It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
hear hear fair brother! it is not the ones who watch that become heroes but the ones being watched and taking a stand are the heroes! I want a noble roman gladiator for a president! he'd kick ass and take names all for the glory of his people! the only thing wrong with that scenario is that Dick cheney might shoot him in the face while ted kennedy runs my gladiator over with a car LMAO
Originally posted by HappilyEverAfter
Our leader, (gawd help us)
Has the savvy of a farting drunk in a perfume factory,
To even come close to a controversial issue when speaking to the populace youre elected to represent,
To then even in the slightest way 'joke' about it, (and he did joke about it) adds insult to injury.
Lets joke of ovens to a jewish audience, or how a womans place is in the kitchen and quiet,
People like that think theyre intelligent and great and funy and everybody loves them and wants to be them when theyre on stage and performing, (and he was performing).
Because IF he really wanted to be a man of historic value, really powerful, changing the world, bringing freedom and prosperity to his people and the world as a whole, he wouldnt be making jokes about the removal of liberty, and he wouldnt be promising tech advances that would move us to the next piece of sidewalk in 20 years,
He'd be taking advantage of his position and his live television appearance and spilling the beans on most of the fraud and banking scams, and wars, and waste, and deaths caused by the banksters and global corporate evil bastards who were watching from their mansions or in some cases right in the audience.
Change could come quickly, just as quick as someone in a position like that can grow a set of balls.
He is an embarassment.
Originally posted by badgerprints
I'm also guaranteed the freedom to move about my country without infringement of my rights.
You ARE free to do so. Move. Walk, run, drive, turn cartwheels to get where you want. But you do not have the right to FLY.
edit on 1/26/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Dilligaf28
reply to post by mtnshredder
I think in order to delete any part of the U.S. Constitution requires a super majority of The House of Representatives and the Senate as well as ratification by the States; that or another few methods which have never been used but require the participation of the States. I am curious how you managed to side step that process in order to delete a part of the Constitution?edit on 26-1-2011 by Dilligaf28 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
It always amazes me that people use the fact that Obama uses a piece of technology against him. It's something EVERY president has used since it's been around and yet, Obama is the one people slam for it. It sounds like a second grade argument to me... It makes no sense whatsoever... Oh, well.
Originally posted by ~Lucidity
Guess it was too soon. Reminds me of Bush looking for WMDs in the office. Open mouth, insert foot.
Originally posted by SpectreDC
Why would I be outraged by a bear #ting in the woods?
Originally posted by trailertrash
"Mr. Teleprompter 'funny man's' quip"
Just wondering why you single Obama out for this insult. Since TV became mainstream in the early fifties every president has used teleprompters. What is the big deal?
Originally posted by mtnshredder
You're reading the ammendment wrong it say's ","AND" no Warrants issue" Take this out because it's N/A for the most part, at least at the airport. And you will see it reads......
"against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, but upon probable cause."
What doesn't make sense?
There were, however, lawful warrantless searches, primarily searches incident to arrest, and these apparently gave rise to no disputes. Thus, the question arises whether the Fourth Amendment's two clauses must be read together to mean that the only searches and seizures which are ''reasonable'' are those which meet the requirements of the second clause, that is, are pursuant to warrants issued under the prescribed safeguards, or whether the two clauses are independent, so that searches under warrant must comply with the second clause but that there are ''reasonable'' searches under the first clause which need not comply with the second clause.
The most important category of exception is that of administrative searches justified by ''special needs beyond the normal need for law enforcement.'' Under this general rubric the Court has upheld warrantless searches by administrative authorities in public schools, government offices, and prisons, and has upheld drug testing of public and transportation employees. 24 In all of these instances the warrant and probable cause requirements are dispensed with in favor of a reasonableness standard that balances the government's regulatory interest against the individual's privacy interest;
The test propounded in Katz is whether there is an expectation of privacy upon which one may ''justifiably'' rely. 36 ''What a person knowingly exposes to the public, even in his own home or office, is not a subject of Fourth Amendment protection. But what he seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.'' 37 That is, the ''capacity to claim the protection of the Amendment depends not upon a property right in the invaded place but upon whether the area was one in which there was reasonable expectation of freedom from governmental intrusion.''
Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The Right To Travel. We have a right to travel freely within the borders of the US.