« Obama vs The Navy SEALs | Main | Necessary Conditions for Invoking The Infield Fly Rule »

The A-Team vs Obama

April 21, 2009 | Permalink

Comments

(copied from elsewhere):
Despotism can mean absolutism (dominance through threat of punishment and violence) or dictatorship (a form of government in which the ruler is an absolute dictator, not restricted by a constitution, laws or opposition, etc)

Now some quotes:
"We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."

"I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we're really talking about peace."

"The legislature's job is to write law. It's the executive branch's job to interpret law."

"You can fool some of the people all the time, and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator."

Those all came from the same person. Guess who.

Posted by: tpulley | Apr 22, 2009 8:05:24 AM

When are we going to give up on the whole muslim schtick? There are more reasons to criticize the man than space in this comment box, but him being a muslim (he isn't) isn't one of them. He claims the same god you do.

Posted by: thomasblair | Apr 23, 2009 7:28:51 AM

When Obama comes clean about it. Hey, where's that Birth Certificate?

Posted by: Tom McMahon | Apr 23, 2009 8:15:26 AM

Here's the birth certificate:
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

And why do people always get confused about his religion? He certainly seems disciplined enough to be Muslim, so I could see some confusion there.

Personally I'd start picking on him for appointing all those RIAA lawyers to the DoJ, what with Joe Biden giving handjobs to hollywood and everything. And supporting the telco immunity for their illegal wiretapping doesn't sit well with me, even though I can understand why. Still, the prez is sworn to uphold the consitution and the 4th ammendment is pretty clear.

Fun Fact: Did you know that McCain was not born in any of the 50 United States of America?

Posted by: tpulley | Apr 23, 2009 11:23:21 AM

Although jus soli is an acceptable way to determine citizenship, its implementation in the US has been nothing short of criminal and suicidal. This does not change the fact that McCain, born to US citizen parents in a US territory, is a natural US citizen.

BHO has demonstrated, through his refusal to make his birth certificate public--demonstration of natural-born citizenship being his responsibility, not ours--that he is not legally qualified to serve as US president. Of course, now that he's been inaugurated, this Supreme Court would never remove him.

The link to the alleged birth certificate proves nothing; anyone with adequate computer skills could fake the certificate. If the real certificate of live birth had been released, it would have been splashed all over the news.

More thoughts here:
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/011961.html


Posted by: Sparticus | Apr 24, 2009 12:35:13 AM

> Here's the birth certificate:
http://www.fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate

First off, if you actually LOOKED into the arguments over this, you'd know THAT certificate says nothing of the issue in question (and, since I really don't place any faith in the significance of that issue, I'm not going to carry it further than that -- suffice to say, if you knew what the argument WAS, then *that* wouldn't be something you'd cite in defense of it -- and if you want to know more about it, you can go look in other places. I believe A Goy And His Blog was discussing it, rationally, at one point:
http://www.agoyandhisblog.com/
Again, I don't think the argument has sufficient weight for the considerations applied, but it does appear to have merit in essence, if not in significance).

> And supporting the telco immunity for their illegal wiretapping doesn't sit well with me, even though I can understand why.

Sorry, their wiretapping was under direct request from the fed with a full written opinion from the DOJ explaining why it was legitimate.

The claim that what they did was therefore in any way, shape, or form illegitimate is flat out ridiculous.

The government comes and tells you that they want you to do something, and provide a written claim that it is legitimate, cite an immediate, clear, and present danger as the reason for doing it, you better have one F*** of a good argument why it's not, right up front.

Since the courts still haven't really decided the matter *at all* conclusively, it's rather clear that they could not possibly have had such, and that what they did was legitimate action on THEIR part under the conditions then available for consideration.

And if you're going to go after the "telco" community, then don't you think you should be fully aware of the history of things Echelon, initiated under *Clinton*?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Echelon
(the above is hardly a right-wing source).

> Fun Fact: Did you know that McCain was not born in any of the 50 United States of America?

Irrelevant. He was born on what was legally US Soil, which is and was what was meant by that clause of the US Constitution. Arguments to the contrary CAN be assessed in that regard for Mr. Obama -- in spirit-- even IF he technically does fill the bill under the letter of the law.

I find it interesting that you've seen fit to mention this more than once in a place which it really has no relevance to.

Just thought I'd point that out.

> If the real certificate of live birth had been released,

Sparticus -- probably the closest thing I've seen is a photofax of the Hawaiian newspaper entry from the next day, "Born, today, to..." etc.

This is why I don't really take this all that seriously. I do find BO's reluctance to release it curious, but not central.

> "We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations strive to resolve differences in peace."

Ah, pulley, does that mean that free nations CAN'T EVER choose to use military force? That their hands are forever completely and totally bound by the need to never, ever, under any circumstances, strike the first overt blow?

Because that sounds to me like major recipe for human misery.

"Go ahead, build up your weapons to the point where we're fairly certain to lose, or at least pay an exceptionally high price... As long as you don't attack us *before* then -- hey, No Problem!!"

-- Does that sound like a *rational* foreign policy to you? Just curious.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | May 2, 2009 7:25:00 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.