It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama Declares Coup "Not Legal" Amid Uncertainty

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


Ok I think I understand what your saying. The president does not have first amendment rights.

I suppose none of us have the right to formulate an opinion then do we? After all if the president of the United States cannot be protected under the first amendment who can be?




posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   
Obama is wrong.

This was not a military coup. This was the congress and Supreme court that sent the military to arrest the president because he broke the law.

Obama is siding with the Communist, not defending the actions of the government of Honduras. The Supreme Court and Congress both declared the referendum illegal and the exiled president tried to have it anyway. So he was exiled.

Obama is in the wrong, he is supporting a president that broke the law in Honduras. You guys that are defending Obama better be paying attention because he just showed his true colors with this one.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
The president does not have first amendment rights.

whatukno .. buddy ....

This is common sense. He has a right to his opinion. We all do. But he has to BE CAREFUL about how he expresses it, or even expressing it at all, because of the position he's in. This common sense just goes with the job.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:29 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


The President of the United States of America, does not gather press core, juice up microphones, get cameras ready, journalists poised just to say....

"Hey IMO.....blah blah blah, take it for whats worth, Thanks for listening, Obama out!"

No my dear, The President of the United States of America chooses his words very carefully, does so for a reason, does so with the advice and aid of his cabinet. It is our job to listen, understand and agree or disagree.

I do not understand how you can defend him so blindly. He bows to communist dictators, shakes hands with them, embraces them...when they have insulted and threatened us. I think he does not want anyone to overthrow his regime, and that is why he got his panties in a bunch about this. (just kidding there)



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:31 AM
link   
I think that it was just a statement of

Monkey see Monkey do Monkey get in trouble too.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:36 AM
link   
Listen, it's all about the money. The money (YOUR MONEY) that we won't be sending there because we don't like what they did to whoever.

This is bad? It's bad to not send our tax payer dollars overseas?

That's what his opinion is all about. It's less a statement about what they did, it's more about what we aren't going to send to a country. Your Tax dollars.

Is that bad?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by whatukno
The president does not have first amendment rights.

whatukno .. buddy ....

This is common sense. He has a right to his opinion. We all do. But he has to BE CAREFUL about how he expresses it, or even expressing it at all, because of the position he's in. This common sense just goes with the job.



When speaking officially, meaning as acting as president, he speaks for the United States of America. He does not merely espouse an opinion!! I do not understand how that is not clear.

The word President ...means presides over...which means he knows the official opinions of the congress, the state department, the defense department and homeland security. The words he uses are chosen and he is representing us when he says them. He sided with confirmed COMMUNIST dictators!!!!!! No other president in the history of the United States of America ever sided with communist dictators (although nixon got a l little too friendly).

You are confusing the president of the united states of America with a celebrity on t he red carpet. It is not JUST HIS OPINION! I am getting fired up.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:39 AM
link   
How is it a "coup" if the congress voted and asked the military to step in?

It seems to me that they did everything right according to their constitution.

Is that why Obama is upset?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
What an INCREDIBLE failure of Obama's part! First of all, the Honduran Supreme Court had ruled that the President's attempted change of their Constitution was illegal and ammounted to a coup in an of itself. He was attempting to usurp their Constitution by forcing his eligibility to serve additional terms beyond what the law allowed - sort of like what Chavez did. The mere fact that Chavez and Castro are supporting this President's illegal attempt to usurp the Constitution of Honduras should be enough for any intelligent person to take pause. Apparently Obama is not that intelligent.

This obviously exposes Obama's agenda to support dictatorships around the globe - probably, including his own. He is clearly on the wrong side of this issue. What was done was perfectly legal, Contitutional and a moral obligation on the part of the their military to protect and uphold their Constitution - just as our own military is obliged to do so. Pay VERY careful attentionn Obama. You are President of the US, not the King. Any attempt to continue to usurp our Constitution (beyond what you have already done) will likely result in similar measures.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


I'm gonna ask again, is it bad that we are not going to send them our tax money? Apparently it is. That's what the people in this thread are saying.

The reason that Obama said that it was an illegal ousting is to make it possible for us to cut off money we send to that country.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 



The reason that Obama said that it was an illegal ousting is to make it possible for us to cut off money we send to that country.


Honduras aid, how much would that be in dollars per year? The thing is that the aid is not very significant an amount for Obama to declare the coup illegal.

Money spent elsewhere by the US govt (taxpayer) is much more than that given to Honduras as aid.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


He was ousted for clearly violating the Honduras constituition. It is not ok for presidents to act like they are above the law and treat the constitution like it is toilet paper. How is violating your country's constitution democracy? I think it is more like a dictatorship when they start ignoring the law of the land. Obama is a joke, lets get that straight. I wish our military would oust him.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


He was ousted for clearly violating the Honduras constituition. It is not ok for presidents to act like they are above the law and treat the constitution like it is toilet paper. How is violating your country's constitution democracy? I think it is more like a dictatorship when they start ignoring the law of the land. Obama is a joke, lets get that straight. I wish our military would oust him.

And as far as aid goes to other countrys? WTF? We need to stop that crap. Virtually every state has some sort of budget shortfall and the Federal Government is in massive debt but continues to print money and give it away. Great policy


[edit on 30-6-2009 by bakednutz]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:53 AM
link   
reply to post by whatukno
 


You don't get it do? This is way bigger on whether or not we send aid to Honduras.

The writing is on the wall and if you can't see it then that is your own problem.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Then enlighten me please.

Cause from what I read, it's just an excuse to stop aid. Other than that it's just an opinion. The effect was that we can now stop sending them money, but apparently people are so blinded by hating Obama they don't pull their heads out of their own anuses to see what the result really is.

Now your and my tax dollars don't have to be spent on propping up some OTHER country.

PLEASE people, just cause teleprompter O says something doesn't automatically make it evil. Look at the real consequences of the action. Now we save money, money our government shouldn't be spending.

It's not about whether or not some president in Honduras tried to circumvent the constitution of their country it's more about an excuse to not send OUR money there.

So how is it now that Obama is destroying America and crippling the world by stating his opinion?

[edit on 6/30/2009 by whatukno]



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by kozmo
 


I'm gonna ask again, is it bad that we are not going to send them our tax money? Apparently it is. That's what the people in this thread are saying.

The reason that Obama said that it was an illegal ousting is to make it possible for us to cut off money we send to that country.



A loaded question to say the least. Bait anyone lately?
Fair enough, I'll bite.

Yes, it is probably bad that we are going to cut off aid to country that has done nothing illegal. It is probably NOT a good thing that we are going to apply punitive measures to a country who was simply upholding the rule of law and protecting their own Constitution. Why, you ask? Because the bad precedent that this sends to other truly democratic countries and the message regarding our President's desire to support potential dictators and usurpers over the rule of law. Good enough?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Ill grant you that the cause may be BS, but the effect is good.

I don't think our government should have the obligation to send money to any country.

That's what happened here. So it's punitive measures? Or is it a good excuse to not prop up a country? Heck if he can figure out how to use existing policy to stop funding every other country on earth, we could save a ton of money in the long run.

Is that bad?

Heck I don't care if Obama decided that some president's haircut is illegal in another country. If it stops us from giving them money it's a good thing.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by Hastobemoretolife
 


Then enlighten me please.

Cause from what I read, it's just an excuse to stop aid. Other than that it's just an opinion. The effect was that we can now stop sending them money, but apparently people are so blinded by hating Obama they don't pull their heads out of their own anuses to see what the result really is.

Now your and my tax dollars don't have to be spent on propping up some OTHER country.

PLEASE people, just cause teleprompter O says something doesn't automatically make it evil. Look at the real consequences of the action. Now we save money, money our government shouldn't be spending.

It's not about whether or not some president in Honduras tried to circumvent the constitution of their country it's more about an excuse to not send OUR money there.

So how is it now that Obama is destroying America and crippling the world by stating his opinion?

[edit on 6/30/2009 by whatukno]


Enlighten you? I would love to, however I fear that your judgement is already too clouded for enlightenment as it were.

If this were truly about ending foreign aid, why would Obama need to declare this very legal coup illegal? Why not just simply cancel any further aid payments? We do NOT need just cause to scale back or end aid payments to anyone. It is the money of the US taxpayers and role of Congress to determine where it is appropriated.

No, you are failing to recognize the fundamentals here. let us, for a mere moment, pretend that this had occurred here in America. Let us Assume that Obama had already served his 2 legal terms and then set out to illegally change the Constitution to allow him to serve a third. Let's assume that he had done what the President of Honduras had done, and despite the resistence of Congress and a Supreme Court ruling describing his self-appointed Constitutional changing authority, despite the Constitutional provisions outlining specifically the mechanism by which its Ammendments could be altered, illegal - he went ahead and declared that he was eligible for a third term and threw a monkey-wrench in 2016 Presidential election. How would you react then? Would you not agree that once Congress (who is the only authority over changing the Constitution) regarded his actions as illegal and the Supreme Court concured that he should be either arrested or exiled? It is quite simple really.

The other aspect that should alarm you is that his tacit support of the law-breaking, would-be dictator President of Honduras sheds a very bright light upon how he views Constitutional authority and the rule of law - that is SUBJECTIVELY! That, in and of itslef, flies in the face of the obligation and oath that a President takes to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law. In short, he is VERY much on the WRONG side of this issue! Enough said!?



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by kozmo
 


Ill grant you that the cause may be BS, but the effect is good.

I don't think our government should have the obligation to send money to any country.

That's what happened here. So it's punitive measures? Or is it a good excuse to not prop up a country? Heck if he can figure out how to use existing policy to stop funding every other country on earth, we could save a ton of money in the long run.

Is that bad?

Heck I don't care if Obama decided that some president's haircut is illegal in another country. If it stops us from giving them money it's a good thing.



Again whatukno... Whereas we can both fully agree that sending our tax dollars to prop up other countries is a cause whose time should come to end, this methodology and approach is worse than damaging. It sets a very negative precedent to other countries who are strugling to impose a true democracy and who would benefit from our aid in implementing a true democratic government. If the people people believe that the US will simply not support them, and instead support the very dictator that they are seeking to remove, you have simply supported the dictators. Get it?

No, if Obama truly wants to end foreign aid, he needs to approach Congress regarding the budget and take very legal and ethical steps to implement that as US policy.



posted on Jun, 30 2009 @ 11:34 AM
link   
So your assuming that because the President made an opinion saving us taxpayer money that he now will circumvent our constitution and try and run for a third term?



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join