does the UN run the US?
- Thread starter anonymous
- Start date
Maybe you do but in that instance you were very wrong so you probably need to check that info you have before you go posting.
Why now ???
Why this President ???
Has he acted differently that any other president ???
I especially don't trust southern legislators, especially with regards to THIS president.
But, I will defer to the good judgment of the poster from North Carolina as to whether I should feel any differently about Representative Walter B. Jones Jr.
You didnt explain yourself the first time but okay.
I don't even think you know where you were wrong.
He's a non-factor to the rest of the state and wants some of that Fox News love that fellow lunatics like Virginia Fox receive.
WE CAN NEVER BE SURE OF ANYTHING UNLESS WE ARE DOING IT OURSELVES. THERE SHOULD BE NO WHITE HOUSE UNLESS THERE IS A BLACK HOUSE. BLACKS ARE LOSING THEIR BLACKNESS. WE HAVE NO FRIEND IN THE WHITE HOUSE. WE NEED TO GET SOME POWER OF OUR OWN BEFORE IT IS TO LATE.
ACCEPT YOUR OWN AND BE YOUR SELF.
http://blacknation.vpweb.com/
ACCEPT YOUR OWN AND BE YOUR SELF.
http://blacknation.vpweb.com/
This is good, crayons & muppets
Thought1, we all don't get our news from CNN, Fox, BSNBC etc. Sometimes, we can get it straight from the Prez
I'd love to see someone defend the inclusion of hegemonist foreign policy into any version of a definition of "self defense".
This is good, crayons & muppets
Thought1, we all don't get our news from CNN, Fox, BSNBC etc. Sometimes, we can get it straight from the Prez
I think the question was:
Senator Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III of Alabama has some fucking nerve quoting the constitution. Not only did he support the illegal invasion of Iraqi, he voted to keep them their indefinitely!
<iframe src="http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/Senate/Alabama/Jeff_Sessions/Views/The_War_in_Iraq/" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
I do not excuse Obama for Libya but to my original assertion:
and expounded upon by QueEx:
It is not about Republicans and/or Democrats, they are one in the same. Once you grab that concept, run with the fact that our country, serves its masters, has been on the march, of war with Iran for years! All thinking aside....Imagine that lol
Last edited:
LOL! I walked into that one.
Somebody sensible.
It is not about Republicans and/or Democrats, they are one in the same. Once you grab that concept, run with the fact that our country, serves its masters, has been on the march, of war with Iran for years! All thinking aside....Imagine that lol
That is the type of thinking people espouse when they don't want to do anything but like to sound smart.
Democrats and Republicans are not the same thing but they often have the same benefactors (since smart businessmen play both sides). You have but to look at the Supreme Court selections and the many other judicial and other appointments to see the difference. You want the President to go through Congress before engaging in combat situations, vote for and support candidates that believe like you, whether they have a R or D behind their names.
It is not about Republicans and/or Democrats, they are one in the same. Once you grab that concept, run with the fact that our country, serves its masters, has been on the march, of war with Iran for years! All thinking aside....Imagine that lol
If you think they are the same you haven't read their platforms. Agreed, there are some Democrats and Republicans that are indistinguible, this wasn't always the case. Do you think if McCain had been elected things would be the same or better? The US Iranian conflict goes back 60 years. it seems to me with all of the pressure heaped on Obama from the corporations and Israel, he is doing a good job fending off their zeal to attack Iran. What you speak of is obvious, solving them is not as easy as electing Ron Paul.
Why does he have to present it when no other President has been asked to do so?
While I may disagree with the opinions of many in the 'war powers' discussion/debate, I believe that some of the issues raised by you and some other posters are fairly debatable -- though I also believe that the opinions of some posters really go the crux of whether the UN dictates to the U.S.
BUT, THIS:
???
Seriously now.
The birther bullshit has gone round and round while the known facts are well developed and completely rebut and refute the bullshit. Hence, for someone to raise the "birth certificate" at this juncture, WITHOUT adding an iota of FACT in support of an already unproven theory is, well,
. . . troubling
BUT, THIS:
???
Seriously now.
The birther bullshit has gone round and round while the known facts are well developed and completely rebut and refute the bullshit. Hence, for someone to raise the "birth certificate" at this juncture, WITHOUT adding an iota of FACT in support of an already unproven theory is, well,
. . . troubling
agreed, my pops & I have a problem with how he is sometimes refered to as THIS president. Shouldn't be like that but we knew he would be scrutinized more than other Presidents.
Back to the issue though, these are the same policies that "candidate" Obama dismissed, (as GYH quoted) and now that he's in office, it appears he has done a 180. I'm consistent with my view; A sitting pres. has to go before Congress. If that authority is granted, you "go in" with the full force of the US military, handle your business and get out! That Libya thing wasn't right
I say the same about "W" Bush! He campaigned on a "humble" foreign policy, No nation-building, No policing of the world etc.
Because of these two examples, many including myself, don't see a difference in the two parties. Bush had the Patriot Act, Obama has NDAA. Same monetary policy from Bernanke
L, its okay and I don't have a problem with someone raising what a person has said in the past to show the inconsistency with what that person is saying presently.
In the political arena, however, it is well known that candidates often say 'general things' on the campaign trail that sometimes either get reshaped later by reality or the specific facts of a given situation.
I think the ability of one to apply general principles to specific facts to arrive at the right result is indicative of sound leadership and good judgment
- - as opposed to poor judgment and leadership in the case where someone is unable to take general principles, apply them to specific cases and reach the right result -- holding on to a one-size fit-all mentality 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLzJz2A2N1c
The birth certificate that was produced was phony, does anyone want to discuss that photoshop was used to produce it?
I am a messenger...
The birth certificate that was produced was phony, does anyone want to discuss that photoshop was used to produce it?
I am a messenger...
While I may disagree with the opinions of many in the 'war powers' discussion/debate, I believe that some of the issues raised by you and some other posters are fairly debatable -- though I also believe that the opinions of some posters really go the crux of whether the UN dictates to the U.S.
BUT, THIS:
???
Seriously now.
The birther bullshit has gone round and round while the known facts are well developed and completely rebut and refute the bullshit. Hence, for someone to raise the "birth certificate" at this juncture, WITHOUT adding an iota of FACT in support of an already unproven theory is, well,
. . . troubling
Last edited:
Started after flipper, the whole structure of our government has been taking a drastic turn. If you are still under the pretense that Muslim terrorists, flew planes into the towers and pentagon.so ros and hali burton
You know the story#period
To be more specific, all the attention towards Obama, aside from the obvious, to us could be because his father was not a U.S. citizen, "head of household" thing...
Some old farts can sense imminent dangers like our rights being abolished thru Constitutional bypassing, with the swift scratch of a pen. They know the difference. The watered down versions are what you see "competing" in the upcoming campaign for election aka distraction. Then a White House spokesman, downplaying the action of it all. Oh, two dates that might stand out for the critical thinker, 12/31/2011 & 3/16/2012...
Last edited:
Come'on GYH. Nothing wrong with being a messenger sweetie, but be careful of what you carry. Out of context snippets, does not a message make.
If one is to take Michelle's words, "Baracks homeland", as proof of his birthplace, then most all of us here were born, someplace in Africa as well - - because many, many of US refer, some with pride and some with distain, to the "Motherland" in everyday speech and song's refrain.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-XQYy4BYG70" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Understood.
L, its okay and I don't have a problem with someone raising what a person has said in the past to show the inconsistency with what that person is saying presently.
In the political arena, however, it is well known that candidates often say 'general things' on the campaign trail that sometimes either get reshaped later by reality or the specific facts of a given situation.
I think the ability of one to apply general principles to specific facts to arrive at the right result is indicative of sound leadership and good judgment
Couldn't have said it better.
So you're determined to be the Cousin Eddie of this thread, huh ("Vacation" movies fans, stand up)?
Birthers are the lowest and dumbest participants involved in the political arena today. If that's who you want to be, fine. I demean myself engaging you on this.
That's their problem. Romney's father wasn't born in the US, wasn't an issue when he ran. There have been several president's whose parents weren't born in the US. Search this board, we covered that ad infinitum.
They don't seem to be so concerned about constitutional rights when the conservatives want to take voting rights away from American citizens. Where are your posts on that issue? And i don't remember seeing your input when the conservatives wanted to prevent a Muslim worship center in NYC from being built.
Your agenda has been revealed. I can accept you being anti Obama, but like most, it seems to be based in something other than his policies.
Come'on GYH. Nothing wrong with being a messenger sweetie, but be careful of what you carry. Out of context snippets, does not a message make.
If one is to take Michelle's words, "Baracks homeland", as proof of his birthplace, then most all of us here were born, someplace in Africa as well - - because many, many of US refer, some with pride and some with distain, to the "Motherland" in everyday speech and song's refrain.
<IFRAME height=315 src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-XQYy4BYG70" frameBorder=0 width=420 allowfullscreen></IFRAME>
GYH being exposed even more.
GYH isn't the only one who seems to get missing when we talk about the Right and their attack on voting rights.
i HAVE LAID OUT INFORMATION TO MEASURES OF HOW THE CONSTITUTION AND BILL OF RIGHTS ARE BEING STRIPPED.
>> There is doubt, that you actually see it happening and have become conditioned to what is happening. See the evidence I present and the naysayer, comments in my thread THE DECLINE OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=95124
WE have a name for you and so do They...
I am not readily available and I am not paid as a moderator on this site, answering to lazy minded individuals, makes it even less of a priority.Look for information for yourself, do not rely on GETYOUHOT,to answer these questions for you!!!Question everything OR FALL FOR ANYTHING!...
>> There is doubt, that you actually see it happening and have become conditioned to what is happening. See the evidence I present and the naysayer, comments in my thread THE DECLINE OF THE UNITED STATES
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?t=95124
WE have a name for you and so do They...
I am not readily available and I am not paid as a moderator on this site, answering to lazy minded individuals, makes it even less of a priority.Look for information for yourself, do not rely on GETYOUHOT,to answer these questions for you!!!Question everything OR FALL FOR ANYTHING!...
Last edited:
I refuse to answer your questions or speculation as to where I draw information.I have seen you thoughtone run from many discussion, unable or unwilling to own up to your shortcomings, nonsources(nonsense) you are SAD...
Come'on GYH. Nothing wrong with being a messenger sweetie, but be careful of what you carry. Out of context snippets, does not a message make.
If one is to take Michelle's words, "Baracks homeland", as proof of his birthplace, then most all of us here were born, someplace in Africa as well - - because many, many of US refer, some with pride and some with distain, to the "Motherland" in everyday speech and song's refrain.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-XQYy4BYG70" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Que, you think I was presenting that as evidence!? wow... NO, you had questions as to why this and why that, some are that superficial and brainwashed and I was showing you how something like a slip of the tounge could leave a simpleton to question his citizenship.
I have that record, not a scratch on it, heavily rotated in the late 70s on military bases.I will say no more
Last edited:
Again, with colorful letters this time, I ran out of hand puppets..
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Which, has now been bypassed. Sir, you are an idiot, no theory there...I am sure of it!
Again, with colorful letters this time, I ran out of hand puppets..
The full wording of H. Con. Res. 107, which is currently referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, is as follows:
Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.
Which, has now been bypassed. Sir, you are an idiot, no theory there...I am sure of it!
Why do you insist on answering a direct question out of context. No one is denying that Obama's Libyan actions are questionable. I have seen nothing on this thread to indicate this. As was stated, every president since Harry Truman has engaged us in undeclared wars, without a direct threat to our homeland. Why your outrage now? Concerned about constitutional rights? I see no posts by GYH on voter suppression and no post in the Trayvon Martin thread. As I said your agenda is exposed.
Similar threads
