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 (Page 351)

Showing posts 7,001 - 7,020 of10,324
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7680
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

au contraire wrote:
Gas prices to top $4 again...
You also told use Romney was going to get 335 electoral votes.

Remember?

14 swing states?

Dumbo?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7681
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Eric Gustafson wrote:
The protection for American Citizens against self incrimination is specifically spelled out in the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Because an American is a felon doesn't preclude them from being equally protected by the Bill of Rights.
America is a nation of equal protection laws guarding all citizens against the decisions of the Government and Man.
Do you think there should be some people not protected by the Constitution who reside in America?
Do you support arbitrary judgements?
<quoted text>
there was nothing self incriminating against law abiding citizens in National Firearms Act of 1934 in Haynes vs. United States, its was Modern Liberals in 1968 that said that the law was self incriminating towards convicted felons because the convict Miles Edward Haynes was violating law to begin with and charged with failing to register a firearm under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and knew he violating the Law for having a fireman in his possession and these are the same People the Modern Liberals on the left today are saying should not have guns in their possession.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7682
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry pookie, I would suck Obama with your mouth..
You aren't clever enough to keep two aliases running... let alone three...

Go back to Dumbo and pull up the stakes on the others, eh?
Major Republic-an

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7683
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Barack passed but Michele Obama and Hilary both failed their bar exams on the first try.
Source(s):
http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/02/michell …
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con …
So?
Major Republic-an

Columbus, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7684
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>I proved you wrong once, I guess two will add the icing to the cake.

Panetta: Terrorists carried out consulate attack - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/.../panetta-terrorists-carrie... 28, 2012 · "It was a terrorist attack," Panetta said when ... deadly Sept. 11 attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi,... leader says his government has ...

Al Qaeda Leader Zawahiri: Benghazi Attack Signifies American …
www.theblaze.com/...qaeda-leader-zawahiri-ben... Qaeda Leader Zawahiri: Benghazi Attack ... Egypts MB says the only foreign policy ... Thanks to Obama lying about the terrorist attack in Benghazi,...
Al-Qaeda Says Deadly Benghazi Attack Was In Response to Leader's ...

www.humanevents.com/...says-deadly-benghazi-a... Says Deadly Benghazi Attack Was In ... its flag on the Benghazi Courthouse. The terror group ... Consulate in Benghazi was in response to its leader ...
.
In Turkey? No. You are wrong again.

You have Fox News proof of Benghazi, which ads up to nothing.
1 post removed
conservative crapola

Bath, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7686
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>
More rassmussen numbers, eh, lefraud?

hahahahahahahahahaha
Shakalaka

Morrow, GA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7687
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

martinezjosei wrote:
<quoted text>
Bloomberg has homework for you: stop drinking more than 16 ounces.
Mitchell Obama has another: stop feeding your kids turkey sandwiches, bananas and apple juice for school lunch. Eat the union cafeteria food or else you will get fined by the Federal government.
Obama had another homework for you: pay new Obamacare taxes or else you will go to prison.
See? All liberals have "homework" for you!!!
And more is coming your way. Just as you voted for!!!
It is "ONLY" for your own good, trust me!!!
My comment was not meant for Major Republic-an. He is one of the posters I like on here. YOU however sound like you're on something I don't want to know about. So I'll overlook the dumb shit you mutter. How's that?
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7688
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The 5th Amendment protects citizens from having to confess their crimes or participation and involvement in a crime.

That protection is written into the U.S Constitution, whether you understand it or not. That provision has been a protection of Americans since ratification of the Constitution.

If you are charged with a crime and you are asked about the incident on the witness stand under oath, you, being an American Citizen have the right to take the 5th........ You can not be sanctioned for refusing to answer the judge.

Are you a naturalized America?

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>there was nothing self incriminating against law abiding citizens in National Firearms Act of 1934 in Haynes vs. United States, its was Modern Liberals in 1968 that said that the law was self incriminating towards convicted felons because the convict Miles Edward Haynes was violating law to begin with and charged with failing to register a firearm under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and knew he violating the Law for having a fireman in his possession and these are the same People the Modern Liberals on the left today are saying should not have guns in their possession.
Drink the hivE

New York, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7689
Feb 1, 2013
 
Hey Son No Worries Just Don't Get Arrested Youll Be Alright...

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7690
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Eric Gustafson wrote:
The 5th Amendment protects citizens from having to confess their crimes or participation and involvement in a crime.
That protection is written into the U.S Constitution, whether you understand it or not. That provision has been a protection of Americans since ratification of the Constitution.
If you are charged with a crime and you are asked about the incident on the witness stand under oath, you, being an American Citizen have the right to take the 5th........ You can not be sanctioned for refusing to answer the judge.
Are you a naturalized America?
<quoted text>
I understand it very well, he violated federal law to begin with and those modern Liberals thinking on SCOTUS made an bad & poor legal decision on their part which was to benefit the convicted felons here in the US on the way the liberal SCOTUS issued their ruling & decision and it would have been different if it was a law abiding citizen if they failed to register since they were legal to own a firearm.

Remember this is the same Liberal Court that says indiviudals have no legal rights to Social Security which can be reduced or eliminated anytime which is another scam perpetrated by the modern Liberals as FDR called them and it was really only to benefit the Federal Government and the New Left has taken this new so called modern Liberalism to the next step which True Liberalism rejects everything it stands for.

Social Securitys Sham Guarantee

They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7691
Feb 1, 2013
 
au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>If we have equal protection laws, how come we have affirmative action and hate crimes.
exactly and why affirmative action laws are contradictive and have created an enviroment of reverse discrimination which would be rejected by true Liberalism which reject government involvement and the thinking of the modern liberals of today.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7692
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>If we have equal protection laws, how come we have affirmative action and hate crimes.
Affirmative Actions is not now or ever was a law and, Hate Crimes are applied and equally motivated by Ignorance.

Affirmative Actions are programs intended to affirm the civil rights and guarantees within the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution by taking positive action to protect them from, "the lingering effects of pervasive discrimination, enacted by White Southern State Legislators.

How old are you?
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7693
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

They were simply enforcing the provisions in the U.S Constitution. They made no striking law...... They just enforce the protection clause contain in the Constitution's 5th Amendment.

That's what the SCOTUS is supposed to do.

Courts in America can not make citizens testify against themselves.

That what it means to be protected from self incrimination.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I understand it very well, he violated federal law to begin with and those modern Liberals thinking on SCOTUS made an bad & poor legal decision on their part which was to benefit the convicted felons here in the US on the way the liberal SCOTUS issued their ruling & decision and it would have been different if it was a law abiding citizen if they failed to register since they were legal to own a firearm.
Remember this is the same Liberal Court that says indiviudals have no legal rights to Social Security which can be reduced or eliminated anytime which is another scam perpetrated by the modern Liberals as FDR called them and it was really only to benefit the Federal Government and the New Left has taken this new so called modern Liberalism to the next step which True Liberalism rejects everything it stands for.
Social Securitys Sham Guarantee
They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7694
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>exactly and why affirmative action laws are contradictive and have created an enviroment of reverse discrimination which would be rejected by true Liberalism which reject government involvement and the thinking of the modern liberals of today.
Well Affirmative Actions aren't laws.

Affirmative Actions is a set of policies or program that affirms your organization's compliance with the provisions of the 14th Amendment.
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7695
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Felon violated Federal Law, of which the Federal prosecutors would have never convicted the felon without his cooperation. The 5th Amendment protects that felon and any other citizen from being being made a witness and supplying evidence against themselves in a court of law.

Whether you're a felon or not, you are protected equally by the U.S. Constitution and it's the Supreme Courts' job to enforce those protections.
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>I understand it very well, he violated federal law to begin with and those modern Liberals thinking on SCOTUS made an bad & poor legal decision on their part which was to benefit the convicted felons here in the US on the way the liberal SCOTUS issued their ruling & decision and it would have been different if it was a law abiding citizen if they failed to register since they were legal to own a firearm.
Remember this is the same Liberal Court that says indiviudals have no legal rights to Social Security which can be reduced or eliminated anytime which is another scam perpetrated by the modern Liberals as FDR called them and it was really only to benefit the Federal Government and the New Left has taken this new so called modern Liberalism to the next step which True Liberalism rejects everything it stands for.
Social Securitys Sham Guarantee
They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/s...
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7696
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

au contraire wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, it only took Obama over 4 years to do what Bush did..........your boy is slow.
Not exactly true, When Bush went into the White House the S&P 500 was January 22, 2001,... at 10,578. 20

When Bush Left on Jan 20, 2009 the S&P 500 was 7949

The Market was an indication of the Financial and Economic Collapse of America under the Bush policies. When you consider that at one point the S&P 500 was at 14,000, and for it to close out at 7949 when Bush left Washington was even more of an indication of how great a failure his presidency was.

For crying out loud, there had not been a collapse similar to the collapse of America since the Fall of the Roman Empire.

That's not much for the Republican supporters to be talking about, it is not as if anybody in the world forgot what the Bush policies did to the world's financial system.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7697
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Eric Gustafson wrote:
They were simply enforcing the provisions in the U.S Constitution. They made no striking law...... They just enforce the protection clause contain in the Constitution's 5th Amendment.
That's what the SCOTUS is supposed to do.
Courts in America can not make citizens testify against themselves.
That what it means to be protected from self incrimination.
<quoted text>
why do you think packing the US Supreme Court is so necessary to the Right & the Left which was even needed for FDR because the SCOTUS kept ruling against the New Deal legistlation as Unconstitutional until FDR threaten to remove the justices from the SCOTUS by having congress legistlate their removal by issuing age limits and by even adding more justices to the SCOTUS to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation since the US Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court.

Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedu...

Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Court Packing" Plan

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history...

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7698
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Eric Gustafson wrote:
The Felon violated Federal Law, of which the Federal prosecutors would have never convicted the felon without his cooperation. The 5th Amendment protects that felon and any other citizen from being being made a witness and supplying evidence against themselves in a court of law.
Whether you're a felon or not, you are protected equally by the U.S. Constitution and it's the Supreme Courts' job to enforce those protections.
<quoted text>
Miles Edward Haynes broke the law on his own by possessing a firearm besides he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm which was the law.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7699
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Eric Gustafson wrote:
<quoted text>
Not exactly true, When Bush went into the White House the S&P 500 was January 22, 2001,... at 10,578. 20
When Bush Left on Jan 20, 2009 the S&P 500 was 7949
The Market was an indication of the Financial and Economic Collapse of America under the Bush policies. When you consider that at one point the S&P 500 was at 14,000, and for it to close out at 7949 when Bush left Washington was even more of an indication of how great a failure his presidency was.
For crying out loud, there had not been a collapse similar to the collapse of America since the Fall of the Roman Empire.
That's not much for the Republican supporters to be talking about, it is not as if anybody in the world forgot what the Bush policies did to the world's financial system.
Why Higher Unemployment Is Good for Stocks

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2013/02...
Eric Gustafson

Newport News, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7700
Feb 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

I don't see the correlation with the New Deal and, the 5th Amendment and it's protection against self incrimination.

It's pretty elementary...... You have the right to plead the 5th and not testify or witness against yourself.

You have the right to remain silence, anything you say can be used against you?
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>why do you think packing the US Supreme Court is so necessary to the Right & the Left which was even needed for FDR because the SCOTUS kept ruling against the New Deal legistlation as Unconstitutional until FDR threaten to remove the justices from the SCOTUS by having congress legistlate their removal by issuing age limits and by even adding more justices to the SCOTUS to obtain favorable rulings regarding New Deal legislation since the US Constitution does not limit the size of the Supreme Court.
Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_Procedu...
Franklin Delano Roosevelt's "Court Packing" Plan
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/history...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 7,001 - 7,020 of10,324
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

23 Users are viewing the US Politics Forum right now

Search the US Politics Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 4 min deutscher Nationalstolz 50,407
Obama rejects criticism over border crisis 5 min mjjcpa 17
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 5 min RoxLo 1,071,832
Activists: State should end all Confederate mem... 5 min canser suxs 15
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 7 min SpaceBlues 31,783
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 8 min litesong 45,451
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min JM_Brazil 111,833
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 31 min positronium 239,663
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••