Obama and why he'll still be president...

Originally posted by DarthOej
He will still be president because the GOP isn't giving people much to work with. People need to accept that it won't be Ron Paul. It will be Gingrich or Romney who gets the nomination.


This wont mean much to certain people, because we will vote for Paul even if we have to write him in. However, for the regular idiots, it will be another case of "the lesser of two evils."

We are in trouble. Obama is the only rational choice if Paul doesn't make it. I still would like to see him run as an independent though. Maybe America needs to be a little more careful about the way it votes for congressman.

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by newcovenant

Originally posted by sonnny1
reply to post by NoJoker13

 

Did you take under consideration Obama signing NDAA ?

He is, and always, will be a traitor in my book........MHO,and shared by many.

So?

Now you care what the ACLU says...well isn't that special?

NDAA
en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 27-1-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

Was ALWAYS against it. Didn't need "the UNIONS " help to recognize traitor when I see it......
The National Defense Authorization Act

For anyone too "busy" to go to wiki:
The National Defense Authorization Act

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama.

The Act authorizes $662 billion in funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad."

In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization.

The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia, and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security.

The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority.

Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority.
en.wikipedia.org...

Oooooohhh well I can see why this would bother you but getting frisked at the Airport wouldn't.
Yeah let the 4th amendment get trashed but this...This is bad....
Joking, who cares unless you ARE a terrorist.

And it is the American Civil Liberties Union...it is NOT "The Unions"

You got something against civil liberties?
Are you from America?

Originally posted by newcovenant


For anyone too lazy to go to wiki

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2012 was signed into United States law on December 31, 2011 by President Barack Obama.

The Act authorizes $662 billion in funding, among other things "for the defense of the United States and its interests abroad."

In a signing statement, President Obama described the Act as addressing national security programs, Department of Defense health care costs, counter-terrorism within the U.S. and abroad, and military modernization.

The Act also imposes new economic sanctions against Iran (section 1045), commissions reviews of the military capabilities of countries such as Iran, China, and Russia, and refocuses the strategic goals of NATO towards energy security. The most controversial provisions to receive wide attention are contained in Title X, Subtitle D, entitled "Counter-Terrorism." In particular, sub-sections 1021 and 1022, which deal with detention of persons the government suspects of involvement in terrorism, have generated controversy as to their legal meaning and their potential implications for abuse of Presidential authority.

Although the White House and Senate sponsors maintain that the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) already grants presidential authority for indefinite detention, the Act states that Congress "affirms" this authority and makes specific provisions as to the exercise of that authority. en.wikipedia.org...

Oooooohhh well I can see why this would bother you but getting frisked at the Airport wouldn't. Yeah let the 4th amendment get trashed but this...this is bad....Joking who cares unless you are a terrorist.


And it is the American Civil Liberties Union...it is NOT the Unions.

Are you from America?

edit on 27-1-2012 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)

For anyone to lazy to use wiki......

One popular myth surrounding this law (which has been marketed well by the White House and the mainstream media) is that it does not pertain to U.S. persons (citizens and resident aliens). While the law does not explicitly target U.S. persons, it neither excludes nor protects them. Section 1022 of the law covers U.S. persons. The section allows for open-ended executive judgment with regard to the handling of U.S. persons. In other words, the detention of U.S persons is optional, rather than a requirement as it is for non-U.S. persons. Jonathan Turley, legal scholar and professor at George Washington University, explains that “the provision merely states that nothing in the provisions could be construed to alter Americans’ legal rights. Since the Senate clearly views citizens are not just subject to indefinite detention but even execution without a trial, the change offers nothing but rhetoric to hide the harsh reality.”

Regardless of whether or not this law is interpreted as applying to U.S. persons, by specifically targeting foreign nationals, the NDAA violates the “equal protection” clause of the 14th Amendment, which guarantees that all people be treated the same under the law. Therefore, any way you slice it, this law is unconstitutional.

Why the NDAA is Unconstitutional

See what WIKI left out???

BTW.......Yes, "the Unions" in MY book.

Dems sure love using that word,hey?

reply to post by sonnny1


You think OBAMA is enacting this as a part of some large future plan?

He is only President for 4 years.

If it really does give extraordinary Presidential power, (and I think defining it may go on for longer than Obama is President)...any operator of this elaborate scheme will certainly be some future President, not this one.

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by sonnny1

 

You think OBAMA is enacting this as a part of some large future plan?

He is only President for 4 years.

If it really does give extraordinary Presidential power, the benefactor of this elaborate scheme will certainly be some future President.

Hes only President for 4 years?

Then what the hell are you hoping for.............4 more?

Honestly think he wouldn't enact it?

Ask Anwar al-Awlaki how far the president is willing to go.....



Really,if you cant see it for what it is,I pity you.

Carry on with the Obama love fest.

All though I believe Obama will win again,people still are clueless that Obamas use of language and arrogant comments have divided this country more than anything else.Obama is complete opposite of main stream Americans.Obamas father being a muslim is why He is like He is.
Congress is divided anyways and Obama makes it even worse.Now you have private business people who don;t have a clue what to do with thier business because they have lost trust and faith in the system.Europe is even worse than the U.S.with people losing trust because of arrogant politicians.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
Obama has, in my eyes, done as good of a job as possible for what he was given to begin with. Much of the debt/deficit accumulation throughout his presidency was rolled over from policies the Bush administration implimented, something the GOP likes to forget. Also since Obama has been in office he somewhat revamped the job market that bush completely decimated, only problem now is that congress, which is Right controlled, is now not passing any bills whatsoever and is now making the job market back petal. Also Obama has been the best president since Clinton to control the debt, another fact that the GOP would like to ignore, heres a graph:
Who increased the Debt.
Obama has also tryed to impliment policies to help the working man/middle class but again these efforts have been thwarted because of a republican congress that would rather see Americans suffer then a democrat succeed. Moving on to the GOP candidates I'd like to firstly remind everyone that in 2010 Mitt Romney made 21.7 million dollars and payed at the same tax rate as a man bringing in about 25k. Also Mitt doesn't seem to have a problem with this at all, stating that he payed the "fair" amount of taxes and didn't do anything illegal.

Take a look at the daily show as they try to lighten the mood on this absolutely disgusting policy: DS LINK (someone please embed it if you have the time). Also being from the northeast I have a very big problem with taxes as well as anyone would in just about every Blue state, another graph to give you a prospective of what I'm talking about: Red State Socialism. So anyone trying to call Obama a socialist should take a very close look at what their paying in taxes and how these red states are making off like bandits with our money. If I must get into Newt Gingrich then I shall by saying only this: he served his wife with divorce papers while she was in the hospital getting treated for cancer... Need I say more? Fine then take a look at this picture, hilarious yes but also quite truthful: Gingrich Family Values. I'm prepared for the BS storm to come by the blind followers of the GOP, I say blind followers because clearly unless you make more then 200k a year your a blind follower skipping behind the walrus and the carpenter. Obama for president 2012.

Yet again, another thread PLACED at the front of the ATS homepage for some stupid reason. Mods, site admin? You guys in control any more? Or are you allowing this to happen? None of these "vote for my emotional man-crush obammy" threads have met the criteria to be on the front page of Abovetopsecret.com yet here they are......Anyone know a better alternative news site we can migrate to?

Originally posted by KJV1611
Yet again, another thread PLACED at the front of the ATS homepage for some stupid reason. Mods, site admin? You guys in control any more? Or are you allowing this to happen? None of these "vote for my emotional man-crush obammy" threads have met the criteria to be on the front page of Abovetopsecret.com yet here they are......Anyone know a better alternative news site we can migrate to?

Yet Ron Paul threads basically have the same content that this Obama threads have...you complain then?

Most likely not...so just because you hate Obama...the Obama supporters and their threads should not be allowed to share their thoughts..free speech is important to an American until they disagree with POV...

reply to post by sonnny1


Well when they pick you up let me know...

reply to post by TupacShakur


No I read it, who exactly do you think donates money? Also with the amount of money Mitt makes he should be funding his own campaign. Then I saw you mention the patriot act on the bottom and your thread lost credibility for me, since he only kept three parts of it running: On May 26, 2011, President Barack Obama signed a four-year extension of three key provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act: [2] roving wiretaps, searches of business records (the "library records provision"), and conducting surveillance of "lone wolves" — individuals suspected of terrorist-related activities not linked to terrorist groups.[3]

But you probably knew all that, also I don't see the NDAA as being a bad thing because again I won't be getting picked up anytime soon.

reply to post by DelMar


I can't find the link at the moment with that information but there is truth to it, I'm not talking all of those states at the top of that list in order because some of those states have low populations which gives them an upper hand but the majority at the top of the list were red states. I'll try to find it.

I don't think Obama has done enough, and in many cases he's done horrible things like writing indefinite detentions into law...however...compared to the current GOP candidates he's the lesser evil. Those guys are sooooooooooo incredible horrible and bought, it's almost laughable.

Newt: Hypocrite who teaches about family values while committing adultery, twitters about chocolate bars of companies that pay him for it, pretends to be a "historian" when he's really a bought lobbyist, and was kicked out as speaker. He's such a bought sock puppet...

Romney: "Corporations are people!" He will say ANYTHING if he ends up getting paid...nothing else to say. You'd have to be a complete retard or part of the top 0.1% to vote for that guy.

Santorum: Bigot, war monger, crazy beliefs that are demonstrably wrong. And do you really want the entire world laugh whenever they google your president?

RP: Wants to fix the banking and political system by making those guys sign a "voluntary pledge" stating they won't accept bribes. Not even a law. As if they'd voluntarily give up free money. He's either senile or naive, and sadly it completely overshadows his good statements like getting the US out of wars. His RP-bots obviously simply ignore that fact...

In short, they're all clowns.

Obama with all his faults is sitting at home laughing his ass off thinking "loooooooooool, I can sign indefinite detention into law and trample civil liberties...but I'm STILL going to win a second term because the GOP candidates are THAT bad". It's almost comical

reply to post by sonnny1


No but I'm sure you voted for bush for four more... Were you thinking"rationally" then?

reply to post by KJV1611


I would like the MODS to remove his post it contributes absolutely nothing to this thread, unless we're just looking to see how the right are a bunch of cry babies... Then his post served it's purpose.
They'd rather we didn't vote for a pres. and the guy they want just gets in and these are the people that "back" the constitution... laughable.

reply to post by NoJoker13



Something else just downed on me the comedian Ron White said a great statement and you might take it for what it's worth

Ron White,"this boy has alot of quit in him."


No troll, just stating the obvious why throw a Red Herring in my direction with the ignorance of your post.

Owe you might want to look that up, as it is a technical term

reply to post by allprowolfy


Again your post means absolutely nothing to me, an by the way I like Ron White and most comedians in general. This was his entire rant, "That boy's got a lot of quit in him." And the things I didn't quit, I got kicked out of. I got kicked off the high school debate team for saying "Yeah? Well # you!" I thought I had won, 'cause the other kid was *speechless*. I thought that's what we were trying to do.

Funny, but again you still haven't posted anything factual and are clearly still labeled as a troll:

Originally posted by KJV1611
Yet again, another thread PLACED at the front of the ATS homepage for some stupid reason. Mods, site admin? You guys in control any more? Or are you allowing this to happen? None of these "vote for my emotional man-crush obammy" threads have met the criteria to be on the front page of Abovetopsecret.com yet here they are......Anyone know a better alternative news site we can migrate to?

If you dont like it why bother with your time here. just go somewhere else

Now i think its way to early to be judging wether obama will be president again.

Wether or not he becomes president all depends on public favor of him. If it is so low that him being president again would cause people to protest more than the usual. Not going to happen.

I beleive the elections have been hijacked and the president is picked not elected. picked by the so called shadow government

reply to post by BulletShogun


Thanks for the piece shogun, I felt the same way when I read his post. Also I try to be a bit more optimistic about our government, a hard thing to do now a days but I still try. There once was a dream called America... An hopefully we can re-realize that dream.

Originally posted by NoJoker13
reply to post by BulletShogun

 

Thanks for the piece shogun, I felt the same way when I read his post. Also I try to be a bit more optimistic about our government, a hard thing to do now a days but I still try. There once was a dream called America... An hopefully we can re-realize that dream.

I dont think the majority of americans will understand whats going on until the majority wake up homeless on the very land our forefathers conquered.

In my opinion the way the people are reacting as well as how the people in high power are making this country a ticking time bomb for violence.