First time visitor? Learn more.

Our Constitutional Scholar President Gets His Tuchus Beaten Again By SCOTUS

by Flyovercountry ( 102 Comments › )
Filed under Barack Obama, Democratic Party, Liberal Fascism, Progressives, Socialism, Tranzis at March 22nd, 2012 - 2:00 pm

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

It’s a bad day for a liberal President when even Justice Ginsburg rules against you.  Not only did the Obama Administration fail to convince the court’s only openly Marxist jurist serving on the bench, but they also have to live with the notion that she wrote the concurring opinion.  This case marks the second time during Administration that President Obama has had one of his policies lose in the Supreme Court.  While he is not the first President to find himself on the wrong side of the question of Constitutionality, he is still 0 for 2.  This is not the record we would have expected for a person who was marketed to the country as a, “Constitutional Scholar.”

His first smack down came in January of this year if you will remember, when a 9 to 0 decision said basically that Barack Obama, or any President does not have the authority to tell churches who they could and could not hire based on the religious leanings of the church.  In that case, a Lutheran Church ran a private school, and made the decision to hire as teachers, only those people that they felt would be good role models for passing on the Lutheran message as it pertains to all things educational.  In other words, they wanted their teachers to be Christians, and to pass those beliefs on to their students.  This is what the parents who sent their kids to a Lutheran school wanted, and this is what the owners of the school wanted.  President Obama disagreed.  In Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church Vs. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission, the court decided that a President was not allowed to violate the First Amendment because his ultimate goal is to put an end to the practice of any religion other than Islam in America, nor for any other reason that he might have.

Yesterday’s loss, which makes him Zero for Two, came in the form of Sackett vs. The Environmental Protection Agency.  In this particular case, The EPA decided that they would prevent the Sackett’s from building a house on a piece of property that they owned.  The EPA decided that the property consisted of, or was located on wetlands in Idaho.  Here is where it gets dicey, they did not want to defend their position in court, and decided to dispense with the entire concept of due process.  They thought a good way to do this would be to tell the Sacketts that they thought it was possible that their property was inappropriate to build a house on, and therefore they should stop while the EPA took an indefinite amount of time to consider the matter.  They threatened to fine the Sacketts $35,000 per day for each day the Sacketts defied the order to stop building, and then further threatened to increase the fines to $70,000 per day if the Sacketts challenged them in court.  Nice!  So, for those of you keeping score at home, Little Barry read the Constitution and decided that the Fifth Amendment meant that he could circumvent Due Process by simply declaring that it was possible that a person was doing wrong without ever actually alleging it.  Since the allegation was never actually made, then a fair and speedy trial would never be warranted, regardless of the fact that deprivation of property was ongoing, permanent, and beyond redress.

The Supreme Court yesterday did not agree.  The decision was unanimous, not that the Sacketts could start building, but that due process must be granted.  For those who believe that this decision was limited in scope, and therefore not terribly important, I disagree.  It is a shot across the bow of a President who has been effectively creating law by executive fiat since he lost control of the Legislative Branch in January of 2011.  Things that Obama does are making their way to the Supreme Court in rapid fashion, and I do not believe that to be an accident either.  One other interesting thing to note here, he lost 9 to 0 on this one.  Putting aside any of the idiotic claims that this man is somehow a Constitutional Scholar, in his two trips to the Supreme Court so far, he has a combined score of 18 against, and 0 in favor of himself.  This does not exactly inspire confidence in his understanding of, or even his promise to uphold our founding document.  By writing a concurring opinion, Justice Ginsburg, the farthest left member of the court basically told the man child President that he has gone too far.  Removing Due Process prior to deprivation of Life, Liberty, or Property is the stuff that monarchs do to their subjects.  This is not something Presidents do to their fellow citizens.

The bad news for President Obama is that this is not going to be his last trip to the Supreme Court.  On Monday, he gets to go again, and this one will be a dozy.

Cross Posted at Musings of a Mad Conservative.

Tags: ,

Comments

Comments and respectful debate are both welcome and encouraged.

Comments are the sole opinion of the comment writer, just as each thread posted is the sole opinion or post idea of the administrator that posted it or of the readers that have written guest posts for the Blogmocracy.

Obscene, abusive, or annoying remarks may be deleted or moved to spam for admin review, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their content by any other commenter or the admins of this Blogmocracy.

We're not easily offended and don't want people to think they have to walk on eggshells around here (like at another place that shall remain nameless) but of course, there is a limit to everything.

Play nice!

102 Responses to “Our Constitutional Scholar President Gets His Tuchus Beaten Again By SCOTUS”
( jump to bottom )

  1. buzzsawmonkey
    1 | March 22, 2012 2:10 pm

    The problem is that our system of government gives the Executive Branch control over all of the actual agencies that enforce the law, so the actual enforcement is all in the hands of agencies run by Barack Obama, many of them also under the equally-lawless Eric Holder.

    Brilliant as the Founders were, they did not for a minute anticipate that the American people would elevate to the highest office in the land someone so lawless as to be willing to wholly disregard laws passed by the Congress, including laws he himself had signed, and court orders from the judiciary. Nor did they anticipate a Congress so lopsided and ideologically blind as to be willing to confirm an overtly revanchist Marxist racist as attorney general.


  2. MikeA
    2 | March 22, 2012 2:17 pm

    Its not his fault. The problem is the SCOTUS isn’t reading the Consitution correctly. Only the great scholar, the Zero, can tell us what our rights are and correctly interpret what those old dead white guys meant….


  3. Bumr50
    3 | March 22, 2012 2:18 pm

    @ MikeA:

    Damn negative rights…

    //


  4. Bumr50
    4 | March 22, 2012 2:23 pm

    @ MikeA:

    They didn’t buy the “correct edition….”

    ///


  5. 5 | March 22, 2012 2:23 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Spot on!


  6. 6 | March 22, 2012 2:37 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    It was simply assumed that anyone seeking the Presidency would be a patriot. That we would elect someone who loathes this country and wishes nothing more than to bring it down never even occured to them.


  7. waldensianspirit
    7 | March 22, 2012 2:38 pm

    Print and spend. Obama still wins


  8. waldensianspirit
    8 | March 22, 2012 2:39 pm

    Jeb Bush: Romney should pick Sen. Rubio as running mate

    ht weaselzippers


  9. Bumr50
    9 | March 22, 2012 2:44 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Which brings us to the stunning and deliberately cultivated ignorance and indoctrination of the American populace via academia and media.


  10. 10 | March 22, 2012 2:56 pm

    Let’s all hope we hit the TRIFECTA with the Obamacare decision.


  11. 11 | March 22, 2012 2:59 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    I don’t think that will happen. The nativist wing of the GOP will bolt since they are claiming he’s not “natural born”. Since the GOP has catered to these trashy scumbags, they will not pick Rubio or Martinez knowing these people will sit home. Romney will pick the Governor of Virginia.


  12. 12 | March 22, 2012 3:00 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    I hope so as well. I hope the SCOTUS remebers how the Pharaoh insulted them 2 years ago in the SOTU speech.


  13. 13 | March 22, 2012 3:02 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    The nativist wing of the GOP will bolt since they are claiming he’s not “natural born”.

    Sorry, I’m calling bullshit on that. You may get the Ron Paul “Libertarians” screaming that, but the base would be just fine with Rubio as VP. Then if Romney would promise to die, we might generate a little enthusiasm.


  14. waldensianspirit
    14 | March 22, 2012 3:02 pm

    @ Rodan:
    I think it is Rubio’s best interest to stay clear of the coming Romney mess. Be ready to primary leading a massive new Tea Party types


  15. Formercorpsman
    15 | March 22, 2012 3:02 pm

    I will say this is probably one of the better results of the Bush Presidency, although we did have to put up a fight with his Miers nomination. From all outward appearances, we did much better getting Alito in the end.

    Crucial.


  16. Bumr50
    16 | March 22, 2012 3:03 pm

    @ Rodan:

    I’d rather he pick their AG.


  17. 17 | March 22, 2012 3:05 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    I agree with you there. Romney may want Rubio, but I can’t see why Rubio would want to be associated with Romney. Especially after the way John McCain’s people treated Sarah Palin. There is a history of the Establishment types picking a non-Establishmentarian and then hanging them out to dry…


  18. 18 | March 22, 2012 3:07 pm

    Have you guys seen this one yet.


  19. 19 | March 22, 2012 3:13 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    Most of the base would. But there is a segment that would sit home. Those are the ones calling him an anchor baby, Batista worm, invader and that he’s not natural born. Just check out the comments section at Hot Air and you will see them. They are not Paulians.

    That said, I think Susana Martinez would be a better VP choice. She’s in the Southwest and not just Hispanic, but a female Hispanic. Putting her on the ticket means the GOP wins New Mexico, Nevada and Colorado. Since Romney is from the Northeast, picking Rubio would make it an all East Coast ticket. You need geographic balance.


  20. buzzsawmonkey
    20 | March 22, 2012 3:14 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    If the Republican electorate decides to come up to Romney’s place to look at his Etch-a-Sketchings, will he respect them in the morning?


  21. 21 | March 22, 2012 3:14 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    I don’t think Rubio would want a VP spot.


  22. 22 | March 22, 2012 3:16 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Which brings us to the stunning and deliberately cultivated ignorance and indoctrination of the American populace via academia and media.

    Academia: Va. middle-schoolers assigned opposition research on GOP candidates
    Media: Kill Rush Limbaugh


  23. 23 | March 22, 2012 3:19 pm

    @ Rodan:

    I wouldn’t if I were him. I think Romney may have some difficulty coming up with a VP candidate. He just doesn’t generate any enthusiasm, anywhere. He may not understand what a drag that is on his candidacy, but he may have trouble finding a VP who is equally clueless…


  24. Bumr50
    24 | March 22, 2012 3:20 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Something is wrong at Hot Air, then.

    I’ve never gone there except when sent via link, and I’ve never liked the crowd. I’m not a fan of Ed Morrisey.

    Birds of a feather flock together.

    There are a**holes in every party, but I visit A LOT of conservative sites, and have never seen that type of language or disrespect towards Se. Rubio except from passing trolls.


  25. waldensianspirit
    25 | March 22, 2012 3:21 pm

    @ Rancher:
    Child labors laws resist, we MUCH – we must and we will much about that be committed


  26. buzzsawmonkey
    26 | March 22, 2012 3:22 pm

    Iron Fist wrote:

    I think Romney may have some difficulty coming up with a VP candidate. He just doesn’t generate any enthusiasm, anywhere. He may not understand what a drag that is on his candidacy, but he may have trouble finding a VP who is equally clueless…

    Look at how cranky Palooka John McCain got when his VP pick generated more enthusiasm than he did.


  27. 27 | March 22, 2012 3:22 pm

    @ Iron Fist:

    He might opick Pawlenty. Yeah that would really excite the Right!
    ///

    In all seriousness, he need geographic balance. Susana Martinez or Bobby Jindal would be the perfect choices.

    He better not pick Chris Christie, because that would be a disaster. I can’t vote for a gun grabber and Muslim Brotherhood lover.


  28. buzzsawmonkey
    28 | March 22, 2012 3:24 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    He might opick Pawlenty. Yeah that would really excite the Right!

    It would get rid of the problem of vote fraud, though, since the electorate would turn to stone from sheer boredom.


  29. 29 | March 22, 2012 3:25 pm

    @ Bumr50:

    There are a**holes in every party, but I visit A LOT of conservative sites, and have never seen that type of language or disrespect towards Se. Rubio except from passing trolls.

    The Blaze and Daily Caller are just as bad. When the talk of Puerto Rican statehood came up, the comments at Hot Air really sent me on the edge. They were talking about throwing Ricans in Camps, nuking Puerto Rico and calling them welfare roaches.


  30. 30 | March 22, 2012 3:26 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    Ha ha ha!

    Hey picking Pawlenty maybe the Dems would be so bore, the GOP would win by default!


  31. Bumr50
    31 | March 22, 2012 3:27 pm

    @ Rodan:

    The Blaze is full of Beck sycophants.

    I don’t visit there or Drudge anymore. And I never cared for HotAir.


  32. waldensianspirit
    33 | March 22, 2012 3:29 pm

    @ Rodan:
    The Blaze is Beck’s crowd right?

    I’m starting to be not surprised


  33. Bumr50
    34 | March 22, 2012 3:30 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Most places won’t tolerate that (mods or posters) and so the places that DO probably end up full of a**holes, simply because they have no other places to go and get comfy there.


  34. buzzsawmonkey
    35 | March 22, 2012 3:32 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    sycophants.

    “Sick-o-phants?” Mentally unstable Republicans?


  35. 36 | March 22, 2012 3:32 pm

    @ Rodan:

    I would love for Puerto Rico to become a state. Haven’t the Puerto Ricans themselves voted against it each and every time the issue has come up?


  36. buzzsawmonkey
    37 | March 22, 2012 3:33 pm

    Bumr50 wrote:

    Most places won’t tolerate that (mods or posters)

    Rockers, you mean—mods and rockers

    ///


  37. 38 | March 22, 2012 3:34 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Yes, very narrowly and who can blame them. They don’t pay Federal Income tax! You know how many States would vote to become Commonwealths!

    :lol:


  38. Bumr50
    39 | March 22, 2012 3:34 pm

    @ waldensianspirit:

    Before the Illinois primary, I’d begun encountering Mormons at several sites trying to play the religion card on me.


  39. 40 | March 22, 2012 3:34 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    this crowd may be a little young for the Quadrophenia reference, much as I liked that movie.


  40. waldensianspirit
    41 | March 22, 2012 3:35 pm

    @ Bumr50:
    There is much to come out of the wood work yet. Just like Obama’s world


  41. Bumr50
    42 | March 22, 2012 3:36 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Thanks.

    I’ve never been a huge Who fan (take it or leave it), despite having a preference for British rock from that time period.


  42. 43 | March 22, 2012 3:36 pm

    @ Rodan:

    Just out of curiosity, what are your thoughts? Puerto Rico could instantly replace Hawaii as the top vacation destination in the U.S., should they accept state hood. They could become that anyhow.


  43. 44 | March 22, 2012 3:37 pm

    @ Rodan:
    Total of two birthers, Dante and Emperor Norton. Everyone else is trying to make them see facts although they are failing.


  44. buzzsawmonkey
    45 | March 22, 2012 3:39 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    this crowd may be a little young for the Quadrophenia reference, much as I liked that movie.

    I wasn’t thinking of the film. Mods and rockers used to fight each other like “jocks” and “greasers” in American high schools—though sometimes a little more deadly. The Beatles/Rolling Stones rivalry had a mod/rocker element to it; I figured with all the musical sophisticates here it would be a pretty clear reference.


  45. buzzsawmonkey
    46 | March 22, 2012 3:42 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    Puerto Rico could instantly replace Hawaii as the top vacation destination in the U.S., should they accept state hood.

    My two co-counsel in Puerto Rico in a case a few years ago were—are still, I suppose—both Communists. One was telling me in one breath how welfare had ruined the island—but he still wanted more of it.

    My time was spent in San Juan. Some really beautiful houses there which date from the Fifties-modern period—very angular and lots of glass—and they were all enclosed in cages, literal cages, to ensure the safety of the people living in them.


  46. 47 | March 22, 2012 3:42 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    I am for Statehood. Puerto Ricans serves proportionally in the Military higher than any other part of the US except Texas. So they have earned their right to become Americans .The Republicans have a 2/3 majority in their legislature, so I am all for it.
    The one big problem is their crime. They really have a crime issue because PR is used as a staging ground to bring drugs into the States. SO maybe a transition period where we help them get their crime under control. Once that happens and it becomes a state, I can see it as an East Coast vacation spot.


  47. 48 | March 22, 2012 3:43 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    It looks how like Miami looked like before the Condo boom in the 2000′s.


  48. 49 | March 22, 2012 3:45 pm

    @ Rancher:

    Social Justice is another clown.


  49. buzzsawmonkey
    50 | March 22, 2012 3:46 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    It looks how like Miami looked like before the Condo boom in the 2000′s.

    I don’t remember caged houses in Miami in the mid-’70s.


  50. 51 | March 22, 2012 3:46 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Bumr50 wrote:
    Most places won’t tolerate that (mods or posters)
    Rockers, you mean—mods and rockers…
    ///

    No were Mockers… -Ringo Starr-


  51. 52 | March 22, 2012 3:46 pm

    Last time I checked Puerto Rico was pretty much split with a third wanting statehood, a third not, and a third that likes things the way they are. That was some years ago though, things might have changed. If forced to choose or be cut loose I think they would choose statehood.


  52. buzzsawmonkey
  53. 54 | March 22, 2012 3:49 pm

    Somethings make you go… Hmmmmm, other thing make you go…. WTF…………. This is of the latter variety.

    Video: Obama says we’re producing too much oil and gas


  54. Bumr50
    55 | March 22, 2012 3:49 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    I like their last chart!


  55. 56 | March 22, 2012 3:50 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    @ Rodan:

    The negatives that both of you have so expertly pointed out are nothing more than the issues faced by most of America’s urban areas. Think Detroit. Puerto Rico, should they decide to become a state, which by the way was a right they earned in 1898 by becoming, against their will, an U.S. territory, could easily overcome those social problems by simply allowing the free market principles to take hold. With her gorgeous beaches, the crystal clear water of the Caribbean, and her relative proximity to the largest part of the contiguous 48′s population, it would take the Puerto Rican economy roughly 15 minutes to take her place as one of the strongest state economies in the nation. That alone would go a long way towards solving any of the social ills confronting her. The down side of course for Puerto Rico, is that she would be saddled with Democrats being in charge 4 out of every 20 years.


  56. 57 | March 22, 2012 3:50 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    The one big problem is their crime.

    They need better border control although who doesn’t? It’s an important issue since the governor is claiming it’s a back door entry for terrorists.


  57. 58 | March 22, 2012 3:53 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    You have got to be joking. That’s the onion?


  58. 59 | March 22, 2012 3:54 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    Puerto Rico, should they decide to become a state, which by the way was a right they earned in 1898 by becoming, against their will, an U.S. territory,

    Hmmm, same year that certain American citizens illegally toppled the Hawaiian Monarchy and illegally made Hawaii a US Territory.


  59. 60 | March 22, 2012 3:54 pm

    @ Rancher:

    Right now its 45-45 with 10% undecided.


  60. 61 | March 22, 2012 3:55 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    You have got to be joking. That’s the onion?

    No, that is not the Onion that was Obama today in Oklahoma.


  61. 62 | March 22, 2012 3:56 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    I agree, Gov. Fortuno is turning PR around and bringing in business. Becoming a state will bring in more.


  62. 64 | March 22, 2012 3:56 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    I really don’t know what to say. He just outright lies and gets away with it.


  63. 65 | March 22, 2012 3:57 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    He must be back on the coke…


  64. 66 | March 22, 2012 3:58 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Flyovercountry:
    I agree, Gov. Fortuno is turning PR around and bringing in business. Becoming a state will bring in more.

    Personally I think the decision should be up to the citizens of Puerto Rico and anyone who isn’t a citizen of Puerto Rico should STFD and STFU.


  65. buzzsawmonkey
    67 | March 22, 2012 3:59 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    Obama: Drilling “Every Inch” of U.S. Would Not Cut Gas Prices…

    Maybe it’s time to dust off my old “Battle of New Oil-Leans”


  66. waldensianspirit
    68 | March 22, 2012 3:59 pm

    But every inch a solar panel and his cronies would be uber rich


  67. 69 | March 22, 2012 3:59 pm

    @ Rancher:

    PR has a coastline, so the drug traffickers could easily drop stuff. This proves the futility of the drug war.


  68. 70 | March 22, 2012 4:01 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Personally I think the decision should be up to the citizens of Puerto Rico and anyone who isn’t a citizen of Puerto Rico should STFD and STFU.

    You mean resident, not citizen! I agree, it should be up to the people living there.


  69. 71 | March 22, 2012 4:02 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Rancher:
    PR has a coastline, so the drug traffickers could easily drop stuff. This proves the futility of the drug war.

    No, it just proves the futility of how the drug war is fought. Make it a capital offense to bring illegal narcotics into America and to sell them and then actually execute anyone caught doing either and the problem goes away. It’s exactly what your hero Pinochet did.


  70. 72 | March 22, 2012 4:03 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    Personally I think the decision should be up to the citizens of Puerto Rico and anyone who isn’t a citizen of Puerto Rico should STFD and STFU.
    You mean resident, not citizen! I agree, it should be up to the people living there.

    No I do not mean Resident. I mean if you weren’t born there and lived there full time, STFD and STFU you get no say.


  71. waldensianspirit
    73 | March 22, 2012 4:03 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:
    :lol: I didn’t see that the first time so I benefit now


  72. 74 | March 22, 2012 4:04 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Flyovercountry:
    I agree, Gov. Fortuno is turning PR around and bringing in business. Becoming a state will bring in more.

    Personally I think the decision should be up to the citizens of Puerto Rico and anyone who isn’t a citizen of Puerto Rico should STFD and STFU.

    I agree whole heartedly, but that does not mean that I can’t root for one outcome over another. I personally believe that both the U.S. and the citizens of Puerto Rico would benefit from this move, with the only negative being that it would represent an irrevocable move for the latter should they choose to go ahead with it. That being said, imagine the economic boon for the entirety of the nation that this would represent.


  73. buzzsawmonkey
    75 | March 22, 2012 4:04 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    No, it just proves the futility of how the drug war is fought. Make it a capital offense to bring illegal narcotics into America and to sell them and then actually execute anyone caught doing either and the problem goes away. It’s exactly what your hero Pinochet did.

    Or, legalize the drugs but as soon as someone goes on ‘em you implant a “Logan’s Run”-style timer in their hand and they have to go on Carousel in five years.


  74. 76 | March 22, 2012 4:09 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Pinochet focused on killing Communists and Socialists. Plus I support what he did in the context of Latin politics. We are discussing American politics.

    How about we ban alcohol and kill people who smuggle in alcohol? Who would you rather deal with a drunk or someone high on weed.


  75. 77 | March 22, 2012 4:09 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    No I do not mean Resident. I mean if you weren’t born there and lived there full time, STFD and STFU you get no say.

    There are no citizens of Puerto Rico. They are American citizens, so you mean residents.


  76. 78 | March 22, 2012 4:10 pm

    waldensianspirit wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    Obama: Drilling “Every Inch” of U.S. Would Not Cut Gas Prices…

    The tool believes his BS that we only have 2% of the world’s reserves. “World’s reserves” means oil Obama will let us drill for, the actual oil in the ground would last us a hundred years.


  77. 79 | March 22, 2012 4:13 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ Carolina Girl:
    I hope so as well. I hope the SCOTUS remebers how the Pharaoh insulted them 2 years ago in the SOTU speech.

    Also wanted to say HI to everyone -- I an ensconced in discovery for a case at work and haven’t had a chance to come up for air or even read comments and all the topics have been GOOD, dammit!

    On topic -- Rodan, I think the four originalists will definitely vote our way, and the fact that Anthony Kennedy has stated that he will not retire while the Divine Dufus is President is telling us a lot. Has Kennedy voted with the Libturd Gang of Four to make a five majority since the SOTU dustup?


  78. 80 | March 22, 2012 4:13 pm

    Rodan wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    No I do not mean Resident. I mean if you weren’t born there and lived there full time, STFD and STFU you get no say.
    There are no citizens of Puerto Rico. They are American citizens, so you mean residents.

    No I don’t mean Residents, that’s how Hawaii got roped into the US, by America citizens moving to Hawaii and becoming residents who then illegally overthrew the Hawaiian Monarchy and suppressed the Hawaiian natives vote and illegally made Hawaii a Territory. Perhaps the term I am looking for is Native Born Puerto Rican.


  79. 81 | March 22, 2012 4:15 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Has Kennedy voted with the Libturd Gang of Four to make a five majority since the SOTU dustup?

    Nope, all decisions have been 5-4 in the Conservative favor. SO there is hope.


  80. waldensianspirit
    82 | March 22, 2012 4:16 pm


  81. 83 | March 22, 2012 4:18 pm

    @ Rancher:

    Let us suppose for one minute that this statement were true. So what? Even if we had not one drop of oil here in America, so what? Oil is purchased, from what ever source, and something constructive is done with it. America, thanks to its efficient use of oil is able to feed most of the rest of the world, invent and produce rubber, plastic, tar, polyester, and many other worthwhile things. Our usage of oil has employed and created wealth around the world, allowed for our doctors to travel and cure diseases in many nations where public health is no where near our own standards.

    God Bless the Oil Industry, and God Bless Big Oil. God save us from self righteous arrogant dolts who happen to swindle their way into the White House!


  82. buzzsawmonkey
    84 | March 22, 2012 4:21 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    Even if we had not one drop of oil here in America, so what?

    Precisely. We buy all sorts of things from all sorts of places; that is what markets are all about.


  83. 85 | March 22, 2012 4:27 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    Flyovercountry wrote:
    Even if we had not one drop of oil here in America, so what?
    Precisely. We buy all sorts of things from all sorts of places; that is what markets are all about.

    But but but…. Markets are EEEEVVVVIIILLLL…. Off to the reeducation camp with you buzz… “twisted:


  84. 86 | March 22, 2012 4:29 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    O.K., now I’m jealous, I wanna go the the reeducation camp too.


  85. 87 | March 22, 2012 4:31 pm

    OK… I’m going to have to take a nap now, I had a 1.5lb Angus Top sirloin steak and a Giant Portobello Mushroom for lunch and I need to save up my energy for when PETA shows up to protest me, Though to be honest I’m not sure which they are going to be more pissed off about, my eating the Angus, or their relative. :twisted:


  86. buzzsawmonkey
    88 | March 22, 2012 4:32 pm

    doriangrey wrote:

    But but but…. Markets are EEEEVVVVIIILLLL….

    Hey, we buy silk from China, whores from Thailand, wives from Russia, wine from France. We import tomatoes, clementines, and stoop labor from Mexico. We buy computer technology from Israel.

    Why shouldn’t we buy oil from seventh-century throwbacks?


  87. 89 | March 22, 2012 4:33 pm

    Flyovercountry wrote:

    @ doriangrey:
    O.K., now I’m jealous, I wanna go the the reeducation camp too.

    ROTFLMAO… Oh I am sure somebody in the Obamanation Administration is working on that even as we text… :twisted:


  88. 90 | March 22, 2012 4:34 pm

    buzzsawmonkey wrote:

    doriangrey wrote:
    But but but…. Markets are EEEEVVVVIIILLLL….
    Hey, we buy silk from China, whores from Thailand, wives from Russia, wine from France. We import tomatoes, clementines, and stoop labor from Mexico. We buy computer technology from Israel.
    Why shouldn’t we buy oil from seventh-century throwbacks?

    Because buying it from them is like eating Chinese food or drinking lite beer? It doesn’t fill you up and leaves you hungry and unsatisfied an hour later?


  89. 91 | March 22, 2012 4:38 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    Besides, their ugly, they stink and they like to fuck farm animals.


  90. 92 | March 22, 2012 4:40 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    :lol: !


  91. 93 | March 22, 2012 4:41 pm

    @ buzzsawmonkey:

    :lol:

    OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!


  92. m
    94 | March 22, 2012 4:48 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    I wouldn’t worry about it. You’re prolly already on the list!!!


  93. 95 | March 22, 2012 5:11 pm

    @ m:

    We all are!


  94. 96 | March 22, 2012 5:12 pm

    New Thread.


  95. 97 | March 22, 2012 5:32 pm

    @ doriangrey:

    hey Chinese food kicks ass!


  96. 98 | March 22, 2012 5:32 pm

    @ Flyovercountry:

    Go to LGF!


  97. 99 | March 22, 2012 5:33 pm

    @ Carolina Girl:

    Discovery, I would love for someone to sue Charles.


  98. 100 | March 22, 2012 5:33 pm

    @ Rancher:

    Obama is an asshole.


  99. fultonchain
    101 | March 23, 2012 12:19 pm

    I’m a little late to the party, but you guys know that the Sackett case started in 2005, don’t you? I’m pretty sure Obama (or his current EPA people) didn’t have much to do with it.


  100. 102 | March 23, 2012 3:35 pm

    @ fultonchain:

    It’s great to hear from you Mr. Chain. Yes the case started in 2005, and I had that pointed out to me. However, President Obama took enough of an interest in the case, and so agreed with the EPA, that he sent his Solicitor General to the Supreme Court to help argue the case. His White House has used the full resources of the American Tax Payer to keep the Sacketts houseless in Idaho, since he landed in Washington as President.


Back to the Top

The Blogmocracy

website design was Built By David