U.S Presidential Elections
- Thread starter Rodzilla
- Start date
- Status
M
Mr Miyagi
Guest
LOL that one has no proof behind it so meh to that one
M
Mr Miyagi
Guest
Haha and the quran to =Plol apparently there's proof somewhere in the bible.
The Christians call him the antichrist what do the muslims call the dude?
Bahaahhaa
Lord Almighty
The Wogerator
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2007
- Messages
- 2,162
- Reaction score
- 0
Hasoon
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,354
- Reaction score
- 0
september 11 was an inside job
lol in all seriousness, even though i am serious above, i think obama is the better of the two evils.
think about it the biggest leader in the world will be black !! he will ride in hummer h2s on 24s not cadillacs, he will replace the presidential wave with WESTSIDE, and wil make a public memorial for tupac and biggie.
lol in all seriousness, even though i am serious above, i think obama is the better of the two evils.
think about it the biggest leader in the world will be black !! he will ride in hummer h2s on 24s not cadillacs, he will replace the presidential wave with WESTSIDE, and wil make a public memorial for tupac and biggie.
Hasoon
Kennel Enthusiast
- Joined
- Nov 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,354
- Reaction score
- 0
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,416
- Reaction score
- 2,711
September 11 1991 G.H.W Bush announces the N.W.O scheme
September 11 is the devils day
September 11 is the devils day
Rodzilla
Terry Lamb 1996
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 42,649
- Reaction score
- 6,191
the nwo started in 96 didnt it?
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,416
- Reaction score
- 2,711
yes but the scheme was announced a lot earlier than that
edit:
hang on a minute Rodzilla you tricked me
not the wrestling nwo you assclown
Rodzilla
Terry Lamb 1996
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2004
- Messages
- 42,649
- Reaction score
- 6,191
~MC~
untouchable
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2005
- Messages
- 3,845
- Reaction score
- 0
I know it's not a free world... but that is technically what they are.
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2004
- Messages
- 22,416
- Reaction score
- 2,711
this world is a monkey cage
Slippery
¯\_( '~')_/¯
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2008
- Messages
- 9,414
- Reaction score
- 41
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Ajm5JTf7jZs&feature=related
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk&feature=related
McCain is a serious dropkick - listen to what he says in the 2nd link.
I don't see how people could've voted for him over there
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=u-R5Vh5tOWk&feature=related
McCain is a serious dropkick - listen to what he says in the 2nd link.
I don't see how people could've voted for him over there
M
Mr Miyagi
Guest
:whacky::whacky::whacky:
Booooommmmm
BootS
Danned
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2005
- Messages
- 6,792
- Reaction score
- 114
A copy and paste for you to read...
Today, attorney Philip Berg disseminated a press release reminding all that, despite the results of Tuesday's election, his lawsuit against now President-elect Barack Obama is alive and well. As it stands now, the United States Supreme Court is awaiting a response which may or may not come from Obama, the DNC and Federal Election Commission by December 1, 2008.
"I look forward," Berg said in the release,"to receiving Defendant Obama's response to the Writ and am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States."
As far as I know, the respondents--Obama, DNC and FEC--are not required to respond, and may decline to do so out of confidence that the Court will simply deny Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court receives approximately 8,000 such petitions each year, and only hears between 70 and 120 or so.
Berg, of course, is hopeful that the court will do the right thing, saying that our constitution hangs in the balance, and requiring the president-elect to submit his information would "avert a constitutional crisis."
Some, like myself, are conflicted. On one hand, Obama received 63 million votes on Tuesday but, on the other hand, if Berg is correct he shouldn't have been there in the first place. On one hand, the time for Berg's line of thinking to be pursued should have been before November 4th so as to avoid mass voter disenfranchisement but, on the other hand, since when have the courts been concerned about voter disenfranchisement? On one hand, the United States Constitution says that Barack Hussein Obama is now president-elect of the United States of America and should be treated as such but, on the other hand, the same document also says that, should Berg be correct, he cannot serve in the position he's slated to attain in January because he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.
To me, as much as I am ready to fight President Obama where he needs to be fought as a conservative, as much as I am willing to let this nation reap what it has sown and learn from it, I still cannot help but go back to the thought that, as a lawyer buddy of mine put it, "the Constitution's criteria for presidential eligibility are not 'suggestions' but instead are mandatory requirements." As much as I know that accepting Barack Obama as my president [elect] is essentially a sign of being a decent American, I do not think it is unfair at all to ask for proof that my president is also an American. In fact, I think it is downright unfair otherwise.
I am conflicted here. I am conflicted because I firmly believe that, should we survive the next four years, Obama's election could actually be a blessing in disguise for America. I am conflicted because I think people in 2012 will not be better off than they were here in 2008, and will know that the democrats in the executive and legislative branches will be solely to blame. I am conflicted because I have no doubt that, properly managed and willing to accept the lessons of 2006 and 2008 that conservatives win elections and moderates do not, the Republican Party will emerge stronger than ever and will lead this country into unparalleled prosperity, as the lesson learned from four years of a socialist president will be a lasting one. Perhaps, in that respect, accepting the result of the election and allowing the democrats and Obama to try and miserably fail, we will actually secure long-term benefit for the country.
Still, to me, the question presented by Berg is warranted and absolutely essential. Barack Obama should present, for independent examination, the "vault" copy of his birth certificate if for no other reason than to put this matter to rest. His failure to provide it does make me believe that he doesn't have it, or that it doesn't say what it should. The best way to receive closure, perhaps, is the most unlikely one -- that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari in this matter. Unfortunately, as the Court doesn't like to get involved in political questions such as this, as the Court would be hesitant under any circumstances to countermand the will of 63 million Americans (give or take a few hundred thousand for ACORN), I don't think it will happen. What we have now, unfortunately, is a widely-accepted "don't ask, don't tell" policy and, with regard to the presidency, that's unacceptable.
Today, attorney Philip Berg disseminated a press release reminding all that, despite the results of Tuesday's election, his lawsuit against now President-elect Barack Obama is alive and well. As it stands now, the United States Supreme Court is awaiting a response which may or may not come from Obama, the DNC and Federal Election Commission by December 1, 2008.
"I look forward," Berg said in the release,"to receiving Defendant Obama's response to the Writ and am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will review Berg v. Obama. I believe Mr. Obama is not a constitutionally-qualified natural-born citizen and is ineligible to assume the office of president of the United States."
As far as I know, the respondents--Obama, DNC and FEC--are not required to respond, and may decline to do so out of confidence that the Court will simply deny Berg's Petition for Writ of Certiorari. The U.S. Supreme Court receives approximately 8,000 such petitions each year, and only hears between 70 and 120 or so.
Berg, of course, is hopeful that the court will do the right thing, saying that our constitution hangs in the balance, and requiring the president-elect to submit his information would "avert a constitutional crisis."
Some, like myself, are conflicted. On one hand, Obama received 63 million votes on Tuesday but, on the other hand, if Berg is correct he shouldn't have been there in the first place. On one hand, the time for Berg's line of thinking to be pursued should have been before November 4th so as to avoid mass voter disenfranchisement but, on the other hand, since when have the courts been concerned about voter disenfranchisement? On one hand, the United States Constitution says that Barack Hussein Obama is now president-elect of the United States of America and should be treated as such but, on the other hand, the same document also says that, should Berg be correct, he cannot serve in the position he's slated to attain in January because he is not a natural-born citizen of the United States.
To me, as much as I am ready to fight President Obama where he needs to be fought as a conservative, as much as I am willing to let this nation reap what it has sown and learn from it, I still cannot help but go back to the thought that, as a lawyer buddy of mine put it, "the Constitution's criteria for presidential eligibility are not 'suggestions' but instead are mandatory requirements." As much as I know that accepting Barack Obama as my president [elect] is essentially a sign of being a decent American, I do not think it is unfair at all to ask for proof that my president is also an American. In fact, I think it is downright unfair otherwise.
I am conflicted here. I am conflicted because I firmly believe that, should we survive the next four years, Obama's election could actually be a blessing in disguise for America. I am conflicted because I think people in 2012 will not be better off than they were here in 2008, and will know that the democrats in the executive and legislative branches will be solely to blame. I am conflicted because I have no doubt that, properly managed and willing to accept the lessons of 2006 and 2008 that conservatives win elections and moderates do not, the Republican Party will emerge stronger than ever and will lead this country into unparalleled prosperity, as the lesson learned from four years of a socialist president will be a lasting one. Perhaps, in that respect, accepting the result of the election and allowing the democrats and Obama to try and miserably fail, we will actually secure long-term benefit for the country.
Still, to me, the question presented by Berg is warranted and absolutely essential. Barack Obama should present, for independent examination, the "vault" copy of his birth certificate if for no other reason than to put this matter to rest. His failure to provide it does make me believe that he doesn't have it, or that it doesn't say what it should. The best way to receive closure, perhaps, is the most unlikely one -- that the U.S. Supreme Court grant certiorari in this matter. Unfortunately, as the Court doesn't like to get involved in political questions such as this, as the Court would be hesitant under any circumstances to countermand the will of 63 million Americans (give or take a few hundred thousand for ACORN), I don't think it will happen. What we have now, unfortunately, is a widely-accepted "don't ask, don't tell" policy and, with regard to the presidency, that's unacceptable.
- Status