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.

 

Former Congressman: General Petraeus and Dick Cheney Treasonously Conspiring to Overthrow Obama

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2010 @ 05:01 AM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


Thank you, I read it and he sounds like a looney.
Either he was always that way, which would be dangerous given his naval/political history, or politics drove him nuts.

BTW, the reporter seems biased so it may be just his view.




posted on May, 25 2010 @ 08:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by centurion1211
You mean like the dems did during the Bush administration, by falsely declaring that military operations like "the surge" were failures,


Im sorry but the complete war in Iraq was a waste. I don't understand how or where the surge changed this fact of the matter. We spent thus far $700 billion, lost over 4000 american lives thus far, 100,000 and counting Iraqi lives and for what? Please, explain to us again what this war was for and what different the surge made to that effect.

'the surge' 'the surge', what is it about the surge that justified the war?


Nice (but typical from you) spin attempt.


I wasn't attempting to justify the war. But I did point out a couple of acts by your fellow dems that were more "treasonous" than a general planning for his political future after retirement.

BTW, were you one of the people on ATS that used to post about "General Betray-us"?



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I think Dick Cheney and Rumsefield are responsible for all the problems we see in our society right now ranging from economic to death and taxes. I do not blame Obama for these problems and Cheney would love to start another war.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by skunknuts
 


Ah, too bad it's not true, because it wouldn't be treason; it would be a just revolution against a tyrant.



"There are two kinds of Democrats -- Communists and parasites."



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 09:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Berens
 


So much stupidity, all in under 30 words! Congrats!

Best,
SN



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Rockpuck
 


yes obama in fact did...



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 10:07 AM
link   
Oh. The Obama drone skunknuts is back.

If Cheney and Petraeus pulled this off, the former would be absolved of all his sins and the latter would certainly be worthy of a Washington-esque apotheosis.

Obama is destroying the country. It is apparent to anyone with an IQ above room temperature. His behavior re: the Gulf Oil spill alone should be enough to remove his traitorous a** and try him for treason.

Ohh, gee the oil slick is seeping into the marshlands and tributaries, destroying coastal economies and fisheries. "Maybe I'll go to a party in Chicago instead."
The south didn't vote for Obama. F*ck em (channeling Rahm).

[edit on 25-5-2010 by tetrahedron]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   
reply to post by tetrahedron
 


What do you want him to do, nationalize the oil industry? Aren't you supposed to be the corporatist, ahem, I mean capitalist???

Sorry neo-con, but as a progressive, I am the one that gets to sadly say 'I told you so!' re: the gulf. Remember secret energy meeting w/ the former CEO of halliburton, remember drill baby drill, remember saying that the government needs to leave the oil companies alone?? Do you really think the American public is that dumb, that they are going to trust the GOP on energy MORE because of this?? I don't think you are very politically literate if you do. Which leads me to the next point--

Treason?? What?! I think you need to learn its definition. Fine if you want to talk this way about removing the elected POTUS (itself actually treasonous), but don't even try to talk about the constitution this and the constitution that anymore. Maybe you think it is just a piece of annoying paper re: bush.

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/25/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron

The south didn't vote for Obama. F*ck em (channeling Rahm).

[edit on 25-5-2010 by tetrahedron]


Florida did, just as they voted democratic in 2000 (and you're the one dribbling on about treason re: obama, when bush was APPOINTED POTUS by the SCOTUS while having 600,000 fewer votes than Gore and not deserving Florida's electoral votes. Too funny). You are so deluded that you think the majority of the country actually agrees w/ your extremist views.

I can't wait to see how you crumble in November.

www.pollster.com...

Best,
SN

[edit on 5/25/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
I love the fact that you assume I’m a neo-con and can therefore divine my political beliefs. Characteristic of a brain dead progressive.

Re: The Constitution. Progressives/statists do not give a damn about the Constitution. There are only three parts of the Constitution relevant to a Progressives/statists:

1) The language in the preamble stating "general welfare," which has been interpreted to literally mean the government can seize as much power and money as they see fit (notwithstanding the preamble is a non-operative piece of the document).

2) The commerce clause. "The fed. gov. may regulate interstate commerce as it sees fit." Of course the fed case in Virginia [nullifying Obamacare] is clearly intrastate commerce.

3) The 16th amendment. "Give us your godd*mn money, even though this amendment was never ratified by 2/3 of the states."

Oh, and of course whenever an actual libertarian/Constitutionalist gets into power, claim the reduction of state powers is unconstitutional (hat tip to Orwell).

“remember drill baby drill”

Yea I recall Obama announcing an ambitious plan to expand offshore drilling nary a fortnight ago. Haha, he also awarded Deepwater Horizon a safety commendation.

“removing the elected POTUS (itself actually treasonous)”

Yea, um, no. This is why we have an impeachment process which should proceed immediately after the next congress convenes in January 2011.

“Maybe you think it is just a piece of annoying paper re: bush.

Nice groupthink. Anyone who opposes Obama must be a Bush fan. U is smrt. Do you not understand the political milieu of this webzone? Maybe you should go back to the daily kos and huff paint with all the other prog losers.


[edit on 25-5-2010 by tetrahedron]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   
Oh, sorry I missed this one: "I can't wait to see how you crumble in November."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Lets do a tally off the top of my head:

Scott Brown took the murdering drunkard's seat.

Governorships of Jersey/Virgina.

Charles Djou (R) just won in Obama's home district.

Rand Paul just beat the neocon in Kentucky.

Obama is, as of today, at 42% approval with the propaganda machine pumping on all cylinders.

Skunknuts, I've got a long memory. I'm going to remember to rub it in when the fascists get thrown out en masse November.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
I love the fact that you assume I’m a neo-con and can therefore divine my political beliefs. Characteristic of a brain dead progressive.

Re: The Constitution. Progressives/statists do not give a damn about the Constitution. There are only three parts of the Constitution relevant to a Progressives/statists:

1) The language in the preamble stating "general welfare," which has been interpreted to literally mean the government can seize as much power and money as they see fit (notwithstanding the preamble is a non-operative piece of the document).

2) The commerce clause. "The fed. gov. may regulate interstate commerce as it sees fit." Of course in the case of Virginia it is clearly intrastate commerce.

3) The 16th amendment. "Give us your godd*mn money, even though this amendment was never ratified by 2/3 of the states."

Oh, and of course whenever an actual libertarian/Constitutionalist gets into power, claim the reduction of state powers is unconstitutional (hat tip to Orwell).

“remember drill baby drill”

Yea I recall Obama announcing an ambitious plan to expand offshore drilling nary a fortnight ago. Haha, he also awarded Deepwater Horizon a safety commendation.

“removing the elected POTUS (itself actually treasonous)”

Yea, um, no. This is why we have an impeachment process which should proceed immediately after the next congress convenes in January 2011.

“Maybe you think it is just a piece of annoying paper re: bush.



Ok, so now you bring up using impeachment when previously you were supporting a coup. Kinda different constitution lover, no? I sure hope you were willing to consider impeachment during the last administration. If not, my reading you as a (closet) neo con might not be that far off.

Look, maybe you are more of a libertarian. But, if you think that right-wing authoritarian leaners like Palin and Cheney respect individual freedom, you are insane. When it comes to the 4th amendment, the drug war, prostitution, gambling, abortion, voter rights, keeping the govt. out of the bedroom, rescinding citizenship for 'terrorist activities, show me your papers etc., etc., the core social-issue voters of the GOP HATE libertarianism (and you know it).

So honestly, you disagreed w/ Obama when he announced his limited (I mean ambitious) support of off-shore drilling?? I disagreed, but understood from where he was coming, especially if it TRULY was a bridge to an alternative energy future.

Best,
SN



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
Oh, sorry I missed this one: "I can't wait to see how you crumble in November."

BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

Lets do a tally off the top of my head:

Scott Brown took the murdering drunkard's seat.

Governorships of Jersey/Virgina.

Charles Djou (R) just won in Obama's home district.

Rand Paul just beat the neocon in Kentucky.

Obama is, as of today, at 42% approval with the propaganda machine pumping on all cylinders.

Skunknuts, I've got a long memory. I'm going to remember to rub it in when the fascists get thrown out en masse November.



Define 'en masse' so we can have an objective standard to discuss after the elections. Wow, so Djou got a plurality vs. TWO democrats, big deal, you know he will be out in November if you actually follow politics w/ interested aplomb.

Why don't you google what the tea party thinks of Scott Brown now, lol. No mention of Murtha's seat easily won by the democrat, hmm.

Why don't you open up an intrade account and put your money where your mouth is?

Best,
SN



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   
Newsflash, Obama doesn't need any help making himself look incompetent, he is doing fine by himself and with his group of friends.

56% disapprove of his performance and he hasn't even been in 2 years.


Overall, 42% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the president's performance. That is the lowest level of approval yet measured for this president. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove of his performance. www.rasmussenreports.com...

Hands down the worst president and executive staff in the history of the country, including Jimmy Carter.

Besides, it doesn't matter who runs against him, at this point Wilson the volleyball could campaign against him and win.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 11:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Just Wondering
 


Wow, BP's propagandist wanders outside of an oil thread. Do you get paid to bash Obama as well?

If you want to bring-up polls, it is imperative to use a compendium of polling to eliminate the biases of individual polls/pollsters. Here you go, as I know it is hard for conservatives to get information from anywhere other than the few sources that conform to, and confirm, their skewed world view:

2010 Democrats vs. Republicans:

www.realclearpolitics.com...
www.pollster.com...
www.gallup.com...
pollingreport.com...

Obama approval ratings:

www.realclearpolitics.com...
www.pollster.com...
pollingreport.com...
www.gallup.com...
pollingreport.com...

Best,
SN


[edit on 5/25/2010 by skunknuts]



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   
“But, if you think that right-wing authoritarian leaners like Palin and Cheney respect individual freedom, you are insane.”

Yea ok, there you go again with the projection thing.

Skunknuts’ inner monologue: “WAIT. HE DOESN’T LIKE MY BELOVED BAMA, BUT HE DOESN’T LIKE BUSH? DOES NOT COMPUTE. DOES NOT COMPUTE. DANGER WILL ROBINSON. AHH PALIN BUSH WOLFOWITZ CHENEY ZOMG NEOCONS UNDER MY BED.” (I don’t think that’s too far off).

“Ok, so now you bring up using impeachment when previously you were supporting a coup.”

The premise of the OP is absurd. There is no plan for a coup, nor will there be. Petraeus is a political cipher and is too busy overseeing several hundred thousand soldiers in theater. Cheney is Cheney and will die of a coronary soon enough.

Obama’s actions to date justify calling him a tyrant, at minimum. The notion of Revolution should have entered the mind of every American with an IQ > room temperature.

“But, if you think that right-wing authoritarian leaners [sic] like Palin and Cheney respect individual freedom.”

There you go again, a republican hiding in every bush (heh).

You think that Obama/Rahm/Sunstein et al, the entire progressive movement in this country respect individual freedom? Again, either sniff more glue or stop sniffing altogether. (Rendition continues, Wars expand, telecom immunity, etc, etc ad nausea).

The entire premise of US progressivism/leftism/liberalism is necessarily totalitarian. Government intervention is the goal in every sector from energy to healthcare to education, only ending when US GDP = Total Gov’t expenditures and all citizens are wards of the state (and necessarily the statist elite). The precise antithesis of individual freedom. GOP mainline ditto, save at a slower pace.

Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei = German National Socialist Workers’ Party. (Yes, McCain is a socialist, he just hides it well).



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
Dude, if you think Dems/Liberals/Progs are making any gains this November, you're more brain dead than it appears. This politics thing happens in cycles and the current iteration of Liberal/Progressive fascism has shot it's wad, so to speak. 63% of the public favors repealing Obamacare, Boxer and Feinstein are fighting for dear life in Cali (as is Feingold in WI) which means that the rest of the nation is sufficiently further right.

Conservatives/RINOs/Libertarians take > 100 House seats. (There are enough house seats in districts that voted for McCain & sent in a Dem Rep to give R's control notwithstanding).

Historically, a House switch never occurs without a Senate switch. R's pick up minimum 8, 70/30 taking back the Senate altogether.

You sound like an R clown in 08 saying McCain would win by 48 states.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:17 PM
link   
In any case, have fun in your bunker and just pretend there are no Russians in Berlin.



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by tetrahedron
In any case, have fun in your bunker and just pretend there are no Russians in Berlin.


The socialists were exterminated by the Nazis. Where do you get your history, from Texas school books?

I'm not saying the Dems. will make gains in November. I am saying that the results will not be that different than the average off-year election that invariably demonstrates losses to the party in charge.

If you want to wager ANY amount of money that the dems. will lose 100+ seats, I would love to take that wager. Please find a way that would be amenable for a wager to be made, and we can draft something up. I'm 100% serious.

You are right about the senate/house correlation, so if you want to add that to the house wager (just straight GOP Senate takeover), I will give you 2:1.

Any amount (within reason) for real....

Best,
SN



posted on May, 25 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   
ok - can someone who actually believes this peice of lunacy , please exoplain COHERENTLY how gen. Prateus , by sabotaging the operations that HE IS IN CHARGE OF is going to get himself elected to the position of POTUS ?

call me naive , but i believe that to ascend to the preidency from a military background it would be a great help - if not essential to return as a hero and architect of a SUCESSFULL campaign

as an example , take eisenhower - does any one REALLY think that he could have returned to armerica after sabotaging the d-day lading plan and still become president ?




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join