Here's the formal document
Posted By: MSMT on 2008-10-14
In Reply to: Former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania... - LAT
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/028_Obama,%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20and%20First%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Might not be in formal session....
does not mean there wouldn't still be talking going on. Obviously you don't think this is any big deal. I personally think it is a very big deal. To each his/her own.
I'm not sure of all the formal legal implications, but (sm)
I don't think the lawsuit has anything to do with The Pledge itself except for the words, under God. I'm pretty sure this is the motivating factor of the suit.
Now here again, I believe in God, but I also respect the fact that there are other Americans who do not. Isn't that one of the primary reasons we fought so hard for indepence? The freedom to choose our religion or not to choose any religion?
Separation of church and state. It boggles my mind that this basic, simple premise somehow is so complicated.
The Pledge did not even contain the words, under God until some time in the 1950s. The Pledge was ammended to include them. The founding fathers did not write those words.
Believing in God should not be a qualification for being an American. Including the words, under God, if one does not believe in God, prohibits them from reciting The Pledge. They don't want to have to leave the room or be silent. They want to pledge their allegiance to their country, but for those words.
It has nothing to do with Americans excluding God. It's just the right of all Americans to practice their religion of choice or no religion.
Proclaiming one's belief in God can be exhibited in so many more meaningful ways than insisting that 2 words be included in The Pledge.
Now here's the document and please take
http://www.obamacrimes.com/attachments/028_Obama,%20Motion%20for%20Leave%20and%20First%20Amended%20Complaint.pdf
I'm sick of having to find everything for you weak feeble O lovers who are led by the nose by your "leader" while he tells you how mindless you are and need him to take care of you. That really should be an insult but he knows when he's preying on the weak.
Now, I'm sure you're quite capable of reading the local docket which says no dismissal has been granted.
Please don't be lazy!
Then document what you are saying
we should take your word that it was yelled when the Secret Service says they cannot find 1 person who heard it. Now who is fueling the fire?
No, it is a static document.........
You confuse adding amendments and "interpreting" the constitution. Obama wants to interpret it always HIS way when he knows good and well what the founding fathers intended. It is and always was intended to be a static document. The founding fathers did not design the constitution with the intentions of "changing" the interpretation as O sees fit.
You don't believe in free speech? All you O lovers need to get a clue! As president, if you ain't got the backbone for criticism by the news media or the average American, you need to fold up your tent and move on!!!!
He constantly brings up these guys, which tells me he doesn't have thick skin; he is a guy who just wants to get even and that AIN'T the kind of guy I want running my country.
You need to pay a little more attention to our president and how many times he obsesses over these guys. He really needs to move on and do his job and stop spending his face time on TV talking about people I don't care to hear about.
Why don't you read the document
not for what someone else predisposed you to think it means.
It does have something to do with the document posted.
Rightwing radicals are basically being called racist because they don't like Obama and his his ideas.
You can't compare those of us who are concerned about this country to those who just want to go after Obama because he's black. It's like comparing apples to teddy bears - you can't do it.
Correction... *un* classified document.
That's right, ignore a court document....
denial, denial, denial. You care nothing about the truth. I don't even know if you recognize it anymore. Pathetic. Cannot let go of prejudice long enough to see the truth when it is in plain black and white, and resort to snide remarks when you cannot effectively debate. But there is no debate here...CBS on the one hand said she was covert, and filed a brief in court stating the opposite. They have a history of lying to suit their agenda. And you are right there with them. I know you are not ignorant...I know you know that a court document is not cooked. The only impression one can glean from that is that you know they are lying, but you don't care.
And how does that speak to character?
DONT OPEN the above document, it contains
Safest not to open ANY links on this board... things have gotten nasty enough on here to have been lowered to computer virus warfare.
Insane.
Why should he? The last time he produced a document
x
Senate document 06-570 supposedly
verifies this info, but I searched and couldn't find it. Maybe someone smart can find this.
Document NOT to be released to the public?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-BvWg3e1I&eurl
The document does not state that vets
I suspect, however, that you know that and are just attempting to stir the pot by posting ridiculous and intentional misinterpretations of what the document actually does say.
This started out as a three-page document....as of yesterday....sm
It was up to 103 pages long. The dems added everything but the kitchen sink, and we don't know the half of what they added, and tried to change around.
It is a sound document based in fact.
As we can see in the archives of this very board.
What exactly do you find alarming about it? What do you think is not truthful? Do you think that domestic terrorism does not exist? Do you think that nothing should be done to monitor potential threats to our safety within our own borders? Would you object so vocally if the report pertained to extremist liberals?
Or did you not read the actual document and simply read Malkin's piece?
Yeah, he thinks the constitution is a living document....
somehow I don't think the framers had that in mind. lol
WARNING - dont open the above poster's document -
and it was a real beeotch to get rid of. Spent all evening redoing work it erased, and returning PC to prior settings.
Nice. Real nice.
Provide a link to the document with that title. None of the official copies I've seen use the wor
nm
|
