak to stand. Less than 10 feet away a giant buzzard waits patiently for the child to die. Same earth? Can I honestly convince myself that socialism is a bad thing? What manner of man could watch the buzzard wait for the starving child to die, while he feasts on food provided by those again, less fortunate, and not feel any compassion? But say to himself and to you and I...We disagree with the socialist? smh
Stoneman

Boise, ID

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7739
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gore will make more on his "worthless" book than you will make in your entire worthless life.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
As Sarah Palin made more money last week than you did last year.
Major Republic-an

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7740
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Stoneman wrote:
<quoted text>As Sarah Palin made more money last week than you did last year.
A fool and his/her money are soon parted...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7741
Feb 2, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Stoneman wrote:
<quoted text>
As Sarah Palin made more money last week than you did last year.
What does she charge, now?

More than back in her high school days, you betcha!
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7743
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

"Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; "

U.S Contitution
AMENDMENT V
...... nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,......

Your issue is with the United States Constitution and the guarantees that are bestowed on American Citizens.

You're not at odds with ideology, you are indifferent to the written provisions that protects all American Citizens as they are specifically laid out in the Constitution. Or you are illiterate.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>all your trying to is justify the Failed SCOTUS liberal thinking that has failed US Society.
In Haynes v. U.S.(1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm -- a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851. Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination ("No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself") was being violated -- he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it. While the Court acknowledged that there were circumstances where a person might register such a weapon without having violated the prohibition on illegal possession or transfer, both the prosecution and the Court acknowledged such circumstances were "uncommon."
The Court concluded:
•We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851.
•If mandatory gun registration can't be used to punish ex-felons in possession of a firearm, what purpose does such a law serve? If mandatory gun registration can only be used to punish people that can legally possess a gun, why bother?
•The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration
•What Im reading here is that any known felon would not have to register a weapon because its a violation of his 5th amendment. you figure out the rest for yourself.
The second kicker is that the new laws now protect the felon from registry and of course will have little to no effect on crime.
FELONS DONT HAVE TO REGISTER KIDS- YOU DO!
http://www.nyfirearms.com/forums/laws-politic...
Here this article makes a good point about Haynes vs United States and the issue with convicts and the direction this New Left with their moderen Liberala are taking this country.
Lawsuit targets New York's post-Sandy Hook gun law
Under the law, the failure to register a gun is a class E felony. The suit claims that the provision violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because it could force a gun owner who registers late to effectively admit to committing a crime.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled in Haynes v. United States that felons and others who are prohibited from possessing guns could not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7744
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eric Gustafson wrote:
"Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; "
In other words: the instrument wasn't important... barely relevant.

If, for example, he was a dog breeder who was convicted of animal cruelty but the state required him to register as a breeder but (state laws) prohibited him from breeding because of the conviction.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7746
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

He's failed the literacy test.

A common problem is those in complete denial are actually demonstrating their inability to comprehend the elementary provisions in the Constitution.

More alarming is that some refuse to accept the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and they're indifferent to the guarantees of freedom and liberty spelled out in elementary terms.

He's intent on making a pointless, point.
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Fifth Amendment.
This did not give felons license to own guns.
You stupid dolt.
Title II of the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968 corrected the "loophole" in the Haynes case, and Title II was subsequently UPHELD by SCOTUS in the FREED case.
I've reminded you of this three times.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7747
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

The 5th Amendment was added to the Fundamental Rights of Citizens to entice Ratification of the Constitution.

Maybe you should spend time reading the Constitution before commenting on Supreme Court Decisions because is evident you have no idea of what you're taking about.

Besides, Felons have had the right to carry weapons in America longer than not. It's only been illegal for felons to have weapons since 1934.

The Constitution and Fifth Amendment was ratified in 1789
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>facts stand it was about Gun Registration of the rights of a Convict vs law abiding citizen which is the moderen Liberals are the reason why today the convicts & the criminals are walking the street with guns especially in chicago and by the Liberals on the SCOTUS using 5th admendment was a copout since the Liberals as FDR call them were responsible for the National Firearms Act of 1934 and made more sense than the liberals on the SCOTUS in 1968 besides convicts & criminals cant be forced to register their assault weapons thanks to the liberals.
now New York State Ban on assault rifles and clips is in trouble because of the Liberals descision and language used in Haynes vs United States.
Lawsuit targets New York's post-Sandy Hook gun law
"A number of constitutional rights were just tossed aside here," Tresmond said on Wednesday.
Under the law, the failure to register a gun is a class E felony. The suit claims that the provision violates the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, because it could force a gun owner who registers late to effectively admit to committing a crime.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 ruled in Haynes v. United States that felons and others who are prohibited from possessing guns could not be forced to incriminate themselves through registration.
Tresmond said the law also violates the Fifth Amendment's ban on the taking of private property by the government. The law requires people who own high-capacity magazines to either sell them or surrender them to the state.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/30/us-...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7748
Feb 3, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eric Gustafson wrote:
He's failed the literacy test.
A common problem is those in complete denial are actually demonstrating their inability to comprehend the elementary provisions in the Constitution.
More alarming is that some refuse to accept the Constitution as the supreme law of the land and they're indifferent to the guarantees of freedom and liberty spelled out in elementary terms.
He's intent on making a pointless, point.
<quoted text>
that is your modern liberals pointless, point which is why Haynes vs United states is being used to overturn New York's Gun Ban they just passed.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••