Warning: the ultimate ethics question to Obama supporters

page: 3
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 

So you are totally beyond the idea of soveriegnty and the US constitution. That's cool, I understand where you are comming from. I don't agree, but I do understand.

Where I have a problem is that you seem to insinuate that the voters would actually choose said non American as president. I don't think we actually have a choice now.

Just sayin...




posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I don't think I will see Obama become President.

By then I will have probably died of boredom of yet ANOTHER Obama thread on ATS!

Hey you guys your election was earlier this month, can't you just all get along now and move your great country forward!



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 07:34 PM
link   
reply to post by DigitalMilita
 


Produce evidence and he'll produce the papers.


 

To address the OP, if it turned out that he was not a natural citizen that he can't be president. Plain and simple.

It's not a matter of ethics, it's a matter of law. It only gets ethical if you want to start examining the law, if you believe it is archaic.

Luckily, I personally think it is all baseless, but I will reserve complete judgment until it finally gets laid to rest.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Irish M1ck]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmbandt

So you are totally beyond the idea of soveriegnty and the US constitution. That's cool, I understand where you are comming from. I don't agree, but I do understand.


I hope you see how that is an illogical assumption about me. Just because I disagree with a part of it does not mean I disagree with the whole of it. It does not mean I am 'way beyond it' either.

I am also not a die hard conservative or a die-hard constitutionalist. I believe in the progression of constantly refining and developing a better society. Sometimes this equates to being conservative and sometimes it doesn't. I believe being apathetic to the idea that our system could not be changed for the better is wholly dangerous for Mankind. I do not believe, despite how great it is, that the US Constitution is perfect and infallible.


Where I have a problem is that you seem to insinuate that the voters would actually choose said non American as president.


I might be misinterpreting this.

The only thing I was trying to insinuate is that each voter would have a personal opinion on the issue of a non-born president. If the majority of US citizens don't want a US President to be non-US born, then he would not be elected, because that majority opinion would reflect in the democratic vote.


I don't think we actually have a choice now.


My opinion really only applies to a truly democratic vote. If we have the interference of another body i.e the Republic, then your are right, we may or may not have a choice.

Of course, we know we do not actually have a democratic vote. We have a Republic, we have an Electoral College, we have a Supreme Court that can over rule...

My thoughts really only apply to a democratic vote. So if we feel this should be a definite rule enforced by a body outside of our popular vote, then I can't argue with this logic. I don't believe it should be this way though.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:18 PM
link   
reply to post by angel of lightangelo
 


he has a point. If the words can be spoken in simple terms, then let it be. A...real live third grader would have the best ethical terms on this. Thats who we should present the idea to.


Zen. COudl u tell this to a 4th grader?



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   


this was an exercise to make people realize that our leaders are faced with this contradiction of morals all the time.
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 

If you are looking for a candidate that can bend the moral code and ignor moral standards then BO has proven himself to be your man.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:29 PM
link   
If he lied about his birth certificate to obtain power under false pretenses then he is guilty of treason.

The only option is to arrest him, try him for treason, then he swings by his neck until dead may God have mercy on his soul PRO-ceed....



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 08:32 PM
link   
reply to post by the lost generation
 


...Anddddd back to the 21st century.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 09:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

As most know, I am an avid Obama supporter. I LOVE him!




Does his Wife know? You better get great disguises and find really out of the way Hotels.

Back to the topic.

If he lied, he can't be trusted. That means none of what he said can be trusted. Unless he confessed and apologized, I would not give him a quarter if I saw him on a street corner with a sign.

The social elite and privileged class only lie for very insidious reasons. It is not like when a beggar lies to get a meal. (speaking of which, I never did find out how he got rich??? Quit a 12 thousand dollar a year job, went to Harvard and emerged rich. I'm just jealous and I want to do the same)

If I ran the show, even though I did not vote for him, I'd want another vote but only after he publicly confessed to his lie(s). Then if he won a second time, leave him in office.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowflux
 





When we founded this country we set up certain guidelines to ensure the continuance of the nation we created.


The common American citizen founded America, and they should be allowed to have the "freedom of speach" if and when they hold the mass rallies towards congress. And _if_ the Army and police tried to stop them? And it would show evidence that there IS a "problem" in America.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by plumranch



this was an exercise to make people realize that our leaders are faced with this contradiction of morals all the time.
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 

If you are looking for a candidate that can bend the moral code and ignor moral standards then BO has proven himself to be your man.


no, non, nay. I used this (the birth certificate issue and BO) because it was such a popular subject, if this was in the 90's, i would have asked this:
IF Bill Clinton was the absolute best president ever, could do no wrong for our country, but his only flaw was infeldity, would you help destroy the blue dress?
or in 2001:
ASSUMNIG Bush was the best president in the history of the United States, could do no wrong, but his only flaw was wanting to start a war based on shoty intelligence and assumptions, would you help him? (this one seems to be worse, but i want to remain non partisan)
or maybe in the 60's:
many people feel JFK is the best president ever, assuming he will do the most amazing job ever, not be bought and continue to try and expose secret societies and fight the world military complex, BUT he has infedelity problems, would you help sneak Marilyn Monroe into the white house?
Obama is just an example i'm using, so please no more of either one of these:
"I'll be bored to death from threads about Obama, he won, give it a break"
or
"if you research it enough you will see he has already proven this"
this thread is not to convince anyone that obama IS or is not natural born...it is STRICTLY what if. by the way, the answers here are very telling, this is getting interesting. and to Lucid Lunacy: i understand now, and that WAS a good point you made, thanks for clarification.



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by the lost generation
If he lied about his birth certificate to obtain power under false pretenses then he is guilty of treason.

The only option is to arrest him, try him for treason, then {snip} until dead may God have mercy on his soul PRO-ceed....

look, i am not a fan of people running to the mods. but PLEASE change your post to something less volatile, there is no room in this THEOLOGICAL HYPOTHETICAL thread for that, being he is the first black president I do not think images of him doing what you have described is conducive to an intelligent discussion. I see you are new so i won't jump down your neck, but we don't do that here. period. i think we shoot people for treason don't we? change your post to that because of the racial undertones (either intentional or not) that can be construed from your origional reply, or i'll have to set you to ignore.

[edit on 13-11-2008 by Enigma Publius]



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic


If he lied, he can't be trusted. That means none of what he said can be trusted. Unless he confessed and apologized, I would not give him a quarter if I saw him on a street corner with a sign.



If I ran the show, even though I did not vote for him, I'd want another vote but only after he publicly confessed to his lie(s). Then if he won a second time, leave him in office.

but this was strictly laid out that he only had this ONE flaw, he would keep all obligations, be the best leader we have ever had, put plans in place to secure our nation for generations, even MAKE US RESPECTED by the rest of the world again, under my limitations in the OP, Obama would do all these things, it IS strictly hypothetical. you would not help bend ONE law in order to secure someone in the white house that was not crooked whatsoever, and only had 1 single thing wrong about them as oposed to chosing any of the other guys or gals (just insert a name) that yo know will lie about many many more things? i think it's a given that ANY leader we choose will lie, and bend rules, OR MAKE NEW ONES SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BEND THEM, in the guidlines i laid out, Obama would not make any new presidential directives for his personal gain, he would secure the borders in a way that satisfies ilegeals and americans alike, he would be perfect, EXCEPT for that one thing. You would have to be out of your mind in my opinion to say "well, get rid of him, i know he will be the best leader ever, but he lied on the app, and got caught, GET ME A BETTER LIAR RIGHT NOW!"



posted on Nov, 13 2008 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by gordonwest
reply to post by Shadowflux
 





When we founded this country we set up certain guidelines to ensure the continuance of the nation we created.


The common American citizen founded America, and they should be allowed to have the "freedom of speach" if and when they hold the mass rallies towards congress. And _if_ the Army and police tried to stop them? And it would show evidence that there IS a "problem" in America.

this is true. slightly off topic but true. to clarify, i don't mind if we get slightly off topic, as long as the discussion stays candid and truthful. I am just a huge fan of communication; i.e. input and feedback. it sets us apart from the animals, and is the ONLY thing that can bring us together. keep posting, slightly off topic is fine, just don't post any garbage like LostGeneration that is basicly trolling. i even accept the posts where people have suggested my idea and myself to be treasonous, because technically they are correct, and i cannot argue that it is not, it kinda hurt my feelings slightly, but it's honest enough i think.
"Don't bring your feelings here, they will get hurt"
i know, so don't try to tell me that, but i cannot help it. I wish so badly i possesed the skills to unite america, i cry for my country sometimes, i want her restored to her full glory, we have been shamed and the world HATES us. i posed a question about an almost impossible scenario where a candidate WOULD restore america to everything it should be, and make us the world leader instead of the world bully (such a big difference) i still think many people here must not have understood that part of it. or they just aren't being honest.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enigma Publius


I would out him and thus prevent him from being president. Anyone who thinks differently is not a true liberal and is a hypocrite.

well this is the only comment that i totally disagree with. How could you not at least sympathize or understand someone else doing this, it is the only chance you will ever have to elect a man into office who will do everything he has promised, that has never been done, how does doing something that IS going to benefit your country so greatly earn you the label of a hypocrite? Inviting you to further explain.


Believe me, I can sympathize with you wanting a president who will truly benefit our country, that is why I voted for Obama in the first place. In fact, if you have ever read any of my posts, you would have seen that I am one of Obama's biggest fans and supporters. However, if the man is constitutionally ineligible to hold the office, he should not hold it...Period.

Personally, I see liberals as progressives, people who want our society to move forward. IMO, devaluing the merit and validity of the constitution is not progress. The American society has progressed to our current state because of the constitution, not in spite of it. Chipping away at the legitimacy of the constitution, even for the sake of having a great president, in no way moves us toward a brighter future.

Essentially, it is hypocritical for someone who is for progress (liberal) to be in favor of harming the value or legitimacy of our constitution because it is the constitution that has allowed us to progress in the first place.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:12 AM
link   
reply to post by BluegrassRevolutionary
 

thanks for taking the time to clarify, and be polite about it also! refreshing!


anyway, i do understand what you mean now. But in the impossible scenario i laid out where he would unite everyone on all the issues (gun laws, the U.S. being respected the world over again, fixing the economy, solving border problems) if someone COULD do all of that i would still have to help them. so i hold on my stance, but i fully understand where you are coming from.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 


And, I don't blame you for your stance. After the last eight years and the denigration done to the constitution by Bush for the sole purpose of tightening the governments grip on its citizens, the little bit of bad done by allowing Obama to serve, given the potential good he could do, could be a fair trade off.



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Enigma Publius

Originally posted by gordonwest
reply to post by Shadowflux
 





When we founded this country we set up certain guidelines to ensure the continuance of the nation we created.


The common American citizen founded America, and they should be allowed to have the "freedom of speach" if and when they hold the mass rallies towards congress. And _if_ the Army and police tried to stop them? And it would show evidence that there IS a "problem" in America.

this is true. slightly off topic but true. to clarify, i don't mind if we get slightly off topic, as long as the discussion stays candid and truthful. I am just a huge fan of communication; i.e. input and feedback. it sets us apart from the animals, and is the ONLY thing that can bring us together. keep posting, slightly off topic is fine, just don't post any garbage like LostGeneration that is basicly trolling. i even accept the posts where people have suggested my idea and myself to be treasonous, because technically they are correct, and i cannot argue that it is not, it kinda hurt my feelings slightly, but it's honest enough i think.
"Don't bring your feelings here, they will get hurt"
i know, so don't try to tell me that, but i cannot help it. I wish so badly i possesed the skills to unite america, i cry for my country sometimes, i want her restored to her full glory, we have been shamed and the world HATES us. i posed a question about an almost impossible scenario where a candidate WOULD restore america to everything it should be, and make us the world leader instead of the world bully (such a big difference) i still think many people here must not have understood that part of it. or they just aren't being honest.





I wish so badly i possesed the skills to unite america
You can unite America. As you are a American, you should beable to have the "freedom of speach". AND...You can run for being *President* of the United States of America.




we have been shamed and the world HATES us.
The world does NOT hate the (Americans). I think, it is more like, they hate the system and certain people who try and bully the rest of the world.




a candidate WOULD restore america to everything it should be
Sorry to ask. When was America a 100%-restored-world leader-megapower? From my knoweldge, America has always had "problems". Sorry to "stir the pot", but the world will NOT be looking at the past. The world and the circle of life is moving forward, and the whole wide world will be in more of the shats. Ohh. WW3 would come to mind, after that? post apocalyptic events...There would be no more stockmarket, world goverment(s), and life more be in (chaos)..*And I love hearing the part when PEOPLE says, And the NWO is trying to bring "Order From Chaos". - Oh wait! A post apocalyptic world event will be chaotic, but the world will be in the deeper shats then ever before in the history of the world. So no, the NWO can not in anyway be that way.* The reason why I mentioned that last part, is because America is just a piece of the puzzle, just like all the other countries around the world. And the big picture would be is that America will and can NOT be magicly restored by any means, so life in America will keep'on rolling down hill. By the way: I am a Australian, and I do also belive in "Freedom Of Speach".



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by gordonwest
 

well i suppose we never as highly esteemed as i would like to believe. but please don't appologizze for getting slightly off topic or "stiring the pot" STIR AWAY!


this is a loose theological discussion anyways, i encourage all of you to post opinions, ideas, and the like of as long as it is somewhat relevant. I never get put off by people broadening the subject, which is what you have done. matter of fact, i highly encourage it. thanks!

[edit on 14-11-2008 by Enigma Publius]



posted on Nov, 14 2008 @ 02:51 AM
link   


our leaders are faced with this contradiction of morals all the time.
reply to post by Enigma Publius
 


Would I protect the relatively immoral BO, never! Even if he was (laughably) Mother Teresa. Not because I distrust him (for very good reasons) but because I believe that if one lies or commits a moral transgression then quite frankly you GTH or pay the consequences in real life. Ie. commiting immoral acts is not good no matter who the benificiary. You're always wrong, but especially in BO's case. (Bill's blue dress will be nothing compared to OBs transgressions)

It ain't easy but eventually one gets the picture! I'm not talking religion, just doing the right thing.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join