Shut Up Already With The Anti-POTUS Drivel

Originally posted by jlm912

Originally posted by Annee
You know what they say about Opinions.

Haha touche. Agreed, though I must say, yours smells pretty bad.

Your emotions are showing.

reply to post by Annee


Indeed, I am only human. I do enjoy a good debate, and I do take pride in my roots and the roots of our country. I don't mean to insult, so I apologize if you were offended, but yes, my previous statement was my emotion-fueled opinion.

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by Annee

 

Indeed, I am only human. I do enjoy a good debate, and I do take pride in my roots and the roots of our country. I don't mean to insult, so I apologize if you were offended, but yes, my previous statement was my emotion-fueled opinion.

No prob

We all have emotional responses.

Admitting it? Priceless

The only good president is a dead president...I mean, not like that!
Damn, I hear sirens.

But if a presidents starts to be good with the people, for real, he will likely be killed.

It's no wonder Obama's seems 10 years older in 4 years, just the shock of knowing he will just be the mascot of bankers and corporations instead of for the people must of been quite something for him, he really was naive.

reply to post by Annee


You act as if a larger population should change the rules on how we govern the country? If anything having more people should put emphasis on states' rights to make their own decisions since its tailored to their location and populous. That way the feds sit back like their SUPPOSED to and if one state fails in its duty is when they come in to help out. NOT make decisions as a whole for the country, there is a reason why there is 50 different states. Because every situation is different and what works in one state probably wont work in another. The framework was perfect, what the imbeciles in office did to it is what put us in a hole in which we cannot dig out of now.

Originally posted by Brandon88
reply to post by Annee

 

You act as if a larger population should change the rules on how we govern the country? If anything having more people should put emphasis on states' rights to make their own decisions since its tailored to their location and populous.

Yes - - states rights that are about location - - geographic and weather needs.

Not Civil Rights - - - or Marriage Rights.

reply to post by Brandon88


Exactly. You get a star . The way I see it, we were meant to be a republic on the state level, where every contributing citizen had their voice heard and represented in Congress, where we were to nationally have a democracy with majority rule where the voice of the majority was superior. The country is and has been vastly changing into something completely different, whereas now the voice of a powerful handful is superior and the voice of the majority is merely "taken into consideration" if acknowledged at all. Repulsive and infuriating for sure.

A democratic-republic. Nowadays, "democrats" and "republicans" are pitted against each other, when we should all be working in harmony, while a completely different agenda is carried out.

Originally posted by Brandon88
If anything having more people should put emphasis on states' rights to make their own decisions since its tailored to their location and populous.

Really? I currently live in 2 states. SW Arizona - - and SW beach area of Redondo Beach CA.

A major part of CA is agricultural - - still run by very Catholic Mexicans.

People love to call CA - - the Liberal State. Total misconception. Wrong. CA has geographic areas that tend to be liberal. It is a very spit state.

Arizona? Well SW Arizona thinks Phoenix is a joke.

reply to post by Annee


The Fed has NO right to decide our civil rights or marriage rights. That is to be decided upon on a state level just like everything else. Anything the Fed does in regards to those things is illegal just like telling us what we can and cannot do with our own bodies. We have already been given our civil rights.

Civil rights include the ensuring of peoples' physical integrity and safety; protection from discrimination on grounds such as physical or mental disability, gender, religion, race, national origin, age, status as a member of the uniformed services, sexual orientation, or gender identity;[1][2][3] and individual rights such as privacy, the freedoms of thought and conscience, speech and expression, religion, the press, and movement.

The Feds cannot tell us to do anything, if the state says it is allowed then we can. The Federal Gov't was made to answer to the state not the other way around. This country was not made for decisions to be decided upon at the federal level.And the state in regards is to answer to the citizens who elected them.

People have turned politics into a career and do anything they can to keep themselves in office, which was never meant to happen. It is a service to our country to serve in a position temporarily, not stay in that position for the rest of your life with six digit salaries and benefits coming out of our tax dollars.

reply to post by Annee


Ah yes, and that's where I shall point to the 9th amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Others, being other rights, should not be infringed, including marriage rights and civil rights. The way they have been handled are not as "rights" however, but as "privileges," which is a crock. I have the right to choose whomever I want as a life partner and spouse. That's between me and them, and government, state or federal, has no business intervening.

Originally posted by jlm912
reply to post by Annee

 

Ah yes, and that's where I shall point to the 9th amendment:

Sorry.

Too late -- too tired,

reply to post by Annee


Understood. Farewell and goodnight.

But generally speaking, the Constitution initially only provided protection against any laws infringing on our civil rights, and it also set the process for the structure of our federal government and it's duties, largely internationally, meaning foreign affairs such as commerce and war were to be handled federally and most all others to be handled by the state.

Originally posted by PageAlaCearl
Obama Has Increased Debt $5 Trillion --- www.abovetopsecret.com...

Stimulus Package after Stimulus Package -- crazy unemployed anti-obama people -- things are great -- Obama 2012 lets shoot for the quadzillions!!!

You're absolutely correct,,, lets take a look at the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing ‘commercially available technologies.
Yes, you know our tax dollars at work, Remember the Solar Firm Solyndra?
We all know the company Failed after it was giving an injection of Tax payers monies, A $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra. by the administration of,,,,, Guess Who,,, Yes Obama.
Now this is the Really Good Part,,, Obama as usual is Blaming Some One Other Than Himself For His Fail Policies, Does That Surprise any of you?

Obama is saying, This Was Not Our Program, YUP,,, Pass the Blame Game Obama.
Obama blames Congress and the Chinese for the company going Bankrupt.

President Obama denied culpability for the failure of solar firm Solyndra in a radio interview on Tuesday, instead pinning the blame on Congress and the Chinese.

The loans initiative used to finance Solyndra was “not our program,” he told American Public Media in response to question about Solyndra’s bankruptcy and subsequent controversy.

source: freebeacon.com...

Wrong!!! Another Lie To the Sheeple.

The truth can be found here:
www.factcheck.org...

Obama’s Solyndra Problem

President Obama exaggerated when defending his administration’s approval of a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, a now-defunct solar company.

Exaggerated is not the word I'd use,,,I would say Lying is more like it, he does it enough, maybe he believes the lies his own lies.

Obama referred to Solyndra’s loan at an Oct. 6 press conference as “a loan guarantee program that predates me.” That’s not accurate. It’s true that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 created a loan guarantee program for clean-energy companies developing “innovative technologies.” But Solyndra’s loan guarantee came under another program created by the president’s 2009 stimulus for companies developing “commercially available technologies.”

This is a good part, read closely now, Open Your Eyes,,, Obamanites,,,,

The Republican-controlled House has been investigating whether the administration ignored red flags about Solyndra’s financial condition when it offered a $535 million loan guarantee to the start-up company. The California company announced in August it would file for bankruptcy protection — about two and a half years after receiving the loan guarantee from the Department of Energy.

The loan guarantee program that provided financing for Solyndra, however, does not predate Obama.

Source Again: www.factcheck.org...

Listen, I am not going to call you any names, but I am going to question your understanding of THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION.

Not only do people have the right to disagree with the POTUS, they SHOULD disagree, VERY VOCALLY. That's what the first amendment is about. While you're whining about disrespect, he is taking that right away.

If it would satisfy your pet peeve, maybe we can refer to the president as "Mr. Asshat." Fair enough?

reply to post by AwakeinNM


That's "President Asshat" to you, sir

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by jaynkeel

You mean people like Timothy McVeigh? Home grown terrorists. I suspect there are many more in the works.

Thats the quote that had us all guessing.

Could Timothy McVeigh be classified as a Home Grown Terrorist?

IF credible information had come available prior to his actions - - would it have been beneficial to "hold" him - - while investigating? Without officially charging him?

I say Yes! And support the decision that allows this.

I also understand fully: "With great power comes great responsibility" - - - and trust in government is required.

By Logic - - not emotions - - I support the decision made.

edit on 22-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

I don't remember the people bestowing this 'great power.' Trusting that there will be no abuse of a power that they should not have had the power to give themselves doesn't seem very logical to me.

Unconditional love would be emotional.

Well after 6 hours of this thread and some many angry pages on both sides, let's take a ....hmm how would CNN call it, a non scientific poll.
We will use the OP's star count and say alienreality as he is the first one to make a clear overall dissent response.
At this point OP has 23 stars to alienreality's 32 stars.
It would seem that 2/5ths of the community believe that you should not complain.
It also seems that 3/5ths think BarryO is bad for the US.
Seems the OP loses his argument as he/she could only get 40 percent. Well almost, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.
WINNER IS.....The Peoples who don't like to get screwed over.
Hope it helps

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by rockintitz
Why should I respect some who clearly doesn't respect me?
"We don't have the first amendment so we can talk about the weather"
-Ron Paul

Ron Paul would destroy America by creating 50 little countries.

Exactly like Iran - - with multiple tribal groups - - - all vying for control.

Throw E pluribus unum - - in the shredder.

edit on 22-3-2012 by Annee because: (no reason given)

You really don't know anything about this country do you? It is ALREADY 50 little countries, as it was DESIGNED to be by the Framers. Each state is an independent, Sovereign State (note the capital S) that has a Chief Executive (Governor) and army (National Guard.) The "individual states" came together for mutual protection and economic benefit; BUT a state may secede from the Union at any time, or reject any Federal legislation they desire. Read the 9th and 10th Amendments.

A strong Federal government was NEVER the intention of the Framers, whose Constitution is probably the most ingenious and well thought-out pieces of Enlightenment though ever created; and you want to destroy it (changing it by Executive Order instead of using the amendment process provided for in the document itself IS destroying it) along with that POS that's squatting in the White House.

One last thing: You trust the government?

Who's paying you to post here?

reply to post by Bakatono

reply to post by jlm912


Bro Hugs.

reply to post by Destinyone


You do know that presidents have very little control over gas prices.

This is where ATS gets stupid. Every other thread is about how presidents try to grab power and freedoms, yet give the credit of every little thing to the president. Everything is the presidents fault. So basically atsers complain about what they willingly give.

He is not a king, he didn't wake up and set the gas prices today.