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.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
Originally posted by mideast
I think you should be happy that thee peaceful unconstitutional president of US is going to bring peace to the world by any mean.
I am staying awake to see how much peace he is going to bring to the world.
Oh yeah, right... Ask Libya and Syria how that whole Nobel Peace Prize concept feels from their perspective. How about Afghanistan ..or more to the point, Pakistan, Yemen and Central/North Africa? (Drone land, all of it)
Something tells me we won't be singing Kumbaya and holding hands any time soon ..nor is it what he has in mind. There are very few policies of Bush that he hasn't kept and actually expanded upon. Those dropped? Were political.
* ....Anyone else reminded even a little of Nicholae Carpathia? Not the full reference and meaning, perhaps ..but then, it doesn't actually have to be, to be very disturbing. It's getting uncomfortably close to things I NEVER thought in a bad dream I'd actually see happen in the real world.edit on 2-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by beezzer
reply to post by SaturnFX
So you would find no issue if Obama became president of the UN while still president of the US?
So something that took 2 hours 4 years ago that anybody with a 5th grade reading level or better understands is completely consitutional is now brought out like it is something new. I swear the IQ level here has been on a steady decline as of late.
The constitution was written in different times, now the world is closer than ever before, a lot of it no longer really applies.
I'll never understand why people cling to such an ancient set of rules when there is no place for (some of) them in the modern world.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by woogleuk
The constitution was written in different times, now the world is closer than ever before, a lot of it no longer really applies.
I'll never understand why people cling to such an ancient set of rules when there is no place for (some of) them in the modern world.
I can't help but notice by your mini- that you make those statements from England. Well, everyone in the world is entitled to their opinion and I really wouldn't expect the UK, of all the powers on Earth, to appreciate or really hold that document in high regard or fond memory...to say the least.
I do find it interesting though, how your nation is rather passionate if not downright close to violence on the concept of handing over the last of your sovereignty to the European Union and a central Government's control from the continent? It's kinda like that, as we see it over here.
Originally posted by mactheaxe
Originally posted by MrSpad
So in 2009 Obama and a bunch of other world leaders make a trip to the UN after their staffs have spent months working on an agreement about limiting nukes. Everybody sits down, Obama gives a speech and they all vote for the motion and then they leave. So something that took 2 hours 4 years ago that anybody with a 5th grade reading level or better understands is completely consitutional is now brought out like it is something new. I swear the IQ level here has been on a steady decline as of late.
of course the context of the speech doesnt matter right? We support this. This is what he said no? I dont see any supporters, nor have I heard of any. You call into question with your own IQ not offering any facts, or anything backing your claim and comments up. So, in conclusion, Your words mean nothing. They are meant to play it off as unimportant.
September 2009 United States Susan Rice,[83] Barack Obama,[84] Rosemary DiCarlo,[85] and Hillary Rodham Clinton[86]
The role of president of the Security Council involves setting the agenda, presiding at its meetings, and overseeing any crisis. The president is authorized to issue both Presidential Statements[3] (subject to consensus among Council members) and notes,[4] which are used to make declarations of intent that the full Security Council can then pursue. The President also usually speaks to the press on behalf of the Security Council.
Originally posted by Danbones
Violating the american people and the constitution are just another day at the office it seems for Mr Obama
here is a nice list of his handyworks for you Saturn
(mods I hope you will let this post stand )
#8. — Net Neutrality: The government is trying to stop Internet providers from blocking or slowing some web traffic and prevent providers from showing favoritism. The FCC thinks it should be able to regulate the Internet like it regulates utility companies. This violates the property rights of Internet providers and interferes in the market’s free choice of which services receive funding. Article 1.8 makes it clear that the FCC is not constitutionally authorized to pass laws, especially those disguised as regulations
Originally posted by mideast
I think you should be happy that thee peaceful unconstitutional president of US is going to bring peace to the world by any mean.
I am staying awake to see how much peace he is going to bring to the world.
Originally posted by 48e18
This happened in 2009, he chaired that ONE meeting along with Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, and Rosemary DiCarlo. The chairman changes every single month.
Why is there a thread about it just now and talking like it is going to happen in the future?