GatKong |
|
Tetris Mason
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/20/07
|
|
Posts: 5907
|
|
Loc: Sector 9
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Hey Liberals
#257769 - 06/18/11 05:51 PM
|
|
|
Why did I call out liberals? Because conservatives are already up in arms, while liberals sit idle since they think their agenda is getting moved forward... but they are missing the big picture.
Some issues transcend liberal and conservative... like the rule of law.
Rather you are liberal or conservative, all Americans should be concerned when there is no law.
While in the short term, the liberal agenda may benefit from ignoring the rule of law... once that president is set, next time around it could be the conservative agenda that trumps your rights and the law.
Obama has circumvented and ignored the constitution and its bill of rights on multiple occasions.
He's started three wars without congressional approval. Even the unpopular Bush obtained congressional approval for the unpopular wars in Iraq, in accordance with the constitution.
He seeks to nullify the second amendment in the Bill of Rights by introducing a treaty which would nullify that part of the bill of rights. No other president in history has ever engaged in treaty negotiations that would nullify our own constitution... (yes, treaties supersede the constitution, and no other president has ever even considered rewriting our constitution through this mechanism outside of our amendment process.)
He circumvents private citizen's rights to contractual law when he nullifies bond holders contracts, a power no article of the constitution gives him.
Rather you agree with his agenda or not, as a law abiding US citizen, you should see the dangerous precedent that is being established.
Imagine, if you would, the next conservative president making a treaty with a foreign government which bans your right to free speech (perhaps rationalizing protests in America were creating unrest in the treaty country). Remember, treaties supersede the constitution, and Obama started this precedent. Now your very act of protesting his actions has become a crime... news medias can no longer print stories contrary to the Presidents agenda, people can no longer protest in public. Then he confiscates union pension funds in order to shore up private investors. What gave him that authority? Obama's precedent of confiscating bonds to shore up pensions. Don't like it? You can't voice your discontent publicly, you'll be arrested. Take it a step further and he starts a bombing campaign against Canada... according to Obama's precedent, he has that authority simply by claiming the military action is "not hostile to the people of Canada, and therefore doesn't count as war, and therefore doesn't require congressional approval." If any of these examples seem ludicrous, they are no more or less ludicrous than the actual events of our time, just the names of the various elements have changed for illustrative purposes.
Liberal or conservative, all Americans should be outraged over these egregious assaults on our constitutional way of life. How is Obama not more dangerous to the US and it's constitutional way of life than any other threat from foreign sources?
|
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: GatKong]
#257770 - 06/18/11 06:01 PM
|
|
|
I'm not a big fan of Obama lately, but can you cite some references for your accusations?
You can't expect people to believe everything you regurgitate from talk radio without sources to back it up.
|
GroovyMAME support forum on BYOAC
|
|
|
Techrat lives on.
[Re: GatKong]
#257772 - 06/18/11 06:05 PM
|
|
|
Actually not, because he used the term 'sleazy liberals'.
|
|
|
| GatKong |
|
Tetris Mason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/20/07
|
|
Posts: 5907
|
|
Loc: Sector 9
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: krick]
#257778 - 06/18/11 06:41 PM
|
|
|
What instance do you need cited? They are all over the news:
War Powers Act
New York Times
Quote:
The White House, pushing hard against criticism in Congress over the deepening air war in Libya, asserted Wednesday that President Obama had the authority to continue the military campaign without Congressional approval because American involvement fell short of full-blown hostilities.
Treaty to supersede the Bill of Rights
Washington Times
Quote:
The U.N. Small Arms Treaty opens a back door for the Obama administration to force through gun control regulations. Threats to the Second Amendment are as real today as ever.
Usurping the rule of law: Confiscation of Bond value to support the UAW Pension funds
Under the rule of law a bondholder has precidence in bankrupsy procedings.
In the bankruptcy proceedings for GM and Chrysler, the bondholders were not given normal precedence in the proceedings, and in fact were reordered last in priority, in preference to the UAW Pension funds, unprecedented in US Bankruptcy laws.
Risk Managment News
Quote:
The Obama administration official said the government would not require a specific percentage of bondholders to approve the new proposal but would make a judgment call based on the level of support. About 15 percent of bondholders had agreed to the previous proposal, the official said.
Edit:
In short, the bombing of a foreign country to oust its leader isn't war, the Constitution and its Bill of Rights is a document we are willing to negotiate outside the amendment process, and the rule of law is irrelevant if not politically expedient... are these precedents we cherish in America? Where do we draw the line... if not as it is drawn in law.
Edited by Gatinho (06/18/11 07:40 PM)
|
|
|
| GatKong |
|
Tetris Mason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/20/07
|
|
Posts: 5907
|
|
Loc: Sector 9
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
|
Liberals aren't sleezy, conservatives aren't sleezy. I think our country is greatest BECAUSE our well founded constitution requires a consensus of liberals and conservatives to get things done... in other words promotes the centralist mainstream middle-America, where most of us live and work. But what is happening is a circumventing of that constitution which keeps American grounded and fair. It's not a conservative opinion, it's not a liberal position... it's what is happening... and people should be concerned.
Conservatives are voicing concern... liberals, for the most part, are apathetic because they benefit for the moment. But that's my point, we ALL need to be concerned, because the shoe could just as easily be on the other foot.
Edited by Gatinho (06/18/11 07:08 PM)
|
|
|
| DMala |
|
Sleep is overrated
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 05/09/05
|
|
Posts: 3989
|
|
Loc: Waltham, MA
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: GatKong]
#257784 - 06/18/11 07:49 PM
|
|
|
> War Powers Act
> New York Times
OK, first of all, the Obama administration hardly invented the idea of an undeclared armed conflict. That doesn't make it right, but it's hardly a new thing. Perhaps you've heard of places called "Korea" and "Vietnam"?
More practically, what are we supposed to do? Obama goes to Congress and gets approval to declare war (if such a thing were possible), we declare war on Libya, and now we're bogged down on a third front in the Middle East? No sane person wants that. Or we go to the other extreme and drop all support. Sorry guys, not our fight. Khadaffi moves in and slaughters the rebels by the tens of thousands. Now the Libyans hate us (both sides), every Arab rebelling against an oppressive regime hates us, and the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of assholes. It's literally a no-win situation. I don't know about usurping the rule of law, but I see it as the least bad compromise in an ugly situation.
> Treaty to supersede the Bill of Rights
> Washington Times
This editorial is purely speculation, it does not have a single fact in it. As far as I can tell, it's just the latest bit of the "Obama's goan take our gunzzz!!!" hysteria that has been roiling since the day he was elected. Personally, I think the whole thing is fueled, if it wasn't started by, the gun and ammo manufacturers and dealers. They play on the fears of their conservative, white base and make a killing while everyone frantically stocks up for the sweeping gun controls that are never coming.
|
|
|
| GatKong |
|
Tetris Mason
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 04/20/07
|
|
Posts: 5907
|
|
Loc: Sector 9
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: DMala]
#257793 - 06/18/11 09:04 PM
|
|
|
>More practically, what are we supposed to do? Obama goes to Congress and gets approval to declare war (if such a thing were possible), we declare war on Libya, and now we're bogged down on a third front in the Middle East? No sane person wants that.
Right.
I think you meant to disagree with me, but we actually agree! Bombing a foreign country to destroy its leadership is war. Your reply assumes congress approves of the war. You don't want it. I don't want it. By making the Executive branch ask the Legislative branch for permission, the Legislative branch can say no (and would, in this case). Checks and balances. End of conflict.
See how by following the constitution our mainstream values prevail.
P.S. edit
>OK, first of all, the Obama administration hardly invented the idea of an undeclared armed conflict. That doesn't make it right, but it's hardly a new thing. Perhaps you've heard of places called "Korea" and "Vietnam"?
You are right about Korea and Vietnam, those presidents (Truman and Nixon) acted without congressional authority, and thus the War Powers Act of 1973 was adopted to prevent future presidents from engaging in "conflicts" without declaring them as wars.
Quote:
The War Powers Act of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the power of the President in committing the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."
So... clearly Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act. What now? We respond in accordance with our party agendas, or according to the rule of law?
This isn't a campaign issue, it's a cross-roads for America. How American's respond to a Presidential violation of Congressional Law sets precedence for future presidents to start unauthorized conflicts; future Koreas, future Vietnams.
Edited by Gatinho (06/18/11 09:34 PM)
|
|
|
|
you can tell its campaign time again.
[Re: GatKong]
#257794 - 06/18/11 09:06 PM
|
|
|
you don't really think they count that vote you cast do you?
ha ha.
|
|
|
| FatTrucker |
|
Randomly pressing buttons in hope of success.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 01/31/06
|
|
Posts: 917
|
|
Loc: London UK
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: GatKong]
#257802 - 06/18/11 11:51 PM
|
|
|
Just wanted to make the point that what's going on in Libya isn't war in any way shape or form. Its a supportive action under UN mandate to provide support and protection for the opposition movement in Libya.
At no point are they mandated to move in on the ground or get militarily involved beyond that remit.
Ultimately it will still be down to the Libyan people to effect any change, remove the encumbent government and form a new one.
All the US is doing is providing support within its responsibilities as a leading member of the UN along with the other nations that are involved.
Debate on these issues is good. I think though its also good to look at the various agendas involved and the sources of any propaganda. I see lots of 'we've got to stop this f**ker now' rhetoric but very little that actually constitutes any real cause for concern or evidence of radical or unconstitutional change taking place.
Bush took us all into Iraq, and then on into Afghanistan, two unpopular, unsuccessful and in many respects uneccesary conflicts that killed hundreds of thousands of people. The current action in Libya to protect an embattled people from murder by their own government by providing logistical and air support is by comparison positively humanitarian. Yet Obama is the one demonised.
|
|
|
italie |
|
MAME owes italie many thank yous, hah
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/20/03
|
|
Posts: 15246
|
|
Loc: BoomTown
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: GatKong]
#257803 - 06/19/11 12:02 AM
|
|
|
> So... clearly Obama is in violation of the War Powers Act. What now? We respond in
> accordance with our party agendas, or according to the rule of law?
Violation is debatable. Really. I can't speak to the other two "wars" he started that you are referring to (refresh my memory?), but we still haven't hashed out the legalities of treaty vs Constitution. What he did, until proven otherwise by the supreme court, was legal. He assisted Allies in accordance with a NATO treaty.
Bush skirted the spirit of the law by "Legally" declaring war under false pretense. Obama skirted it by not declaring "War", "Legally".
> This isn't a campaign issue, it's a cross-roads for America. How American's respond
> to a Presidential violation of Congressional Law sets precedence for future
> presidents to start unauthorized conflicts; future Koreas, future Vietnams.
The cross-roads happened in '90. Again in '01, '03, and now in '11. They'll keep on happening too. We've responded in many ways. We've given the "'Merica, eff yeah!" response. We responded by blaming whoever is in office, electing someone from the other side. We've begrudgingly accepted. We've shown indifference. We've done a lot of things, none of which have been minding our own damned business.
This isn't an issue over liberals vs conservatives, Republicans vs Democrats, mayonnaise vs miracle whip, or orange jello vs strawberry jello. This is an issue of uninformed and misinformed masses who are too busy worrying about who Ryan Seacrest is boning to be bothered with understanding the real reason our world is so fucked.
I have a buddy whose convoy was hit by an IED two weeks back. It was briefly covered in the paper, and on the cable news networks. The differences between his first and account, and every other account, were criminal. I'm not talking about a few missing details either. Not one outlet mentioned all the guys that aren't coming home. Instead we focus on needing better armor, or the need to pull out, or the serious threat the enemy posses. We'd never be at war again if everyone could really see the pain it puts some of our own in. I don't blame the politicians. I blame us for letting them, and I mean ALL of them, do this to us. We want to feel justified 10-fold for our pain. To get that done we need to conveniently hide those of our own that get hurt in the process, and the hurt we are causing to "The Enemy" as well(who is our enemy again?). The media distorts every story to fit it's purpose that week. EVERY outlet. With lawmakers so concerned about their image in said media, I would almost go as far as to say the media has just as much power as congress itself (or at least decent power over it).
I've learned to live my life under a few simple rules as of late. One such rule is "If I saw it on TV or read it on the internet, I shouldn't be using it as a valid argument for anything." Feel free to write that down.
|
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: italie]
#257804 - 06/19/11 12:22 AM
|
|
|
> I have a buddy whose convoy was hit by an IED two weeks back. It was briefly covered
> in the paper, and on the cable news networks. The differences between his first and
> account, and every other account, were criminal. I'm not talking about a few missing
> details either. Not one outlet mentioned all the guys that aren't coming home.
This is exactly why I want to see dead bodies on TV every night. The job of the media is to document exactly what happens in war so that the viewers know what we as a country are actually losing by being there. Without seeing the bodies, the American people might as well be rooting for sides in a football game.
|
GroovyMAME support forum on BYOAC
|
|
| Tomu Breidah |
|
No Problems, Only Solutions
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 08/14/04
|
|
Posts: 6819
|
|
Loc: Neither here, nor there.
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: krick]
#257821 - 06/19/11 05:09 AM
|
|
|
> This is exactly why I want to see dead bodies on TV every night. The job of the media
> is to document exactly what happens in war so that the viewers know what we as a
> country are actually losing by being there. Without seeing the bodies, the American
> people might as well be rooting for sides in a football game.
Liberal or Conservative? It's all a smoke screen so the promiscuous pot smoking hippies and bigoted bible thumpers can believe they have a dog in this so called fight for "America"... This Country is nothing more than a tool for the Global Elites, the very people that fund wars all for the sake of big business and population reduction. Or something like that.
Might as well. 
eta: It doesn't matter who the f***'s in office. 
|
LEVEL-4
|
|
|
Re: Hey Liberals
[Re: italie]
#257838 - 06/19/11 02:28 PM
|
|
|
> This isn't an issue over liberals vs conservatives, Republicans vs Democrats,
> mayonnaise vs miracle whip, or orange jello vs strawberry jello. This is an issue of
> uninformed and misinformed masses who are too busy worrying about who Ryan Seacrest
> is boning to be bothered with understanding the real reason our world is so fucked.
I find that people are only interested in who got booted of Dancing with the Stars. 
Kevin Eshbach
|
|
|
| Gor |
|
Giver of truth.
|
|
|
|
|
Reged: 09/21/03
|
|
Posts: 1925
|
|
Loc: The basement
|
|
|
|
Send PM
|
|
|
Re: treaties
[Re: GatKong]
#257842 - 06/19/11 05:07 PM
|
|
|
> Treaty to supersede the Bill of Rights
The article isn't saying that. The closest the article comes is quoting the opinion of John Bolton who says
Quote:
This U.N. treaty will lead to more gun control in America. “After the treaty is approved and it comes into force, you will find out that it has this implication or that implication and it requires the Congress to adopt some measure that restricts ownership of firearms,” former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John R. Bolton warns. “The [Obama] administration knows it cannot obtain this kind of legislation purely in a domestic context. … They will use an international agreement as an excuse to get domestically what they couldn’t otherwise.”
So what Bolton is saying is that the Obama administration wants to restrict firearms and can't get
that done through legislation, so he will instead sign a treaty that will force the United States to pass
legislation that will restrict firearms. In either case, the same Congress would need to pass that
legislation. If President Obama can't get legislation passed without the treaty, why would he be
able to with the treaty? 2/3 of the Senate is required to approve a treaty anyway, and there are
probably at least 34 Senators that would not want to restrict firearms, otherwise President Obama
wouldn't even require this alleged end around to reach that goal. Let's say all that magically does
happen, it's my opinion that the Supreme Court would invalidate any legislation that runs counter
to the Constitution. That would certainly apply to gun control measures with the court's current
makeup.
You can read more about it at factcheck.org.
|
Oh for Pete's sake.
loser.com
|
|
Index 
Threaded 
Hey Liberals
Reply
[Re: 
