DescentBB

\"I, Phil Hare, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.\"

Gratz on bagging yourself a new poster child...


....unbelieveably stupid. I like how at the end he hands his jacket to the other guy.

Well we ARE a nation of Laws. and it seems to me like he Bagged himself.

He could have said I disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution and it would have been a mute subject. His words were I dont care about the Constitution. poor substitue

As a politician he should have KNOWN to choose his words carefully because they are Guaranteed to be used against you

He could have said I disagree with your interpretation of the Constitution and it would have been a mute subject.

Well, there is no way with that crowd it would of been a mute subject , as they were quite loud. And even still, the point would only be moot in his own mind.

He could have at the very least paraphrased Lincoln, \"The Constitution is not a suicide pact,\" but if thats the democratic talking point come November, then I might as well congratulate you guys now.

Your probably right on the Mute point, but again as a poltician he should have been prepared for it.

ya the DNC might have a hard time this Nov, alot of people feel they have been ingnoring the Constitution in favor of their agenda, much the same way they accused Bush of doing that during his administration.

\"i don't worry about the constitution\". LOL

this guy makes me want to vomit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canadao wrote:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Main article: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
As noted above, this is Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter is the constitutional guarantee of collective and individual rights. It is a relatively short document and written in plain language in order to ensure accessibility to the average citizen. It is said that it is the part of the constitution that has the greatest impact on Canadians' day-to-day lives, and has been the fastest developing area of constitutional law for many years.

Collective LOL!

CUDA wrote:Your probably right on the Mute point

I fail at being a grammar Nazi. But yes, you guys are up for a big win, and I expect you will get it.

AlphaDoG wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Canadao wrote:Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Main article: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
As noted above, this is Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Charter is the constitutional guarantee of collective and individual rights. It is a relatively short document and written in plain language in order to ensure accessibility to the average citizen. It is said that it is the part of the constitution that has the greatest impact on Canadians' day-to-day lives, and has been the fastest developing area of constitutional law for many years.

Wiki doesn't understand it and neither do I

fixed it for you.

The guys behind the camera were asses, and the target of their attacks was feeble-minded. That didn't accomplish anything.

Gooberman wrote:

CUDA wrote:Your probably right on the Mute point

I fail at being a grammar Nazi.

heh was tired your = you're

Sergeant Thorne wrote:The guys behind the camera were asses, and the target of their attacks was feeble-minded. That didn't accomplish anything.

I agree with the assessment of the two party's involved but it will accomplish one bad thing and that is those who dogmatically align them selves with either the left or right will take from it a sense that they are justified in their fervor to support their respective party.
I wish more people would watch this and decide that the process is more a problem than the selfish little worms who have risen to hold the camera or the office and decide to take down the protectors of the process....the DNC and RNC. The camera guy and the moron in office are simply the bullets, it's time to take out the shooters!

Will Robinson wrote:... but it will accomplish one bad thing and that is those who dogmatically align them selves with either the left or right will take from it a sense that they are justified in their fervor to support their respective party.

I know that's true. I guess I meant to imply positive accomplishment, not to detract from what you're saying.

When you say that its the process that is the problem I think you're not going deep enough. The process may be the means by which our country is changing, and changing for the worse, politically. The shooters, however, cannot be taking down, but only relieved of a particularly nasty weapon as a result of defeating the process. I put it to you that if our political process were totally unfucked the progressives may still win if the "hearts and minds" of people are not pursued in regard to the dangers, and even evils of the progressive or liberal world-view. Who is to say they may not develop a majority and successful change the very foundation of our country that currently is so opposed their ideas? The root problem is progressive thinking, and progressive assumptions about the world we live in, right after that, and almost as big of a problem are the people that have compromised as a result of being intimidated by progressivism, which is extremely deceptive. If you subscribe to the progressive world-view in any capacity (it's like a cancer), no matter how bad of an idea one world government was to previous generations, the idea ultimately becomes the inescapable solution and ultimately cannot be stopped. Being a Christian I believe it is that way by design.

There are people who have thought it all through much more completely than I have, and know where it is going, as proponents who think it's a good thing. People like the CEO of Google (Eric Schmidt). They make the assumption on some level that the fact that it makes sense makes it right or good. I am a Christian, and the Bible says that one world government is not good. Is that my only reason? It isn't, but in the world we live in there could conceivably be a point where it might have to be, believing the Bible to be the inspired word of God, because, as a result of the interconnection of our society through media and writing--to a basic degree--whether we like it or not we think alike (I believe that is also by design).

I believe that the liberty we have historically enjoyed was/is a direct result of the Judeo-Christian principles that has a profound effect on our founding fathers and any leaders up until this time, and I don't believe that real liberty will be had apart from the same, perverted and/or violent examples of "Christianity" notwithstanding.

CUDA wrote:

Gooberman wrote:

CUDA wrote:Your probably right on the Mute point

I fail at being a grammar Nazi.

heh was tired your = you're

We don’t typically address mishearings, misreadings or misspeakings here, but this one presents an interesting opportunity. Before 2008, I had never heard “moot point” rendered as “mute point.” Now, it seems the mangled usage is ubiquitous enough to signal an impending shift. Click on the links below and hear “Joe the Plumber” say it and The Nation and The Guardian print it. Granted, the publications employ mute point as a pun, but now that thousands of people have seen it, it’s-a gonna stick.

Two developments make this lexicide particularly fascinating. First, it’s a lexicide of a lexicide. Moot’s original meaning was “open to debate;” the word is related to meet. Moots were assemblies convened to discuss or debate a topic, and this sense lives on in moot court, where law students face off in a courtroom to argue a hypothetical case. Because of moot courts, which have no legal consequence, the meaning of moot shifted from “open to debate” to “irrelevant.” Moot still retains its original meaning — in fact, all the dictionaries I consulted list “open to debate” as its primary definition. But in the States, at least, when you read moot, you think ”of no consequence.”

http://lexicide.com/?p=148

/me queues in Paul Harvey.

Gooberman wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Gooberman wrote:

CUDA wrote:Your probably right on the Mute point

I fail at being a grammar Nazi.

heh was tired your = you're

We don’t typically address mishearings, misreadings or misspeakings here, but this one presents an interesting opportunity. Before 2008, I had never heard “moot point” rendered as “mute point.” Now, it seems the mangled usage is ubiquitous enough to signal an impending shift. Click on the links below and hear “Joe the Plumber” say it and The Nation and The Guardian print it. Granted, the publications employ mute point as a pun, but now that thousands of people have seen it, it’s-a gonna stick.

Two developments make this lexicide particularly fascinating. First, it’s a lexicide of a lexicide. Moot’s original meaning was “open to debate;” the word is related to meet. Moots were assemblies convened to discuss or debate a topic, and this sense lives on in moot court, where law students face off in a courtroom to argue a hypothetical case. Because of moot courts, which have no legal consequence, the meaning of moot shifted from “open to debate” to “irrelevant.” Moot still retains its original meaning — in fact, all the dictionaries I consulted list “open to debate” as its primary definition. But in the States, at least, when you read moot, you think ”of no consequence.”

http://lexicide.com/?p=148

/me queues in Paul Harvey.

ok ya got me

Screw that! It's \"moot\".