Unconstitutional? Obama 1st US Pres ever to become UN Security council chairman

page: 4
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:14 AM
link   

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)


I was saying that with sarcasm.

Remember , I am mideast , I live in Iran .

I know about these plans. He is a wolf ins sheep clothing.

I hope you can understand the misunderstanding here.

BTW , Imperialism , in it's finest condition , can not bring justice to human beings , So US govt will not do that in the first place.
edit on 3-5-2013 by mideast because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:24 AM
link   

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?


AS long as it is supporting on their turn , they don't care . But the day they find their interests are hurt , they begin to shut out loud.
edit on 3-5-2013 by mideast because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
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 say good on Obama, if he wants to help bring peace by being the chairman, so be it (assuming that is the real intent of course, probably isn't, but who am I to argue).

edit on 3/5/13 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:45 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 



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.


I might make the same observation about basic civility with disagreement.


I'd thought the story was an interesting one, at the least. Then again, I'm in the camp who thinks obsessive movement to disarm our Nuclear stockpile (in public anyway) while Russia is ramping UP theirs and spending ever more on new Subs, land based Missiles with the supporting launchers, as well as a whole new generation of long range strategic bombers is rather ....Oh, how would I put that? Foolhardy of our President?

Disarming is good ...when it's a mutually agreed to and followed action. It's weakness to invite the strong to take full advantage when it's done unilaterally in the face of signs the opposite side isn't even thinking along the same lines by action, if not word.

Of course, now I'm sure someone will be along to spout the nonsense that the Russian Federation is really a has-been and lesser nation to our standing ..and so, none of those actions they've been embarked on for a at least a couple years now should matter or bother us in the least.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 03:50 AM
link   
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.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:01 AM
link   
Looks like Obama is awfully power hungry. You might think it's bad now, but I guarantee our government is grooming an even worse president than him to take office after his term is up. Unless Obama tries to pull some dictatorship attempt, but I highly doubt that, I would think nearly all american's aren't THAT "asleep." I guarantee our next president will be even worse than both Bush and Obama. Those presidents are just stepping stones. They sign a few things into law (usually unconstitutional or right-stripping) then the next president comes along and carries out whats next.

And don't give me the whole "Were a democracy, the government won't install the president they want, it's solely up to the people." Because if you look at when Ron Paul (Who was obviously the best canidate) ran, they blatantly restricted his media air time, and sometimes didn't even show him in the statistics in the polls. And guess who got the most media coverage? Our joyous Obama.

It's all a democratic illusion. I bet the next president we have will be just like Obama, and probably even worse.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 06:47 AM
link   

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.




Great point, couldn't have said it better myself



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:36 AM
link   

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.


Because we had this silly debate 4 fricking years ago. And guess what nobody not even Obama's rivals though it was unconstitional for Obama to chair a single meeting for a vote. The facts are easly available all over the net because it is almost half a decade old. If people can not figure this out for themselves then I do not have time to teach basic reading comprehension. He chaired a single 2 hour meeting so that all the other leaders who also showed could show solidarity on the issue with a unanimous vote. How in the hell could anybody think that was unconstitutional?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:51 AM
link   
So this means that once Obama is no longer the potus, he'll still be able to maintain a strong global leadership role?

And we're worried about a conflict of interest?




posted on May, 3 2013 @ 07:58 AM
link   
reply to post by SubTruth
 


The NWO is a figment of the imaginations of the overly paranoid basement-dwellers that post here.

Unless you're talking about the professional wrestling faction?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by MrSpad
 


People who hate Obama no matter what he does?

The man could # out Fort Knox and they'd still complain.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by VaterOrlaag
 


NWO????? HE SAYS IT IN THE VIDEO!!! When will you people get it. Stop with the comments meant to disregard.

HE CANNOT HANDLE WHAT HE ALREADY HAS. CONSTITUTIONALLY ITS MOOT BECAUSE IF HE CANT HANDLE WHAT HES GOT, THEN WHAT MAKES YOU THINK PILING MORE CRAP ON IT IS GOING TO MAKE HIM ANY BETTER AT PAYING ATTENTION TO AMERICA? HE IS AMERICAS PRESIDENT, HE NEEDS TO BE THAT. NOT SOME CHAIRMAN FOR INTL RELATIONS ON SECURITY.

HE SUCKS AS A PRESIDENT, THEREFORE HE SHOULDNT HAVE MORE.

A four year old argument is irrelevent, if you hashed it out, go find another thread. if not, he should have been dealt with at the time of ANY of these offenses. So it being four yrs old, kinda looks bad.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 09:10 AM
link   
*sigh*

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?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 10:07 AM
link   
reply to post by below
 


This news is so 2009

en.wikipedia.org...


September 2009 United States Susan Rice,[83] Barack Obama,[84] Rosemary DiCarlo,[85] and Hillary Rodham Clinton[86]


Considering that those on the security council usually only have their countries interests at heart. I don't see an issue.


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.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I had exactly the same thoughts when I seen this post.
Things are getting interesting indeed. I haven't read all of the books to see how it ends, but I had often thought that about Obama.
Good to see I'm not the only one. :-D



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 12:13 PM
link   

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

This right here.
Thank GOD we still have some people with a set that will keep this. The funny thing is, its meant to be a damning principle for Obama, but its quite the opposite.
Those whom fight for the right of corporations to turn the government invented internet into little more than a corporate subscription are on a completely different wavelength. My forefathers tax dollars paid for the internets invention, and for the wingers to say its not up to the government, but rather up to corporations on how its used (and nerfed) is going against the very fabric of information exchange/science/progress/humanity in my opinion. It is ultimately suggesting freedom of speech, and the method enabled by government innovation during WW2, is subject to be removed by corporations.



Keep tossing that chain mail letter around, the old people whom don't care much about freedom of speech (communists in my cupboard) will be frothing at the mouth, but anyone under 50 will come across that and will solidify their stance against those whom will try to sell the internet to the highest bidding corporation.

edit on 3-5-2013 by SaturnFX because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 01:55 PM
link   
If any one of you really think that the constitution is currently in effect, you need to do more research. The day to day operations of this government are a facade for a dictatorship. It can be easily shown. Furthermore, I believe that the constitution died on May 9, 1865, but this would be much harder to prove than the current facts.

If they openly declared the constitution null and void, a revolution would instant



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

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.


Well..they did give him the nobel peace prize before he even did anything so, i guess that must mean he really is peacefull and his drones fire rainbows and candy at men, woman and children.



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:07 PM
link   
reply to post by below
 


Are you really surprised?



posted on May, 3 2013 @ 04:41 PM
link   

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?


Well, so far there have been 3 other threads on it, starting back in 2009. As to why another thread? Well, Obama haters have to hate....



new topics
top topics
 
18
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join