Overthrow the democratically elected president, "how patriotic"

reply to post by mental modulator


First friend I must tell you I am not partisan. I do not advocate for a party or party politics. I am against big government, and unconstitutional goverment, which basically means the last and only President that really earned my trust and respect was Andrew Jackson.

A rare honest man in a corrupt world!

Government has no business in Health Care and not only does it have no business in Health Care, Mrs. Clinton as many other politicians have proven, it is near political suicide for Government to try to get in to health care.

You were just a little too young for the Medicare debate...let me tell you ugly, ugly, ugly.

Not just the debate but the program itself which is riddled with fraud, waste and corruption and leaks money like a sieve.

The notion of the government 'giving' you something always involves a quid pro quo. What are you going to give the government in return.

The reality is that Social Security, and Medicare are simply used as carrots for the citizenry to fund through excessive taxation a huge and equally wasteful fraudelent, wasteful and corrupt Military Industrial Complex and in reality often the money raised through Social Security and Medicare payroll deductions is loaned to the Defense Budget and ends up in the pockets of the purveyors of death of destruction.

I am against big government, I am against the Nanny state concept that defeats the right to self determination, and I am against the Military Industrial Complex and the notion of preemptive and punitive wars.

I personally don't care which politician or from which party, or what color of skin the President has, because if he isn't actually engaged in ending wars, and fostering true peace, and ending the notion of preemptive wars and punitive wars of collective punishment, and the Military Industrial Compex and big Nanny State Government I am just not going to like his policies.

He can still stop by my house for a coke and a barbeque, and be treated with friendly courtesty as a human being, but I am going to still object to what he does for a day job!

Stop draggin, stop draggin my heart around.

Stevie Nix and Tom Petty, 1981!

When he was elected on lies and deceit when his true intent is to drastically change the ideology of this country to marxism/fascism and change the constitution to fit the deluded modern "liberal" Frankenstein vision of new age environmentalism and old failed utopian dreams, then yeah, he should be impeached and it would be unpatriotic NOT to suggest it.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You obviously don't get it at all. It's not about throwing out Obama, Obama is just another puppet frontman. It's about throwing out the international bankers who have been controlling our country for decades now through the central banking system. We need to overthrow them, it barely even has anything to do with Obama or the two-party paradigm. Wake up!

reply to post by xmotex

The hysteria that has erupted since his election is not due to the fact that he is not the huge change many hoped for, but more due to the fact that many people have been persuaded that he has made a huge change and that we are now heading into some kind of communist dictatorship.

I think it can be divided up. You have group 1 who are against Obama because he is a Democrat. You have group 2 against Obama because in their opinion he promised change and they feel he hasn't delivered. Of course, they forget he still has 3.25 years left. And then you have group 3 against Obama because they are following one of the two groups above.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
reply to post by OldDragger

 

SO let me ask you, why in the hell should anyone CARE what you like or don't? Too freakin bad. The shallowness of thinking like this amazes me. It's not ABOUT YOU spoiled boy!
Obam won. Game over.

Winning a Presidential election in a representative republic is not a referendum or mandate to become or be a dictator.

The democratic process is one that is comprised of debate. Debate is comprised of dissent. People for and against issues arguing the pros and cons of said issues is what comprises and constitutes said debate.

Winning office, just means winning the right to be a representative and advocate of a party, not elevation to a position of authority above all others in a dictatorial manner meant to eliminate or stifle debate or dissent.

Perhaps if you spent more time studying U.S. History, the Constitution, and the American political process instead of playing X-box, and Nintendo you wouldn’t be inclined to think that the American electoral process is a contest and game to elect a dictator?

Maybe you should actually familiarize yourself with said game, and it’s actual rules before declaring it over?

AMEN BROTHER!!!!!!

reply to post by xmotex


As I have posted to other threads Here

On March 28, 1861 the United States Congress adjourned sine die (without assigning a day for a further meeting or hearing, for an indefinite period to adjourn an assembly sine die). In other words Congress went home at the start of the Civil War with no intention on returning. To call the Congress back into session De jure (concerning law and principal) would have required the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate to set the date at a later time.

This never ever happened. Let me repeat there has been no legally sat Congress or Senate per the United States Constitution since March 28, 1861.

The Congress was called back into session de facto (concerning fact and in practice) by President Abraham Lincoln who had not the Constitutional Authority or Power to do so.

Legally, technically and factually the Constitutional Government of the United States ceased to exist forever March 28, 1861. It became a de facto War Time Emergency Government a CORPORATE Government operating under Contract Law because at that point the United States Constitution became desuetude (an outdated doctrine that causes statutes and similar legislation to become unenforceable by a habit of non-enforcement or lapse of time.) Legal doctrine says that when something falls into desuetude and continued non-use that it is rendered invalid.

Not only did Lincoln not have the legal authority to call Congress into session under the Constitution, the Congress being illegally sat, lacked a quorum (In law a minimum number of members of a deliberative body necessary to conduct business of that group). A legislative body not meeting a quorum can not vote. The seceding States were only seceding over an unlawful attempt to infringe upon the Constitution and over an attempt to amend it illegally without a quorum and that is what caused the legal Congress to convene sine die. Lincoln’s illegal and dictatorial actions in decreeing Congress in session de facto while in sine die prevented the real Congress from ever reaching a Constitutionally legal agreement to call it back into session de jure by the Speaker of the House and the Majority Leader in the Senate. Thus the Constitution was violated at its core and fell into desuetude.

There has not been one Constitutionally Legal Law passed since March 28, 1861.

When Lincoln called Congress back in to session illegally by Presidential Decree the Office of the President became a Dictatorship (for all you out there wondering why a democratic congress that despised Bush would keep passing all his Bills and requests for money) and began operating under the United States Code of law, which is nothing but Corporate Contract Law, and turned the States each into a Corporation which created States Codes of Contract Law under the United States (the District of Columbia) the parent Corporation.

There has not been a President who was not a Dictator in 138 years now

The political dog and pony show is simply what it is, a political dog and pony show designed to create the illusion of a representative republic.

The reality is that the Health Care Bill that will eventually be passed by the Congress if one is in fact passed will be exactly and precisely the Health Care Bill the Corporate Government Desires.

If one is not passed it will simply be because the dog and pony show and political debate was meant to distract or set an emotional stage for something else of possibly an entirely different nature that will be imposed at a later date.

reply to post by jam321


You left out the group who don't like Obama's policies, his past, or him but are not Republicans, conservatives, or disillusioned Democrats.

Originally posted by dooper
Since only about 10-12% of the population actually fought to establish this country,

And this means that the 10-12% of the population should dictate the majority? Really? That is some equation you got there. The 1700's are vastly different from today, the nation was still verymuch loyal to mother England, still in the colonization age. Today we have americans, 90% of whom were born and raised here for generations. Your applying to different times as an excuse to give exclusive power the a portion of the nation. Forget the majority who voted for the man, right? What a explanation.

The media elected Obama.

Yes, forget the millions of voters who got the man in, the media elected him right? Whether you want to make a conspiracy about the media and its propaganda americans voted him in and chose so as their constitutional right, something you have no right to strip away. So I dont give a damn what you think the media did, people voted, and Obama was voted in.

You people are unbelieavable. If it was up to you this nation would be a dictatorship. Just say "the media was unfair" and that would completely overthrow the democratic process.

Wonderful mentality there.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by Southern Guardian]

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

First friend I must tell you I am not partisan. I do not advocate for a party or party politics. I am against big government, and unconstitutional goverment, which basically means the last and only President that really earned my trust and respect was Andrew Jackson.

So you have never liked this country in your whole life. Glad to know that. I say you have never liked this country your whole life because you were never born when Andrew Jackson was president. And if you have never liked this country why stay here. They have less rules for you in Juárez Mexico where the drug dealers run the place.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Government has no business in Health Care

Oh really. I find it rather interesting that the argument here is soley against the public option, yet when the republicans reaffirmed their support for medicare, a government handled healthcare system, and the very fact the politicians and soldiers all get government funded healthcare, and has been such for decades, tells me that if this was really a matter of government having no business, you folks would have been advocating the dismantling of all government handled healthcare. For some reason though, the public option is the acception?

You say government has no business in healthcare, and yet they are left in charge of the welfare of the people in this nation. After all, the same argument could be made for defense. The government has no business for the defense of people. How about the police? The government has no business getting involved in matters threating people? How about the fireman? I mean I can apply "the government has no business" to so many systems in place right now. The argument is a moot.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by xmotex

 

The hysteria that has erupted since his election is not due to the fact that he is not the huge change many hoped for, but more due to the fact that many people have been persuaded that he has made a huge change and that we are now heading into some kind of communist dictatorship.

I think it can be divided up. You have group 1 who are against Obama because he is a Democrat. You have group 2 against Obama because in their opinion he promised change and they feel he hasn't delivered. Of course, they forget he still has 3.25 years left. And then you have group 3 against Obama because they are following one of the two groups above.

UHH you very narrow-mindedly left out a fourth group, the one that doesn't like ANY politician or government that does not abide by the constitution. A group that does not pick a political party like one picks a football team to root for (its usually really just about a jersey or city or school the players are of little consequence unless one is prone to hero worship)) I think this may be the biggest group at this point and the group your allegiance to is obvious.

Originally posted by jam321
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

First of all, it ain't no Conservative thing. It is merely your assumption and die hard belief that it is a conservative thing. you confirm the assumption when you say

"You may not like Obama for all sorts of reasons but he was democratically elected as president on November 4th 2008."

The quote above is true. People do dislike Obama for various reasons. Some reasons are legit and others aren't. Some who dislike him are conservatives and some aren't. Yet, in your eyes they are all conservatives.

Second, I am really surprised that you take threads such as overthrow and birth certificate so seriously. You and I both know that Obama's position as President is secure and the odds of him being removed by one of the options above is basically zero.

So, why the big fuss? Is this really about Obama or just another opportunity for you to debate with conservatives? I am sure that you are well aware that most people apply the constitution based on their belief rather than equality. hypocrisy? Yes, I would say it is. But aren't we all hypocritical in our views to some extent.

Finally, this quote

In addition to this, the mere fact you all kept your mouths shut over the last 8years only the speak up now clearly shows that this has nothing to do with the constitution

You don't have to keep up bringing the last eight years just to defend Obama. Let it go. It isn't no longer about the last 8 years. It is all about now. Nothing can change what happened the last eight years. Some people saw them as bad, some as so-so, and some as good and Obama's years will be seen in the same fashion.

IMO, he still has 3.25 years left and people who are against him are underestimating him. There is still plenty of time for him to recover this economy and be well on his way to winning his second term.

The odds are in Obama's corner and it just surprises me that many are already counting him out.

Well Jam, nobody could ever accuse you of lacking rational or fortitude.

I am not sure why I get involved in this myself, especially since I agree with the last half of your post after you laid it out that way. The reason BUSH is still fresh and to some degree relevant, is because it helps put the perceived Offenses
of Obama into context. I do this myself because I honestly do not see Obama's behavior as egregious as many claim.

Referencing Obama's performance to past and recent Presidencies; I do not understand the level of outrage on an issue or performance based level because it is nothing new.

Conclusion, much of the outrage is not based upon any thing to do with deep seated
advocacy, because many of the same things that are currently creating outrage were promoted or defended in the last decade by another man and before.

Point being - I should not get involved, because emotional arguments do not have a tangible foundation.

reply to post by I_am_Spartacus

I think this may be the biggest group at this point and the group your allegiance to is obvious.

Forgive me for forgetting the last group. I have sinned an am not perfect. Please tell me what my allegiance is and why it is so obvious.

I await.

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

First friend I must tell you I am not partisan. I do not advocate for a party or party politics. I am against big government, and unconstitutional goverment, which basically means the last and only President that really earned my trust and respect was Andrew Jackson.

So you have never liked this country in your whole life. Glad to know that. I say you have never liked this country your whole life because you were never born when Andrew Jackson was president. And if you have never liked this country why stay here. They have less rules for you in Juárez Mexico where the drug dealers run the place.

Ah alas, what I have never liked is how the nation and the constitution have been corrupted and the people so decieved and manipulated.

Like you I was born where I was born, and like you I was born as property of the corporate state.

Unlike you, I don't enjoy being property of a corporate state, and unlike you I have the genuine concern to consider that if something is totally broken because it has been corrupted it should be fixed.

Having said that, the Constitution (not that it matters) does not grant you the power to exile me to Mexico, where I would just be forced as a natural human being to help try to make the world a better place from there instead of here.

You have been indoctrinated in to a cult, and I empathize with how you feel.

With enough love and patience though you can be rescued from this madness and enjoy a productive life still

Fear not friend, I am here to help!

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
Government has no business in Health Care

Oh really. I find it rather interesting that the argument here is soley against the public option, yet when the republicans reaffirmed their support for medicare, a government handled healthcare system, and the very fact the politicians and soldiers all get government funded healthcare, and has been such for decades, tells me that if this was really a matter of government having no business, you folks would have been advocating the dismantling of all government handled healthcare. For some reason though, the public option is the acception?

You say government has no business in healthcare, and yet they are left in charge of the welfare of the people in this nation. After all, the same argument could be made for defense. The government has no business for the defense of people. How about the police? The government has no business getting involved in matters threating people? How about the fireman? I mean I can apply "the government has no business" to so many systems in place right now. The argument is a moot.

You are right about the hypocrisy of the current republicans, they are as bad as the dems.

The rest of it.....those are about the only things the government should be in charge of and the reason those things work, are 1) bureaucrats usually don't run those services 2) Most the people doing the work are not in it for the "huge" paycheck, the outrageous perks, etc

The rest of the government services which are run by politicians, lawyers, bureaucrats and freeloaders, , are corrupt, broke, inept, etc.

I hear a lot of tough talk from a lot of armchair "patriots and "revolutionaries" on this site. A lot of you better be careful what you wish for. As a veteran of a foreign war I saw and smelled my share of corpses. I saw atrocities from both sides of the bench. It's easy to sit around talking revolution this and overthrow that. You all make it sound so easy. But are you really willing to kill your neighbor because you don't like the healthcare plan. You have no idea how good we have it in this country. The hyperbolic vitriol spewed by both sides is appalling. No wonder the rest of the world laughs at use. So you can begin your insults and brickbats now.

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Originally posted by JBA2848
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

Like you I was born where I was born, and like you I was born as property of the corporate state.

Unlike you, I don't enjoy being property of a corporate state, and unlike you I have the genuine concern to consider that if something is totally broken because it has been corrupted it should be fixed.

YES many would use the constitution as a device to give the corporation FREE reign
of every aspect of life. All determinations to be made by those who posses money
and therefore dictate the level of freedom that best suits the solidification of that power.

Might you reference the volumes of history in which the corporation promoted practices that in this very age would be deemed barbaric. However if left to the sheer ideals of
self determination would still occur in this day in age. So it is very easy to promote the merits of complete social darwinism - but that might be overlooking the fact that
Country is defined as - A COLLECTION OF PEOPLE...

No doubt government has been awful, but no doubt it serves as the equalizes in a money driven society.

Originally posted by xmotex
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

 

And where is the dictatorship?

If he were a dictator, why is he fighting to get his healthcare bill passed - a dictator wouldn't have to

The contention of the OP is that peaceful dissent is good, using force to overthrow a democratically-elected government is no.

Also, IMO, I don't think the hatred expressed for this particular president is largely coming from fed-up independents, but from ideological opponents on the right.

The hysteria that has erupted since his election is not due to the fact that he is not the huge change many hoped for, but more due to the fact that many people have been persuaded that he has made a huge change and that we are now heading into some kind of communist dictatorship.

Which appears to be happening only inside their heads.

America's political culture has had problems for a long time, and the government (at all levels not just federal) has been becoming more intrusive.

But what we are seeing on ATS is not a reaction to that, it is the demonization of a single individual.

As a thread that was started here on ATS last week, where Obomber say's, "judge me by the company I keep". Maybe it's not just something, "Which appears to be happening only inside their heads." as you suggest. Or perhaps it's not an arbitrary "demonization of a single individual" as you claim. Maybe they are just following Obomber's advice when these conclusions are drawn?

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Having said that, the Constitution (not that it matters) does not grant you the power to exile me to Mexico, where I would just be forced as a natural human being to help try to make the world a better place from there instead of here.

See I never said you should be exiled I just figured its a free country so you can leave if you don't like it and as you say never have. I just vote on what I can vote on and live my life. I wish I could vote out some of the people I don't like such as Nancy Pelosi , Chris Dodd, Barney Frank , Lindsey Graham , Chuck Grassley just to name a few. But I live in one state and can't vote in all 50.

reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler


BTW why do you obey the law Congress passes if you don't believe Congress is legal?



[edit on 11-9-2009 by mental modulator]