I pray Hussein is a one term wonder

7/7/2009 9:43:24 PM

HUSSEIN!!!!!!

7/7/2009 10:28:09 PM

I sure hope Hussein doesn't do anything like the bay of pigs in Iran, we have no idea what would happen if the US interfered in Iran.

Quote :

" Republican18 All American 15915 Posts Quote : "Hey - what if the United States clandestinely supported the resistance movement in Iran? We don't have to invade - we just need to arm the revolutionaries! Then we'd have a legitimate, stable, pro-US government in Iran and no American casualties. How could it go wrong? " Bay of Pigs 7/5/2009 7:12:36 PM spöokyjon You do realize that was a specific reference to the cause of the problems in Iran to be begin with, right?"

[Edited on July 7, 2009 at 10:37 PM. Reason : /]

7/7/2009 10:36:40 PM

Quote :

"oh, trust me, democrats would find a way to ignore the new Constitution "

But not those honorable Republicans, right?

^^^^ he's probably going to go for a second term

It'd be really sad if Bush can get 2 terms, but Obama can't.

I think Obama's relatively high profile though is going to work against him.

[Edited on July 7, 2009 at 10:38 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2009 10:37:17 PM

Quote :

"With that I was more or less referring to adding additional restrictions on what, specifically, the government is not permitted to do... and essentially adding provisions to ensure that it is actually followed in practice"

1. I think that all but the most die-hard, capital-"L" Libertarians would agree that more restrictions are not needed. Per the Constitution, the Feds aren't really permitted to do that much--simply following the rules that've been in place for a couple hundred years would be quite sufficient, and in my mind, they would even need to be relaxed and modified in a few places to work well in today's world. The problem is that we haven't kept up with the times in terms of updating the Constitution, electing instead to just ignore it. Now we're in a place where it would be very difficult to abide by it.

All of that said, adding provisions to "ensure that it is actually followed in practice" is the dumbest thing I've read since...well, your previous comment that I took issue with. What would make these new provisions any different from the ones that are already in place that we've simply ignored?

Quote :

"But not those honorable Republicans, right?"

The GOP has been awfully guilty, especially for the last, ohh, 15 years, no doubt. I, along with many others, have largely stopped voting for them, partly as a result of those transgressions. That said, the Democratic Party is the home of the "living document" school of thought, which is simply a euphamism for sticking dick to the Constitution and rule of law, because you've already decided what you're going to do regardless of whether it's legal or not. As bad as the GOP is, subverting the law of the land is pretty central to the Democratic Party's platform and raison d'etre.

[Edited on July 7, 2009 at 10:54 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2009 10:46:49 PM

so i guess palin is REALLY out now huh?

7/7/2009 11:59:12 PM

Quote :

"The GOP has been awfully guilty, especially for the last, ohh, 15 years, no doubt. I, along with many others, have largely stopped voting for them, partly as a result of those transgressions. That said, the Democratic Party is the home of the "living document" school of thought, which is simply a euphamism for sticking dick to the Constitution and rule of law, because you've already decided what you're going to do regardless of whether it's legal or not. As bad as the GOP is, subverting the law of the land is pretty central to the Democratic Party's platform and raison d'etre."

I don't think the "living document" school of thought is exclusive to the Democratic Party. There was was pretty messed up stuff (3/5ths compromise) in the original constitution and people have been keeping it "alive" for a while, democrat or not (because it needed it). Calling the constitution a "living document" should in no way be pejorative.

And you could argue that a politicians reason for being is to stomp on the constitution under the guise of being "law makers." The constitution does give them a lot of power, after all, to practically do this.

I really don't perceive Democrats as being the ones set out to change the constitution any more or less than Republicans.The Republicans stomp on civil rights while the democrats might encroach on what people view as economic freedoms.

7/8/2009 12:07:17 AM

Quote :

"There was was pretty messed up stuff (3/5ths compromise) in the original constitution and people have been keeping it "alive" for a while"

I don't know what this means. Are you talking about the constitutional process of interpreting and modifying the law via legislation, amendments and the judicial process? Or are you talking about the paradigm of thought that the Constitution is, in many respects, outdated and that in legislation and judicial rulings, we should try to interpret what our founding fathers would have wanted if they lived today?

[Edited on July 8, 2009 at 12:50 AM. Reason : 2]

7/8/2009 12:49:32 AM

Was there a difference in the two options you just presented? Is there a logical fallacy called false unichotomy?

7/8/2009 1:04:32 AM

The difference is that the former treats the Constitution as the law and final word while allowing for modification of it only through the amendment process, while the latter is an ideology that an evolving interpretation is necessary, and that the constitution may continually edited and updated by judges based on what the founding fathers likely "would have wanted".

In other words, one is espoused by the conservatives on the supreme court, and the other is the ideology of the liberals.

Moron cited a part of the Constitution (3/5ths rule) that was fucked up. We fixed that through the 13th amendment, as opposed to any judge deciding that the 3/5ths rule was immoral and should be eliminated. Maybe you should pick a better example if you want to argue that the Constitution has been treated as a "living document" by both parties.




[Edited on July 8, 2009 at 1:25 AM. Reason : 2]

7/8/2009 1:18:34 AM

I see. Do you know what the difference between common law and civil law is and do you know what kind of system we have?

7/8/2009 1:34:34 AM

yes

7/8/2009 1:42:35 AM

Quote :

"the "living document" school of thought, which is simply a euphamism for sticking dick to the Constitution and rule of law, because you've already decided what you're going to do regardless of whether it's legal or not."

Our founding fathers were pretty big fans of the "living document" concept, actually. Where did the Constitution allow Washington to establish a national bank? Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts? Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase?

The Constitution was written by lawyers. They could've been much more specific about how to interpret the document, but they intentionally weren't. Shoot-- I even looked up a quote for you. Edmund Randolph-- the guy Washington chose to be our first Attorney General, stated this on the record about the Constitutional Convention's purpose:

Quote :

"To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accomodated to times and events"

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/print_documents/preambles7.html


I take issue with the moral high ground you've planted yourself on. Constitutional debates necessarily arise over vague language and circumstances that couldn't have been anticipated in 1789-- who are you to claim the "original" interpretation, when there is none?

7/8/2009 1:50:55 AM

^^Great, then you know we are a common law system and that common law means that all laws are given meaning through built-up judicial interpretation. This is opposed to a bunch of other crappy countries that have civil law, where they can only apply exactly what their legal codes say.

7/8/2009 2:08:30 AM

Quote :

"All of that said, adding provisions to "ensure that it is actually followed in practice" is the dumbest thing I've read since...well, your previous comment that I took issue with. What would make these new provisions any different from the ones that are already in place that we've simply ignored?"

For example... some system by which a lawmaker is put on trial when proposing a bill that would increase government power: If the courts find the action within the bounds of the constitution, the congressperson goes free. If not, they are jailed and a new representative is elected/some vice-representative steps up. (such a provision would of course require changes to other parts of the system, such as including that vice-representatives be elected, and deferring some of the other duties of the supreme court that they would have more time to try congressmen, among a lot of other things)

Then again this particular idea is too extreme to implement and mostly just comes from my general disdain towards politicians... and it would make things incredibly slow-moving and probably quite ineffective at war-time. And it would still fade out once the supreme court justices also started ignoring the constitution... Like I said, that specific proposal is purely hypothetical and not an ideal solution by any means.


Anyway, my point is, the nature of politicians is to be power-hungry, ego-driven, and selfish... so if there exists some way to ensure for as long as possible (until the courts also stop caring) that they are put at great personal risk when trying to increase government power, it would help ensure that the Constitution is followed in practice. They might even actually have to believe in what they do instead of just half-assing the job along their party's standard platform.

Then again the whole idea is damned pointless, since modern politicians are never going to revamp the Constitution in a way that brings significant risk to themselves.

7/8/2009 3:38:41 AM

Quote :

"Our founding fathers were pretty big fans of the "living document" concept, actually. Where did the Constitution allow Washington to establish a national bank? Adams and the Alien and Sedition Acts? Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase?"

So basically, "Person X did something unconstitutional on face. Therefore, the text of Constitution is irrelevant."

That's going to be your case? Ohhhhh kay.

Quote :

"To insert essential principles only; lest the operations of government should be clogged by rendering those provisions permanent and unalterable, which ought to be accomodated to times and events"

I fail to see how this interpretation contradicts the textualist view in favor of an expansionist one. The Constitution lays out particular principles - such as enumerated powers of each branch, with strict separations, and amazingly enough, even a process to accommodate changes in the need for the legal framework: the amendment process.

Once again, if it's so dire that the structure of the government needs to change - such as its essential purpose, structure, and powers, why exactly should we forgo the amendment process?

Quote :

"For example... some system by which a lawmaker is put on trial when proposing a bill that would increase government power: If the courts find the action within the bounds of the constitution, the congressperson goes free. If not, they are jailed and a new representative is elected/some vice-representative steps up."

This is an awful idea. The practical implications notwithstanding, it blatantly violates the Speech & Debate clause of the (current) Constitution.

It's one thing to hold legislators accountable for how their bills hold up to legal scrutiny, but actively subjecting them trial and removal blatantly violates both the law and two centuries of precedent.

7/8/2009 7:16:03 AM

Quote :

"So basically, "Person X did something unconstitutional on face. Therefore, the text of Constitution is irrelevant.""

It wasn't unconstitutional (at least in Washington and Jefferson's case). That's the whole point.

Quote :

"Once again, if it's so dire that the structure of the government needs to change - such as its essential purpose, structure, and powers, why exactly should we forgo the amendment process?"

Why didn't Washington get an amendment allowing Hamilton to set up the bank? Because establishing the bank was within the principles laid out within the Constitution. Why go through a difficult amendment process when it wasn't necessary? The language allowing for it was already there.

Our founding fathers clearly followed this line of thought. The federal government did a lot of changing between the ratification of the Constitution and the Civil War, yet they only passed two amendments-- and one was only a procedural change.

Why is it that when the country was still being run by its founders and the sons of its founders, there was an 80-year amendment drought? You're claiming that the founding fathers intended the only source of Constitutional flexibility to be the amendment process. That view doesn't jibe with history.

Quote :

"Once again, if it's so dire that the structure of the government needs to change"

That's the core of the issue. If you take a rational, historical view of the Constitution, the structure of the government hasn't moved beyond the bounds of the Constitution.

7/8/2009 10:04:37 AM

Quote :

"sad the dems last hope was a half negro muslim Christian? if obama can win romney surely could win"

FIFY

The main reasons I would support Ron Paul are his stance on illegal immigration and, given his ideas about the gold standard, perhaps he would take control of, rein in, or eliminate the Fed. I'm more worried about the fact that no matter who's in power, the bankers always seem to be making or influencing the decisions that matter.

Why do we have to get so caught up with Republican vs. Democrats? They're all politicians.

Republican (noun): A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the.. Democrat (noun): who wishes to replace them with others.
--Ambrose Bierce
[Slightly Adapted]

[Edited on July 8, 2009 at 12:12 PM. Reason : Bierce not Pierce]

7/8/2009 12:11:32 PM

Quote :

"It wasn't unconstitutional (at least in Washington and Jefferson's case). That's the whole point."

Based upon whose interpretation? Yours? The fact that they went effectively unchallenged before the nascent Supreme Court? Enlighten us, here.

Or, better yet, tell us how the Alien and Sedition Acts were not brutally unconstitutional. I'm dying to hear this one.

Simply because the early American government was imperfect in living up to the Constitution doesn't mean it's not there, or that certain principles aren't quite clear.

Quote :

"Why didn't Washington get an amendment allowing Hamilton to set up the bank? Because establishing the bank was within the principles laid out within the Constitution. Why go through a difficult amendment process when it wasn't necessary? The language allowing for it was already there."

Which language? Do enlighten us. Or, perhaps it's because, like many actions that occurred very early on, there was little established precedent for actually challenging the Constitutionality of acts.

Meanwhile, the Constitutionality of Hamilton's bank was hardly the settled matter you make it out to be - its legality was an acrimonious dispute, even at the time. Your cherry-picking of facts is rather obnoxious, here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Bank_of_the_United_States#Opposition

Quote :

"Our founding fathers clearly followed this line of thought. The federal government did a lot of changing between the ratification of the Constitution and the Civil War, yet they only passed two amendments-- and one was only a procedural change."

Other than the Bank, which was Constitutionally contentious, and the Louisiana Purchase, upon which at least a tenuous Constitutional argument could be made, what other radical changes to the scope of the Federal Government are you pointing to exactly to make your case?

Once again, you appear to be cherry-picking and playing fast and loose with your facts.

Quote :

"Why is it that when the country was still being run by its founders and the sons of its founders, there was an 80-year amendment drought? You're claiming that the founding fathers intended the only source of Constitutional flexibility to be the amendment process. That view doesn't jibe with history."

They intended the structure of the government, in terms of its enumerated powers and operations, to be fairly stable, and act within a constrained set of parameters, of which would be changed by an amendment process. They expected the laws themselves, which the government promulgates, to evolve with circumstances, which they did, and hence left the execution of enumerated powers more open - i.e., the necessary and proper clause.

Again, I ask you to specifically point out what structural changes to the Federal Government occurred which A) Claimed new powers not previously enumerated, or otherwise not claimed to be in execution of enumerated powers or B) Altered the structure of the government itself.

7/8/2009 6:13:59 PM

Quote :

"Based upon whose interpretation? Yours?"

Washington and Hamilton's, too. If we're going to claim that they didn't understand the Constitution, then we might as well throw originalism out the window.

Quote :

"Or, better yet, tell us how the Alien and Sedition Acts were not brutally unconstitutional. I'm dying to hear this one."

It's a scenario which would have hopefully benefited from judicial review, if it had been established at the time. But then again, with Schenck v. US and Korematsu v. US, who knows? I'm not defending it. I am stating that it's clear Adams was taking a broad interpretation of the Constitution-- just like all the other founding fathers did. He just took it too far at a time when there wasn't an "established precedent for actually challenging the Constitutionality of acts."

Don't you think it'd be a little odd for the framers of the Constitution to begin betraying their intent from the moment they signed the document? In you and Scalia's mind, this is what happened. In everyone else's mind, there's no incongruity between pre- and post-Constitution founding fathers.

Quote :

"Meanwhile, the Constitutionality of Hamilton's bank was hardly the settled matter you make it out to be - its legality was an acrimonious dispute, even at the time."

The fact that the bank was somewhat constitutionally iffy bolsters my argument. It was a debate over the constitutionality of a bill involving Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson-- if the outcome of this debate wasn't authoritative, then I don't know what is. And what happened? It was passed via the elastic clause. Without an amendment allowing for it? Impossible.

Quote :

"what other radical changes to the scope of the Federal Government are you pointing to exactly to make your case?"

Judicial Review, Jefferson's embargo, Jackson's rejection of nullification, banning slavery in the territories/states (yes, there was eventually an amendment-- but only after 75 years of legislation and a war settled the issue), Indian removal, the institutionalization of the party system, the annexation of Texas, Clay's American System. I imagine I could look up a few more.

Quote :

"They intended the structure of the government, in terms of its enumerated powers and operations, to be fairly stable, and act within a constrained set of parameters"

Exactly. And nothing they did during the 80-year amendment drought in which plenty was done to change the federal government violated this principle.

Quote :

"Again, I ask you to specifically point out what structural changes to the Federal Government occurred which A) Claimed new powers not previously enumerated, or otherwise not claimed to be in execution of enumerated powers or B) Altered the structure of the government itself."

Aww, shucks. You backpeddled before you even hit "post reply!" Not claimed to be in execution of enumerated powers? That's the whole point! All of what you incorrectly view as unconstitutional, everyone else considers to be covered under the elastic clause. I wouldn't defend anything that wasn't.

[Edited on July 9, 2009 at 2:06 AM. Reason : ]

7/9/2009 2:02:21 AM

My vote goes for Arizona state Senator Sylvia Allen:

Quote :

"The Earth has been here 6,000 years, long before anybody had environmental laws, and somehow it hasn’t been done away with."

7/9/2009 12:41:06 PM

Quote :

"Washington and Hamilton's, too. If we're going to claim that they didn't understand the Constitution, then we might as well throw originalism out the window."

So James Madison, John Jay, and others don't count? Glad to see we have such a selective view of history, now.

Quote :

"Don't you think it'd be a little odd for the framers of the Constitution to begin betraying their intent from the moment they signed the document? In you and Scalia's mind, this is what happened. In everyone else's mind, there's no incongruity between pre- and post-Constitution founding fathers."

Unfortunately for you and your ego (and fortunately for the rest of us), the world does not revolve around your opinions alone. Simply because you want to claim "everyone else agrees with me" doesn't make it so - especially in light of the fact that everybody doesn't.

Meanwhile, it doesn't occur to you in the slightest that people who had little experience running a government, particularly one they created whole cloth, would make errors and run afoul of their own provided limitations on their power when pushed, particularly by party politics? (I refer specifically back to the Alien and Sedition Acts, something which may be considered the most gross example of this phenomenon). Particularly given the lack of a strong check upon unconstitutional actions?

Look, if there's one thing that the Founding Fathers were, it was human. And if you look back to some of the more Constitutionally contentious actions, we see enormous pressures of faction and politics pushing on one side with very little pushback in terms of maintaining Constitutionality. But instead of even admitting the possibility of human nature triumphing over principles in the absence of a strong checking mechanism, we are instead to believe that the limits that supposedly were put into place never meant anything all along.

Seems like a lot of time was wasted then even writing the thing if everyone just "agreed" from the outset that those limits were simply advisory.

Quote :

"The fact that the bank was somewhat constitutionally iffy bolsters my argument. It was a debate over the constitutionality of a bill involving Washington, Hamilton, Madison, and Jefferson-- if the outcome of this debate wasn't authoritative, then I don't know what is. And what happened? It was passed via the elastic clause. Without an amendment allowing for it? Impossible."

So George Washington and Alexander Hamilton are the only, final authority on the Constitution, then. Let's ignore the multitude of dissenting voices who argued it was flatly outside the scope of Federal powers - like Jefferson and Madison. Let's ignore the fact that even Hamilton had to push it on the barest of grounds - that it was in service of the Federal Government's power to coin money and pay debts.

Hey I know, why don't I ignore historically relevant facts to make the argument that my views are the only correct ones, then claim the fact that I ignore these facts as a sign that my argument is surely authoritative! There's a really winner of an argument, there.

Quote :

"Judicial Review, Jefferson's embargo, Jackson's rejection of nullification, banning slavery in the territories/states (yes, there was eventually an amendment-- but only after 75 years of legislation and a war settled the issue), Indian removal, the institutionalization of the party system, the annexation of Texas, Clay's American System. I imagine I could look up a few more."

1. An odd duck that was somewhat self-created by the Court and left in place. But fine, let's grant this one since it was so historically odd.
2. Article I, Section 8: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes" - Embargo Act was passed by Congress.
3. Supremacy Clause.
4. Accomplished by political maneuvering over the admission of states into the union, and well within the scope of Congress' powers to control the admission of states.
5. Fair question, but also hardly one of our more shining moments to begin with. The fact that it went unchallenged only makes it more unjustified.
6. Completely irrelevant. No constitutional question whatsoever: freedom of assembly.
7. Admission of states and the precedent set by the Louisiana Purchase. Power to make treaties with foreign nations (this one being the Republic of Texas).
8. Power to lay tariffs on goods is there. My recollection is that the ostensible justification for internal improvements was a stretch on the "post roads" clause. Constitutionally questionable.

So you've got, what? 3 of 8, if we're being generous here? Of varying magnitude? (Judicial review obviously being the biggest.) Kind of a shotgun approach to the matter if you ask me.

Quote :

"Exactly. And nothing they did during the 80-year amendment drought in which plenty was done to change the federal government violated this principle."

Whether or not they were truly faithful to the clause is another debate, which there is obvious disagreement on (whether you choose to acknowledge it or not), dating back to when the ink hadn't even dried.

Quote :

"Aww, shucks. You backpeddled before you even hit "post reply!" Not claimed to be in execution of enumerated powers? That's the whole point! All of what you incorrectly view as unconstitutional, everyone else considers to be covered under the elastic clause. I wouldn't defend anything that wasn't."

This statement here tells me that you don't even understand the debate. I fully acknowledge the existence of the Elastic Clause - as did even Madison, in the Federalist Papers. Hamilton may have abused the hell out of it, but I'm not going around pretending it isn't there. What I am insisting upon is that we actually make use of tying things back to the service of an enumerated power, instead of simply pretending powers aren't even enumerated to begin with, as you are wont to do.

7/9/2009 6:27:11 PM

Now that Stanford is out in SC, maybe the state will take Colbert a little more seriously this time around.

7/14/2009 8:10:57 AM

per WaPo yesterday, Haley Barbour is the new, competent face of the party, which scares people b/c he's a white southern dude who used to be a lobbyist. in other words, he's a sacrificial lamb.

7/20/2009 2:46:17 PM

thats a big fucking lamb

i hate that man

7/20/2009 3:09:36 PM

then Mittens it is!

7/20/2009 3:23:12 PM

They're really scraping the bottom of the barrel, it seems.

He reminds be of Boss Hogg.

7/20/2009 3:51:57 PM

hes not the face of my party, and i think the majority of republicans will agree

7/20/2009 3:53:24 PM

Quote :

"the majority of republicans will agree"

That statement wouldn't be true if it were in regard to the color of the sky.

7/20/2009 3:55:07 PM

Quote :

"Hes not the face of my party, and i think the majority of republicans will agree"

And yet, put him on the ballot next to someone with a "D" after their name and look how fast you'll squirm out of your prior denunciations to vote for him.

Seriously, the fact that Republicans still came out to vote for McCain and Palin generally proves the point that you assholes will scarf down any bucket of shit placed in front of you. At least spare us the hand-wringing over it.

7/20/2009 5:58:34 PM

damned if you do, damned if you dont

7/20/2009 6:09:49 PM

Quote :

"Seriously, the fact that Republicans still came out to vote for McCain and Palin generally proves the point that you assholes will scarf down any bucket of shit placed in front of you. At least spare us the hand-wringing over it."

correct me if i'm wrong, but didn't your party of choice pick someone that most hardcore libertarian-4-lifers thought was a sack of shit too?

the only way people would get to vote for their ideal candidate is if everyone in America ran and voted for themselves.

7/21/2009 8:54:14 PM

I'm guessing you voted for Kerry in '04. Just throwing that one out there.

7/21/2009 9:05:05 PM

actually i was an actual honest-to-god green party member in '04 and i voted for david cobb, who i had the pleasure to meet once.

did you vote for barr?

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 9:10 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2009 9:10:06 PM

Begrudgingly. It was actually a remarkably difficult decision - my final reasoning was more about ballot access than Barr; I was very close to simply skipping that line entirely. I didn't volunteer or donate any money, which, despite Badnarik's bona fide kookiness back in '04 (hell, I'll cop to that), I did (although I'm not sure I would again now that I'm older).

To put another spin on it - I was pretty enthusiastic about Ron Paul at first. I still like him in that he has a good track record on civil liberties and limited government. But honest to God I am tired as shit about hearing about the Fed, and I seriously would not see myself contributing in any way (time or money) to any future campaign, given the fact that he squandered all of his political capital on what amounts to an academic matter compared to the war in Iraq, civil liberties, etc. It's incredibly frustrating.

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 9:17 PM. Reason : Ron Paul]

7/21/2009 9:14:18 PM

i've def. grown up since 2004...but i'll prob. never drop my belief that the gov. has to be active in some ways in the economy, even if that is to revert back to its more police-like role of the TR years as opposed to the welfare state role.

that said, with regards to this thread, the GOP's only shot is to throw a long bomb w/ a guy who will contrast well and get attention. that guy will be romney, but only because he will once again morph himself into "that guy"...b/c he is a massive tool.

[Edited on July 21, 2009 at 9:20 PM. Reason : .]

7/21/2009 9:19:47 PM

Quote :

"b/c he is a massive tool."

And that I can agree with you upon whole-heartedly. What a douche.

7/21/2009 9:21:19 PM

if mitt romney ran today, it would be 45% obama and 45% romney

dont have the link but this was said on cnn, which is not conservative by any means

7/21/2009 9:50:59 PM

With the remaining ten percent voting for Romney's magic underpants.

7/21/2009 11:01:31 PM

i hope its romney

7/22/2009 1:08:11 AM

Romney couldn't beat Obama.

7/22/2009 1:30:18 AM

MAGIC

MOTHERFUCKING

UNDERPANTS

7/22/2009 8:59:09 AM

They might as stay home in 2012 if this keeps up:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V1nmn2zRMc

For those who want to avoid cringing, a Republican congressman is assailed for insisting that Obama is an American citizen. His explanation is drowned out by the audience yelling the pledge of allegiance.


And now Liz Cheney is sympathetic to the birther movement:

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/07/22/liz-cheney-speaks-out-in-defense-of-birther-movement/



The GOP is running interference on itself.

7/23/2009 10:18:04 AM

that chick needs to be smacked.

7/23/2009 10:31:12 AM