Interesting Thesis

[GoldenRivet]

It slants right slightly, but i think the writer maintained a failry neutral stance through most of the article though not all of it.

It appears to be a nut case article at first glance, but worth reading.

It discusses the left's and the right's accusations the president (past and present) being put into a position to declare martial law to put off the November elections.

give it a chance... i enjoyed it - let me know what you think (assuming of course you actually took the time to read it top to bottom)

http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.c...bamas-amerika/

[Skybird]

Just flew over it and thus cannot claim to have thoroughly digested it in all detail, but one passage attracted my eyes, because it was like an echo of what I repeatedly have thought myself in past months: the passage where Obama is being described as a president not only not solving problems, but giving the impression of being unable to even perceive the presence of a problem. I think this is the best description of him you can give. This is especially true in the area of foreign politics, where he indeed does more damage than good. The only really positive thing I would say about him regarding that matter is that so far he has not committed such a monumental stupid single act like Bush did when launching the Iraq war or shifting forces out of Afghanistan and to the Gulf instead of staying there in full strength and commitment. Bush was an idiot in war, Obama is a fool in peace. I am aware that the US lacks the power that it wishes to have to confront certain international problems the way it would just love to solve them - by slam-dunking them home to the sender. But Obama not only refuses to admit their existence, he even spills fuel into fires, for claims of idealism that in fact is not idealism but just irresponisble, self-damaging naivety. Over the coming years, the longterm strategic damage coming from that naivety may show to be as severe and enduring as the fallout from the Iraq war. And maybe even worse.

I still think Bush was the worst president the US ever had. But Obama does what he can to qualify for a close second place to that title. At least he is in the top group of the competion.

Before the elections, I said he was a brilliant speaker. He is, no doubt. But I also said that the hype around him is hopelessly exaggerated, and that he raises hopes, intentionally, that are so stellar and monumental that he necessarily must fail to deliver. That also has become true for most. Nevertheless I thought: he's new, it cannot become worse than with a Republican president inviting Palin as vice president, and it cannot become worse than it was with Bush. And it has not become worse indeed. But it also has not become too much better. The balance in his record after one and a half year imo is much more negative than positive. He dissappointed. If the Republicans are clever enough not to make Palin or some other idiot of her likes the republican candidate for the next presidential elections, I think Obama must be replaced. He may not wish to be that, but he is dangerous in his naivety. That makes him only preferrable to even more dangerous fools like Palin, Bush and others of that kind.

[GoldenRivet]

Its just a shame that he will go down in history as the first black president of the United States.

I expected the black community to put up a much more potent, honorable, contender with more conservative values.

where i live here in the south, you cant drive by a church without hundreds of black folks spilling out the front doors before and after sunday service dressed in their absolute finest.

it fascinates me that African American culture seems to embrace conservative christian ideals, but when it comes to politics, their vote - almost unanimously - does not reflect this idea. The same could be said however, of virtually any race in America.

perhaps i gave too much credit?

In regards to the article, the conclusion is that there are too many legal and constitutional issues with delaying an election (something the president does not have the power to do).

The article further points out that there are some legal things he can do to that effect... however, these issues would spell out certain political suicide, which i think the dems have already done.

what more could they do???

The president is already holding border security hostage, committing treason by saying "If i secure the border, republicans wont have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform"

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

it fascinates me that African American culture seems to embrace conservative christian ideals, but when it comes to politics, their vote - almost unanimously - does not reflect this idea. The same could be said however, of virtually any race in America.

That's because of three things, the first being the allure of "free" stuff. It is remarkable how many people think that money grows on trees, or that there is an as-yet untapped stash of it somewhere (usually in successful business leaders) that we could fix everything with if only we could get our hands on it. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and we both think as much, but try telling it to the factory worker whose plant is being shut down because of foreign competition. Just a little more money in the form of subsidies and a few tariffs would keep his plant open. He thinks it no great imposition on you to get just a few pennies of your tax money, or to make you pay a fraction of a cent more for a tariff, but there are over a hundred million workers in this country and when they all ask for a "few dollars more" they quickly overwhelm the economy's ability to generate a suitable tax base. It is a problem of perspective and incentive.

The second problem is that politicians know that, but their job is not guaranteed by performance. You know the rest. Again, it is a problem of incentive.

And finally, the problem comes right back to free stuff. Something given has no value, and even though the Federal government doles out billions in the name of assisting minorities, it rarely does any good. Indian reservations and subsidies, housing projects, rent controls, affirmative action, about ten-thousand initiatives aimed at minority education, public schools themselves, healthcare, social security, etc, etc ad nauseum. You name it, it's expensive and it doesn't work for most people. There are successes, of course; there damn well better be when that kind of money is spent, but I doubt that a single person in this community would point to any of the things I named above as a success.

Yet again, incentive is the problem. Cuban blacks in New York have very nice communities, but they aren't eligible for aid until they become citizens. Clearly, the money thrown at the problem is not the solution.

Yes, many blacks go to church, and for the most part, like any people, they are good people. They have values and morals and principles like any good people do, but without incentive they will have a hard time amounting to anything. This is particularly true of those who really are at a disadvantage to begin with due to disability or inability or a poor social clime or whatever. Same goes for everyone, just stop at the first welfare-financed white-trash hovel you can find and see for yourself, y'know?

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Same goes for everyone, just stop at the first welfare-financed white-trash hovel you can find and see for yourself, y'know?

Hey, i tried the whole double wide thing for a while there it was all i could afford.

but it wasnt for me... always room for improvement IMHO.

of course despite what a couple of people here might tell you, i wasnt picking on blacks of course... you know that

[CCIP]

I like the "stop panicking, stop the hyperboles, let's focus on the real work ahead" tone towards the end of the article. I agree, for all the anger and horror stories being thrown around, the fact the system will deal with Obama - he won't deal with the system. I still think it's too early to pass a final judgment on him, but indeed the facts are currently on his side.

Meanwhile instead of sloganizing, I really do wish that Americans from both sides of the spectrum focus on getting their country on a constitutionally-sound track.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Hey, i tried the whole double wide thing for a while there it was all i could afford.

but it wasnt for me... always room for improvement IMHO.

Not that I'd be talking down to people who live in a trailer. I live in a rental home, also because I can't afford anything else. But are you still in a trailer that you pay for with state benefits or are you pilot who owns his own flight school? I think we already see eye to eye on this.

of course despite what a couple of people here might tell you, i wasnt picking on blacks of course... you know that

Well...yeah. Sorry if I implied otherwise, somehow. I just thought you had a question and I tried to answer it. I guess I thought that since you were fascinated by the idea it might mean that you don't understand it, so I gave you my perspective. Maybe I read into it too much.

edit-

Originally Posted by CCIP

Meanwhile instead of sloganizing, I really do wish that Americans from both sides of the spectrum focus on getting their country on a constitutionally-sound track.

I'm sure we'll get around to that just as soon as everyone agrees on what the Constitution actually means, which is on our list of "Things We're Likely to Do" just below "Cure Death and Taxes"

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

edit- I'm sure we'll get around to that just as soon as everyone agrees on what the Constitution actually means, which is on our list of "Things We're Likely to Do" just below "Cure Death and Taxes"

There has never been a time when everyone agreed on what the Constitution actually means, nor do I ever believe there will be a time when everyone will agree.

I would hazard a guess that even the founding fathers did not all agree on what it meant and they wrote the damn thing!

[AngusJS]

I got to the third paragraph, where I came across this gem:

This will enable the Obama dictatorship to take off its humanist mask and put its true agenda into play...

And you say it leans slightly to the right? How about it dives straight down into bat**** crazy?

Seriously, these people need to get a grip.

Set Congress ablaze, and people across the country would cheer, slap hands, and drive around beeping their horns at each other.

Nice to see the author doesn't care about losing a national monument, and potentially hundreds of innocent people, as well as putting hundreds of firefighters at risk.

And the author forgot the main reason why our "dictator" won't be calling off the election: he's not so unhinged as the author to even consider such an idea worthy of reflection.

Seriously, if this is slightly right-leaning, where is the base? Off in the woods on maneuvers with their militias?

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

The president is already holding border security hostage, committing treason by saying "If i secure the border, republicans wont have any reason to support comprehensive immigration reform"

When has he said that, and how is it treason?

Oh, and looking further into that blog, I saw that they reposted a long article about Obama and Rahm Emmanuel being members of a gay club in Chicago.

Words fail me.

[GoldenRivet]

I have a lot of typing to do...

standby

[GoldenRivet]

Ok...

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Not that I'd be talking down to people who live in a trailer.

Wouldn't dream of it

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

I live in a rental home, also because I can't afford anything else. But are you still in a trailer that you pay for with state benefits or are you pilot who owns his own flight school? I think we already see eye to eye on this.

correct we do see eye to eye... of course the trailer was actually quite nice for its age, and then again it wasnt one of those federally funded ones. this one was $400 / month if mammory serves

of course... im flat broke because im a pilot who owns his own flight school

true

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Well...yeah. Sorry if I implied otherwise, somehow. I just thought you had a question and I tried to answer it.

your response was not only adequate, it was also eloquent, appropriate... and appreciated

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

edit- I'm sure we'll get around to that just as soon as everyone agrees on what the Constitution actually means, which is on our list of "Things We're Likely to Do" just below "Cure Death and Taxes"

lets settle taxes and constitutionality first... or else it could be the death of us.

Originally Posted by AngusJS

When has he said that

When and where and Who

Originally Posted by AngusJS

and how is it treason?

The President as the Commander in Chief of the military as well as the United States Congress both have many responsibilities.

among them is defending our soil from foreign aggression.

many argue that heavily armed foreigners (be they military or civilian) routinely undermining national sovereignty by sneaking into the united states for the purposes of proliferation of illegal weapons, human trafficking, drug and drug paraphernalia smuggling and murder / kidnapping constitutes "foreign aggression"

in the opinion of some circles... this failure to act on his responsibilities constitutes treason.

See: Oran's Dictionary of the Law (1983) defines treason as "actions which help a foreign government overthrow, make war against, or seriously injure the [parent nation]." In many nations, it is also often considered treason to attempt or conspire to overthrow the government, even if no foreign country is aided or involved by such an endeavour.

[Ducimus]

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

When and where and Who

I'd like a better source than that, one that gave the context of the conversation.

Anyway, a foreign government is not involved, and illegal immigration != aggression, nor does illegal immigration mean overthrowing the government. Crime associated with illegal immigration is not aggression. Also, not taking action does not mean the intention is to cause harm.

And by your logic, EVERY president has been guilty of treason since illegal immigration took off.

[GoldenRivet]

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Anyway, a foreign government is not involved, and illegal immigration != aggression, nor does illegal immigration mean overthrowing the government.

Correct, correct and correct again Angus... your starting to get it... now here you go.

Originally Posted by AngusJS

Crime associated with illegal immigration is not aggression.

Ahhh... theres the rub.

you see, you and I disagree... we're not talking about illegals are we?

No... we are talking about squad to platoon sized groups armed with fully automatic weapons who come in - and out - of the united states.

In with drugs, weapons, and illegal paraphernalia.

out with kidnapping victims etc.

if thats not aggression - eff me... i dont know what is brother.

I dont know how anyone could label it otherwise???

[AngusJS]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

Correct, correct and correct again Angus... your starting to get it... now here you go.

Ahhh... theres the rub.

you see, you and I disagree... we're not talking about illegals are we?

No... we are talking about squad to platoon sized groups armed with fully automatic weapons who come in - and out - of the united states.

In with drugs, weapons, and illegal paraphernalia.

out with kidnapping victims etc.

if thats not aggression - eff me... i dont know what is brother.

I dont know how anyone could label it otherwise???

It's not aggression, it's crime. There's a difference. What is the intent? Are the drug runners scheming to hurt America? No, they just want to make money. Same with the kidnappers. Otherwise, it would appear that every crime committed by a foreigner in the US is an act of aggression against the US.

Anyway, I'm sure you think W is guilty of treason too, right? This situation didn't start with Obama, after all.