holds our first black president to a higher standard than previous presidents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.

How does Obama not respect the Constitution?

Rick Santorum would outlaw abortion in this country, fundamentally changing how the 14th Amendment is interpreted. Is he also disloyal?

Rick Santorum could just do that? All by his lonesome?

Don't be obtuse - you're the one who said, "You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed." Santorum feels the country should be fundamentally changed. Is he a traitor?

If he planning on bypassing the Constitution to do so?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.

Your position is that Obama is a traitor? Is that your final answer?

If that is how you personally define the word traitor, then yep.

How does the Govt legally define traitor, that's the real question. Obama has said himself he wants to fundamentally transform America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4

Can't do that and be loyal at the same time.

Gee I made the mistake of actually listening to the clip you sent.

The "fundamental change" he referred to was:
1. Change policies that put greed an irresponsibility of Wall Street over hard work and sacrifice of those on Main Street
2. Invest in middle class grow jobs
3. Concern for people who can't pay medical bills, afford college, or pay for retirement

You CAN make that kind of change without being disloyal to America.

Are those things in the Constitution?

By your logic, Mitt Romney is not a loyal American, because he too vowed to create jobs. Okay, you got me, every President is a traitor for wanting to grow jobs in America.

But for the record, yes, the Commerce Clause clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and international commerce, and the President must enforce those laws. Wall Street is clearly both interstate and International commerce.

And lastly no one has to have an enumerated power to express concern for people who have financial difficulty.

You do understand creating jobs has to be done in a constitutional manner, correct?

The Commerce Clause is most misunderstood - and bastardised - by liberals.

Concern? No. Legislate? YES

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.

How does Obama not respect the Constitution?

Rick Santorum would outlaw abortion in this country, fundamentally changing how the 14th Amendment is interpreted. Is he also disloyal?

Rick Santorum could just do that? All by his lonesome?

Don't be obtuse - you're the one who said, "You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed." Santorum feels the country should be fundamentally changed. Is he a traitor?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.

How does Obama not respect the Constitution?

Rick Santorum would outlaw abortion in this country, fundamentally changing how the 14th Amendment is interpreted. Is he also disloyal?

Rick Santorum could just do that? All by his lonesome?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.

Your position is that Obama is a traitor? Is that your final answer?

If that is how you personally define the word traitor, then yep.

How does the Govt legally define traitor, that's the real question. Obama has said himself he wants to fundamentally transform America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4

Can't do that and be loyal at the same time.

Gee I made the mistake of actually listening to the clip you sent.

The "fundamental change" he referred to was:
1. Change policies that put greed an irresponsibility of Wall Street over hard work and sacrifice of those on Main Street
2. Invest in middle class grow jobs
3. Concern for people who can't pay medical bills, afford college, or pay for retirement

You CAN make that kind of change without being disloyal to America.

Are those things in the Constitution?

By your logic, Mitt Romney is not a loyal American, because he too vowed to create jobs. Okay, you got me, every President is a traitor for wanting to grow jobs in America.

But for the record, yes, the Commerce Clause clearly gives Congress the power to regulate interstate and international commerce, and the President must enforce those laws. Wall Street is clearly both interstate and International commerce.

And lastly no one has to have an enumerated power to express concern for people who have financial difficulty.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.

Your position is that Obama is a traitor? Is that your final answer?

If that is how you personally define the word traitor, then yep.

How does the Govt legally define traitor, that's the real question. Obama has said himself he wants to fundamentally transform America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4

Can't do that and be loyal at the same time.

Gee I made the mistake of actually listening to the clip you sent.

The "fundamental change" he referred to was:
1. Change policies that put greed an irresponsibility of Wall Street over hard work and sacrifice of those on Main Street
2. Invest in middle class grow jobs
3. Concern for people who can't pay medical bills, afford college, or pay for retirement

You CAN make that kind of change without being disloyal to America.

Are those things in the Constitution?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You said you felt I felt he was a traitor. That doesn't MEAN I SAID he was a traitor.

OY.

Liar, liar, pants on fire.

Let me refresh your memory:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:Your position is that Obama is a traitor? Is that your final answer?

If that is how you personally define the word traitor, then yep.

How does the Govt legally define traitor, that's the real question. Obama has said himself he wants to fundamentally transform America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4

Can't do that and be loyal at the same time.

If you do not believe Obama is a traitor, there is nothing stopping you from typing "Obama is not a traitor". Though, I don't know how you would reconcile such a statement with your repeated accusation that Obama is not loyal to the US.

I asked you how you defined traitor

Do you also want to know what the meaning of "is" is?

A traitor is a person who is not loyal to his country and who acts to hurt the interests of his country. Your accusation is that Obama wants to transform America is a manner which is not loyal. That is calling him a traitor. As I said, to clarify things, all you have to do is type "Obama is not a traitor". That's pretty easy to do. But, I guess harder to do while insisting that he is not loyal to America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.

Your position is that Obama is a traitor? Is that your final answer?

If that is how you personally define the word traitor, then yep.

How does the Govt legally define traitor, that's the real question. Obama has said himself he wants to fundamentally transform America: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KrefKCaV8m4

Can't do that and be loyal at the same time.

Gee I made the mistake of actually listening to the clip you sent.

The "fundamental change" he referred to was:
1. Change policies that put greed an irresponsibility of Wall Street over hard work and sacrifice of those on Main Street
2. Invest in middle class grow jobs
3. Concern for people who can't pay medical bills, afford college, or pay for retirement

You CAN make that kind of change without being disloyal to America.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.

How does Obama not respect the Constitution?

Rick Santorum would outlaw abortion in this country, fundamentally changing how the 14th Amendment is interpreted. Is he also disloyal?

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the contrast between Cruz, of whom I am no big fan, and Obama is lost on you guys? Ted Cruz already released his birth certificate. It took Obama years to do this.

Now you can start your rant and call me a birther even though I've said nothing that would support that. I'm sure you left wingers won't disappoint.

The contrast that is lost on you is the difference between the time it took Obama to release his birth certificate and the time it took all previous presidents.

I won't call you a birther. But, I will identify you as someone who holds our first black president to a higher standard than previous presidents.

why throw the race card in?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess the contrast between Cruz, of whom I am no big fan, and Obama is lost on you guys? Ted Cruz already released his birth certificate. It took Obama years to do this.

Now you can start your rant and call me a birther even though I've said nothing that would support that. I'm sure you left wingers won't disappoint.

The contrast that is lost on you is the difference between the time it took Obama to release his birth certificate and the time it took all previous presidents.

I won't call you a birther. But, I will identify you as someone who holds our first black president to a higher standard than previous presidents.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was the poster who referred to the Hanoi Hilton. I am not, nor ever have been, a birther. I have never questioned O's citizenship-though I do question his policies and loyalties.

BINGO!

Loyalties? Really? Who do you think he's loyal to, if not the US?

You cannot be loyal to a country that you feel needs to be fundamentally changed. That means you don't respect the Constitution, the laws of the land.