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.

 

Why Has Obama Refused to Honor the Fall of Berlin Wall Anniversary?

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


So GM should have just collapsed, leaving thousands out of work and the US without even more heavy industry? Fair enough...

Oh, Socialism doesn't equal Communism. Kind of the crux of the argument inifinite was making about your guys not knowing what you're talking about, really.

Also, what's so bad about providing healthcare to the people? I never understood this from Yanks, always a "me first" attitude and sod everyone else. I assume you're perfectly happy with the idea of millions of Americans being unable to afford even the most basic healthcare?

EDIT: I have read that Healthcare is "unconstitutional".. How so? I mean, I've not read your constitution word for word, but I am pretty sure that there is nothing in there about Healthcare...

Why is it whenever you guys don't like something, it's "unconstitutional"?

He took a photo of me! Thats unconstitutional!

I was arrested! Thats unconstitutional!

We can't let the poor have healthcare! Thats unconstitutional!

But you dont mind when the President takes your country to war without the consent of congress and a Declaration of War (not once but twice) which actually is unconstitutional!

How ironic, but then you US chaps don't get irony either, do you?

[edit on 8/11/09 by stumason]




posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

No, they are supposed to (in the US case anyway) run the country. If he cannot make it, then they send representatives.
.............


No, one of the things the U.S. President is supposed to do, do notice I said "ONE OF THE THINGS," is attend this sort of celebrations, much more so when a U.S. President who is dead was part of the reason that event occurred...

But I guess he was too busy playing golf....



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

EDIT: I have read that Healthcare is "unconstitutional".. How so? I mean, I've not read your constitution word for word, but I am pretty sure that there is nothing in there about Healthcare...



Well, for starters, the provision that insurance be mandatory is unconstitutional. The government cannot put you in jail or fine you for not buying something.

Edit to add: Perhaps you should read it if you're going to comment on it. Understand that the constitution was put in place to protect us against the federal government becoming too powerful. It greatly restricts what the federal government can do.

[edit on 8/11/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

So GM should have just collapsed, leaving thousands out of work and the US without even more heavy industry? Fair enough...


Tens of thousands lots jobs from GM...and it is CAPITALISM...another, stronger auto maker would have picked up the slack and given the jobs to many of those people who lost them, but instead tax dollars went to the millionares/billionares in charge of GM, and still tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs....


Originally posted by stumason
Oh, Socialism doesn't equal Communism. Kind of the crux of the argument inifinite was making about your guys not knowing what you're talking about, really.


Socialism is the first stage towards Communism, after all even Karl Marx explained this, but i guess you weren't paying attention when that has been explained by those rooting for true Socialism/Communism. BTW, in case you didn't know Communists call themselves Socialists also. Like the Chinese government, Castro, Chavez, etc...

That's without mentioning that the Obama administration has been taking the United States through the same steps that Chavez took Venezuela into, and after people like Infinite were claiming people like me were nuts and Chavez was not a "Socialist/Communist," Chavez announced in his inauguration speech that he was a "Socialist", and then explained "he is Communist, so what"?...


Originally posted by stumason
Also, what's so bad about providing healthcare to the people? I never understood this from Yanks, always a "me first" attitude and sod everyone else. I assume you're perfectly happy with the idea of millions of Americans being unable to afford even the most basic healthcare?


That's because you obviously haven't spent time reading about the Obama healthcare reform....which includes the fact that Americans don't have a choice, and MUST have healthcare, or be fined...not to mention that the STATE/government makes the decisions and not the doctors, etc...

BTW, i guess you are fine with the idea that President Obama clearly has told elder Americans that "they might be better continuing to take the pills, instead of having treatments, or an operation even if doctors think they can be saved with treatments, or operations, and this is just because it might not be economically viable...

Not to mention that 303 million dollars will be taken off medicare, which needs more money and not less, which leave elder Americans, and other Americans with less money for their healthcare....

Then there are the several other problems, and the promises through the deals that Obama made with Big Pharma, in which among other things he promised to stop Congress from lowering the cost of prescription drugs...




[edit on 8-11-2009 by ElectricUniverse]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


You have to buy insurance for your car, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?

You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?

So whats the difference? Please, point me to the specific bit in the constitution where it says that the Government cannot impose fees, fines, taxes or other monetary matters onto it's people under threat of jail?

I am begining to think this is another one of those stretched arguments where if an American doesn't like something, their initial reaction is to scream "unconstitutional!!!"



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by ElectricUniverse
 


No, they are supposed to (in the US case anyway) run the country. If he cannot make it, then they send representatives.

Was he even invited? After all, the Queen wasn't invited to the 65th D-day anniversary earlier this year as the French committed a faux pas and invited the PM instead, when protocol indicates it should be the Head of State, not some lumpy old scotsman who whined and slimed his way into the job.

[edit on 8/11/09 by stumason]

Yeah that was a faux pas, cause during WWII, Queen Elizabeth served in the military as a mechanic.
But I do believe that President Obama should have gone to the ceremony. The biggest reason is that cause Germany is our ally, and as a part of NATO, it would be good to show some support, even symbolic by just being there. There are some things that the leader of a country should do and visit, if nothing more than to show up, maybe say a few words and honor the accomplishments of those who served in office before him. In this day and age, if he is trying to build bridges in the world, he is forgetting the countries that have stood by the United States of America in favor of trying to build ties with countries that do not like the United States just does not make sense at all. Kind of like saying we are going to rob Peter to feed Paul.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


You have to buy insurance for your car, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?

You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?

So whats the difference? Please, point me to the specific bit in the constitution where it says that the Government cannot impose fees, fines, taxes or other monetary matters onto it's people under threat of jail?

I am begining to think this is another one of those stretched arguments where if an American doesn't like something, their initial reaction is to scream "unconstitutional!!!"

Because of the way the bill is written it is unconstitutional. Consider this, would you like to go to a debtors prison? If the healthcare bill passes and is made into law, then in short the bottom line is the following: You don't have health insurance, then you are initially charged with a misdomeanor, a fine, and jail time. Now the department who is going to adminster this is the IRS, that will take that misdomeanor and change it to a felony, bigger fine and more jail time, so the bottom line is that if a person does not have health insurance, you get fined, go to jail and have a felony record. Then you lose the right to vote and own a firearm. So in short if you don't have health insurance, you lose the right to vote and to bear arms.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Tens of thousands lots jobs from GM...and it is CAPITALISM...another, stronger auto maker would have picked up the slack and given the jobs to many of those people who lost them, but instead tax dollars went to the millionares/billionares in charge of GM, and still tens of thousands of Americans lost their jobs....


Another auto maker would pick up the slack? Which one? They were all in deep crap and needed bailing out because people don't want the oversized, gas guzzling and poorly engineered American cars. they want (and have done for a long time) cheaper to run and more reliable cars, hence why Japanese cars are so popular in the US.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Socialism is the first stage towards Communism, after all even Karl Marx explained this, but i guess you weren't paying attention when that has been explained by those rooting for true Socialism/Communism. BTW, in case you didn't know Communists call themselves Socialists also. Like the Chinese government, Castro, Chavez, etc...


So all those Socialist countries in Europe, like Sweden, the UK, France, Germany, Norway etc, are just implementing communism really slowly? Socialism and Communism are two seperate things.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
That's without mentioning that the Obama administration has been taking the United States through the same steps that Chavez took Venezuela into, and after people like Infinite were claiming people like me were nuts and Chavez was not a "Socialist/Communist," Chavez announced in his inauguration speech that he was a "Socialist", and then explained "he is Communist, so what"?...


Would it be such a bad thing if the US actually looked after those less fortunate? Of are you happy with the current system of being overcharged, ripped off and generally shafted for healthcare currently, while those who can't afford it die?

So what if Chavez is a Socialist? He's popular and only the rich, US sponsored Elite (who stood to lose out as the poor where actually being helped) complained about him, even going so far as to try and get US backing to overthrow the Democratically elected President!


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
That's because you bviously haven't spent time reading about the Obama healthcare reform....which includes the fact that Americans don't have a choice, and MUST have healthcare, or be fined...not to mention that the STATE/government makes the decisions and not the doctors, etc...


And? We have to pay National Insurance here in the UK, which pays for our Healthcare. Despite the scare stories that your right wing plastered across the news a few months ago, our system is one of the best in the world. You have to have insurance anyway to be able to afford healthcare in the US (unless you're uber rich or sell of the family home), so really, what is the problem?


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
BTW, i guess you are fined with the idea that President Obama clearly has told elder Americans that "they might be better continuing to take the pills, instead of having treatments, or an operation even if doctors think they can be saved with treatments, or operations, and this is just because it might not be economically viable...


Care to re-write that so it's readable? Too many comma's....



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


But if it is mandatory, then surely it will be collected the same as any other tax and direct from your pay? So, you can't "not" pay it.

At least, thats how our NI works. Taken out of our pay every month as a % of our earnings. Seems perfectly fair that we all pay into the system, so we can all benefit.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

You have to buy insurance for your car, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?

You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?

So whats the difference? Please, point me to the specific bit in the constitution where it says that the Government cannot impose fees, fines, taxes or other monetary matters onto it's people under threat of jail?

I am begining to think this is another one of those stretched arguments where if an American doesn't like something, their initial reaction is to scream "unconstitutional!!!"


See? this is the reason why foregneirs shouldn't be saying things they obviously haven't learned about when it comes to other countries.

One of the reasons why the forefathers of this nation decided to break away from your nation, was because your King kept imposing TAXES on the colonies...

The Constitution does allow for the collection of taxes, but it states they shall be uniform throughout the state, which is not happening.

Not to mention that it states if the government exceeds it's powers, and if there are just grievances, that the people can throw down such government demand redress and replace it, again, if necessary with one which will follow just laws. Not exactly like that, but you catch my drift.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Paying taxes is outlined in a law that was passed as an ammendment.

Paying car insurance is optional. No one forces you to buy a car.

If you wished to draw a parallell, it would be more like, they forced you to buy a car and carry insurance on it or fine you and put you in jail.

Buying a car is optional. This will be the first time a US citizen has been forced to buy a consumer product, or be faced with fines and jail.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by Iamonlyhuman
 


You have to buy insurance for your car, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?


No that is not illegal, because it is the individual State governments that impose the car insurance laws and they are given much more latitude than the federal government as to what they can do because the State government is much closer to the people who have the most power.


You have to pay taxes, don't you? If you don't, isn't that illegal?


Yes, and some (myself included) would say that that is illegal. RE: the many, many threads on the subject. In short, the constitution says: No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken. It was supposedly amended by Amendment XVI although that amendment was never ratified and therefore is not legally binding. That said, I pay my taxes because the federal government has said (in not so uncertain terms) that either you pretend we ratified it or you go to jail - so I pretend they ratified it.


So whats the difference? Please, point me to the specific bit in the constitution where it says that the Government cannot impose fees, fines, taxes or other monetary matters onto it's people under threat of jail?


Remember the original Boston Tea Party? Taxation was the primary reason for the American Revolution.

United States Constitution (Section 8)

No capitation, or other direct, tax shall be laid, unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.


And you have to remember that insurance companies are incorporated "citizens" of a specific state and are under that state's regulatory perview. So for the federal government to mandate that a citizen buy health insurance, it is in effect regulating State purview which is definitely unconstitutional.




[edit on 8/11/2009 by Iamonlyhuman]



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by sdcigarpig
 


He is sending your most senior Diplomat though, which is the next best thing.

There have been times where we've had David Milliband MP (our Foreign Sec) attend events instead of the PM, because there are pressing matters at home. The fact that someone went is better than no-one at all.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
See? this is the reason why foregneirs shouldn't be saying things they obviously haven't learned about when it comes to other countries.


Ah, but US citizens are free to criticise my country as a Police State without any knowledge of how it is here? I see, sorry, I must know my place....

At least I am asking questions about all this and trying to understand.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
One of the reasons why the forefathers of this nation decided to break away from your nation, was because your King kept imposing TAXES on the colonies...


I am aware of the aforementioned fairy tale, yes....


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
The Constitution does allow for the collection of taxes, but it states they shall be uniform throughout the state, which is not happening.


What does that mean? Everyone pays the same amount or proportion? It seems rather unfair if everyone has to pay the same amount.


Originally posted by ElectricUniverse
Not to mention that it states if the government exceeds it's powers, and if there are just grievances, that the people can throw down such government demand redress and replace it, again, if necessary with one which will follow just laws. Not exactly like that, but you catch my drift.


Yes, yes... But how many of you actually try to do something about your obviously undemocratic, two party system? None. You all blissfully go along and vote left/right, blue/red and don't even care about policy, it's all about personallity and who can dish out the most dirt about the other.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Yes, yes... But how many of you actually try to do something about your obviously undemocratic, two party system? None. You all blissfully go along and vote left/right, blue/red and don't even care about policy, it's all about personallity and who can dish out the most dirt about the other.


On that you are absolutely correct!



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I've heard plenty of people using this as the long-sought proof that Barack Obama is a Communist. That is nonsense. People are going to have to choose if they believe Obama is a Communist, a Socialist, a Stalinist, or a Fascist. These terms are not, nor have they ever been, completely interchangeable.

A Stalinist, an extreme left wing authoritarian figure whose ardent nationalism borders the right wing fascists, would be upset at the fall of the Berlin wall. A Communist, a believer in workers rights and a stateless world, would be glad to see the USSR gone. If Barack Obama is a Communist, which I doubt he is due to his pandering of his capitalist interests, then why would he be upset at the fall of the Berlin wall? If he is a Stalinist, which I sincerely doubt he is, then he might be a bit miffed.

Communists are not Stalinists and Stalinists are not Communist. In fact, Trotsky wrote a criticism of Stalin's model of the Soviet Union, called, rather tellingly, The Revolution Betrayed. If you were a supporter of Stalinism, would you write a book with a title like this? If somebody betrayed the ideals you believed in, would you be upset at his system's collapse?

From the wiki article on the book:


Trotsky then analyzes the "The Soviet Thermidor," analyzing the triumph of Stalin, the separation of the party from Bolshevism, and the rising bureaucratic stratum. He now discusses everyday life in the Soviet Union, economic inequality and the oppression of the new proletariat.

From here he discusses foreign policy and the Soviet military: The failure to defeat fascism, the re-institution of ranks and the loss of a militia, and closes by examining the future of the Soviet Union.

The main characteristic of this work is that by using marxist methods, Trotsky predicted -in 1936- that the USSR would come before a disjuncture: either the toppling of the ruling bureaucracy by means of a political revolution, or capitalist restoration led by the bureaucracy. In fact, Trotsky predicted the downfall of the Soviet Union, in 1936, using the marxist method of analysis, decades before any western or capitalist sociologist, to show that the USSR was not anymore a Marxist state, but in fact a Degenerated workers' state.

Before the return of capitalism to Russia, there was an attempted 'communist' restoration by the bureaucracy which deposed Gorbachev; that coup by old communist party hardliners failed in the face of a popular political revolution, eventually led by Yeltsin, and in the wake of economic collapse the criminal élite metamorphosed into super-capitalists, as predicted by "The Revolution Betrayed".


So in light of this, what is Barack Obama?



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 12:45 PM
link   
While Barack Obama himself isn't going to be in Berlin the anniversary of the wall coming down, Hilary Clinton is going to be in Berlin for the events; so it's not like there is no US presence at any event. (The US Embassy is right next to the Brandenburg Gate as well, where I imagine something would take place. So it's pretty much impossible for the US to not be involved. The US Ambassador to Germany could just walk across the plaza during his lunch break or something.)



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 01:03 PM
link   
So the man plays a round of golf...

...and? Being the President of the United States, arguably the toughest job on the face of the Earth, in terms of stress; he needs to step away. Golfing, though I don't care for the game, is a means of doing that. It's no big thing.

As for his not going to the Anniversary of the Fall of the Berlin Wall? What's the hubbub all about? As I understand it, Hillary Clinton was there? She's a very high ranking official in the Administration...seriously, she is. That's enough representation for an event that is much more important to Europe than it is to the United States... Not that it isn't important, but the Sec-state is sufficient representation...



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Obama is being petty because they refused him the right to speak during the election. I forget the event, but it is in keeping with his character.



posted on Nov, 8 2009 @ 02:13 PM
link   
I bet if some country built a wall around it people and put his face all over it he wouldn't be able to get there fast enough to give a beautiful speech about their wonderful accomplisment. NarcissistSayWhat?



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join