ie, if Obama's character was put into evidence (fair enough, obviously) would a Judge permit his association with Jeremiah Wright in for consideration by a jury?

What about Clinton's Boznia sniper fire?

McCain's Keating five?

I have already been put on record as saying all 3 are unworthy.
Bu$h is the worst president in my life time and I suspect any one of those 3 POS will be worse. :rolleyes:

What is the basis of that opinion? I think they would all do a decent job.

None of the 3 have not read, understand or give a damn about the Constitution of the United States of America.
All 3 are Globalist that seek to undermine the sovereignty of our Nation.
Just me but I am a American.
I don`t give a shit about the Middle East, Africa, South America, Europe or Asia.
The only thing that matters to me is the welfare of the people of The United States of America.
One way or another all 3 have something other than the best interest American at heart.
I don`t want socialism, fascism or any combination of the two and I damn sure don`t want us dictated to under the auspices of the United Nations in a NWO.

Am I clear?

You're a fuckin' idiot.

Obama was editor of Harvard Law review and FREAKIN' TAUGHT con law at Chicago Law School.

Just because he doesn't share your interpretation of the document doesn't mean he doesn't know a HELLUVA lot more than I could ever dream . . . and I'm a lawyer . . . who took Con Law . . . and has read the Constitution.

That`s what all liberal (commies) say when they lose an argument..
Owned!!!!

How sad is it that these are the issues of the 2008 election?

Not which candidate is going to address the energy crisis that's going to destroy the nation.

Not which candidate will stop the imperialistic military expansion of the United States and use that money at home where it belongs.

Not which candidate is going to secure our border.

But whether or not Obama shares the same brand of insanity as the pastor he listened to for 20 years (duh), whether Hillary is a liar (duh), and whether McCain is crooked (duh).

Hillary certainly lies.

I'm not sure if McCain is crooked, or is proper that the appearance of impropriety is ok with him because everyone knows he wouldn't take advantage of a situation. "Yes, they paid me. Yes, I voted for them. But of course, I would have voted for them anyway." Sincerely, I'm not sure which it is with him . . .

I don't think Obama is crazy.

Baiting doesn't do any good on this board . . .

Look . . . you said Obama has not read the constitution . . .

By any objective standard, when you make that allegation about someone who was Editor of Harvard Law Review and taught Con Law at a law school, that pretty much proves you are a fuckin' idiot.

Back on topic.

I'd say Hillary's Boznia comments would definately be admisable. She presented her "version" of the incident, which can be refuted by every other human within 5 miles of the incident.

McCain's possible involvement in corruption is a no braininer.

Obama's connection to Wright is trickier. Is it just a character witness type of thing? Or are we trying to prove he actually shares Wrights beliefs.

I don't either. But you have to admit that the connection between him and Wright can be made. You don't sit in front of someone and listen to them if you disagree with them on some core values.

I do think Wright has shifed into overcrazy in the last 2 months, which is making Obama's previous relationship with him look worse.

It actually proves he don`t give a shit about the Constitution.

HM, you`r dismissed as a cock sucker that beats a little drum, a small minded homo, one man band playing only one song, who has a man crush on a presidental hopeful.
Excuse the fuck out of me if I don`t care to march to that beat.

Hillary's would come in because you can impeach people with a lie.

McCain's Keating 5 deal would probably be kept out because it was so long ago. Although I think the rule in Ga. these days is that a felony conviction can be brought in no matter how long and it's up to the Jury to determine the weight of it's importance.

The Wright thing is interesting . . . Is it relevent? How? To show he's a racist? no way.
But what about JUDGMENT? In that regard, it's pretty slim. You'd have to show just what Obama was there for or what he knew.

But even if it were relevent, does it's prejudicial effect out weigh it's probative value?

I think the answer there is HELL YES it does! Obviously, it's prejudicial effect is devastating.

And it's probative value? . . . Well. . . .

I guess it would be fine so long as every SOB who says "The issue is what kind of judgment Obama has . . . . he may have called things right on the invasion of Iraq, but why'd he stick with that bigot Wright?"

Has anyone said that yet? Which is more probative in terms of selecting a President?

I may be dismissed as a cock sucker that beats a little drum, a small minded homo, one man band playing only one song, who has a man crush on a presidental hopefu (Damn, it's like you are INSIDE my HEAD!!!)

But I didn't say Barack Obama had never read the U.S. Constitution.

So how does it feel to be schooled by a cock sucker that beats a little drum, a small minded homo, one man band playing only one song, who has a man crush on a presidental hopeful?

WOW Moses do you call people idiots who do not agree with your brand of politics in everyday life..Why all the hate for people who think differently and come to different choices? You are just proving what a fucking dick you are with this Obama nutthugging! 67hhers56

I'm sorry . . . what would you call someone who claimed Barack Obama had never read the Constitution?

I respect well reasoned conservative arguments and am happy to engage in spirited dialogue with those who express them.

But I'll call a spade a spade in a heartbeat.

Since we are looking at this as a court of law, in my mind, Obama's relationship with Wright would probably not be admissible.

However, Obama's own words in the last debate has convicted him in my mind. When he admitted that he would raise capital gains taxes even with the knowledge that it would decrease revenue just for the sake of "being fair", that gave more more insight into his mind and how he thinks than any crazy sermon from Wright.


Hillary is an unscrupulous liar, we all know that.

All 3 represent the status quo. They will not stand up to the wreckless spending of Congress, they will not address the looming energy crisis, and they will continue allow unchecked illegal immigration.


I find them all to be guilty of being unsuitable for the presidency.

And none of them has any workable plan to solve the other looming crisis - SS and Medicare.

The entire role of our government seems to be propping up and ever larger falling house with an ever increasing number of ever smaller bandaids. We never look at the root cause of these problems and fix them, we just patch it up to keep the bloat rolling along until it's the next guy's problem.

I just can't vote for that anymore.

Goes to her truthfulness as a witness since she lied about it - admissible.

P.S., it's "material" to the "case" because she lied about it in the campaign for political purposes.

Not really. Is it character evidence? If so, it is not a felony conviction, so it doesn't get an automatic stamp of admissibility there. Is it evidence of reputation? Doesn't seem to be -- it's just a slander by association, and I don't think McCain has a "reputation" in the general community of being involved in corruption (the word "possible" in your statement should hint at this, BTW). The one thing I can see that might POSSIBLY get it in is if McCain lied about his involvement. Otherwise, it smells of "past bad acts," and would probably be inadmissible.

Again, unless you can use it to impeach based on some lie Obama told about the association, I don't see this ever seeing light of day in a courtroom. It's just guilt by association.

nr6

So you would like to defend BlackTalon's assertion that Obama has never read the Constitution?

Please, explain to us why we should believe the claim that Obama never read the Constitution despite teaching Con Law at U. of Chicago's Law School for nearly ten years.

This should be fun...

To be fair, while HM is not a dick, that Duckettplease guy was a GINORMOUS asshole :flame:

Agreed. RSA_Linkster is also a first-class asshole.

I think either one of the three is an upgrade from Bush.

Clearly wrong.

We have to CARE about the rest of the world. They outnumber us by far, and their actions can easily effect our lives.

Isolationism is just dumb.

That's what you 5% anarchists say when liberals pwn your arse in an argument.

Down a tad the last couple of days . . .
RCP:
1738 1601
287 needed
40.4% of total remaining

CNN
291 needed
1734 1597
40.5%

Are you lost, fkface? :P

Is this like an open, all comers election? Suppose Hilliary would be power hungry and vindictive enough to take a third party nomination into the GE? Now that would be some fun.

You wish! lol

It won't happen.

Did I say that? Clearly he was being a smartass!

Everytime I read RSA Linkster I feel like dancing! 7imt78

Havent candidates turned to independents when they felt snubbed or unrespected by their party? Its just that she would be much more powerful than anyone in recent history. SHe has the grassroots setup, all she needs is a sense of entitlement, cash flow and a view of impropriety in the nomination process.

Id say the odds of it happening are much greater than the democratic elite would care to admit. Ross Perot lives.

Why? Do you know what it means? Can you help me solve the mystery? Will you?

Thanks!