Obamas invite racist to WH

Post-racial, my ass:

http://www.examiner.com/political-buzz-in-orlando/why-michelle-obama-s-white-house-invite-to-controversial-rapper-common-matters

Common has also been a vocal opponent of mixed race relationships.
I was outraged, until I read this.

I was outraged, until I read this.
You're easy to placate.

black ruled america

>>2
mixed race aka nigger bucks like defiling and ruining gullible, brainwashed, or mentally ill white women.

niggers gonna nig

Black people aren't even real humans anyway.

I was outraged, until I read this.

You're easy to placate.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-may-11-2011/tone-def-poetry-jam---lyrics-controversy

/thread

>>8
Jews telling us that calling for the genocide of whites is perfectly normal and covered by free speech.

>>9
JEWS, JEWS BEHIND EVERYTHING

>>9
More like Jews calling you a hypocrite for criticizing one president and not another for the same thing.

I'll spell this out real clearly for any fucktard that's still hung up on this type of shit: just because the president associates or even invites someone to the Whit House, that doesn't mean he endorses everything that person has ever said.

>>11
Bush never invited neo-nazis to the white house.

>>10
Jon Leboweitz is a jew you idiot.

>>11
LOL what are you even babbling about you nigger lover. You judge people by who he associates with. Obongo associates with communists and "black power" sort of nigger.

>>12
Neither did Obama!

>>13
"You judge people by who he associates with."

No, you don't. Unless you're a complete fucking idiot. But I should expect no less from a racist 4chan troll pretending to be extra ignorant.

You guys realize that Obama probably didn't even pick these guests to the white house himself, right?

>>14
What do you mean "you don't?"  A major part of who a person is is reflected in the people they choose to associate with.  It's the same with a person's upbringing and what they believe.  There's something to be said about character in trying to accept a person or idea despite the negative perceptions from other people (many other people?) but at the same time you can't reject that same stigma's influence bleeding over.  That's belittling.  It's ignoring basic concepts of human judgment and value systems; even you just demonstrated it: you associated an idea with idiocy (and then you went further).

>>15
Wouldn't that be worse, suggesting that the President doesn't even pay attention to whose influence is thrown in front of him until the very moment they walk on stage?

>>16

You honestly think the Obama administration's decisions are being influenced by a rapper?

>>17
Of course not, the real decisions are made by the important jews he's surrounded with. Obongo is just an affirmative action president, he isn't very intelligent.

>>18

He was a constitutional law professor for 12 years, if he isn't very intelligent you're probably duller than a horses anus.

>>19
If I am any indication of anything, it's that being a college-anything for any amount of time is not a measure of one's intelligence.

>>20
Especially not when you are non-white. The schools are run by leftists who pride themselves on giving degrees to the undeserving and keeping whites out.

>>16
Just dumbing things down to your level, faggot. And was there a point to that? You sure took a lot of words and still didn't manage to make a coherent point.

Every US citizen is a certified constitutional law professor. The constitution was made specifically so that there no uncertain terms, it does not need to be "interpreted" by an "academic" authority.

1: Free speech.
2: Right to bear arms.
3+4: No seizing property without good reason.
5: Indictment by jury.
6: Fair trial.
7: Trial by jury.
8: No extortion or torture.
9: No one should be denied their rights.
10: Apart from the constitution the states and the people are free to make their own laws.

Why do you need 12 years plus however many years in law school to learn this? The last thing we need as president is someone who has spend decades learning how to intentionally misinterpret the constitution.

>>23
You do realize there is an entire branch of government dedicated to interpreting the constitution? Guess what. They're all "academics" too!

>>23
Maybe if you actually read the constitution you would understand that the writers intended for it to be a living document that is interpreted based off of the values of the times.

I can tell you've never read it because you offer the high school equivalent of each right.  Here's how the bill of rights was originally written.  (you posted the bill of rights by the way, which is a set of amendments, the framers of the constitution allowed for amendments because they wanted the document to evolve over time, so it's kind of funny for you to post that in defense of your viewpoint):

Amendment I

Freedoms, Petitions, Assembly

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The first amendment is one that most people interpret quite similarly to one another

Amendment II

Right to bear arms

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

This one is a little different.  Many interpret it as meaning we are allowed to organize a local militia, but no guarantee of individual ownership.  I personally think this was the original intent but that our modern interpretation which allows for private weapon ownership is a right we should all have.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

You lumped this in with amendment 4 as if they're just the same thing reiterated.  This protects against the quartering of troops in your household even in times of war, so it's not exactly just protecting us from 'seizure of property for no good reason' because it actually states a quite legitimate reason (emergency housing for troops) but protects against it anyways.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

And you forgot to mention that amendment 4 is also a protection against searches, not just seizures.



Only after the first four you seem to need help interpreting the constitution.

>>25
>intended for it to be a living document that is interpreted based off of the values of the times.
Um LOL no. That's a modern fantasy of leftist trash who hate the constitution as it blocks their tyrannical plans and goals.

>Many interpret it as meaning we are allowed to organize a local militia, but no guarantee of individual ownership.
the militia is every single able bodied man.
What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?

>>24
Entire branch of government devoted to justifying tyranny and statism.

What part of SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED do you not understand?
The part where it expilcitly states that each individual person can own a weapon for themselves. Point that part out to me. Oh, nevermind. You can't!

>>23
Just the Bill of Rights, lad. The Constitution is actually quite a bit longer and more complex.

>>27
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

? Right there you fucking idiot. Most of the cannon and firearms at the time of the war for independence were privately owned.

>>24
They're not academics, they're pseudo-academics. Criticising academic authority doesn't mean I oppose higher education, this is a snap judgement you've been indoctrinated to make reminiscent of medieval obscurantism.
>>25
The fact I haven't memorized the entire constitution doesn't mean I am uneducated or unqualified to "interpret" it. The amendments are part of the constitution, so trying to seperate them is just semantics. People with only a high school diploma shouldn't be denied the right to vote or comment on the constitution if that's what you're saying, even during Thomas Jefferson democracy people with this level of education could generally earn enough to buy land and vote or vote through a white male proxy.

What is the motivation for these shitty arguments? All I did was list a brief run down of the first amendments that were ratified which were critical in the prevention of tyranny and which you and Obama seem pretty eager to obfuscate.

>>29
"The people" "keep" and "bear" are very vague phrases. For example, if every citizen were a member of a militia with a stockpile of weapons that were collectively owned and not for personal use, then the text of the Second Amendment would be satisfied verbatim. Nowhere in the Constitution does it explicitly (<--- key word here) state that "every individual can own a weapon for personal use."

>>30
I'm not sure what the hell you mean by "psuedo-academic" but the Constitution does need to be interpreted by an authority. And it's no accident that all nine Supreme Court Justices went to Harvard, Yale or Columbia Law if I recall correctly. There are sometimes complicated issues regarding the Constitution that most people are simply not qualified to resolve. And nobody here has said anything about a person being not allowed to vote or being not allowed to have an opinion (who is the one obfusticating again?). The flip side of that is that if you don't have an education or you can't express a compelling argument, I'm under no obligation to give your opinion a shred of respect.

>"The people" "keep" and "bear" are very vague phrases.
Only to a liberal.

Nowhere in the constitution does it say that we cannot execute liberals for treachery either. Guess we better get right on it, huh?
>collectively owned
Not sure where this comes from, you filthy commie.

>but the Constitution does need to be interpreted by an authority.
Ah of course, federal judges, especially homosexual or jewish ones, are the only people capable of interpreting the constitution!

>And it's no accident that all nine Supreme Court Justices went to Harvard, Yale or Columbia Law if I recall correctly.
Schools which are 30% white if we are lucky. hint: It's not the education they are getting which makes them eligible.

>The flip side of that is that if you didn't spend tens of thousands of dollars and a decade of your life at a communist indoctrination camp
fixed for you.

>>31
no accident that all nine Supreme Court Justices went to ivy league
That can be interpreted 2 ways (unlike the constitution).

obfusticating
the Constitution does need to be interpreted by an authority
That's why I said "if that's what you are saying", the constitution doesn't need to be interpreted by an authority so you obviously want to suppress ordinary people if just by fostering a political culture where argument from authority logical fallacies are considered acceptable.

most people are simply not qualified to resolve
So if the government denies someone a fair trial directly in front of someone's face then it didn't happen? We must believe 2+2=5 if the state says so?

I'm under no obligation to give your opinion a shred of respect.
Then it won't be long before politicians are voted out of office with a 7.62mm ballot box.

>>32
Hilarious.

>>33
>obfusticating

Fair enough. But what you've done (and continue to do) is just straw man arguing. You don't have to believe it but if the Supreme Court were to make that ruling then, by law, two plus two would be five.

What I've been talking about are specific cases. For example, what are the limits of the First Amendment? Is a corporation protected by it? What about slander? Is false advertising ok? If the Constitution were so clear and the answers were so cut and dry, why would we need a Supreme Court at all?

>>34
what are the limits of the First Amendment
None.
Is a corporation protected by it?
No, only individuals are protected.
What about slander?
Yes, politicians don't decide who is lying and who isn't.
Is false advertising ok?
No, property rights.
why would we need a Supreme Court
To state the obvious.