Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

They really ARE trying to have Obama be our permanent Dictator!

page: 3
76
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Originally posted by SaturnFX
What tha...what does anything there have to do with economic stabilization and growth?

Don't recall seeing anything about "economic stabilization and growth" in the thread topic OR the OP...




posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


In a sick way, I would like to see this Bill Pass, just for the Enjoyment of seeing GOP supporters Squirm.

Deep down they all Love Obama, they are just too Shy to Admit it.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 


You know anything is possible now. The future holds nothing good for us.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Before we all get all in an uproar, and we should be paying attention to what the US government is doing, however, here is what has to happen.

1) The resolution has to go through both lesislative houses of the congress.

2) It has to be a approved by both houses of the US congress.

3) Then it has to be brought before the people of the United States, and has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states, 38 of the 50 states. If it does not hit that threshold it will not pass and if it does not get the support of the congress, it will either die on the floor or be put on the table indefinately.

But the final say still lies in the hands of the people and up until it gets that far, we have nothing to really worry about.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:06 PM
link   
I don't see what the big deal is. If the President is doing a good job (im not saying Obama is) then i can only see the benefit of keeping him or her posted up.

We have unlimited terms here in Canada, works well. Only with a majority of the house can you relax for 4 years between elections. If you don't have majority then the opposition can agree to snap an election at any time. keeps them on their toes.

We lost a lot of our political integrity here in Canada since Harper took the majority, and to get it was a lot harder than fixing a couple diebold machines. There were many hands at play and some of them did get caught by Elections Canada who is global pillar of democracy.

It ultimately took 3 bad liberal apples in a row and political shackles around the only good apple before Harper could get a majority. That could not have been easy.

Unlimited terms and snap elections give just enough instability to keep almost anyone from tuning it to their liking.

In the US it seems like the timing of a economic recovery is intended to be in tune with the return of the Republicans. The economy and election cycles are in almost perfect tune. That makes it easy to manipulate.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by FirstCasualty
 


Sad to say but our government uses ignorance to get what they want. We the people of the US are losing our freedom. At least your government uses common sense, or I hope.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
They are not going to amend the Constitution....but the danger is a major crisis near the end of term two which results in the declaration of national martial law where the Congress cant revoke it for 6 months and the elections are within that time frame. Worst still if the crisis is a Reichstag Event on steroids (think English Gunpowder Plot not Hitler's Burning of the Reichstag)...and Congress is no more then the Executive Branch would be it and the president would become a defacto dictator.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Remember when they were saying Bush was going to declare martial law and become dictator?

Yeah,,,,,,,,,,,,

Panic more conspiracy sheeple...
edit on 5-1-2013 by WaterBottle because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:02 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


yoo ah naw propatee off china lol



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:25 PM
link   
I doubt this will actually happen. It's certainly a concern but I don't even think we have real elections to begin with so it's basically like we already have a dictator.

This would seem to work against them because each time they get a "new" president, they get a clean slate while all of the laws and policies of the previous president(s) live on. If they had the same president for the next 20 years, eventually all of his misdeeds would start to add up and he would become quite unpopular. Well, at least if he kept behaving the way Obama has been behaving and Bush before him behaved. Imagine if Obama had been president since 2000 and he had all of that "war on terror" baggage on top of Obamacare and some of the other crap he has pulled.

The real problem with dictators is that they literally control their own image. If they don't want the public to see the things they have done, they just order the media not to report it.
edit on 5-1-2013 by BrianFlanders because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
The first one is impossible.
Alternatively, there are those whom see a president as a demon...and often those are the ones that insist others see him as a god.

I can't tell you how often people have said "your messiah" when discussing Obama....


Yeah I don't like his policies but don't buy into the way some folks mention him. Sadly they are just parroting what someone else called him. On another note, those who do look to him as a savior are just as big of a problem. The country and government wasn't meant to be handled by one man and people who look to just the president are perpetuating that. Bush, Clinton, Roosevelt, JKF, Obama; doesn't matter.


As far as the second bit about the exec branch...hard to alter that at the moment when the consensus is a lot more trust in them verses the legislative branch


Agreed in part, but we will discuss that with your next comment.


...your suggestion is give the least popular (I think soap scum on bathroom tiles is more popular with the people verses this congress) get more power


Here is the thing. With the 17th Amendment it took away power from the States -- and the People by extension -- under the guise of "democracy" via the direct elections of Senators. This consolidated power in Congress and gave the Senate and the senators immense power! Removing that power wouldn't make the Senate stronger but weaker and beholden to the States. This would be a good thing and many bills that have passed would have a hard time making their way through a Senate beholden to the States.
edit on 5-1-2013 by ownbestenemy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spacespider
As a outsider to US I always given the impression that Obama was fixing up USA after Bush destroyed it ?


That's because you, like most Amerikans, believed the propaganda. Many of us never believed a word of it.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:46 PM
link   
I am sorry gentlemn, but Mr Obama is not available for the Us presidency.....
Hes being groomed fopr bigger things...maybe UN presidency...



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Please forgive me if I mess this up; this is my first reply on ATS after many months of following.

In trying to understand what is going wrong with our country, I recently started researching the founding principals for our Constitution and it lead me to Aristotle's Books on Politics. What I found there scares me because it sounds so familiar.

As I understand Aristotle's writings, when he wrote this, Athens was at about the same point in the evolution (downfall) of democracy as the US seems to be right now. This quote is part of his explanation for why a democracy evolves into a monarchical tyranny because the dependent majority elects a demagogue who supersede the laws by popular decrees and invalidates the constitution. I tried to keep the quote as short as possible while retaining some context.

Excerpt from: Politics by Aristotle 350BC Book 4 Sect IV.



Of forms of democracy first comes that which is said to be based strictly on equality. In such a democracy the law says that it is just for the poor to have no more advantage than the rich; and that neither should be masters, but both equal. For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. And since the people are the majority, and the opinion of the majority is decisive, such a government must necessarily be a democracy. Here then is one sort of democracy. There is another, in which the magistrates are elected according to a certain property qualification, but a low one; he who has the required amount of property has a share in the government, but he who loses his property loses his rights. Another kind is that in which all the citizens who are under no disqualification share in the government, but still the law is supreme. In another, everybody, if he be only a citizen, is admitted to the government, but the law is supreme as before. A fifth form of democracy, in other respects the same, is that in which, not the law, but the multitude, have the supreme power, and supersede the law by their decrees. This is a state of affairs brought about by the demagogues. For in democracies which are subject to the law the best citizens hold the first place, and there are no demagogues; but where the laws are not supreme, there demagogues spring up. For the people becomes a monarch, and is many in one; and the many have the power in their hands, not as individuals, but collectively. Homer says that 'it is not good to have a rule of many,' but whether he means this corporate rule, or the rule of many individuals, is uncertain. At all events this sort of democracy, which is now a monarch, and no longer under the control of law, seeks to exercise monarchical sway, and grows into a despot; the flatterer is held in honor; this sort of democracy being relatively to other democracies what tyranny is to other forms of monarchy. The spirit of both is the same, and they alike exercise a despotic rule over the better citizens. The decrees of the demos correspond to the edicts of the tyrant; and the demagogue is to the one what the flatterer is to the other. Both have great power; the flatterer with the tyrant, the demagogue with democracies of the kind which we are describing. The demagogues make the decrees of the people override the laws, by referring all things to the popular assembly. And therefore they grow great, because the people have an things in their hands, and they hold in their hands the votes of the people, who are too ready to listen to them. Further, those who have any complaint to bring against the magistrates say, 'Let the people be judges'; the people are too happy to accept the invitation; and so the authority of every office is undermined. Such a democracy is fairly open to the objection that it is not a constitution at all; for where the laws have no authority, there is no constitution. The law ought to be supreme over all, and the magistracies should judge of particulars, and only this should be considered a constitution. So that if democracy be a real form of government, the sort of system in which all things are regulated by decrees is clearly not even a democracy in the true sense of the word, for decrees relate only to particulars.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:04 PM
link   
reply to post by CaticusMaximus
 


I don't think it's so much that people WANT him in office as it is that the Republicans haven't been able to procure a single decent candidate.

I would have voted republican if Romney didn't suck so much.
edit on 5-1-2013 by DestroyDestroyDestroy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:06 PM
link   
reply to post by TrueAmerican
 


He wants tol be just like FDR. I wonder when he will try to usurp the powers of the supreme court?



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by onthedownlow
 

I thought he wants to be like Lincoln....but that did not end well for him!



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Tw0Sides
 

What I would like to see is TERM LIMITS for Senators like Diane Feinstein...and leave the Presidency at 2 terms.



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
I think deep down, in his heart of hearts, Obama really wants to be Rupaul. Sorry , thats all I got tonight. lol



posted on Jan, 5 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Spacespider
As a outsider to US I always given the impression that Obama was fixing up USA after Bush destroyed it ?
Cant see who would do better then Obama as president..


I am 100% sure that is part of the conspiracy. Have the dumbest man possible (Bush) play President for 8 years.
Then have the first black man come in the Presidency with some intelligence in his word but continue the very same policies.. it was all for show..






top topics



 
76
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join