Hawaii is not legally a state/ Obamah is a usurper., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 2 times


reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 06:14 PM by johnny2127
reply to post by keldas



This is all dependent on a belief that US laws and powers are given to them by the UN. What the UN declares has no power at all within the US. The US has long been a nation whose laws came from people and God.

The UN has no standing to rule on the legitimacy of Hawaii's statehood. Hawaii was seized, just as was most of the US. Legally this article changes no facts. It has it legal process and justification backwards. If anything it more argues for why Hawaiian citizens should receive compensation for past actions. Much like Native Americans.

I am not an Obama fan, but this argument is the flimsiest to date. Arguments like this are why the birther movement is cast in the light it is. As wackos and loon. I am not saying they are, but more why this sort of argument is counter productive to the birther movement.


reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 06:42 PM by Artephius Abraxas Helios
reply to post by Unit541

Do I need someone else to point out whether his policies are working or not?
No, I don't believe I do, and because of that, I will not blindly accept your view: that those policies are simply "spend a sh*t ton' of your money, and turn America into a socialist State.

Instead, I will choose to formulate my own opinions and further, because our society still honors the principle of free speech, I am entitled to those opinions even when they disagree with yours. I have dedicated years of my life to ensure that you have that same right, even though I disagree with you, it is not likely that you can say the same.

So, you are concerned that a politician in the United States would hide their past? How quaint. Your conservative idealism obviously blocks your memory or you would see the irony in such a statement, but I won't bore you with history lessons.

Suffice it to say that the man has been vetted and has passed. Again, you may disagree with the determination of that process, or even the methods used (as it is your right to disagree), but claiming that no "background check" has been given is not only ignorance, but it belies your true motives, which are to undermine the man at all costs because you are not creative enough to enter into honest debate.

If you knew anything about me you would not so lightly dictate to me which subjects you believe I should bring up again. You'll quickly find I am not so easily bullied as that, and as well read as any on this site or any other that you can name. If you wish to discuss what socialism or fascism or really any other -ism consists of, then might I suggest you change your tone of superior intellect and approach me as an equal. You get more flies with honey, no?

Of course the fact of what may be (or may not- as the case may be)socialism is not important to you though, is it? You have no time to be concerned with facts, because you are oblivious to all but your own agenda. It may do much to inform you that I am, in fact, not an Obama supporter, so much as a conservative Republican who is fed up with threads like this and posters like yourself giving the reasonable among us a bad name by acting like spoiled children who call each other names when they do not get what they want. I did not vote for Obama, but the man is not a socialist, and until true conservatives stand up to the bullies like yourself and put you in your rightful place on fringe of conservatism, we will never win another election. Conservative intellectuals like Buckley are rolling in their graves right now.

You are right in one regard, the country is in dire straights and can nigh afford more divisiveness. But you may find, if you are intellectually honest, that that burden lies squarely at the feet of the neo-cons and the all or nothing mentality that they have brought to conservatism. Your world may be a place of absolutes, capitalism v socialism, good v. evil, black v. white; but, my friend, reality is much much more complex than that, and much more beautiful to behold than you give it credit.


reply posted on 17-8-2009 @ 06:54 PM by Ulala
Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
reply to
post by keldas

Great, this is a perfect example of what is wrong with the anti-Obama movement. There is no talk of whether his administration's policies are actually helping or hurting, only rhetoric claiming he is either a socialist, or not even a "real" American. Puh-lease... if you can't get any traction with the Kenyan BC hoax, maybe the Hawaii isn't a real State anyway tact with take with the people. Desperation rears it's ugly head.

If the talking heads that fuel your ignorance told you people that the Declaration of Independence was not a valid document therefore the USA isn't a real country, therefore Obama can't be President, I'm not sure, but I think some of you would actually believe it and post it here on ATS. You heard it here first folks.

I know the old saying about arguing on the internet, but this is beyond retarded. Please stop.


Now that was truly hilarious

Someone please take that contribution and add it to the other great ATS posts ... that it may give us all pleasure for many years to come


reply posted on 18-8-2009 @ 03:15 AM by keldas
Originally posted by Ulala
Originally posted by Artephius Abraxas Helios
reply to
post by keldas

Great, this is a perfect example of what is wrong with the anti-Obama movement. There is no talk of whether his administration's policies are actually helping or hurting, only rhetoric claiming he is either a socialist, or not even a "real" American. Puh-lease... if you can't get any traction with the Kenyan BC hoax, maybe the Hawaii isn't a real State anyway tact with take with the people. Desperation rears it's ugly head.

If the talking heads that fuel your ignorance told you people that the Declaration of Independence was not a valid document therefore the USA isn't a real country, therefore Obama can't be President, I'm not sure, but I think some of you would actually believe it and post it here on ATS. You heard it here first folks.

I know the old saying about arguing on the internet, but this is beyond retarded. Please stop.


Now that was truly hilarious

Someone please take that contribution and add it to the other great ATS posts ... that it may give us all pleasure for many years to come


OK a theoretical and perhaps spurious question does that mean that when the constitution was first written it was envisaged that only the states mentioned would be part of America. I believe many Americans say that they did not want to be an Empire. So when new members joined they would be obliged to accecpt the constitution but does the reverse also apply in that there is provision in the constitution for new states to be fully paid up members of America and thus be eligible for election to be a member of Congress or President.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



DEA is Investigating Montana State Legislators Over State Laws
  Posted 11 days ago with 59 member flags
The CIA in Australia: America\'s Foreign Watergate
  Posted 1 days ago with 18 member flags
Who is really behind the birthers and what is their real motive?
  Posted 11 days ago with 11 member flags
ESF and Black op funding.
  Posted 9 days ago with 11 member flags
There is NO Media Bias in America
  Posted 10 days ago with 10 member flags