Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Great New Ad Skewers Obama Arrogance in Rating Himself the 4th Best President Ever Video
Freedom's Lighthouse ^ | December 22, 2011 | Brian

Posted on 12/22/2011 3:04:51 PM PST by Federalist Patriot

Now this is a great ad from American Crossroads! Let’s hope we see a 30-second or 1-minute version of this playing in 2012 during the General Election Campaign.

It uses Obama’s own words against him, where he recently decreed himself to be essentially the fourth best President in the history of the United States in terms of his accomplishments! There’s nothing like the ego of “The One.”

(Excerpt) Read more at freedomslighthouse.net ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: ad; arrogance; obama
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-269 next last
To: CharacterCounts

Yes, the US government had the right to put down insurrection. This had happened previously, with Governor Lee of Virginia putting down insurrection in Pennsylvania, and Colonel Lee, the former’s son, putting down insurrection in Virginia.

Secession, the legal leaving of a state could occur by federal amendment certainly, or perhaps by legislation, or by federal court case with supreme court as original venue.

Successful rebellion could occur in theory, and be legitimized by treaty after the war. That is what happened in the American Revolution, but to do that, you have to win your rebellion. the Slave Power didn’t meet that standard.


181 posted on 01/01/2012 12:15:59 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Yaelle

Pres GW Bush laid out 16 reasons. If you can’t read them, that isn’t his problem.


182 posted on 01/01/2012 12:17:43 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
I contrast your state court ruling

So... you're for the return of fugitive slaves??

Texas v. White, which ruled that secession, as practiced by the states in the rebellion, was illegal

Was it not that same high court that ruled for the murder of unborn children? Against private property rights? Reversed itself more times than you've changed wives? Thought so...

183 posted on 01/01/2012 1:55:32 PM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

Glad you agree with my reading of Texas v. White.


184 posted on 01/01/2012 2:21:38 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
OK, Mr. "I demand the facts or you shut up" tell us the date of the 10th Amendment's repeal.

de facto - in practice but not necessarily ordained by law or in practice or actuality, but not officially established

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit is it.

The de facto repeal of the 10th Amendment occurred on April 9, 1865.

185 posted on 01/02/2012 5:38:31 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Rather the south illegally pretended secession so they could further slavery.

That's a ridiculous statement. Secession was real, unlike your pretend gods and your pretend marriages to close family members. Second, if the South simply wanted to continue slavery they could have stayed in the union, where slavery was protected.

186 posted on 01/02/2012 5:50:24 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; rockrr; BroJoeK
So cowboy: what is your flavor of religion?

I'm Christian, you heathen, which, according to you, means I'm a pagan. But lets ask some your your comrades in The Coven if they stand by you in that assertion:

Hey punkrr, brojoke, do you agree with squeaker here that Christianity is a pagan religion?

187 posted on 01/02/2012 5:54:41 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Insurrection is not the same as secession. And nowhere in the Constitution is there a requirement for an amendment, or court proceeding for a state to withdraw from the Union.


188 posted on 01/02/2012 6:37:47 AM PST by CharacterCounts (November 4, 2008 - the day America drank the Kool-Aid)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
Lincoln didn’t pursue a legal case after the south started shooting.

Of course he didn't. He had his war and that was his goal. I think it's interesting the way you pretend conservative, neo-yank, False Cause Losers gloat over the power of the central government. Like lincoln, FDR, Clinton, Obama, you abhor states sovereignty and states rights.

Then their legal case, (Texas v. White) was lost too.

A pretend court case with a pretend decision.

Chase's comments on secession was what is known as dicta: "A comment by a judge in a decision or ruling which is not required to reach the decision, but may state a related legal principle as the judge understands it. While it may be cited in legal argument, it does not have the full force of a precedent."--from Law.com

There was no argument, debate or rebuttal about the issue of secession in Texas v White. It cannot be said that the issue of secession was 'decided' when a very partisan judge, who should have recused himself considering his involvement in lincoln's illegal war, took the occasion of this court case to insert his opinion on a question that was not argued before the court.

Texas v White: the holy grail of the neo-yank False Cause Losers and a travesty of a court case.

189 posted on 01/02/2012 7:23:21 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

Nor is there a place where the power of secession is returned to the states from the Articles of Confederation.

Pretending that that power had been returned doesn’t make it so.

If there was a controversy over whether the power had been returned, the states were bound to settle it in court, rather than with gunfire by Article 3 of the constitution.

By not doing so, the southern states were in rebellion, which is insurrection.

As you know, but it blows holes in your argument, so you will never be honest enough to admit it.

Instead, in the past you have lied, claiming for any state, or for the people of a single state, the general 10th amendment powers that are reserved to the states (plural) and the people.

Don’t expect you have gotten more honest. Surprise me.


190 posted on 01/02/2012 8:03:29 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway

The south could have stayed in the Union, and their domestic institutions, unjust as they were, would have been safe. But they didn’t want that. They wanted to further and extend slavery, with an intent to go to war as necessary to take Arizona Territory, and perhaps Cuba. To do that they needed Virginia, and so they started a war with the US to bring in Virginia. And only a few years after insurrection in Virginia had been put down, they flipped and claimed no federal power to put down insurrection.

Good thing they were stopped. They guessed wrong on Lincoln.


191 posted on 01/02/2012 8:10:02 PM PST by donmeaker (e is trancendental)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
cowboyway: "Hey punkrr, brojoke, do you agree with squeaker here that Christianity is a pagan religion?"

Definition of "pagan":

  1. heathen 1; especially: a follower of a polytheistic religion (as in ancient Rome)
  2. one who has little or no religion and who delights in sensual pleasures and material goods : an irreligious or hedonistic person.

Origin of PAGAN:

There is no definition of "pagan" that applies to Christianity.

192 posted on 01/03/2012 4:09:43 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: cowboyway
cowboyway: "The de facto repeal of the 10th Amendment occurred on April 9, 1865."

The 10th Amendment was never repealed, de facto or de jure.
Today it is more honored in the breach than in observance, but the reason is not Lincoln.
The reason is that states are far too eager to feed at the Federal money trough, for them to object to any conditions Big Government might put on taking its "free goodies".

Before states can enforce the 10th Amendment, they must first be willing to turn down Federal "free money".
Do you know of any who routinely do that?

193 posted on 01/03/2012 4:34:31 AM PST by BroJoeK (a little historical perspective....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

More pretend history from the king of the neo-yank False Cause Losers..........


194 posted on 01/03/2012 8:49:20 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
The 10th Amendment was never repealed, de facto or de jure

The power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by amendments to the Constitution following lincoln's illegal war and the states became legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government; hence the de facto repeal of the Tenth Amendment.

Today it is more honored in the breach than in observance

That would be, in effect, a de facto repeal.

but the reason is not Lincoln.

Most honest historians will disagree with you:

In 1831, long before the War between the States, South Carolina Senator John C. Calhoun said, "Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." The War between the States answered that question and produced the foundation for the kind of government we have today: consolidated and absolute, based on the unrestrained will of the majority, with force, threats, and intimidation being the order of the day.

Lincoln did not fight the bloodiest war of the nineteenth century, against his own people and at a cost of 620,000 American lives, to free the slaves. He fought it to set a precedent of federal supremacy over the states. And in the process turned his apparent belief that the ends justify the means into federal dogma.

The reason is that states are far too eager to feed at the Federal money trough, for them to object to any conditions Big Government might put on taking its "free goodies".

The real reason is lincoln's consolidated and absolute government.

Before states can enforce the 10th Amendment, they must first be willing to turn down Federal "free money". Do you know of any who routinely do that?

How can they when they're under the thumb of lincoln's consolidated and absolute government?

195 posted on 01/03/2012 9:46:35 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK
There is no definition of "pagan" that applies to Christianity.

Your comrade, donsqueaker, disagrees with you.

196 posted on 01/03/2012 9:48:22 AM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker; cowboyway; southernsunshine

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GypxbfNiu1U


197 posted on 01/03/2012 11:57:48 AM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: BroJoeK; lentulusgracchus; Georgia Girl 2; central_va; rustbucket; nathanbedford; ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2sVBmSWlhw


198 posted on 01/03/2012 12:46:31 PM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts; ml/nj; cowboyway; BroJoeK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJA4HLWez7Q


199 posted on 01/03/2012 1:15:47 PM PST by Idabilly (Tailpipes poppin, radios rockin, Country Boy Can Survive.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Idabilly

disHonest Abe, guilty of treason, as charged!


200 posted on 01/03/2012 1:25:05 PM PST by cowboyway (Molon labe : Deo Vindice : "Rebellion is always an option!!"--Jim Robinson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 161-180181-200201-220 ... 261-269 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson