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.

 

Obama Calls For Dictatorship In America! Communists Democrats Cheer! Treason Caught On Video!

page: 13
26
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Obama was picked for this role by the same nefarious ptb who put Bush Jr. in command as well as Clinton and Papa Bush. He was picked to put the liberal american back to sleep with false hope and promises while the Federal Reserve, Wall Street and Military Industrial Complex continues on the same path it's been on for over thirty years. They're all criminals. The left v right paradigm is an illusion to keep us all fighting with each other. Distract, divide, conquer!
Problem I have with liberals is they're so delusional, they'll follow this phony puppet right through the gates of hell if he asked them too. Then they'll blame Bush for it being too hot down there!




posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by VitriolAndAngst
I was expecting SOMETHING taken completely out of context with complete hyperbole -- and this post did not disappoint.

Not a fan of Obama's continuation of Drone warfare, not arresting war criminals, not jailing bankers -- but to call his "one executive order" a move to bypass Congress when Republicans haven't even allowed him to complete appointing his cabinet in over 6 years? Come on.

Obama has faults but he's bent over backwards to treat the Republicans with respect they do not deserve.

I'm pretty sure it's pointless to point out that if anything we are more in danger of Fascism because of Corporate rule and a judicial system that cannot reign in crooks with deep pockets.

I'm sure that nothing will get through the paranoia. "Barack Hussein Obama" -- that's all you need; a scary soudning foreign name.

The population of adults here is pretty low.


As for taking things ENTIRELY out of context, you did not disappoint either. Oh yeah this entire thread is about 1 executive order.


So if you are going to claim things, then back them up. How has Obama bent over backwards? So what makes you convinced that Obama's name is scarey to me and others? Are you psychic, or just typing worthless things on your keyboard to fill up space with rhetoric?



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by elouina
 


To answer your query directly, Bush and Obama are both guilty. Neither is innocent. Both are equally culpable.

Now here's the funny part of it all. In a few years a far, far right wing POTUS will be elected to the backlash against Obama... a true Rush Limbaugh dream come true POTUS. When that happens the right and the Tea Party will cheer just as outrageously as Obama was cheered when he was elected. This coming POTUS will promise to kill off welfare, and gut Medicaid and Medicare, and privatize Social Security, and give the middle class and rich a mountain of tax cuts, and God knows what else.

He'll probably pass the tax cuts, but he won't achieve the rest... And he'll blame that damned obstructionist Democratic Congress for holding him back... For raping America. And the right will eat it up, even as the liberals come out of the woodwork screaming "COME ON... THE POOR CANNOT BE THE ONLY PEOPLE PAYING TAXES... THEY'RE POOR!!!"

And circular arguments just like this one will go on - with people like me pointing out the record number of EO's and EA's issued by THAT POTUS.

The right will have excuses... But we're at war... But he's got to supersede Congress cuz the deficit ( which will still grow in spite of it all )....

Four to eight years later? Well be right back here arguing about the Democratic Antichrist who just go elected.

Forever.
edit on 8/5/13 by Hefficide because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightTide


Blah blah blah.....my tyrant is better then your tyrant.

I understand where OP is trying to go with this thread, but essentially my first sentence sums things up nicely. Each president keeps on setting the groundwork for future puppets (presidents) to keep on taking your freedoms away.

and you keep on falling for it - I even admit I fall for this time and time again but I try not to.

WAKE UP!


I am glad you realize what I was getting at. Yeah the title and video were selected for their shock appeal. But I wanted to draw people into this thread to debate the issue. But the overall opposition to my ideas is, that "Bush was worse", "Bush did it too you know", "I can belt out more rhetoric than anyone else", and "I disagree but can't tell you why". Not everyone though, and I thank those that contributed.

Those executive actions have me worried more than anything. This new method is unprecedented, and can most definitely lead the way to a run away presidency for Obama and every president afterwards. Do we really want to head down this road?.



posted on Aug, 5 2013 @ 11:56 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


Do you realize that you have brought more into this thread than anyone? Anyways, I agree both Bush and Obama are 2 peas in the same pod. But do you know what makes Obama even worse? He strode into office claiming that he was going to "change" the US. He would have nothing to do with that old crap that we hated Bush for. The chances of getting an independent with change on the menu is nearly impossible. So, I fell for it.... All Obama managed to do was improve upon what Bush started, and then some.

And yes I agree that history keeps repeating itself. Why, oh why can't we actually get a good person into office these days? I know a lot of people didn't like Regan, and I was originally one of them. "What? A movie star? You have to be kidding me!"
But now that I look back, he was one of our better presidents.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by elouina
 


Unprecedented???


Oh my I just accidentally closed down my tab with several paragraphs in place. I am still here, just need to get my words into action again.

Yes, unprecedented. You see, Obama no longer needs executive orders for many things anymore. Take for example how he got shot down by congress on his Climate change policies. Afterwords, he threatened to get things done without congress, and he is. Even the EPA administrator has mentioned that he told her to make regulations to accomplish what he failed to do with congress.

Here is another example... When he decided to delay the employer mandate for Obamacare, he had no authority to do this. He just waved his hand and made it so.

For him to get away with either one of these would be unprecedented and would lead the way for more abuses by future presidents..
edit on 6-8-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by elouina

Plus no one seems to notice the numerous times that I mentioned that we have been in a nonstop state of national emergency since Obama has been in office.


I noticed. I even commented on it. You just chose to ignore it.


"The Nation has been in a constant state of National Emergency since 2001 (09/14/01 to be precise). This isn't some new information that points towards Obama becoming some totalitarian ruler." ~ Garkiniss




Do you know what that does as far as giving him additional powers? Before you even say, "but Bush did it", I will say it for you. You see everyone is ready to call Bush evil, but the second Obama has done the same thing as Bush, this becomes the excuse, Bush did it". So which is it, Bush is evil or Obama is innocent because Bush did it also?


You just shat on the premise of your own thread, you realize that, don't you?
You literally just conceded to the point that everyone has been making against your op.

Bush did also do it. By your own admission he did it, and here we are... dictator free.

Why is Obama destined to be the chosen one that kickstarts America 2.0: The Dictatorship?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 


I saw your post and I think even responded to it. I was talking about everyone else. But as far as the the, "Bush did it" rhetoric, well you are a scholar in that respect.

My point is that Obama is even worse than Bush. Yes they did many of the same things. But Obama's constant talk of circumventing congress, fighting gun rights, socialized medicine, increased drone use, and improving upon the NSA, etc..takes things up a notch. I feel like the US citizens are in a constant battle with his ideas, "that are good for us even if we don't know it". .



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 12:43 AM
link   
Yet another duplicate post. But why waste the space? Here is a discussion by our representatives called, A Discussion on The Obama Administration's Abuse of Power . There are 2 parts to this video. Please take your time and watch this.

A Discussion on The Obama Administration's Abuse of Power

Taking my cats outside will be back shortly.


edit on 6-8-2013 by elouina because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 01:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadellacZumbrum
reply to post by elouina
 


I fail to see the Treason.

Is it because he said that he is "Tempted" to bypass congress and make the laws on his own?

Just because someone says that they are "tempted" does Not constitute Treason by any stretch.

However, I can easily see that Far-Left Republicans put this video together. Do they have any clue that by doing so they have committed the Highest form of Treason. AND it is documented.

If you speak Against your Commander in Chief in such a manner, it is by Definition Treason.

So to sum things up. They have committed a Treasonous Act to assert a lie against the Command in Chief.

I am not personally happy about OUR choice of Leader, but, I also don’t go out of my way to perpetrate a fabrication by using documentation out of context.

Except he wasn't just tempted, he actually did. He bypassed congress and waged covert drone wars in Yemen. He passes executive orders every time he doesn't get his way with congress... I won't even go into it because if you don't know by now then.... well



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Garkiniss
 



You literally just conceded to the point that everyone has been making against your op.

Bush did also do it. By your own admission he did it, and here we are... dictator free.

Why is Obama destined to be the chosen one that kickstarts America 2.0: The Dictatorship?


Well yes, Bush laid the ground work for Obama, and Obama is laying down the ground work for the next puppet. In my eyes they are all bad, but the way things are looking you and I are going to see a real tyrant.

So the question is, do you want to stop the creation of said tyrant, or would you prefer the tyrant to be entrenched in power?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
I just wonder what all you would say if the situation was reversed. What if Ron Paul had become president, and a liberal obstructionist congress stopped him from making any of the changes that he promised his voters he would make? What if time after time he was stonewalled? Would you be satisfied if his 4 years were completely wasted, as he was prevented from doing anything his campaign was based on? Would you support him if he tried to do what he could "legally", i.e., executive orders (which are very limited, by the way) to bypass an obstructionist liberal congress? I'll bet you a million dollars you would.


Obama supporters, why you no use logic!? Stop trying to apply the tactics of your soiled president to principled statesmen. There is NO COMPARISON between O and RP. NONE.

Why are you trying to justify Obama breaking the law and his oath of office simply because the other-side is "obstructionist" or so you claim?

Ron Paul is where he is today because he never bent to political pressure. He has been the lone voice in congress for over 30 years, what precedence leads you to believe that he would change in the oval office?
edit on 6-8-2013 by eLPresidente because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   

edit on 6-8-2013 by MidnightTide because: delete please



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimar
He's pointing out the fact that Congress has a bunch of willfully ignorant, self-serving, hypocritical right-wingers who say no mostly just because he says yes and vice versa.

I can't stand this way of thinking, when it's Repubs saying "NO" they're "obstructionists" when Dems say "NO" they're simply standing up for their beliefs.


hypocrite much ?

Why should Repubs simply go along to get along? they simply don't agree with this current president's crazyass ideas so they don't vote yes to them. SIMPLE AS THAT.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 07:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by kimar
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


I would say hate for Obama is more passionate than hate for any other President. What gets me is how utterly baseless it is.


You should read how much Hamilton worked to undercut President Adams (which eventually led to Jefferson's victory -- and mind you, one of the ugliest shows of political gamesmanship). The divide between them was much more real than say, a democrat and a republican. Worst of it all, Hamilton did all his underhanded dealings while serving in President Adams cabinet.

Regardless of this difference of view on this, why would say it was more passionate? Because more and more people have greater access to instantaneous global communications? How do we know (or not know) that maybe President Harding or Peirce were the most hated?

I concede that you may feel this way and that you see it as "baseless", but how so? What would you say would be a good base for peoples' dissent towards any given president?


Those who hate him claim its because of his "socialist policies" and his "hatred of capitalism." If judging by his actions, the man doesn't have a socialist bone in his body and has proven himself to be a strong and tireless champion for corporatism and the status quo.


His social policies do not equate to socialism, but I think his social policies are out of line with Constitutionalism and more importantly, State Rights and Federalism. So yes, you are engaging in conversation with someone who has a problem with many of his domestic policies (and he isn't the first president that I would add to this).

He is no friend of true capitalism (or nearly any president and Congress ever since the redefinition of the Commerce Clause) but he is a friend of crony-capitalism and allowing and/or promoting "who wins and who loses" in terms of the "free" market.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
reply to post by sonnny1
 


LOL. When has a "federal law" ever been written with an executive order?


The more correct understanding would be that they "have the force of law". More often than not though, they are designed to circumvent legislation in place -- which defeats the primary purpose of the Executive Branch of our Government; which is to enforce the law.

Article II, Section 3 reads in part, "...[the president] shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed..." Not to limit this conversation to any one president, there are a mound of executive orders that perpetually exclude the Executive from this primary function they have been charged with.

Neither of you are right nor are either of you wrong. An executive order does not officially become part of the United States Code but they do direct the beuracracy to act (or not act) that may be in direct conflict of current legislation.

For instance, how can the president direct the IRS and/or HHS to delay application of the Patient Protection and Affordable Act to businesses when it is directed by the Legislative Branch to be in place?



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 08:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Roosevelt was acting on the will of the majority. Americans were pretty ticked off after Pearl Harbor, and no one trusted anyone who was Japanese at that time. Are you blaming a president for doing something that everyone wanted him to do?


And that would be called a what? The president does not have unilateral legislative powers; they have none. But because you are okay because "everyone" -- which by the way is how many? Just need to know when we have a true nutcase in the White House and they use this line of reasoning to encamp [insert your political and/or ethnic group here] because "everyone wanted him to" do it.

We are not a democracy. We have strong democratic principles and they are stronger at the State level, but would you be singing the same tune knowing your parents were placed into camps simply because they looked Japanese even though they were BORN in the United States to naturalized citizens of the United States?

I guess so long as the "people wanted him to do it" right?!



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by kaylaluv
Roosevelt was acting on the will of the majority. Americans were pretty ticked off after Pearl Harbor, and no one trusted anyone who was Japanese at that time. Are you blaming a president for doing something that everyone wanted him to do?


And that would be called a what? The president does not have unilateral legislative powers; they have none. But because you are okay because "everyone" -- which by the way is how many? Just need to know when we have a true nutcase in the White House and they use this line of reasoning to encamp [insert your political and/or ethnic group here] because "everyone wanted him to" do it.

We are not a democracy. We have strong democratic principles and they are stronger at the State level, but would you be singing the same tune knowing your parents were placed into camps simply because they looked Japanese even though they were BORN in the United States to naturalized citizens of the United States?

I guess so long as the "people wanted him to do it" right?!


You misunderstand my point. Roosevelt simply succumbed to pressure from EVERYONE to do this. Congress supported it. The American people demanded it. The Supreme Court said it was constitutional. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do - it was a bad decision. What I am saying is that this particular example is a bad example of a president being a fascist dictator, bypassing congress to do whatever the hell he wanted. That wasn't what happened in this case.



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 11:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by MrInquisitive
 





To summarize: NO, the Democrats didn't control all three branches of the government,


YES THEY DID!

Really expect people to be that stupid?

The 111th Congress Democratic majorities both house and senate and the Executive.



Any basic civics class will teach you that the three branches of government are the executive, legislative and judicial branches. So you're still wrong. Thank you for not disappointing me in my expectations of conservative ATS'ers and their tenuous grasp of political facts.

As for Democratic control of the executive branch and both houses of the legislative branch during the first two years of Obama's first term, you chose to ignore the egregious obstructionism of the Republican senate minority and their constant filibustering of most all bills brought up in the Senate, and their fighting tooth and nail to keep Franken from being sworn in to make it a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and then the Republican governor of Mass. taking advantage of a dead, long-term Democrat senator by replacing him with Republican and Tea Party favorite Scott Brown, whose disgusting, ethnic-smearing campaign against Elisabeth Warren in his re-election bid showed that he had no business being a US senator.

In no way am I defending Obama's first term, in particular those first two years when the Democrats ostensibly controlled both houses of congress (but in fact were obstructed at every turn by a filibuster-crazy Republican minority). Obama's and the Democrat's squandering of all of their political capital on corporate welfare in terms of bailing out the banks and the Obama-"care" subsidization bill for health insurers and big pharma, and failing to prosecute the criminal bankers, Bush-regime war criminals and BP environmental highway men was a travesty. The stimulus package for "shovel-ready" infrastructures was a joke (all it did was get all of the highways and freeways repaved).

What was needed was a large-scale economic/environmental program to develop green jobs and clean, renewable energy sources to combat climate change and to fix the economy. This was not done, and still has not been done, but the Republicans have obstructed against such moves throughout Obama's tenure, so I can see why these things were never attempted too seriously by the Democrats -- that and a lot of them are controlled by the corporate establishment too.

My point was calling you out on your false claim that the Democrats controlled all three branches of government, which they did not. But you evidently failed to see that. But you're right, I didn't expect anybody to be that stupid; you surprised me.

And last time I checked, this thread is about how Obama is a proto-dictator because he issues executive orders -- something US presidents have done for a long time.
edit on 6-8-2013 by MrInquisitive because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
26
<< 10  11  12    14 >>

log in

join