Hmm: Marco Rubio schedules “major speech” on foreign policy
posted at 9:05 pm on April 23, 2012 by Allahpundit
Every move he makes from now until Romney chooses a VP will be seen through the lens of veepstakes maneuvering, no matter what Rubio’s true motivation might be. That said, it’s hard to believe the timing of this announcement is a coincidence. Today was his first big photo op with Romney on the stump, and speculation about Rob Portman has been much hotter lately than speculation about Rubio himself. This looks like his way of reinserting himself into the conversation and blunting the criticism that he’s not yet ready to be president in a pinch. Foreign policy is as core an Article II function as it gets, so here he comes to show that he’s qualified:
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida will deliver what his staff bills a “major speech on the future of U.S. foreign policy” this week, the senator’s office announced Monday.
Rubio, considered to be a top vice presidential pick for likely GOP nominee Mitt Romney, is set to speak Wednesday at The Brookings Institution, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.
His remarks will focus on “whether U.S. global leadership is sustainable and even necessary in the 21st Century,” his staff said in a statement, without releasing further details.
I’m keen to hear what he says this time because thus far Rubio’s distinguished himself as being a hawk in the neoconservative mold. Watch the second clip below of him making the case for nonmilitary intervention in Syria to help the resistance free the country from Assad. He’s right in line with McCain, Lieberman, Graham and other prominent Senate hawks on that. Is Romney willing to double down on interventionism by choosing him as VP when even a majority of Republican voters lately say they want out of Afghanistan? In one sense, there’s little risk to doing so since Obama’s hands are tied on the issue; the guy who ignored the War Powers Act to join a coalition in Libya isn’t about to knock anyone else for being too interventionist. (So hawkish is Rubio that he passed on a chance to criticize Obama for that in his WSJ op-ed on Libya last year, even though it’s the worst case of overreach in Obama’s experiments with executive power.) The question is, after 10 years of war, are there more votes to be had among centrists and indies by taking a more cautious line? What does having an outspoken interventionist on the ticket do to help Romney?
Should be interesting — especially his thoughts on how much longer to stay in Afghanistan.
Related Posts:
Breaking on Hot Air
Bobby Jindal: Paternalistic, big-government liberalism is the biggest loser here
Super Nannies: EU bans olive oils, Germany ponders Autobahn speed limit
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
Good point. You split my wink. QOTD tonight?
Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 10:01 PM
Courts have said otherwise.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:01 PM
From a libtard, this reads like an endorsement – especially, since Obama isn’t exactly averse to illegal wars.
The Count on April 23, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Arguments among voters/citizens represent the fuel that runs the machine that moves us as a nation. That’s all we have: us, the citizens.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Those questions put to Courts have been, so far, rejected to be heard as to the issues involved, rejected on procedure. That means, the ISSUES that are being argued by citizens are not being considered by any authority.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:04 PM
So not much then.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM
If this is the strange bedfellows thread, then this is another of your posts with which I agree.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:05 PM
At some point, the “Antibirthers” should recognize that they sound unreliable. What I always wonder about is why all the force against the issue: what’s not to gain by Congress and/or the Supreme Court taking action, an Amendment, clarifying the 14th especially…what’s so threatening about this issue that people go so negative against those who raise it?
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:06 PM
What makes you think this is the strange bedfellows thread?
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM
Gee, you’d think all these reasonable people could figure out how the procedure works after 3 years.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:07 PM
I’m sure he has cleared his calendar on VP announcement night, you know, just to be there to congratulate that person.
Philly on April 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Looking for real proofs. Simply raising the issue is not enough.
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM
I’m torn with these type of responses; I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Do I laugh because they’re so far off the mark, or do I cry because it’s evidence of someone trapped in the establishment-approved spectrum?
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:08 PM
Like I wrote earlier, you’re welcome as anyone is to organize your Master Legalize abilities and make all the questions disappear with one fell swoop of your brow.
Saving that happening, the questions being raised as already have been raised are reasonable. Eventually it’ll be organized and presented appropriately to whatever destination can handle it (won’t be our current Congress who’ve already side-stepped much of this).
It’s a bog, I realize that, but it’s a bog that needs a walkway built over it or something like that.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Courts have said the questions are unreasonable?
I don’t think you’re correct.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM
An excellent question and one I have often wondered myself. The mere mention seems to move folks towards becoming unhinged. Much the way certain political personality’s have a similar effect.
Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 10:09 PM
You think government protecting itself only goes back three years?
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:11 PM
Lourdes and Bmore in agreement?
Spock has a beard!
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Read the Federalist Papers. Read the history of the 14th Amendment (as to citizenship issue)…so much more.
From some of the comments I read here, elsewhere, it’s as if some people expect to wake up and find that “Real Proof Basket” on their doorstep, everything packaged up and easy to consume, no work involved, just pick it up and enjoy.
In reality, the questions that are being raised and have been are reasonable, almost all (some exceptions) and there’s no harm-no foul in the discussion of them. Those questions by those people eventually work toward an effective, meaningful result. I strongly doubt the questions are going to disappear despite the name-calling.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:12 PM
Splendid. Any more Hot Air geniuses out there as articulate as Lourdes?
minnesoter on April 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM
For a man who claims he isn’t interested in running, Rubio seems to have broken into a sprint.
Rubio’s foreign policy vision so far seems to put him squarely in the McCain-Graham camp. The majority of Americans (including non-neocon conservatives) are weary of wars, particularly in the Musli8m world, where killing is a way of life. We cannot afford to be the world’s policeman (in terms of the human and monetary cost).
bw222 on April 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM
Looks like NJ is having hearings on the BC alleged fraud and obama’s eligibility:
http://www.teapartytribune.com/2012/04/13/obama-lawyer-admits-forgery-but-disregards-image-as-indication-of-obamas-ineligibility-damage-control/
FLconservative on April 23, 2012 at 10:14 PM
My sincerest apologies. I hovered over your name and it all made sense. Does it bother you that you’re most often confused with the people you seem to resent resembling?
The Count on April 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM
Issue discussions are strange things — versus peer-pressure or social-pressure organizations or groups. When you discuss issues, you find odd agreements versus when you’re primarily focused on being-in-a-group, you tend to bury controversial views that may or do upset “the group”.
This place…over time, everyone at some point meets up with someone “in the other group” (polar opposite as to political assocaition) and agrees. I think that’s actually the way our Republic is supposed to work.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM
I have.
Nope: just don’t like when some who post here present their argument, without convincing proofs, and announce their premise as incontrovertible fact. The [political] science is settled!
I’ve not called names.
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM
You’re welcome to think that. Still, the courts continue to tell people asking the questions to go away and after three years, none of these reasonable people can even find a reasonable lawyer to help them. After a while, you have to think that maybe the court thinks the whole question is unreasonable. Keep in mind, the courts never ruled that Reagan wasn’t born on Mars. So go ahead and try to get a ruling on it and tell me it’s a reasonable question while they’re throwing you out.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM
How about all the little dribbling Ron Paul groupies out there? What do YOU think about Rubio? Brain-dead minds want to know!
minnesoter on April 23, 2012 at 10:16 PM
canopfor on April 23, 2012 at 9:34 PM
————————————–
Ooh. Take a picture so we can see the view since I will likely never get up to Canada (unless I have to escape if Obama wins re-election or decides to issue an EO naming himself President for life)/
FLconservative on April 23, 2012 at 9:55 PM
FLconservative:This might work!!:)
————————————
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Soo_Locks-Sault-Ste_Marie.png
canopfor on April 23, 2012 at 10:17 PM
I’m sorry. I didn’t realize that you were a slow child. I’ll simplify. I think that Obama has been in office for three years.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM
You’re not a RINO; you’re a LIBERAL.
bw222 on April 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM
I also eat steak. That bugs some people here.
But I don’t have a beard and I don’t eat dogs. Or cats. Or practice Santeria like Obama’s family does.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:18 PM
Sniff sniff. Sure smells like a Ronulan. McCain-Graham??? Talk about irrelevant.
minnesoter on April 23, 2012 at 10:20 PM
You don’t understand or perhaps don’t read the details, do you?
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:20 PM
I’m referring to the pejorative deployed, “birthers.” By “you” as in, whoever uses it.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:21 PM
Its true politics does indeed make strange bed fellows. I think the issues is just murky enough having never been thoroughly settled. I see no harm, nor any foul in considering it. I have done a modest amount of research, though it is not my area of expertise. I cannot adequately say whether there is a legitimate issue or not. There in lies the problem. I have spoken with four or five lawyers on the issue, only one of which was confident of his decision. He having some experience with Constitutional law. There don’t seem to be many lawyers here at HA to seek info from. Lots of opinions, no fact based law info, just opinions based on who knows what. I do find it odd that folks are so repelled by the mere discussion of it. Very telling in some instances. I do not enjoy the name calling. It is neither accurate nor appropriate. It is similar to the leftist tactic aimed at suppressing speech.
Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 10:22 PM
I earlier explained the nature of my unease as to Rubio. You apparently missed that.
Thus, no need ^^ to repeat those details and wrote, instead, that generality. Being considerate not to copy and paste.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Did you miss my cultural reference?
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Oh, how lovely! How is the climate change up there?
FLconservative on April 23, 2012 at 10:23 PM
And you’re a feaking MOONIE so far as I can tell.
minnesoter on April 23, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:21 PM
I like you-but I have no use for birthers. I’m using birthers as a pejorative. They DESERVE to be scorned and shunned.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 23, 2012 at 10:24 PM
This doesn’t quite read as an apology; I don’t use the pejorative you refer to.
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:26 PM
No, to amnesty.
No to Marco Rubio.
Towash on April 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM
I
Oh! Dear! “Lourdes” (that’s French, isn’t it?) has “unease” — well let’s all just melt into a puddle of doubt then. That’ll help.
minnesoter on April 23, 2012 at 10:27 PM
How dare people wish to see the Constitution upheld! Don’t you know that you have no right to question, citizen! Any and all views you can hold must be approved by your superiors!
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM
No, not at all, you’re exaggerating.
I note that no one who denigrates those who raise these questions of eligibility for the Executive Branch — while they declare “the Courts” this, that, as if they themselves represent such — no one relies on document reference yet carries on with surety against any who do.
Thus, you appear guilty there of that which you’re disagreeing with/about. If you have something so definitive to substantiate your views, then link to it so everyone else can consider it, too. So far, I read more generalities of opinion from those who dismiss these eligibility questions than I do from those who pose the questions.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM
I’ve read and understood all the details. It’s not that complicated. Anyone reasonable could do it – which probably explains why some people keep getting thrown out of court.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Think second person plural, not first person singular.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Meant second person singular.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Yep. QOTD this evening ?
Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 10:29 PM
“Scorned and shunned”? Why? Why threatened to such an extent that you’d need to “scorn and shun” anyone?
I can’t recall anyone but a few individuals in my entire lifetime who I felt the need to “scorn and shun” if not more “shun” than “scorn,” something closer to “get away from” but that was due to their threatening behaviors or intent, not for their “ideas” or questions.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM
Not challenging, but informing…
We do have Wethal here: he is a professor of Law, and has posted on the issue of Marco Rubio’s eligibility. He has said it’s a non-issue.
I’m not happy with the name calling, either. Challenge my position: refute my facts.
My point continues to be; if this could be argued convincingly, I think it would have, by now.
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM
That is one of the worst pieces of alleged journalism I have ever seen.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:31 PM
The people who ratified the Constitution were not lawyers; they were the sovereign citizens of the states. It is the ratifiers whom the Founders told us to look to for intent and interpretation.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:33 PM
Your statements don’t indicate that you’ve read or comprehended the details involved. If you HAD, you’d know that procedural issues have been “thrown out of court” or been cause of such, while issues themselves have yet to be heard in any court (because of unacceptable procedure used to present the information, or attempt to).
Those details.
Unexceptional legal skills or lack of talent and skill does not mean that the issues they’re questioning are unreasonable. It just means they haven’t managed the exceptional ability involved to present the questions. So of course no “Court” can or has yet even addressed the issues.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Um, no.
Posters have put forth this affirmative argument: Marco Rubio is not eligible.
It is not my job to disprove this belief. It is their job to provide proofs of their assertions.
You continue to either misread or willfully misstate my position.
I want the posters, (including, but not limited to Dante) who make the assertion to back it with proofs.
Until then, it is an unproven assertion, and should not be presented as fact.
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:37 PM
Fair enough. One would think it would have been argue before now. It really hasn’t and the vagueness of the wording is such that it probably should have been. Many times its seems that timing is the constraint that ends up seeing it not entertained by the court. That in itself while an entirely separate issue is also troubling to me. Should I cross paths with Wethal and time on an appropriate thread is available, I will ask his thoughts pertaining to it. I generally try to be open to other points of view in order to help form my own. Thanks for the tip. ; )
Bmore on April 23, 2012 at 10:37 PM
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Lourdes: Birtherism is illogical, irrational, and insane-and it doesn’t win elections
Birthers remind me of the idiots who keep insisting that their little ones got autism because of this or that vaccine.
Just because they believe something-despite evidence pointing to the contrary-doesn’t make it true.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 23, 2012 at 10:37 PM
Yeah, that must be it = lack of talent and skill – because why would the best and brightest be involved with something so minor? Three years of obama and no one’s figured out how to get a date with the court. Whatever dude.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Oh for crying out loud, not the idiotic Rubio birfer thing again. Rubio was born in Florida. He is an American citizen that did not require naturalization, he is a “natural” citizen by birth. Knock it off, it is idiotic and just wastes time and bandwidth.
crosspatch on April 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM
The purple crayon is missing from the box.
What does my statement, or yours, have to do with the argument at hand?
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:39 PM
Oh, and I love the part about how I must not read or I would agree with you. So so reasonable.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Lack of curiosity, perhaps?
Professors have a variety of opinions on a variety of issues about which exists a variety of inquiry.
My only point — originally and now again — is that the questions that have been raised are more supportable toward the “proof” of “natural born” being defined as born to parents who are US citizens on US soil or property, while the only “proof” that substantiates the “only born on US soil” argument as to being natural-born is from a contradictory misapplication of the 14th Amendment.
Yes, a person is now a US citizen if born in the US to parents who aren’t US citizens themselves if even not here legally — but that’s not what the 14th Amendment was intended to provide and that has been well established already, even by the author of the amendment itself. BUT Congress relented and “allowed” people born here to illegal aliens or other non-citizens to gain citizenship and therein lies the difficulty (“cloudiness”) of who a citizen is as a natural-born one.
HOWEVER, there is more document support that defines “natural born” as born to two parents who are US citizens than there is to the contrary. Thus, the questions continue.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:41 PM
Marco Rubio should petition the Supreme Court to rule on his Constitutional eligibility to assume the office of the Presidency, based on the facts that Rubio was born in the United States to non-Citizen parents. Is he a Natural Born Citizen or not.
The Supreme Court should oblige him and resolve the issue for the good of the nation.
We are fighting a President who is playing loose and free with the Constitution. We desperately need for the President to govern with unquestioned Constitutional legitimacy. We do not have that now. Three years later and we are still arguing the issue, or more accurately, shouting at each other. We should not be arguing about Dicta and scouring 18th and 19th century Supreme Court cases in order in search of fleeting clues as to whether the President is legitimate or an usurper. One way or another, the issue needs to be resolved, and Rubio is in a position to do it.
jms on April 23, 2012 at 10:44 PM
I spent 3 years at Homestead and I could see Cuba on my radar screen about every day.
RickB on April 23, 2012 at 10:48 PM
Tired of repeating this but I’ll do so one last time:
IT’S AN UNRESOLVED ISSUE and THEREFORE, people continue to argue about it.
YOU may be annoyed at the ongoing discussion about it, but it doesn’t mean that those who raise these questions are unimportant as to their concerns as citizens.
There’s more documentation throughout our nation’s history and in documents used as reference by the Founders when they wrote the Constitution to substantiate a “natural born” person as a citizen as being born in the U.S. to parents who were U.S. citizens than there is to the contrary argument of “only born here means you’re natual born”.
It’s just not an unreasonable issue. Rubio born in the U.S., that makes him a native born U.S. citizen if the “reapplied” 14th Amendment is support for that, but it does not inherently mean he’s “natural born” in the context required for the Executive Branch. Or that anyone of his circumstances is, either.
He’s qualified for the Senate, to run for Mayor, to be Governor of a state but he may not be qualified for the Executive Branch and that’s that. Meaning, that’s the question that remains argued by some and so let them argue it until it’s definitively established one way or the other.
I’d rather disagree with Rubio as V.P. or possible Pres. based upon his views and abilities and achievements than on who his parents were, but SOME people think he’s not qualified and I don’t see much good in continually telling them to stop asking.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM
You’re welcome;
Discussing with you, and posters like you, is the reason I come here; no rancor, just a reasonable exchange of information, mixed with some agreement, and some (thoughtful) disagreement.
Always enjoy your posts.
massrighty on April 23, 2012 at 10:49 PM
Yeah, he’d only be the 8th president with a foreign-born parent. The jury’s still out though. /
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:51 PM
Then you love your fantasy because that’s not what I expressed. You glossed past the details about WHY certain attempts to gain a ruling on a legal challenge had been “tossed out of Court” and that’s what I questioned you about, which you also never responded about with any assurance that you understood that.
It’s not a question of agreeing with me; I have no expectation about you in that regard.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM
That doesn’t mean anything. What matters is if the parent was or wasn’t an American citizen at the time of his/her son’s birth.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:53 PM
You have the wrong office. This is abuse, argument is down the hall, second door to the right.
galtani on April 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM
lol what? That’s been ruled on.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:54 PM
The attorneys who have, so far, filed various pleadings have not been the best or brightest, particularly the woman who has devoted most of the material to the contrarians who ridicule this issue of Executive Branch eligibility.
You have to know what to file and how. I’m assuming you know that.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM
lol yourself. You haven’t demonstrated an ability to hold an argument or to understand the points being made in the very one-sided discussion.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 10:56 PM
What about Lieberman? That would be mavericky.
Rusty Allen on April 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Yeah, and I’m assuming you know the most skilled lawyers representing the Republican party know that. But I’m sure they’ll figure it out eventually. /
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM
I see yer wink and raise you a raised eyebrow. Probably not tonight, been slamming on deadline. But it will be over soon.
John the Libertarian on April 23, 2012 at 10:57 PM
Who is “he”? Rubio? And now he’s running for President?
Seriously, just because seven people steal a car doesn’t mean it’s OK for you to steal one, too.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM
I know. I know. If I could hold an argument I’d agree with you. Heard it already. Whatever Orly.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Um, what?
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 10:58 PM
Are you telling me we’ve had seven unconstitutional presidents?
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:00 PM
The Republican Party isn’t interested in the issue because it would threaten the establishment and their power they hold and share with the Democratic Party. They are only concerned with acquiring and maintaining power.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:00 PM
Like I said, the issue is whether or not the parent was a citizen at the time of his/her son’s birth.
What don’t you understand about being born to an American citizen?
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Oh, and disqualifying the other guy would be a step in the wrong direction. Got it. /
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM
I’m sure from the vast heights of your legal and professional prowess, you can look far, far down to me here on the Earth with mere citizen concerns and perhaps brush them all aside with statements intended to intimidate and demean (“you’re big, they’re big, anyone else isn’t”).
I’m sure the GOP has grand legal minds available feverishly working on all sorts of intrigue, challenge and demands and good for them that they do. My point is that those so far who have approached courts with questions regarding Executive Branch eligibility have not managed to even have the challenges (the actual issues involved) heard by any court due to what I describe as not-as-steller a legal presentation as could be.
And I haven’t ever heard that the GOP has had any of those grand, big-brained legal talent file anything with any court in attempts to challenge the going interpretation of these issues. Please do let me know from your grand experience when or as they have, though, I’m eager to learn more.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Tell it to the person I quoted. He’s the one with the grand theft analogy.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Good luck, Ronnie.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM
No, it is NOT an unresolved issue. The status of where one’s parents were born or where one’s grandparents or great grandparents is 100% completely irrelevant.
Just because YOU can’t seem to resolve the issue in that obviously vastly superior intellect of yours does not mean that your non-argument makes even a scintilla of actual sense.
It’s idiotic, as in dumb, as in fantastic that anyone would even for more than a millisecond consider it.
crosspatch on April 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM
They haven’t. They won’t…ever. It’s called reason.
Welcome to my point.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM
100% completely and totally idiotic.
crosspatch on April 23, 2012 at 11:05 PM
Crime is crime is crime. Just because seven people stole cars doesn’t mean that it’s lawful if or as you do. You mentioned “seven Presidents” who had one parent who was a foreign citizen and then concluded that (I’m assuming, Rubio) would be “the eight president who did”…and I provided you with a good analogy as to why your reasoning there is faulty. Crime is crime is crime. The more people engaging in it does not change the fact that crime is being done nor does it make a later crime of similar kind “OK” “because seven others already did it”.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 11:06 PM
No, I’m telling it to you since you were the one who brought it up.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:07 PM
He’s probably counting those presidents who were alive when the Constitution was created, completely oblivious to the fact that the Constitution addresses them specifically.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM
No, it’s not “idiotic” but you’re creepy for calling it that.
Sandbox at this hour, you all can own the litter, I’ve already well stated my perspectives. I’m sure you’d find String Theory “idiotic”, too.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 11:09 PM
No I didn’t.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:11 PM
No, it’s called political operation.
We’ve already had some of the allegedly best and most respectable among the GOP Senate declare that they “believe” Obama is a U.S. citizen and the only document, so called, they’ve seen to base that decision on is already, also, been established as a fraudulent work.
So, who do you rely on for “reason”? I’m still basing my best expectations on citizens.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Nowhere did I say seven others already did it. Why that’s in quotes is beyond me. In fact, I said seven others didn’t do it, and the idea that they all got away with something so profoundly unconstitutional (according to you) is not reasonable.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:12 PM
Yes, Ronnie, you did.
My impression is you’re in, at best, high school.
In which case, good luck, good night.
Lourdes on April 23, 2012 at 11:14 PM
God gave me what I need. No, I don’t “rely” on citizens I never even met.
Ronnie on April 23, 2012 at 11:15 PM
Ahem.
Dante on April 23, 2012 at 11:16 PM
If Rubio is the VP nominee, I will not vote for Mitt.
JannyMae on April 23, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »