Overthrow the democratically elected president, "how patriotic"

Originally posted by OldDragger

What has Obama done that needs to be justified?
To pretend that it wasn't Bush and the Republicans/Conservatives didn't rack up ASTRONOMICAL debt and defeciets is insane. When did this start? One year ago. Who was in charge?
So do you put forth the laughable position that Obama would have poured billions into stimulous if the economy wasn't in a shambles when he took office? What "socialist moves did he make that the previous administration did not originate?
.........................

Wow....

Let's see some of the things which President Obama and his administration has done that was not done by prevous administrations...

Apart form the fact that over 49 trillion dollars were "suddenly lost' under the Obama administration, the fact that this president wasted more money than ANY other president in his inauguration, even when knowing we were in an economic crisis..

Even LEFTIST websites have posted the fact that OBAMA MADE DEALS WITH BIG PHARMA...

Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.

The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.

It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.

In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."

www.huffingtonpost.com...

So again, the dellusional claims from those people who keep claiming Obama, and his administration are trying to pass this healthcare reform to help the people, are not only dellusional, but they continuously want to dismiss the facts about the Obama healthcare reform WHICH EVEN LEFTIST SOURCES CONFIRM....

Healthcare FLASHBACKS (VIDEO)
The above comes from THE HUFF, another LEFTIST source and it shows several videos of the lies, I mean changes that President Obama has made about healthcare reform which differ from the promises he made.

Obama's healthcare reform to help elder Americans?.... NOPE...
www.youtube.com...

Not to mention the following...

Apart from the DHS, under Janet Napolitano, labeling most Americans as "possible terrorists" just for wanting to uphold and defend the Constitution, the following are some of the other things done by the Obama administration, and President Obama himself.

Let's see... What recent presidents EVER called for a Civilian National Security Force, with more Americorps, and Obama youths that have ages starting from secondary and even primary school?

What president wanted to have these Civilian National Security and children to train in anti-terrorist drills?

What president passed a law, as H.R. 1388 which states the Corporation has the power over all learn based/educational programs, as well as Community Service programs. This includes ALL children, whether they are stay at home kids, whether they go to privae schools, or a school in a reservation.

not to mention...

H.R.1388
GIVE Act (Introduced in House)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SEC. 6104. DUTIES.
.....................

(6) Whether a workable, fair, and reasonable mandatory service requirement for all able young people could be developed, and how such a requirement could be implemented in a manner that would strengthen the social fabric of the Nation and overcome civic challenges by bringing together people from diverse economic, ethnic, and educational backgrounds.

(7) The need for a public service academy, a 4-year institution that offers a federally funded undergraduate education with a focus on training future public sector leaders.

(8) The means to develop awareness of national service and volunteer opportunities at a young age by creating, expanding, and promoting service options for elementary and secondary school students, through service learning or other means, and by raising awareness of existing incentives.

(9) The effectiveness of establishing a training program on college campuses to recruit and educate college students for national service.

Unfortunately this link doesn't last long, but you can check the information yourself.

link

Oh, and let's not forget the Corporation has the right to have a centralized electronic citizenship verification system...

Study of Centralized Electronic Citizenship Verification System: H.R. 1388 authorizes the Corporation to conduct a new study on establishing an electronic citizenship verification system and then implement a pilot based on the recommendations from the study. The bill authorizes such sums for this study from FY 2010 through 2014.

Link

Scroll down almost to the middle.

You think all of the above is "for the good of the people"?

The Obama healthcare reform is about giving more power to BIG PHARMA. Instead of allowing people, even elder Americans having treatments, or operations that could save them, and keep them from taking more pills, instead the government, and president Obama himself claim "it might be better if you take the pill, instead of having the treatment, or operation because the treatments or operations are not economically viable.

Obamacare: Just take a Pill

Let's not forget Obama- Preventive and Indefinite Detention
Which again comes from a LEFTIST source known as Rachael Maddow....

But I guess all of the above is not true... Even when this information is confirmed by LEFTIST SOURCES....

But hey, keep cheering for Obama's CHANGE all you want... He is only destroying the Republic and consolidating power for the elite, and not for the people....


[edit on 12-9-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

reply to post by OldDragger


In all reality, it's been eight months too many. Most of the people who voted for him did so for all the wrong reasons.

He hasn't done a thing to make anything better, but done a lot to make things worse, and things are worse.

Yet the reality is he isn't the problem, he is the symptom of a disease in America's educational and political and media system.

Yet he is part of the disease and utterly incapable of curing the disease and is not even trying to cure the disease but is actually just spreading the infection further.

The whole government from the President, Congress, Agency and Department heads and upper management all need fired. The competing departments, over lapping layers, wasteful agencies and departments need closed.

Our government has become a cancer on the people, it is a tumor that just keeps growing and growing in and on the host body in ways that are in fact destroying the host body, look around it's a fact jack.

Record deficits, unemployment, endless stalemated wars, agencies riddled with fraud and corruption and waste.

We honestly need what should have been done at the conclusion of the Civil War...A new constitutional convention, to restablish a working constitution that will be followed and to get all the monied military industrial and banking interests out of the government and the political process and all the lawyers that write volume after volume of law codes for the sake of other lawyers to make money out of our government and just back in the courtroom representing the people with simple constitutional laws.

Now you might be too blinded by a cult of personality, race, a political party or some other ego driven agenda to see that, but honestly how the heck can you not see it?

reply to post by Doc Velocity


WHO in the HELL would ever knowingly and willingly choose a career in politics? Only the criminally insane, the power-mongers, and the naive fools.

Such as Washington, Lincoln, Adams, both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan,
Churchill, et al.
Goddam polititians.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by OldDragger]

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by mikerussellus

 

Thank you.

De nada. If I'm wrong, I'll say it.

peace

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


Most of the people who voted for him did so for all the wrong reasons.

I can read no further than that. i could have said that about Reagan or Bush, but I didn't. I just recognized that they won and that people saw it different than I. how pretentious to set yourself up as arbiter of "wrong reasons"! Sounds pretty elitist to me. And just the kind of language that totalitarian regimes use. Slippery slope ain't it?

I have some questions...

Where in the Constitution does it give the President the power to fire the CEO of a major Corporation? www.pbs.org...

Where in the Constitution does it give the President the power to force a company to "merge" with another? online.wsj.com...

Where in the Constitution does it provide for the creation of "Czars" who fall out of the system of checks and balances? en.wikipedia.org...

If these powers are not specifically granted to the President by the Constitution, does it not follow that exercising the above powers is Unconstitutional then?

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

What exactly is he doing to the constitution dooper? As much as you hate left wing policies, I hardly see any impeachable offenses in the constitution for inacting left wing policies.
.............

The fact that he is advocating, and implementing SOCIALISM, and the Constitution says very clearly Every state SHALL BE GUARANTEED A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMEN.... not a Socialist form of government...

Republican as in "advocate of the Republic of the United States"...how the forefathers of this nation agreed to make this nation to be, and not what Obama and cronies want it to become...

Not to mention the fact that Obama was caught making deals with Big Pharma against the people which is grounds for an impeachement...

Not to mention that a PRIVATE company, GM was SOCIALIZED by the Obama administration and now the government of the U.S. owns 60% meanwhile CANADA owns part of the other percentage....

Not to mention that the Obama administration is trying to implement SLAVERY again with their plans to implement MANDATORY Community Service... among the many other CRIMES made by the current adminstration.

reply to post by OldDragger


Good news friend, I haven't voted for a one of them, ever. So as someone who won't vote for any of them, because there are no good reasons to vote for any of them, I sure can say, that most of the people who voted for Obama did so for all the wrong reasons.

This wasn't a Presidential Election this was a cross between a Beauty Paegant, American Idol, and America's got talent, where people didn't vote on the issues, and the media didn't probe the issues, and the cantidates didn't speak to the issues but just did their best to posture and primp and preen for their adoring masses.

Obama ran a 2 billion dollar Hollywood/Madison Avenue branded style campaign with book deals, and merchandising like a Rolling Stones Tour.

Most of the people who voted for him either voted for him because he was...

A. Black
B. Young and Hip
C. A Democrat
D. Not George Bush
E. Not John McCain
F. Because everyone else was going to vote for him.

I can say that honestly though it's not politically correct because I read all 124 bills he wrote in the U.S. Senate that were never picked up and sponsored and voted into law, because they were either largely incomplete or just stupid ideas.

Now don't you think if he really had all these great ideas his colleagues in the Senate would have picked up on them after he wrote them into great bills?

Never happened, never happened in the Illisnois Senate either.

He's nothing but a pretty face, and a good speaker.

Anyone with an ounce of real honesty and integrity who even did a little bit of real and credible research would see that, because there is not one thing in his record that he has ever accomplished that suggests otherwise.

Originally posted by OldDragger
What has Obama done that needs to be justified?

Obama continues Bush policies of transferring detainees to other countries without rights. Something Democrats screamed about under Bush, but make no mention of now.
Obama's War on Terror May Resemble Bush's in Some Areas

Traveling with your laptop or cell phone? They can search those without justification or suspicion of wrongdoing.
Bush's Search Policy for Travelers is Kept

Obama Administration Upholds Terrorist Surveillance Secrecy Rules

All of these are things that Democrats and liberals were up in arms about when Bush was doing them. Yet you rarely hear a peep about them now that it's Obama. Should I continue? Or can you take the research from there?

To pretend that it wasn't Bush and the Republicans/Conservatives didn't rack up ASTRONOMICAL debt and defeciets is insane.

Didn't mention the national debt or deficit, but since you brought it up have a look at the CBO's estimates.

So do you put forth the laughable position that Obama would have poured billions into stimulous if the economy wasn't in a shambles when he took office?

Didn't mention the stimulus either. Sure do like trying to put words in my mouth though don't you?

We finally have someone in office that actually IS trying to change things, yet Americans have to sabatouge at every turn. Unreal.

Continuing Bush policies on what amounts to domestic spying and illegal searches and making our already outrageous national debt even larger is not exactly change. It's more of the same. That people are so blind they don't see it is what is unreal.

EDIT: Fixed link tags.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by redhatty
I have some questions...

Where in the Constitution does it give the President the power to fire the CEO of a major Corporation? www.pbs.org...

IT DOESN'T. OBAMA FIRED THE GUY AS MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER, NOT AS PRESIDENT. BIG BIG BIG DIFFERENCE>GM CAME ASKING FOR A LOAN, THE LENDER DICTATES TERMS, PART OF THE TERMS WERE THE US TAXPAYERS GAIN CONTROLLING INTEREST. GM AGREED. DID OBAMA FORCE THEM TO AGREE? HAS HE NATIONALIZED FORD? HAS HE DONE EVEN ONE THING REGARDING FORDS MANAGEMENT? NOPE! SO MUCH FOR THAT.
Where in the Constitution does it give the President the power to force a company to "merge" with another? online.wsj.com...
SEE ABOVE. OBAMA IS JUST A SMART CAPITALIST.
Where in the Constitution does it provide for the creation of "Czars" who fall out of the system of checks and balances? en.wikipedia.org...
OBAMA DID NOT ORINATE THE CZAR IDEA. ITS BEEN AROUND FOR AT LEAST 60 YEARS
If these powers are not specifically granted to the President by the Constitution, does it not follow that exercising the above powers is Unconstitutional then?

YOUR ARGUMENT IS MOOT, SEE ABOVE. THE CONSTITION DOES NOT GRANT POWERS FOR A LOT OF THINGS SPECIFICALLY BY TEDIOUS ENUMERATION OF EACH PARTICULAR THING.SUCH AS DECLARING A NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING FOR EXAMPLE? READ HISTORY.

[edit on 12-9-2009 by OldDragger]

[edit on 12-9-2009 by OldDragger]

reply to post by Jenna


Did it ever occur to you that Obama never promised to pursue your agenda?
that the mess left to him has altered his plans?
That the mess left to him is so important that he has to deal with it right now? Ever heard of prioritizing?

reply to post by OldDragger


Can justify just about anything can't you.

It was the government who effectively fired the GM CEO, not Obama acting as stakeholder.

reply to post by OldDragger


Please do tell. What exactly is my agenda? I'm just dying to know.

reply to post by OldDragger


Ever heard that "prioritizing" doesn't include transforming the Republic of the United States into another Socialist dictatorship?

Ever heard that just because exPresident Bush implemented laws which shouldn't have happened it doesn't make it alright for President Obama to implement even worse laws, much less label most Americans as "possible terrorists" like the DHS with Janet Napolitano did?...

Stop making excuses...



[edit on 12-9-2009 by ElectricUniverse]

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by OldDragger

 

Can justify just about anything can't you.

It was the government who effectively fired the GM CEO, not Obama acting as stakeholder.

That just silly. you don't know anything about business.
Someone (GM) comes to me, wants 100 billion dollars in loans you bet I dictate terms, Take it our leave it GM. I get controlling interest, I become majority stockholer ( GM shares were transfered to the government) under re-organization. Obama had the choice of saying no deal, so did GM. Have you EVER run a business? That's my profession.

reply to post by Jenna


I have no freakin idea, I'm just going by the things you listed. doesn't make a bit of difference though does it? He wasn't elected for my agenda either.

Originally posted by OldDragger

That just silly. you don't know anything about business.

Silly huh?

GM CEO Wagoner to Step Down at White House Request

You were saying?


EDIT: Since you don't know what my agenda is, I'll clue you in. I have none aside from the truth. Now you know, so how's about not saying I have one only to back down when asked what it is?

[edit on 12-9-2009 by Jenna]

Originally posted by OldDragger
IT DOESN'T. OBAMA FIRED THE GUY AS MAJORITY STOCKHOLDER, NOT AS PRESIDENT. BIG BIG BIG DIFFERENCE>GM CAME ASKING FOR A LOAN, THE LENDER DICTATES TERMS, PART OF THE TERMS WERE THE US TAXPAYERS GAIN CONTROLLING INTEREST. GM AGREED. DID OBAMA FORCE THEM TO AGREE? HAS HE NATIONALIZED FORD? HAS HE DONE EVEN ONE THING REGARDING FORDS MANAGEMENT? NOPE! SO MUCH FOR THAT.

But, Obama used taxpayer funds to bailout the automakers.

TARP authorized the treasury secretary to spend $700 billion, but it did not authorize him to spend it anywhere on anything. While the definition of what he could spend it on (“troubled assets”) was broad, the definition of where (“financial institutions”) was narrow.

“The secretary is authorized to establish the Troubled Asset Relief Program (or ‘TARP’) to purchase, and to make and fund commitments to purchase, troubled assets from any financial institution,” says the law.

The law gives “troubled asset” a two-part definition—and part two is admittedly a wild card.

“The term ‘troubled assets’ means -- (A) residential or commercial mortgages and any securities, obligations, or other instruments that are based on or related to such mortgages, that in each case was originated or issued on or before March 14, 2008,” says the law.

But part “(B)” says a “troubled asset” can also be “any other financial instrument that the Secretary, after consultation with the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, determines the purchase of which is necessary to promote financial market stability.”

Definition “(B)” allowed then-Secretary Henry Paulson to use TARP funds to purchase ownership stakes in banks rather than the mortgage-backed securities he initially told Congress he intended to purchase.

Nonetheless, the “troubled assets” Paulson purchased were indisputably from “financial institutions” as defined by the law.

“The term ‘financial institution,’” says the law, “means any institution, including, but not limited to, any bank, savings association, credit union, security broker or dealer, or insurance company, established and regulated under the laws of the United States or any State, territory, or possession of the United States ... .”

In other words, no matter how much wiggle room the law gives the secretary in defining “troubled assets,” it does not give him the authority to purchase them from food, furniture or fishing rod makers. These are not “financial institutions.”

Congress famously considered, debated and defeated legislation that would have authorized President Bush to spend TARP money bailing out automakers.

Obama, even after all this, declared that rather than use TARP funds he would use monies from somewhere, and do so with the authority and power of the Executive Branch.

The U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the President, the power to spend the taxpayer’s money. Without the consent of Congress, the President cannot legally spend taxpayer money.

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.

But Obama, the Senior Lecturer/Professor of Constitutional Law, not only IGNORED the limits to the Executive branch in the Constitution, he expanded his use of taxpayer money to not only bailout the Auto makers but to also GUARANTEE the WARRANTY on the products of these failed corporate entities.

President Obama was NEVER the majority stockholder, the TAXPAYING PUBLIC were, and we were not given a stockholders ballot to vote on the removal of the CEO of GM

No matter how you try to "slice it," The seizure of ownership of private business is unconstitutional. The government ownership of GM is unconstitutional.

Where in the Constitution does it give the President the power to force a company to "merge" with another? online.wsj.com...
SEE ABOVE. OBAMA IS JUST A SMART CAPITALIST.

Survey says WRONG ANSWER, thanks for playing.

A Capitalist Uses his/her OWN money for investing, not the taxpayer's money. Only CONGRESS, NOT THE PRESIDENT, is Constitutionally empowered to allocate taxpayer monies.

OBAMA DID NOT ORINATE THE CZAR IDEA. ITS BEEN AROUND FOR AT LEAST 60 YEARS

Oh, I get it, your philosophy here is that Obama is only doing the SAME WRONG as previous Presidents before him, so it's okay for Obama to be wrong too.

Was that really the Change you were hoping for?

YOUR ARGUMENT IS MOOT, SEE ABOVE. THE CONSTITION DOES NOT GRANT POWERS FOR A LOT OF THINGS SPECIFICALLY BY TEDIOUS ENUMERATION OF EACH PARTICULAR THING.SUCH AS DECLARING A NATIONAL DAY OF MOURNING FOR EXAMPLE? READ HISTORY.

And you show me where a declaration of a day of mourning equates to an unconstitutional use of taxpayer monies and I'll say your reply is valid and not Moot.

Right now, your reply is leaning very heavily to the MOOT side



[edit on 9/12/09 by redhatty]

Originally posted by OldDragger
WHO in the HELL would ever knowingly and willingly choose a career in politics? Only the criminally insane, the power-mongers, and the naive fools.

Such as Washington, Lincoln, Adams, both Roosevelts, Kennedy, Reagan,
Churchill, et al.
Goddam polititians.

I like that, but I know my history. Washington hated his position, he thought it was too reminiscent of a monarchy, with a king on a throne. Washington wanted the position of POTUS to be that of a clerk, a breaker of tie-votes, not a leader and representative of the people. Washington wanted the power structure upside-down. People on top, politicians on the bottom. That's all. Which makes sense.

All of the presidents and politicians you've listed went through the meat grinder and managed to come out on top, historically speaking.

It is hell being president I don't care who you are.

Politics is nasty, it's full of powerful criminals and smiling degenerates and pimps and hoze and junkies and every kind of human garbage. Sick and seething with their power and their perks and their paybacks and their kickbacks, the political scene is reminiscent of a dressed-up and exorbitant gangland.

Criminals, nonetheless.

— Doc Velocity

Originally posted by OldDragger
reply to post by Jenna

 

Did it ever occur to you that Obama never promised to pursue your agenda?
that the mess left to him has altered his plans?
That the mess left to him is so important that he has to deal with it right now? Ever heard of prioritizing?

Ever heard of properly assessing a situation before setting an agenda.

Any moron living in the United States knew the economy was screwed up beyond belief well before the election.

All Obama talked about during all that mess was how he had a plan, he had a 'team'! The best and brightest who were ready to hit the ground running!

What he failed to say was running from the IRS!

It was all hype, and hyperbole, catch phrases, vague promises, and a whole lot of directing people's anger at Bush, and then McCain and making him self seem like a hero...he's a big fat zero in my book, because not one thing he did promise he has kept, not more transparency in government, not credible peace efforts with our advesaries, not closing Guantanomo, not trying any terrorists...

This really is 4 more years of George Bush on Steroids and I predicted he would be that before he even won election because I know the creeps who find us these creeps.

Can't you step out of the box they have you locked in and see there is no salvation from the left or the right, that all either side does is just create more problems for us, and they do it on purpose, and they do it by getting people to give them a license to do it by saying it has to be done because what the last guy did, what the other party did.