The President has failed us

There are 328357 comments on the Times News story from Jun 9, 2012, titled The President has failed us. In it, Times News reports that:

This week, I decided to list the reasons I would not vote for Barack Obama in the next election.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Times News.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Arm the internet

#102838 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow... you've been listening to Ted Nugent and Limbaugh way too much.
What's been Ted Nugent been saying lately? I haven't heard a peep. LOL

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Arm the internet

#102839 Feb 13, 2013
jimmy krack korn wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Now that you mentioned that, it's about that time that he'll be changing into his new 'Sock Suit', a kind of nicer one like.....
Hollywood ARGYLES
ALLEY OOP
http://youtu.be/75Q-ZE_Y6es
Not this one?!!



LOL.
Liberals Own It

Riverside, CA

#102840 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
Why do Republicans oppose everything that helps the average American...
ZERO job bills passed by Republicans and now this???
Top Republicans Oppose Obama’s Call To Raise The Minimum Wage
During his State of the Union address last night, President Obama called for raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour, up from its current $7.25, and indexing it to inflation so that it rises as the economy grows. If the increase were to happen, it would give the minimum wage its highest purchasing power since 1981, lifting millions of families above the poverty line.
But top Republicans are already coming out against it. During interviews last night and today, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) both made clear that they oppose raising the minimum wage, citing its supposed effect on job creation:
RYAN: I think it’s inflationary. I think it actually is counterproductive in many ways. You end up costing job from people who are the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Look, I wish we could just pass a law saying everybody should make more money without any adverse consequences. The problem is you’re costing jobs from those who are just trying to get entry level jobs. The goal ought to be is to get people out of entry level jobs into better jobs, better paying jobs. That’s better education and a growing economy. Those are some of the things he talked about and I don’t think raising minimum wage — and history is very clear about this — doesn’t actually accomplish those goals.
RUBIO: I want to see people making a lot more than $9 an hour in the United States. And the way do you that is through rapid economic growth where people are being paid a lot more than that.$9 is not enough. I think we all would want that. The question is a minimum wage the best way to do it? And history has said the answer is absolutely not. In fact, the impact of minimum wage usually is that businesses hire less people. That’s the impact of it. They’ll just hire less people to do the same amount of work…We have a lot of history to prove that the minimum wage , raising the minimum wage does not grow the middle class.
read more about the party of stupid @ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/13/1...
LOL, when I was in High School only teenagers worked at drive thrus like McD's. We even had Restaurant training classes in schools. Now it's all but middle aged hispanics. I won't even eat at a Restaurant if teens aren't working behind the counter.

Today's teens are spoiled little brats.

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Arm the internet

#102841 Feb 13, 2013
Lock N Load wrote:
NY Protesters Vow to Disobey New Gun Laws
Wednesday, 13 Feb 2013 11:48 AM
By Sandy Fitzgerald
Hundreds of protesters turned out at the New York Capitol in Albany Tuesday, where they vowed to disobey the state's new gun control laws and to work hard for their repeal.
The new laws pushed through by Democratic Gov. Andrew Cuomo just a few weeks after the December 14 school shootings in Newtown, Conn., have already ignited a great deal of controversy, reports the Wall Street Journal.
Cuomo's approval ratings, which at one point were over 70 percent, have dropped, and he is now the target of harsh Republican attacks for moving too quickly on anti-gun legislation.
The gun rights protesters made that point in their demonstration at the Capitol, where they also made it clear that they felt "cheated" as well by some state GOP lawmakers who supported the new legislation.
“Our governor has seen fit to try and restrict the rights we get by our Constitution,” said Tracy Brundege, who attended the rally.“We're just not going to stand for it anymore.”
According to the Journal, the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association is also planning another rally on Feb. 28 at the Capitol, which is expected to attract some 35,000 people. National Rifle Association President David Keene will be the event's keynote speaker.
Cuomo, meanwhile, defended the new firearms restrictions during a press conference, saying he's proud “that this state passed a common sense gun-control law that is reasonable, that is balanced, that does not affect hunters, does not affect sportsmen."
Republican Carl Paladina, who lost to Cuomo in 2010, was at the Capitol rally, where he criticized both the governor and the state Senate GOP Leader Dean Skelos, who helped engineer the gun reform legislation to a quick vote. Paladino urged protesters to “bring Skelos to the woodshed" for working with Cuomo and the Democrats.
Asked to respond, a spokesman for Skelos said, "We're not going to comment on any statements from a failed former gubernatorial candidate looking to extend his 15 minutes of fame."
© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/ny-gun-control-prot...
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Up from zero 3 days ago.

http://www.wethepeopleofny.org/

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Level 5

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#102842 Feb 13, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>no they aren't, only citizen are "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", this would be the US Constitution.
"We the people" does not mean "We the Aliens".
All legal aliens in the US are controlled by treaties between the US and their country of origin, but are never subject to the jurisdiction of the Constitution.
At the time the constitution was written, "We the people" were white property owning males. Over time that meaning has changed.

"Often described as a "living document," the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903))

Wong Wing v. U.S.(1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating "... it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."

Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedo...

“Gloria Ad Caput Venire”

Level 9

Since: Jan 08

Arm the internet

#102843 Feb 13, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>the good guys follow the Constitution.
The good guys abide by it as well.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Level 5

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#102844 Feb 13, 2013
positronium wrote:
<quoted text>What's been Ted Nugent been saying lately? I haven't heard a peep. LOL
Glad you asked!!!

http://i1220.photobucket.com/albums/dd442/ric...

“The Beast Within”

Level 5

Since: Oct 12

Paradise, Calif

#102846 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
Why do Republicans oppose everything that helps the average American...
ZERO job bills passed by Republicans and now this???
Top Republicans Oppose Obama’s Call To Raise The Minimum Wage
During his State of the Union address last night, President Obama called for raising the minimum wage to $9 an hour, up from its current $7.25, and indexing it to inflation so that it rises as the economy grows. If the increase were to happen, it would give the minimum wage its highest purchasing power since 1981, lifting millions of families above the poverty line.
But top Republicans are already coming out against it. During interviews last night and today, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) and Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) both made clear that they oppose raising the minimum wage, citing its supposed effect on job creation:
RYAN: I think it’s inflationary. I think it actually is counterproductive in many ways. You end up costing job from people who are the bottom rung of the economic ladder. Look, I wish we could just pass a law saying everybody should make more money without any adverse consequences. The problem is you’re costing jobs from those who are just trying to get entry level jobs. The goal ought to be is to get people out of entry level jobs into better jobs, better paying jobs. That’s better education and a growing economy. Those are some of the things he talked about and I don’t think raising minimum wage — and history is very clear about this — doesn’t actually accomplish those goals.
RUBIO: I want to see people making a lot more than $9 an hour in the United States. And the way do you that is through rapid economic growth where people are being paid a lot more than that.$9 is not enough. I think we all would want that. The question is a minimum wage the best way to do it? And history has said the answer is absolutely not. In fact, the impact of minimum wage usually is that businesses hire less people. That’s the impact of it. They’ll just hire less people to do the same amount of work…We have a lot of history to prove that the minimum wage , raising the minimum wage does not grow the middle class.
read more about the party of stupid @ http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/02/13/1...
Dammmmmm if that don't make you want to HOOOOOOWL!!!!!

SOMETIMES GOOD GUYS DON'T WEAR WHITE
http://youtu.be/ujxcZ7ScM-0
The Standells
{roadrage-vids]

GOOD GUYS BAD GUYS WHICH ARE WHICH?
THE WHITE COLLAR WORKER OR THE DIGGER IN THE DITCH.
Hey, and who's to say who's the better man
When I've always done the best I can?

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Level 5

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#102847 Feb 13, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>the good guys follow the Constitution.
That would make you a bad guy.
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#102848 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
Then that makes Mitt Romney a Citizen of Mexico as his Father was born in Mexico and you voted for a Mexican anchor baby.
HAHAHHAAAA!!!
Mitt's grandfather and grandmother were never Mexican citizens, so his father was a US citizen when born, even if born in Mexico.

“Rico's Are Everywhere”

Level 5

Since: Dec 09

Gangland, North America

#102849 Feb 13, 2013
Liberals Own It wrote:
Major networks refuse to cover Rand Paul’s tea party response
12:33 AM 02/13/2013
Kentucky Republican Sen. Rand Paul delivered the Tea Party response to President Barack Obama’s State Of The Union Address on Tuesday night — but even if you were watching any of the major television networks, you wouldn’t have been able to see it.
Unlike President Barack Obama’s State Of The Union Address and the official Republican response from Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, Paul’s speech was watchable only through online streaming.
“I speak to you tonight from Washington, D.C.,” Paul said at the beginning of the address.“The state of our economy is tenuous, but our people remain the greatest example of freedom and prosperity the world has ever known.”
The tea party senator then contrasted former President Ronald Reagan’s skeptical view of government with Obama’s worldview.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/13/pauls-tea-p...
There is simply no room for ignorance thus nobody gives this guy the time or day.

“The Beast Within”

Level 5

Since: Oct 12

Paradise, Calif

#102850 Feb 13, 2013
Liberals Own It wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL, when I was in High School only teenagers worked at drive thrus like McD's. We even had Restaurant training classes in schools. Now it's all but middle aged hispanics. I won't even eat at a Restaurant if teens aren't working behind the counter.
Today's teens are spoiled little brats.
MONEY FOR NOTHING [and your chicks for free]
<UNCENSORED VERSION>

http://youtu.be/FDJPiUPZxdc

DIRE STRAITS
iwantmyMTVide0
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#102853 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
At the time the constitution was written, "We the people" were white property owning males. Over time that meaning has changed.
"Often described as a "living document," the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903))
Wong Wing v. U.S.(1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating "... it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedo...
Been waiting for WKA v. US! The USSC, nor any court can change the US Constitution or its meaning, WKA was DOA!
Get yourself an amendment!
Pok Guy

Plymouth, MN

#102855 Feb 13, 2013
Libs suck wrote:
<quoted text>
well punk, considereing how many times you change your name, its not.
Just more lies from a loser, worthless lib POS.
Just remember dolt, when the time comes when we are forced to rely on ourselves for survival.... your lemming idiot, libtard herd will be thinned by millions. No welfare, ebt, free gubbermint money.... adios
Hmmm…you're just like Obama, an activist! Albeit a right-wing reactionary paramilitary activist, specifically, a survivalist who encourages (eagerly anticipates? Is that what you consider patriotic?) defensive preparations that have military roots and involve firearms out of an unfounded fear of a societal collapse.

And a conspiracists too, I bet. As Berlet and Lyons said in "Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort. New York: Guilford Press," (it's a book, not a TV show) "Conspiracism is a particular narrative form of scapegoating that frames demonized enemies as part of a vast insidious plot against the common good, while it valorizes the scapegoater as a hero for sounding the alarm. Many conspiracists are delusional and suffer, in varying degrees, from mental illness."
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#102856 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
That would make you a bad guy.
LMAO!!
Liberals Own It

Riverside, CA

#102857 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
There is simply no room for ignorance thus nobody gives this guy the time or day.
For the left ignorance is bliss. hahaha
Justice Dale

Wichita, KS

#102859 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
At the time the constitution was written, "We the people" were white property owning males. Over time that meaning has changed.
"Often described as a "living document," the Constitution has repeatedly been interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, federal appeals courts and Congress in order to address the ever-changing needs and demands of the people. While many argue that "We the People of the United States," refers only to legal citizens, the Supreme Court has consistently disagreed.
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
In Yick Wo v. Hopkins, a case involving the rights of Chinese immigrants, the Court ruled that the 14th Amendment's statement, "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," applied to all persons "without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality," and to "an alien, who has entered the country, and has become subject in all respects to its jurisdiction, and a part of its population, although alleged to be illegally here." (Kaoru Yamataya v. Fisher, 189 U.S. 86 (1903))
Wong Wing v. U.S.(1896)
Citing Yick Wo v. Hopkins, the Court, in the case of Wong Wing v. US, further applied the citizenship-blind nature of the Constitution to the 5th and 6th amendments, stating "... it must be concluded that all persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection guaranteed by those amendments, and that even aliens shall not be held to answer for a capital or other infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law."
Plyler v. Doe (1982)
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law prohibiting enrollment of illegal aliens in public school. In its decision, the Court held, "The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall 'deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' Whatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is a 'person' in any ordinary sense of that term… The undocumented status of these children vel non does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents."
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedo...
You might want to check the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and tell us who can be citizens of the US. Oh, this was the first national law pertaining to citizenship, which the 14th was written from.

Level 8

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#102860 Feb 13, 2013
Rico from East Los II wrote:
<quoted text>
There is simply no room for ignorance thus nobody gives this guy the time or day.
Because the Tea party is an embarrassment.

Level 8

Since: Feb 12

Location hidden

#102861 Feb 13, 2013
Liberals Own It wrote:
<quoted text>
For the left ignorance is bliss. hahaha
Spoken like a true CONSERVATIVE pretending to be an "independent".

“2014 TDF”

Level 2

Since: Mar 09

Boca Raton, FL.

#102862 Feb 13, 2013
Justice Dale wrote:
<quoted text>All children born in this nation of alien whether legal/illegal are citizens of their father's nation of origin and are not by the 14th amendment eligible for citizenship in the US.
Are you nuts? A child born in the United States does not owe allegiance to any other government, but that of the United States. The 14th Amendment, and the doctrine of Jus Solis, control. Even if the child is born in the United States, to a pregnant mother who's a foreign national, and who goes into labor while vacationing in the United States, the child is still a U.S. Citizen, despite that it could also hold dual citizenship.
Justice Dale wrote:
One can't be "and subject to the jurisdiction, thereof", while holding a citizenship of another nation.
The territorial principle affords the United States to claim in personam jurisdiction over any foreign national, within the boundaries of the United States, or the individual state.

If you can find a case or a federal statute to support your position, I'd like to see it.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Immigration Reform Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Rose's Pub (Mar '10) 4 min Quirky 138,190
News GOP bill blocks pregnant immigrants from enteri... 20 min wild child 16
News What Should Citizenship Mean? 1 hr Novus Ordo Seclorum 45
News Congressman from Heartland speaks out on illega... 2 hr wild child 3
News Scott Walker Approved Pro-Immigration Reform Lo... 2 hr P-Stain 6
News Barry Lewis: Hard-working folks deserve their d... 4 hr tomin cali 6
News Obama's record on national security, public saf... 4 hr wild child 1
More from around the web