HobbyKing.com New Products Flash Sale
Reply
Thread Tools
Old Apr 14, 2009, 07:56 AM
Suspended Account
sarge's Avatar
Fayetteville, NC
Joined Dec 2002
2,239 Posts
Discussion
President Obama has failed in his single most important task

I voted for President Obama - the very first Democrat running for national office I ever voted for. His performance had been mildly encouraging - quite an accomplishment, considering the absolute mess he inherited from the previous administration. He flubbed the bailout - but something had to be done, and his plan isn't as bad as continuing to do nothing would have been. He's made good progress in a short time at creating some form of normal foreign relations. He made some good, reasonable choices with his appointments. He is a socialist - but America knew that when we voted for him. Can't reasonably act suprised when he implements socialist policies.

So far, he hasn't tried to ram socialized medicine down our throats. Perhaps he recognizes that there couldn't be a worse time to do so than now. Maybe (please, please, please) he'll come around and see it for the ponzi scheme it is.

So, what has he failed at? Re-establishing the constitution to its pre-Bush position. Obama has decided that the rule of law does not matter, and that the President can ignore the constitution with impunity. He will continue to allow the US to kidnap citizens of other countries and hold them without a burden of proof, and to do so for as long as he wants to hold them.

I'd like to hear from the same folks that agreed with the seriousness of this anti-constitutional activity when Bush was the guilty one. As I said at the time, it is treasonous, and impeachable.
sarge is offline Find More Posts by sarge
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 08:13 AM
Out of Time
United States, TX
Joined Jul 2003
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarge
He is a socialist - but America knew that when we voted for him. Can't reasonably act suprised when he implements socialist policies.

So far, he hasn't tried to ram socialized medicine down our throats. Perhaps he recognizes that there couldn't be a worse time to do so than now. Maybe (please, please, please) he'll come around and see it for the ponzi scheme it is.

So, what has he failed at? Re-establishing the constitution to its pre-Bush position. Obama has decided that the rule of law does not matter, and that the President can ignore the constitution with impunity.
Sarge, are you a bit confused of late?
There are absolutely NO "Socialist" policies enshrined in the U.S.Constitution, yet, you celebrate a Socialist being elected President.
Then you turn around and lament that the Socialist has failed to "re-establish the Constitution to it's pre-Bush position".

How in the world do you fail to see your own disconnect?
What kind of machinations in your mind do you have to go through to somehow believe that a Socialist (more correctly a Statist) would even consider "restoring" the Constitution when the Constitution itself is anathema to the Statist's agenda?

Since you're at least starting to have some doubts, maybe you'll come around and finish the job of connecting all the dots, and finally, come to your senses about who this guy really is and the trouble our country is in with him as president.
Highflight is offline Find More Posts by Highflight
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 08:29 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarge
I voted for President Obama - the very first Democrat running for national office I ever voted for. His performance had been mildly encouraging - quite an accomplishment, considering the absolute mess he inherited from the previous administration. He flubbed the bailout - but something had to be done, and his plan isn't as bad as continuing to do nothing would have been. He's made good progress in a short time at creating some form of normal foreign relations. He made some good, reasonable choices with his appointments. He is a socialist - but America knew that when we voted for him. Can't reasonably act suprised when he implements socialist policies.

So far, he hasn't tried to ram socialized medicine down our throats. Perhaps he recognizes that there couldn't be a worse time to do so than now. Maybe (please, please, please) he'll come around and see it for the ponzi scheme it is.

So, what has he failed at? Re-establishing the constitution to its pre-Bush position. Obama has decided that the rule of law does not matter, and that the President can ignore the constitution with impunity. He will continue to allow the US to kidnap citizens of other countries and hold them without a burden of proof, and to do so for as long as he wants to hold them.

I'd like to hear from the same folks that agreed with the seriousness of this anti-constitutional activity when Bush was the guilty one. As I said at the time, it is treasonous, and impeachable.
Sarge

If President Obama does go back on that stated intention to re-establish the consitutional position to stop the kidnap of foreign citizens and olding them without proof, or charges, for as long as is deemed expedient then I agree 100% that is a failure.

I haven't actually read up on the details of what has been proposed. Is it a continuation of legislation enacted by President Bush, or is it something new?
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 08:32 AM
Figure Nine Champ
madsci_guy's Avatar
North Texas
Joined Nov 2002
1,283 Posts
Leccy, I think you'll find that the Constitution is silent about any protection and rights of foreign citizens. While immoral without very good cause, it's not unconstitutional.
madsci_guy is offline Find More Posts by madsci_guy
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 08:45 AM
Suspended Account
sarge's Avatar
Fayetteville, NC
Joined Dec 2002
2,239 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highflight
Sarge, are you a bit confused of late?
There are absolutely NO "Socialist" policies enshrined in the U.S.Constitution, yet, you celebrate a Socialist being elected President.
Really? I celebrated? When?
I did like I have always done in elections - I made the best choice of the available candidates. Sometimes, I'm just not presented very good candidates. My number one reason for choosing Obama over McCain was my belief that Obama would more likely revert the more recent unconstitutional activities foisted on Americans by Bush.

Quote:
Then you turn around and lament that the Socialist has failed to "re-establish the Constitution to it's pre-Bush position".
What are you talking about?

Bush (not a socialist) represented a greater threat to the rights of American citizens than any chief executive since at least FDR, and possibly since Lincoln.

Quote:
How in the world do you fail to see your own disconnect?
What kind of machinations in your mind do you have to go through to somehow believe that a Socialist (more correctly a Statist) would even consider "restoring" the Constitution when the Constitution itself is anathema to the Statist's agenda?
How in the world do you fail to see your disconnect? Obama is merely escalating the constitutional abuses of the Bush administration. His only original contribution is the unwarranted intrusion of goverment into the workings of a private company. That he would do so, and that socialist Americans would applaud his having done so dosen't suprise me. That's not the same as saying it doesn't bother me.

Quote:
Since you're at least starting to have some doubts, maybe you'll come around and finish the job of connecting all the dots, and finally, come to your senses about who this guy really is and the trouble our country is in with him as president.
Sorry - you seem to believe we have to pick a team and stick with it. I don't. Obama will probably be a better President than Bush (hard not to be) - but I don't have to cheer his every decision. I'll form an opinion on each and every one of them, independent of concerns for party affiliation.
sarge is offline Find More Posts by sarge
Last edited by sarge; Apr 17, 2009 at 02:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 08:54 AM
Out of Time
United States, TX
Joined Jul 2003
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer
If President Obama does go back on that stated intention to re-establish the consitutional position to stop the kidnap of foreign citizens and olding them without proof, or charges, for as long as is deemed expedient then I agree 100% that is a failure.

I haven't actually read up on the details of what has been proposed. Is it a continuation of legislation enacted by President Bush, or is it something new?
Madsci beat me to it.
What I am most troubled with is that so many people "declare" things to be somehow Constitutional or not without actually knowing that it is or isn't covered in the Constitution itself.

I know you're not American so I'll give you lots of leeway, but I'd sure like to see you get upset over things our government is doing that is very clearly unConstitutional that affects every American citizen.

As far as your problem with the US holding non-citizens who have been caught actively conspiring against America, you lose that one.
Those people are not citizens and are not subject to American laws.
Highflight is offline Find More Posts by Highflight
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:03 AM
Out of Time
United States, TX
Joined Jul 2003
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarge
Sorry - you seem to believe we have to pick a team and stick with it. I don't. Obama will probably be a better President than Bush (hard not to be) - but I don't have to cheer his every decision. I'll form an opinion on each and every one of them, independent of concerns for party affiliation.
It's because that you don't recognize a Statist when you see one that you have voted to put this country in peril with this president.
To some extent, GW was a Statist as well, but his enemy combatant policies were strictly Constitutional.

Look up the definition of a "Statist", and you'll immediately understand why none of the things this president has done, is doing, or will do, will serve the purpose of the Constitution except by accident.
You will find that "each and every" thing this Statist does will not be in the interest of securing our Constitutional rights.

What's most telling is that you believe that Bush has put Americans "in danger" by his supposed "un" Constitutional position on enemy combatants.
But the American Constitution specifically does NOT address enemies of America who are not citizens.
Then you "celebrate" Obama's taking over private business (as UN-Constitutional as it gets, and does directly affect American citizens negatively).

You are skewed, Sarge. Really skewed.

It might behoove you to sit down and actually read the entire Constitution from beginning to end, and it's Amendments, and figure all this out for yourself.
You don't have to be a judge with an agenda to understand what's in the Constitution; you only have to be able to read and understand English.
The Constitution is not a "trick" question that has to be parsed and massaged in order to understand it, or a lofty tome meant only for the elite to read.
Just try reading it, but just as importantly, do not read anything into it.
Highflight is offline Find More Posts by Highflight
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:14 AM
All under control, Grommit!
leccyflyer's Avatar
United Kingdom, Aberdeen
Joined Sep 2000
12,605 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highflight
Madsci beat me to it.
What I am most troubled with is that so many people "declare" things to be somehow Constitutional or not without actually knowing that it is or isn't covered in the Constitution itself.

I know you're not American so I'll give you lots of leeway, but I'd sure like to see you get upset over things our government is doing that is very clearly unConstitutional that affects every American citizen.

As far as your problem with the US holding non-citizens who have been caught actively conspiring against America, you lose that one.
Those people are not citizens and are not subject to American laws.
If they aren't subject to American laws then surely that begs the question as to under which laws they are retained?

I don't have the time or the inclination to debate your Constitution with you at the moment, but I do seem to recall there being something mentioned here, as being embedded somewhere in there regarding the treatment of the citizens of other countries by the United States government.
leccyflyer is offline Find More Posts by leccyflyer
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:22 AM
Alarm Bells Continuing!
Big Foot 48's Avatar
Arizona
Joined Oct 2001
276 Posts
I'm one of those that think one of the few good things Obama has done in three months is to recognize that Bush's efforts to protect this country from foriegn enemies were justified. A public statement by Obama explaining this would be nice. Perhaps at his next press conference, after all the dog questions, someone from Fox will ask him to justify his decision.

Putting us on the road to doubling the US debt within the next few years is far more serious IMHO, and justifies replacement of both him and those in congress ASAP.
Big Foot 48 is online now Find More Posts by Big Foot 48
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:23 AM
Figure Nine Champ
madsci_guy's Avatar
North Texas
Joined Nov 2002
1,283 Posts
http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a2.html#Q25
Quote:
Q25. "As a British national, what constitutional rights, if any, is Louise Woodward entitled to?"

A. This question is more one of U.S. law than of the U.S. Constitution. However, it is an interesting one:

Woodward could have been summarily deported back to the U.K.; or she could be tried under the normal rules of law. If you are tried in a U.S. criminal court, you are entitled to all rights enjoyed by citizens in the court, even if you are not a citizen. There may also have been an agreement in effect that she, as an au pair contracted with the United States Government, agreed to be subject to its laws.

Generally speaking, anyone physically in the U.S. will be treated as a citizen, with all rights guaranteed a citizen. There are some exceptions to this general rule. For example, while entering the United States (and physically in the United States), a foreign national can be detained and expelled. In some cases, detention is for an unlimited amount of time, and some illegal immigrants have been held for years on end.
madsci_guy is offline Find More Posts by madsci_guy
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:25 AM
Suspended Account
sarge's Avatar
Fayetteville, NC
Joined Dec 2002
2,239 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer
Sarge

If President Obama does go back on that stated intention to re-establish the consitutional position to stop the kidnap of foreign citizens and olding them without proof, or charges, for as long as is deemed expedient then I agree 100% that is a failure.

I haven't actually read up on the details of what has been proposed. Is it a continuation of legislation enacted by President Bush, or is it something new?
The Presedent has argued in court that he is not bound by the constituion to provide the same rights to foreign detainees as he is to American citizens. He has argued that he has the power to detain persons without offering them any legal protections at all, that he may detain th for as long as he sees fit, and that he need not answer to anyone about the detentions. He argues that the recent rulings that make Guantanimo detentions unconstitutional do not apply to him, so long as he doesn't actually detain the abductees in Guantanimo. The court disagreed with Obama's position entirely. Obama intends to appeal.
sarge is offline Find More Posts by sarge
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:33 AM
Suspended Account
sarge's Avatar
Fayetteville, NC
Joined Dec 2002
2,239 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsci_guy
Leccy, I think you'll find that the Constitution is silent about any protection and rights of foreign citizens. While immoral without very good cause, it's not unconstitutional.
The constitution is not silent onnthe issue, nor is it ambiguous. The constitution absolutely guarantees to every human all the rifts of the constitution anywhere they are under the jurisdiction of the US. Unless you are confused about what constitutes 'under the jurisdiction of", I must assume you haven' actually paid much attention to the constitution. Read it. If you are still confused I'll post in greater detail later. Right now, I am stuck typing on an iPhone.
sarge is offline Find More Posts by sarge
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:35 AM
Out of Time
United States, TX
Joined Jul 2003
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by leccyflyer
If they aren't subject to American laws then surely that begs the question as to under which laws they are retained?

I don't have the time or the inclination to debate your Constitution with you at the moment, but I do seem to recall there being something mentioned here, as being embedded somewhere in there regarding the treatment of the citizens of other countries by the United States government.
International Military laws, or "The Geneva Convention".
Highflight is offline Find More Posts by Highflight
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:37 AM
Suspended Account
sarge's Avatar
Fayetteville, NC
Joined Dec 2002
2,239 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highflight
Madsci beat me to it.
What I am most troubled with is that so many people "declare" things to be somehow Constitutional or not without actually knowing that it is or isn't covered in the Constitution itself.

I know you're not American so I'll give you lots of leeway, but I'd sure like to see you get upset over things our government is doing that is very clearly unConstitutional that affects every American citizen.

As far as your problem with the US holding non-citizens who have been caught actively conspiring against America, you lose that one.
Those people are not citizens and are not subject to American laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Highflight
Madsci beat me to it.
What I am most troubled with is that so many people "declare" things to be somehow Constitutional or not without actually knowing that it is or isn't covered in the Constitution itself.

I know you're not American so I'll give you lots of leeway, but I'd sure like to see you get upset over things our government is doing that is very clearly unConstitutional that affects every American citizen.

As far as your problem with the US holding non-citizens who have been caught actively conspiring against America, you lose that one.
Those people are not citizens and are not subject to American laws.
I didn't "declare" anything - the constitution and the courts have already settled the issue. First Bush and now Obama have decided to ignore the constitution.

You simply do not understand the constitution - a correctable error. You could learn. More troubling than your general lack of understanding about the constitution is the impression I get that even if you understood that the detentions are absolutely unconstitutional, you wouldn't care.
sarge is offline Find More Posts by sarge
Reply With Quote
Old Apr 14, 2009, 09:38 AM
Out of Time
United States, TX
Joined Jul 2003
1,092 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by madsci_guy
From your quote:

Quote:
A. This question is more one of U.S. law than of the U.S. Constitution. However, it is an interesting one:
That is the answer to the question, and the further explanation is irrelevant to the U.S. Constitution.
Highflight is offline Find More Posts by Highflight
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Similar Threads
Category Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Will IFO Mk III fly in a single gym?? Jeremy_D Parkflyers 14 May 20, 2001 07:20 PM
Just purchased Soarstar, who has one in Utah? That could possibly meet me at the rc a JEWINE Beginner Training Area (Aircraft-Electric) 5 May 10, 2001 11:10 AM