We need four more years of his brilliance:
"So, in one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it."
Just wondering, do you agree with the assertions therein or do you just like the ideological tone?
Posted by: Roch Smith, Jr. | 03/30/2012 at 12:36 PM
Just wondering . . .
What's wrong, Mr.-WeeWee-On-GSO-Area-Bloggers-Not-Meeting-His-Ideological-Approval?
Does the article/Sam's post not meet your "minimum standard of communicative quality"?
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | 03/30/2012 at 02:09 PM
The assertions are actually facts, so I suppose that it would appropriate to agree with them. Looks as though the SC is about to reject the government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy. Perhaps, we are not a statist nation yet.
Posted by: Stormy | 03/30/2012 at 08:31 PM
"The assertions are actually facts"
Not in the minds of the perpetually alternately clued.
Brainiac probably thinks nothing is a fact until he gives his stamp of approval.
Posted by: bubba | 03/30/2012 at 08:53 PM
Does anyone know whether or not it is true that Roch is the Telephone Outreach Director for Brave New Foundation?
Posted by: Stormy | 03/30/2012 at 09:03 PM
Just wondering, Sam, do you agree with the assertions therein?
Posted by: Roch Smith, Jr. | 04/02/2012 at 01:08 PM
Spag, Obama was probably just attempting another reset with the Republic of Vladimir.
I'd like to reset Dave Reutimann' chin after what happened yesterday at Marty.
Posted by: Harold | 04/02/2012 at 03:29 PM
I thought tat Hilliary gave them the reset button three years ago? In any evenly, I am not comforted by an American president cuddling up to the Russians, while holding our traditional friends in contempt. That does not mean good things for this country.
Posted by: Stormy | 04/02/2012 at 08:20 PM
On a related note, have you seen His Majesty's latest absurdity?
"And I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,"
This guy claims to be a professor of Constitutional law?
Posted by: bubba | 04/02/2012 at 09:28 PM
Yeah, I think they are pretty accurate, some hyperbole aside. He was whispering to the Russians, he did legitimize and stoke racial animosity by getting involved in the Martin case and implying a racial motive when we don't know what really happened yet or why, his understanding of the limitations of the Commerce Clause appears to have been rebuked, and his budget was rejected.
Anything I'm leaving out ?
Posted by: Spag | 04/02/2012 at 09:45 PM
You think Russia is our enemy? You think Obama incited a race war? Do you think what was voted on was Obama's budget?
Yeah, you are leaving something out. Which of these assertions do you agree with?
Posted by: Roch Smith, Jr. | 04/03/2012 at 03:23 PM
"his understanding of the limitations of the Commerce Clause appears to have been rebuked"
By whom?
Posted by: Roch Smith, Jr. | 04/03/2012 at 03:24 PM
"By whom?"
No, by what: 209 years of jurisprudence since Marbury v. Madison, and the ability to limit or overturn Wickard v. Filburn, and the 70 year joyride of abuse of the Commerce Clause.
Such a decision is NOT "unprecedented", like Roe v. Wade was.
Posted by: bubba | 04/03/2012 at 04:57 PM
Roch has reading comprehension problems. I explained my position already, but like everything else, if Roch does not agree then I must be wrong or lying or stupid.
Posted by: Spag | 04/03/2012 at 09:36 PM
Yes, I have reading comprehension problems. I don't know why you have to be so mean about it. I don't know why you would mock me instead of helping me. While I'm sure you and everyone else here is clear on what in the quotation you consider accurate and what you consider hyperbole, I remain with no idea whether you think Russia is our enemy, Obama incited a race war and if what the House voted down was, in actuality, Obama's budget.
Please, Mr. Spagnola, don't mock my shortcomings and help me with straight answers that even I can understand. Are those things hyperbole or facts in your mind?
Posted by: Roch Smith, Jr. | 04/04/2012 at 09:37 AM
"his understanding of the limitations of the Commerce Clause appears to have been rebuked"
By whom?
Posted by: Roch Smith, Jr. | 04/04/2012 at 09:38 AM
At times like this, I find it best not to laugh at people's alternate realities, as evidenced in the preceding comment.
It just pisses them off, and makes them think they have some sort of permission to harass you on the internet.
Posted by: bubba | 04/04/2012 at 09:41 AM