That's always a distinct possibility. Don't laugh - you might have thought the World Trade Center scenario would be impossible too. But it doesn't even have to be a coup. They are patient. A few judges on the Supreme Court and in other federal courts, other govt. appts. and various laws. He could certainly get us started down the road. Don't laugh. Even some European countries are already having the argument over whether or not Sharia law should be allowed. He's already made the pronouncement that he'll weaken our military.
But I think a couple of the greater immediate fears are that #1 - he'll lead us down the road to total socialism (don't forget the Dems will most likely control both the Executive and Legislatives branches of govt. Pelosi is enough of a crack-pot weirdo in her own right - a California socialist). #2 - we'll see stagflation as bad or worse than when Carter was in office with high taxes and sky-rocketing intersest rates. Many small businesses will go in the dumper with these taxes. #3 - he'll press for reparations which IMO will bring us all the way back to square one in race relations in this country. That's just a few.
On top of that who wants someone as President who holds up and touts communist China as an example of all that is great, wonderful and successful? Who wants a President who is friends with a man who not only bombed the Pentagon but said he has no regrets about it, a man who produces an altered document and offers it up as a legitimate birth certificate, a man whose wife said she is only now proud of her country for the first time in her life, a man who sat in a church pew for 20 years and listened to the likes of Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger berate his country and say it deserved 9/11 among many other ugly things, a man who told a 7 year old girl that the reason he was running was because he thinks America is no longer great. The list goes on and on. Is this the best America has to offer up? Is this the best black man America has to offer up as it's first miniority president? The man and his wife ooze contempt for this country and many of it's inhabitants.He might be bright but he is not wise. There's a big difference. (And for all the fun you make of Bush when he speaks I think Obama sounds equally as bad when not using the teleprompter. But I don't think we should elect a president based on speaking skills.)
And PLEASE do not come back with a "but Bush did this that or the other". Bush is not running. It is over, yesterday's news. You need to move beyond Bush. That ship has sailed. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Obama was not offered up by the black community or anyone else. He is not there to be the best black president. He wants to be the best president for these times.
I have not heard any oozing of contempt for America by either Barack or Michelle. I believe that there are people who are flooding the internet with malicious rumors and twisted facts for no other reason but to scare the hell out of Americans and defeat his candidacy.
What -- get Supreme Court justices on the bench that would endanger the country with Joe Biden as vice-president. You must be kidding. He would bork everyone of them.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:35 pm
Phantom, the threads in the combined thread are threads where there was no action going on other than your posting the articles and posting. I could only find one post by Dithers and one post by Pax.
If there is no desire by RU posters to discuss a certain article or participate in a certain thread, the articles need to be combined or the board in this forum becomes unwieldy.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
dithersPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:51 pm
Quote:
"yankee-in-france"]
Obama was not offered up by the black community or anyone else. He is not there to be the best black president. He wants to be the best president for these times.
I have not heard any oozing of contempt for America by either Barack or Michelle. I believe that there are people who are flooding the internet with malicious rumors and twisted facts for no other reason but to scare the hell out of Americans and defeat his candidacy.
What -- get Supreme Court justices on the bench that would endanger the country with Joe Biden as vice-president. You must be kidding. He would bork everyone of them.
And that's something to be proud of? What an embarrassment.
Besides do you really think that the VP would have any say in who was nominated to the Supreme Court?
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
PhantomPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:46 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
Phantom, the threads in the combined thread are threads where there was no action going on other than your posting the articles and posting. I could only find one post by Dithers and one post by Pax.
If there is no desire by RU posters to discuss a certain article or participate in a certain thread, the articles need to be combined or the board in this forum becomes unwieldy.
This thread regarding Obama/Ayers/Annenberg was started on Sunday, August 24th. I posted 7 related articles on Obama/Ayers/Annenberg before another poster commented on the articles. That was poster was you on Monday, 25th.
In this thread, http://www.refugeesunleashed.net/viewtopic.php?t=15745 in a quick run through I counted 7 Obama/Ayers/Annenberg articles that I had posted in one thread, the last one posted on Thursday, August 21st. If this thread was not rolled into one thread with different unrelated articles, it would have had more related articles posted by myself AND additional comments posted by others in a matter of a couple of days.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep threads standing by themselves for at least two pages, instead of two days? Just makes sense by keeping all the related articles together instead of having them in different threads where they might not be found. Unless of course it was done to remove them from view.
Would there be any objections to having those Obama/Ayers/Annenberg posts in this thread, http://www.refugeesunleashed.net/viewtopic.php?t=15745 moved into this thread? Since moved posts would enter into this thread in chronological order, those Obama/Ayers/Annenberg posts would appear at the beginning of this thread and keep the related articles together.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:26 pm
dithers wrote:
Quote:
"yankee-in-france"]
Obama was not offered up by the black community or anyone else. He is not there to be the best black president. He wants to be the best president for these times.
I have not heard any oozing of contempt for America by either Barack or Michelle. I believe that there are people who are flooding the internet with malicious rumors and twisted facts for no other reason but to scare the hell out of Americans and defeat his candidacy.
What -- get Supreme Court justices on the bench that would endanger the country with Joe Biden as vice-president. You must be kidding. He would bork everyone of them.
And that's something to be proud of? What an embarrassment.
Besides do you really think that the VP would have any say in who was nominated to the Supreme Court?
It is only an embarrassment if you believe that the federal government has control over your sexual preferences, practices, and reproductive system.
If Obama were electing unqualified judges who were hell bent on making this country a Muslim state, you better believe that Joe Biden or any other vice-president would say and do something. Again, our Constitution provides safeguards for rogue presidents.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:32 pm
Phantom wrote:
This thread regarding Obama/Ayers/Annenberg was started on Sunday, August 24th. I posted 7 related articles on Obama/Ayers/Annenberg before another poster commented on the articles. That was poster was you on Monday, 25th.
In this thread, http://www.refugeesunleashed.net/viewtopic.php?t=15745 in a quick run through I counted 7 Obama/Ayers/Annenberg articles that I had posted in one thread, the last one posted on Thursday, August 21st. If this thread was not rolled into one thread with different unrelated articles, it would have had more related articles posted by myself AND additional comments posted by others in a matter of a couple of days.
Wouldn't it have made more sense to keep threads standing by themselves for at least two pages, instead of two days? Just makes sense by keeping all the related articles together instead of having them in different threads where they might not be found. Unless of course it was done to remove them from view.
Would there be any objections to having those Obama/Ayers/Annenberg posts in this thread, http://www.refugeesunleashed.net/viewtopic.php?t=15745 moved into this thread? Since moved posts would enter into this thread in chronological order, those Obama/Ayers/Annenberg posts would appear at the beginning of this thread and keep the related articles together.
I have split and merged the related articles and posts as best I can into this thread and retitled this thread. If there are posts that I missed relating to this topic, let me know.
May I suggest that instead of starting a topic for each related article that you merely begin a topic and post all relating articles in the same thread, and there will be less need to throw into the combined thread.
No, Phantom, it doesn't make sense to let a topic stand for two pages because if there is no interest, there will never be two pages and the board in this forum becomes unwieldy.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
PhantomPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:39 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
It is only an embarrassment if you believe that the federal government has control over your sexual preferences, practices, and reproductive system.
If Obama were electing unqualified judges who were hell bent on making this country a Muslim state, you better believe that Joe Biden or any other vice-president would say and do something. Again, our Constitution provides safeguards for rogue presidents.
Obama on Supreme Court appointments: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom."
"The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
I always thought that justice was supposed to be blind and not emotional attached. Obama wants justices who are activists who decide cases with their hearts not their heads and to create law from the bench not interpret it as they should.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
PhantomPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:42 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
May I suggest that instead of starting a topic for each related article that you merely begin a topic and post all relating articles in the same thread, and there will be less need to throw into the combined thread
Thank you. I will let you know and I really do try to post related articles in the same thread.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:45 pm
Phantom wrote:
Obama on Supreme Court appointments: "We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom."
"The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."
I always thought that justice was supposed to be blind and not emotional attached. Obama wants justices who are activists who decide cases with their hearts not their heads and to create law from the bench not interpret it as they should.
Why should he be any different than Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II? Their nominees all had agendas. Fortunately for the country, not all of them passed muster, and one of them who they thought was in their camp fooled them.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
PhantomPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 2:52 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
Why should he be any different than Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II? Their nominees all had agendas. Fortunately for the country, not all of them passed muster, and one of them who they thought was in their camp fooled them.
Their agendas were to interpret the law as it was written and not to create new law from the bench.
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
dithersPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:02 pm
Phantom - Not to worry. The Ayers controversy is not going away. To the contrary. Today it is growing legs. Obama's attempts to counter with his own ad and strong-arming the t.v. stations from showing an ad linking him to Ayers is backfiring.
Quote:
Obama seeks to silence ad tying him to 60s radical
Aug 25 08:47 PM US/Eastern
By JIM KUHNHENN
Obama Connection to Capitol Bomber William Ayers Topic of New Ad
Opponents Await Release of Documents That May Explain Obama’s Links to ’60s Radical
DENVER (AP) - Barack Obama is striking back fiercely and swiftly to stamp out an ad that links him to a 1960s radical, eager to demonstrate a far more aggressive response to attacks than John Kerry did when faced with the 2004 "Swift Boat" campaign.
Obama not only aired a response ad to the spot linking him to William Ayers, but he sought to block stations the commercial by warning station managers and asking the Justice Department to intervene. The campaign also planned to compel advertisers to pressure stations that continue to air the anti-Obama commercial.
It's the type of going-for-the-jugular approach to politics many Democrats complain that Kerry lacked and that Republicans exploit.
Obama's target is an ad by the conservative American Issues Project, a nonprofit group that questions Obama's ties to Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground organization that took credit for a series of bombings, including nonfatal explosions at the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol four decades ago.
The lone financier of the anti-Obama ad, Texas billionaire Harold Simmons, was also one of the main funders of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth who targeted Kerry. Simmons, a McCain fundraiser, contributed nearly $2.9 million to the American Issues Project, according to documents filed by the group with the Federal Election Commission.
Fox News and CNN have declined to air the anti-Obama ad. But by Monday afternoon, the ad had run about 150 times in local markets in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia and Michigan, according to Evan Tracey, head of TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, an ad tracking firm.
Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama supporters have inundated stations that are airing the ad, many of them owned by Sinclair Communications, with 93,000 e-mails. He called the ad false, despicable and outrageous.
"Other stations that follow Sinclair's lead should expect a similar response from people who don't want the political discourse cheapened with these false, negative attacks," Vietor said.
Sinclair offices were closed late Monday and officials there could not be immediately contacted.
"It seems they protest a bit too much," American Issues Project spokesman Christian Pinkston said. "They're going all of these routes—through threats, intimation—to try to thwart the First Amendment here because they don't have an argument on merit."
Ayers is now a professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. He and Obama live in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood and served together on the board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that develops community groups to help the poor. Obama left the board in December 2002.
Obama also was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform group of which Ayers was a founder. Ayers also held a meet-the-candidate event at his home for Obama when Obama first ran for office in the mid-1990s.
(snip) "The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist raises more questions about Senator Obama's judgment than any TV ad ever could," said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers. (snip)
Their agendas were to interpret the law as it was written and not to create new law from the bench.
Do we want Supreme Court decisions based upon life in the late 1700s or interpreted consistent with modern society? Life evolves, mores and values evolve, everything evolves and so must law evolve.
It is like the pro-gun lobby interpreting the constitutional right to bear arms to include handguns, Uzis, and other automatic weapons as if our forefathers really wanted a society with unlimited weapons in the hands of everyone. At that time, it was more the issue that there were not organized police and law enforcement agencies and thus civil militias were the police of those days as well as protect the people of those times from other genuine enemies not their next-door neighbor who might not appreciate their dog barking.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
PhantomPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:06 pm
Yeah, an unrepentant terrorist who shortly after 9/11 said that his ONLY regret was that he didn't do more. (bombings or terrorists acts)
Last edited by Phantom on Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:13 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
dithersPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:08 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
Do we want Supreme Court decisions based upon life in the late 1700s or interpreted consistent with modern society? Life evolves, mores and values evolve, everything evolves and so must law evolve.
It is like the pro-gun lobby interpreting the constitutional right to bear arms to include handguns, Uzis, and other automatic weapons as if our forefathers really wanted a society with unlimited weapons in the hands of everyone. At that time, it was more the issue that there were not organized police and law enforcement agencies and thus civil militias were the police of those days as well as protect the people of those times from other genuine enemies not their next-door neighbor who might not appreciate their dog barking.
Well, Hells Bells, Yif - Why don't we simply chuck the entire Constitution then if it's an outdated document that's outlived it's usefulness?
Pretty in Blonde
Joined: 17 Apr 2006
Posts: 3468
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:17 pm
dithers wrote:
Well, Hells Bells, Yif - Why don't we simply chuck the entire Constitution then if it's an outdated document that's outlived it's usefulness?
That is not what I am saying. I think that it is very possible to interpret the Constitution consistent with today's world. Slavery was legal, women and minorities did not have the right to vote, segregation, etc. If the Constitution was strictly interpreted without regard to the times, those laws would still be the law of the land. Why aren't they?
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:20 pm
Phantom wrote:
Yeah, an unrepentant terrorist who shortly after 9/11 said that his ONLY regret was that he didn't do more. (bombings or terrorists acts)
-- and killing him would be the answer, is that what you are saying? I understand your anger but there must be a better way.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
PhantomPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:22 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
-- and killing him would be the answer, is that what you are saying? I understand your anger but there must be a better way.
No, but it questions the judgement of someone who calls Ayers, "Respectable and Mainstream."
Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Pentagon and is proud of it?
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:29 pm
Phantom wrote:
No, but it questions the judgement of someone who calls Ayers, "Respectable and Mainstream."
Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Pentagon and is proud of it?
We all have friends and acquaintances and there are many distinctions within those two classes.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
Need2KnowPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:31 pm
dithers wrote:
It matters to me. Even if the lemmings refuse to ever see the light of day and continue to make one silly excuse after another when the truth is staring them right in the face.
And don't ever stop because many others are listening too - the silent ones - they are reading everything you and others like you are posting and emailing and they are remembering and when it comes to Election day I think they'll show up in droves just as they did when they amassed to clean up the aftermath of the massacre at the World Trade Center.
As Sean Hannity would say - "You're a good American, my friend."
The truth will be exposed and that is what we all should be seeking.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 9277
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:33 pm
dithers wrote:
Well, Hells Bells, Yif - Why don't we simply chuck the entire Constitution then if it's an outdated document that's outlived it's usefulness?
"Strict construction is the opposite of liberal construction, which permits a term to be reasonably and fairly evaluated so as to implement the object and purpose of the document.
An ongoing debate in U.S. law concerns how judges should interpret the law. Advocates of strict construction believe judges must exercise restraint by refusing to expand the law through implication. Critics of strict construction contend that this approach does not always produce a just or reasonable result.
Cross-references
Canons of Construction; Plain-Meaning Rule.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
Strict construction (narrow construction) n. interpreting the Constitution based on a literal and narrow definition of the language without reference to the differences in conditions when the Constitution was written and modern conditions, inventions, and societal changes.
By contrast "broad construction" looks to what someone thinks was the "intent" of the framers' language and expands and interprets the language extensively to meet current standards of human conduct and complexity of society. (See: narrow construction, Constitution)
Yes, I am pro-broad construction especially with regard to human conduct but I am not advocating that the Constitution be thrown out. So, Hells Bells, Dithers, I am going beddy byes.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
Need2KnowPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:33 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
It might have more import if it were true. There are friends and then there are friends. Hell, W and his entire family were and are very friendly with the Saudis, and how many Saudis were the terrorists of 9/11? Remember when flights were banned by W immediately after the attack but George W allowed a Saudi plane with Bin Ladins and other "friends" on the plane to leave America without being interrogated. Didn't that matter to you guys?
Yes it does and I have made it quite clear that I think GWB is one of the worst presidents this nation has ever had, and I still feel that way. He has horrible leadership skills and I do not trust a word he says. Does that somehow discount all this information about your candidate?
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 9277
PhantomPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:35 pm
Obama's terrorist connections - William Ayers
Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 3332
Location: My only friend, the end
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:37 pm
Need2Know wrote:
Yes it does and I have made it quite clear that I think GWB is one of the worst presidents this nation has ever had, and I still feel that way. He has horrible leadership skills and I do not trust a word he says. Does that somehow discount all this information about your candidate?
If all this information was true and correct, and the onus by these articles was not being placed on Obama to prove his innocence, I may feel differently. It seems that article after article is being written to smear Obama via innuendo as opposed to inform the voters of the truth.
YIF
Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6999
Location: France
Need2KnowPosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:37 pm
yankee-in-france wrote:
Well, even though we disagree on many things, I for one am glad that you are bothering. Having said that, it can't all be one-sided. I don't know what you mean by this thread will get buried. RU is not about burying threads but a board for good debate and diverse opinions.
Not all of us believe that Obama is the monster that is being depicted in these articles, at least I do not.
I posted a few months ago that I have great faith in the US Constitution and in my country. The Constitution has provided for the possibility of a rogue president.
Should Obama be the terrible person who some think he is, well, how long do you think that it will take Joe Biden to do something about it or do you think that Joe will also participate in a Muslim takeover of America? Isn't that what bleeds through most of these articles? Are some afraid that America is going to be taken over by Al Quaida and that Obama is their leader?
No, I think he is a "staged production" candidate with no real qualifications for the most important job in the free world, not to mention the issues I have with his credibility, his views, his pollicies, his votes in the Senate and his associations.
N2K
Joined: 06 Jul 2006
Posts: 9277
yankee-in-francePosted:
Tue Aug 26, 2008 3:42 pm
They are unfortunately all staged productions and if the law is changed about anything, it should be about the manner in which campaigns are funded and managed. This is all BS at an obscene cost.
I respect your opposition to his candidacy. I simply do not accept the 'information' as true information.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
