"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
President Obama says he supports the right to build it, but won't
comment on whether or not it should be built.

VOTING PRESENT!! Again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us...er=rss&emc=rss

If I was a betting man, I could be convinced that the President is
tired of being President and is setting himself up for a Party
election defeat in 2010 and a general election defeat in 2012 -
assuming he decides to run again which, maybe, he might not. He can
blame it on all those folks who won't let go of their guns and bibles
and of course, all those racist 'tards who vote Republican.

We could be in for another Lyndon Johnson moment in the near future.

It would fit his MO of being at a job for a little while, then going
on to something different. There ain't much more to go to though
other than President of The World or some such. Maybe Secretary
General of the UN?

Stay tuned.

So, as a stalwart believer in equal rights and freedom of religion, not to
mention States rights to govern themselves, on what legal and ethical
grounds would you suggest he oppose this construction?
When the right wants him (and the fed gov't) to butt out on AZ/ immigration
but throw rocks about the above, all of these arguments lose credibility
with anyone who doesn't have a party ring in their nose.
I'm not pro - Obama, not pro -mosque nor am I pro- open borders, I'm just
anti- bull****, and this has got that meter pegged Tom.
Try to have a better option to vote for in 2012. Someone other than Klondike
Barbie.

mmc wrote:
"W1TEF" wrote in message
...
President Obama says he supports the right to build it, but won't
comment on whether or not it should be built.

VOTING PRESENT!! Again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us...er=rss&emc=rss

If I was a betting man, I could be convinced that the President is
tired of being President and is setting himself up for a Party
election defeat in 2010 and a general election defeat in 2012 -
assuming he decides to run again which, maybe, he might not. He can
blame it on all those folks who won't let go of their guns and bibles
and of course, all those racist 'tards who vote Republican.

We could be in for another Lyndon Johnson moment in the near future.

It would fit his MO of being at a job for a little while, then going
on to something different. There ain't much more to go to though
other than President of The World or some such. Maybe Secretary
General of the UN?

Stay tuned.

So, as a stalwart believer in equal rights and freedom of religion, not to
mention States rights to govern themselves, on what legal and ethical
grounds would you suggest he oppose this construction?
When the right wants him (and the fed gov't) to butt out on AZ/ immigration
but throw rocks about the above, all of these arguments lose credibility
with anyone who doesn't have a party ring in their nose.
I'm not pro - Obama, not pro -mosque nor am I pro- open borders, I'm just
anti- bull****, and this has got that meter pegged Tom.
Try to have a better option to vote for in 2012. Someone other than Klondike
Barbie.


Most time spent talking to wingnuts is wasted.
But they should be given hell when they want to subvert the law or
constitution.
Just offhand, seems to me the libs are prone to subverting the law, the
conservatives to subverting the Constitution.
Pick your poison.

Jim - I don't like Kool-Ade.

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:51:31 -0400, "mmc" wrote:




So, as a stalwart believer in equal rights and freedom of religion, not to
mention States rights to govern themselves, on what legal and ethical
grounds would you suggest he oppose this construction?

the right nuts never tell us on what basis the 1st amendment is
subject to their whims

On 8/15/2010 12:35 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:51:31 -0400, wrote:




So, as a stalwart believer in equal rights and freedom of religion, not to
mention States rights to govern themselves, on what legal and ethical
grounds would you suggest he oppose this construction?

the right nuts never tell us on what basis the 1st amendment is
subject to their whims

First amendment protects you too.

Otherwise if you want to wave your first amendment rights, maybe someone
will sew your mouth **** and take away your keyboard/Internet.
--
Is government working for you, or are you working for the government?

On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:41:16 -0700, Canuck57
wrote:

On 8/15/2010 12:35 PM, bpuharic wrote:
On Sun, 15 Aug 2010 13:51:31 -0400, wrote:




So, as a stalwart believer in equal rights and freedom of religion, not to
mention States rights to govern themselves, on what legal and ethical
grounds would you suggest he oppose this construction?

the right nuts never tell us on what basis the 1st amendment is
subject to their whims

First amendment protects you too.

Otherwise if you want to wave your first amendment rights, maybe someone
will sew your mouth **** and take away your keyboard/Internet.

you seem not to realize that when you right wingers take away others'
rights

you take away your own.

but you're kinda stupid that way