Albany,n.y. Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 LOL you cannot be serious. If you are supporting hussien obama keep in mind that you are supporting a presidential candidate who thinks , or at least thought (maybe his advisors corrected him) that there are 58 states. True, as bizzare as it sounds it's 100% true. And ironically the democrats question Bush's IQ. This presidential candidate, hussien 'open borders' obama, referred to 58 states, he visited 57. Not only does he have the number of states wrong he claims to have visited these phantom states. So before you criticize who Fox News is supporting you might want to examine yourself on who YOU are supporting! Maybe hussien is already including some kind of merger with mexico and a half dozen or so third world countries south of the border I'm certain of 2 things: 1)Obama knows there are 50 states. just like McCain knows he is no longer a prisoner of war when he addresses his audience as "my fellow prisoners". 2) Sarah Palin doesn't understand the 1st amendment. Getting back to the FACTS, since you bolded & enlarged my point on the 1st amendment-How can you defend Palin's ignorance of the 1st amendment-You can't! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate...;entry_id=32193 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Not at all monkey boy...Keep drinking the juice...And I don't find Obama funny at all. There wasn't one person in the audience laughing and hussien had a look of utter confusion on his puss. Only a retard would claim he is deadpanning. But as we both can see there is no shortage of retards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Not at all monkey boy...Keep drinking the juice. I'd love to see you furrow your brows in confusion while you watch a movie like Airplane! or The Naked Gun as joke after joke flies over your head! "I don't get it- why is he calling him Shirley?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 There wasn't one person in the audience laughing and hussien had a look of utter confusion on his puss.Only a retard would claim he is deadpanning. But as we both can see there is no shortage of retards. I said it wasn't the funniest of lines. Watch this. The audience is barely laughing but it is undeniably GENIUS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 Actually you make me laugh...Are you that stupid? He wasn't deadpanning..He was confused. And don't call me Shirley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 You probably have difficulty watching television shows without laugh tracks, don't you? In all fairness, you can hear everyone laughing at Biden when he says there are three letters in JOBS. And I know I was laughing my ass off when he yelled "Stand up, Chuck!" On the other hand, I didn't hear anyone laughing when he thought he was secretly telling a bunch of $1000-a-head donors that he guarantees a generated international crisis by the end of July...GUARANTEES IT...if Obama is elected. If it costs $1000 to find out this info, how much does it cost to find out one of the five ways it is going to happen? As long as you have Biden, you have no room to laugh at the right. And after the landslide on Tuesday, Palin will be gone and we'll have four more years of Joe! Stand up, Joe! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Actually you make me laugh...Are you that stupid? He wasn't deadpanning..He was confused. And don't call me Shirley. It's hard to believe that a WRESTLING FAN would be too stupid to realize when someone is deadpanning a lame joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 There wasn't one person in the audience laughing and hussien had a look of utter confusion on his puss.Only a retard would claim he is deadpanning. But as we both can see there is no shortage of retards. You can't respond to my challenge, can you? I'll repeat it-Defend Palin's ignorance of the 1st amendment, in a rational manner without slurs. As Joe Friday said-Just the facts! YOUR PROBLEM IS -YOU CAN'T. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 If it costs $1000 to find out this info, how much does it cost to find out one of the five ways it is going to happen? It still costs less than McCain's top secret method of how to capture/kill Osama Bin Laden. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede316 Posted November 1, 2008 Author Share Posted November 1, 2008 Stand up, Joe!In all seriousness...I wonder if Biden is being paid by the Clinton's to throw this election...Nobody in public office for that long, can be that stupid as to be keep being re-elected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I'm certain of 2 things: 1)Obama knows there are 50 states. just like McCain knows he is no longer a prisoner of war when he addresses his audience as "my fellow prisoners". 2) Sarah Palin doesn't understand the 1st amendment. Getting back to the FACTS, since you bolded & enlarged my point on the 1st amendment-How can you defend Palin's ignorance of the 1st amendment-You can't! http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate...;entry_id=32193 I didn't defend Palin, in fact I cannot because I'm not aware of her comment on the 1st ammendment. Where did you see me defend Palin or Palin's knowledge? Not only would I not support any candidate that doesn't know the constitution inside and out, I would not support any candidate who has any intention other than to uphold every iota of the constitution. That rules out obama. He has openly stated his willingness, possibly his agenda, to change the constitution. What I did was point out the hypocracy of people who have thier noses up their messiah's azz. Let me ask you these questions 1.When you criticize Fox for who they endorse are you suggesting that hussien obama is an astute candidate ? If so how do you justify supporting a candidate who isn't aware of how many states there are? 2. In your opinion ,which is worse a candidate who you claim doesn't know the constitution or a candidate who openly states his willingness and a possible desire to change the constitution? 3. We don't know exactly what obama has in mind when he refers to his willingness to change the constitution of the United States, because he doesn't disclose it. We DO know that he supports measures to interfere with the right to bear arms. That is in violation of the constitution. Can you tell us if YOU are aware of that, and can YOU tell us which ammendment it violates? 4. If you are ok with violating the constitution then why is it so important to you for a VP candidate to know the constitution? That seems hypocritical to me. So could you explain that to us, if that is in fact your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 2. In your opinion ,which is worse a candidate who you claim doesn't know the constitution or a candidate who openly states his willingness and a possible desire to change the constitution? 3. We don't know exactly what obama has in mind when he refers to his willingness to change the constitution of the United States, because he doesn't disclose it. We DO know that he supports measures to interfere with the right to bear arms. That is in violation of the constitution. Can you tell us if YOU are aware of that, and can YOU tell us which ammendment it violates? How can Obama "state his willingness and a possible desire to change the Constitution" without disclosing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 I didn't defend Palin, in fact I cannot because I'm not aware of her comment on the 1st ammendment.Where did you see me defend Palin or Palin's knowledge? Not only would I not support any candidate that doesn't know the constitution inside and out, I would not support any candidate who has any intention other than to uphold every iota of the constitution. That rules out obama. He has openly stated his willingness, possibly his agenda, to change the constitution. What I did was point out the hypocracy of people who have thier noses up their messiah's azz. Let me ask you these questions 1.When you criticize Fox for who they endorse are you suggesting that hussien obama is an astute candidate ? If so how do you justify supporting a candidate who isn't aware of how many states there are? 2. In your opinion ,which is worse a candidate who you claim doesn't know the constitution or a candidate who openly states his willingness and a possible desire to change the constitution? 3. We don't know exactly what obama has in mind when he refers to his willingness to change the constitution of the United States, because he doesn't disclose it. We DO know that he supports measures to interfere with the right to bear arms. That is in violation of the constitution. Can you tell us if YOU are aware of that, and can YOU tell us which ammendment it violates? 4. If you are ok with violating the constitution then why is it so important to you for a VP candidate to know the constitution? That seems hypocritical to me. So could you explain that to us, if that is in fact your position. Ummm, actually bub, the Constitution gets changed all the time. They're called amendments. 17 amendments have been added to the Constitution since the Bill of Rights was written. So a candidate "who openly states his willingness and a possible desire to change the constitution" is not a big deal at all. But inform me, how exactly does Obama plan to alter the Constitution? He's made no statements about it that I'm aware of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 You can't respond to my challenge, can you?I'll repeat it-Defend Palin's ignorance of the 1st amendment, in a rational manner without slurs. As Joe Friday said-Just the facts! YOUR PROBLEM IS -YOU CAN'T. Learn to read before you start name calling you fuc*ing moron of morons. You idiot , you ignorant fool , I never claimed to support Palin, nor did I defend her. You talk about Palin not knowing an ammendment , while at the same time hussien is talking about altering the constitution. I guess that sails right over your empty head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elegantelliotoffen Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Learn to read before you start name calling you fuc*ing moron of morons.You idiot , you ignorant fool , I never claimed to support Palin, nor did I defend her. You talk about Palin not knowing an ammendment , while at the same time hussien is talking about altering the constitution. I guess that sails right over your empty head. Since when can the President unilaterally change the Constitution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Since when can the President unilaterally change the Constitution? Barack's going to break into the national hall of records and scribble new amendments in crayon and then white out the second amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Since when can the President unilaterally change the Constitution? He can't. But it is the president who appoints supreme court justices. Were you aware of that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 By definition Middle Class means above the lower and below the upper. This covers a large range of incomes and cannot be defined by any one income number. Oh, but "rich" can be defined as $200k? Careful, your hypocrisy is showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimmyPage Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 Barack's going to break into the national hall of records and scribble new amendments in crayon and then white out the second amendment. Yet it is these same people who mindlessly claim that George Bush violates the constitution with 'his' patriot act. I think these people are more than a little bit confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 1, 2008 Share Posted November 1, 2008 He can't.But it is the president who appoints supreme court justices. Were you aware of that ? And it's not the Supreme Court justices that approve amendments to the Constitution, it's Congress. The Supreme Court merely interprets the wording of the document. Were you aware of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts