Will be spent mostly playing golf, in between vicious fits of dismantling US constitutional rule and sovereignty...

Of this, i have no doubt.

---

correct, since the republicans seem hellbent on running liberals against liberals, i see no reason to bother voting, myself.

I vote conservative.

If they will ever run one again, i will vote for him.

Although, if he (0bo0) makes good on his promise to "Do away with the second amendment", i do foresee a second American civil war in the next 4 years.

---

correct, since the republicans seem hellbent on running liberals against liberals, i see no reason to bother voting, myself.

I vote conservative.

If they will ever run one again, i will vote for him.

Although, if he (0bo0) makes good on his promise to "Do away with the second amendment", i do foresee a second American civil war in the next 4 years.

And subscribe to NRA scare mongering, unless you have a link to this promise ...

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Obo0's promise to sign the UNODA small arms treaty is an end run around the constitution, which would usurp the second amendment by surrendering the constitutional sovereignty of the United Sates to the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

This is the promise that is referred to. He knows he could never get rid of the amendment through the constitutionally restricted channels allowed him by said constitution.

---

Obo0's promise to sign the UNODA small arms treaty is an end run around the constitution, which would usurp the second amendment by surrendering the constitutional sovereignty of the United Sates to the United Nations.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

This is the promise that is referred to. He knows he could never get rid of the amendment through the constitutionally restricted channels allowed him by said constitution.

And a subscriber to NWO fantasies too. Cool.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I suggest you read that treaty.

---

correct, since the republicans seem hellbent on running liberals against liberals, i see no reason to bother voting, myself.

I vote conservative.

If they will ever run one again, i will vote for him.

Although, if he (0bo0) makes good on his promise to "Do away with the second amendment", i do foresee a second American civil war in the next 4 years.

You think THAT will be the reason? HA HA HA!

Obo0's

His name is Barack h. Obama. His predecessor's name was George W. Bush, not Dubya.

Obo0's

His name is Barack h. Obama. His predecessor's name was George W. Bush, not Dubya.

When did you ever make such a comment to any poster who used the pejorative name "Dubya"?

So, given how politicized the Senate is, that means we may only have 6 justices by the end of 2016.

As many as three SCOTUS judges may retire next term. If he's re-elected next term, he could swing the court to the left by a margin of two. And if that happens, it's virtually guaranteed the second amendment will be made null and void by a string of decisions on smaller cases.

Why should you vote conservative, you don't seem to be one. You sound more like a Guy libertarian from your posts. Come on, make the distinction. I mean I get it, you won't vote for Romney that 'severe conservative', but between Santorum's sharia law and Paul's reasonably pure liberatianism, surely there is a choice you can make.

I vote conservative.

Obo0's

His name is Barack h. Obama. His predecessor's name was George W. Bush, not Dubya.

When did you ever make such a comment to any poster who used the pejorative name "Dubya"?

At the very least, on Posted: 20 Feb 2012 | 17:24:18 UTC.

Obo0's

His name is Barack h. Obama. His predecessor's name was George W. Bush, not Dubya.

When did you ever make such a comment to any poster who used the pejorative name "Dubya"?

At the very least, on Posted: 20 Feb 2012 | 17:24:18 UTC.

My point exactly. That is, by my recollection, the only time. There were lots of posters here who called GWB by that name and worse during his tenure. Isn't it a little disingenuous to point it out only now when someone uses a less-than-flattering term for President Obama?

Perhaps it is partisan -- now you wouldn't engage in partisan name calling yourself, would you? Thought so.

My point exactly. That is, by my recollection, the only time. There were lots of posters here who called GWB by that name and worse during his tenure. Isn't it a little disingenuous to point it out only now when someone uses a less-than-flattering term for President Obama?

Perhaps it is partisan -- now you wouldn't engage in partisan name calling yourself, would you? Thought so.

My point exactly. That is, by my recollection, the only time. There were lots of posters here who called GWB by that name and worse during his tenure. Isn't it a little disingenuous to point it out only now when someone uses a less-than-flattering term for President Obama?

Do you have an example in mind where I engaged in partisan name calling? Much as I disagree with President Obama's policies, I don't call him names . . . and I have never claimed he is "not my President", as so many posters would claim about GWB on these boards.

Since many Pundits consider Oblahblahblah's First Term, The Shrub's Third Term, the Peace Prize Potus will be going for a First Term on Election Day 2012.

I see No Hope for Big Ear's Defeat this coming Election.

NameCallingDullnando

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

OK -- fair enough, only in quote backs then -- and that's not on you.

I agree with the approach, much as I had disagreed with many of Bush's policies, name calling of the President basically demeans the name caller, and so I try not to engage in that regarding the President. In some cases, it may represent the name caller at his most intellectual, more's the pity I suppose.

I do think calling Obama a socialist is more a question of the 'name caller' choosing 'socialist' instead of the six letter word they think of when objecting to him. Obama is more centrist than his party, and in the final analysis the Democratic Party is more centrist than even the 'Third Way' British Labour party.

The political tenor in the US is pretty much center-right, and the two parties are pretty much 'right' and 'center-left'. To the extent folks think of the Democrats as socialist it reflects on the general right-lean here.

Do you have an example in mind where I engaged in partisan name calling? Much as I disagree with President Obama's policies, I don't call him names . . . and I have never claimed he is "not my President", as so many posters would claim about GWB on these boards.

You mean man, who by means of his real estate manipulations, might have been the wealthiest president in the US, or the man who tossed out habeus corpus? Tough choice that. The thing is, we know we lost having the two remembered separately when we chose to have a day for another one of those gosh darn, uppity.... socialists.

(George Washington? Abe Lincoln? Who are they?)