How Obama Could Be A Better President

[Triumvirate of Mars]

Boohoo. Cry. Guess what? The American people do not report to him, neither does Congress, and neither does the House of Reps. And when the American people, Congress and House of Reps ask for something, it is the Presidents job to Represent it no matter how much he may not want to. That is a Democracy, that is a Republic. The people do not report to him, he reports to the people. And if he gets fire from the American people about it, well then... He has some reporting to do.

His job is to lead the country to the best of his ability.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

It says nothing about producing papers on demand, especially when there is no legal reason to do so.

The government in general, not just the Executive, let alone, the Presidential office. Job is to simply protect and represent the American people. Legality to accuse, no, but legality to having the possibility of a president who is in Illegally is an awful big accusation. And it was shared by a large portion of the U.S pop. And Congress/House of Reps.

[Wikkiwallana]

Right, the man who freed the slaves is against freedom.

Might as well claim George Washington was a Loyalist.

Uh-huh....

Right, the man who freed the slaves is against freedom.

Sure... The man who freed the slaves... Also the man who took away States Rights and Popular Sovereignty from the nation? Who also violated Posse Camitatus and Habeas Corpes. (Merrymans Case)
Who also effectively caused and started the Civil War because of Federal lands being reclaimed by the south.

Your knowledge of history and the Constitution is depressingly lacking. He did none of those things.

[Novairia]

Also, in the Ron Paul debate.. he is most favoured GOP in Canada as well.. I think Obama would still edge him out in a poll here, just barely tho.

[Hittanryan]

Did you really just say the Union was wrong to ban slavery? Take your Lost Cause back home and give it the Sherman treatment.

[Farnhamia]

Right, the man who freed the slaves is against freedom.

Might as well claim George Washington was a Loyalist.

Uh-huh....

Right, the man who freed the slaves is against freedom.

Sure... The man who freed the slaves... Also the man who took away States Rights and Popular Sovereignty from the nation? Who also violated Posse Camitatus and Habeas Corpes. (Merrymans Case)
Who also effectively caused and started the Civil War because of Federal lands being reclaimed by the south.

States have no rights. The states have powers. The people have rights.

How did Lincoln take away popular sovereignty? By defending the Union against attacks by people in rebellion against the legitimate authority of the United States?

Ex parte Merryman was an opinion handed down by Chief Justice Roger Taney as circuit judge for the District of Maryland, not as Chief Justice. In the opinion he betrayed violently partisan opposition to President Lincoln, asserting that only Congress could suspend habeas corpus. The rest of the Court had nothing to do with this case. Lincoln did eventually release all political prisoners on parole, and had Congress pass a bill authorizing suspension on their say-so. You talk as if Union troops were wandering the country rounding people up by the thousand and throwing them in dungeons. That's simply not true.

The South started the war by firing on a Union fort. Had they negotiated, they might have avoided the war entirely. Hell, if they had waited another election cycle, they might have captured the country for slavery without firing a shot.

[Triumvirate of Mars]

Who also effectively caused and started the Civil War because of Federal lands being reclaimed by the south.

Just like when a 290 lb man punches a 12 year old girl without provocation, it's the girl's fault for standing in his way.

Wait, what?



Also, you're arguing that the right to forcibly kidnap people and remove their civil rights is a civil right. That's what's wrong with free-market capitalism in a nutshell.

Oh, for an honest Libertarian who would say "Yes, in Libertopia we'd have rampant quackery, organ-seizure, baby-selling, slavery in all but name - BUT THAT'S FREEDOM!"
Seth Finkelstein

Not a Civil Right. A States Right. After all, we are just the United, States of America.

[Wikkiwallana]

His job is to lead the country to the best of his ability.



It says nothing about producing papers on demand, especially when there is no legal reason to do so.

The government in general, not just the Executive, let alone, the Presidential office. Job is to simply protect and represent the American people. Legality to accuse, no, but legality to having the possibility of a president who is in Illegally is an awful big accusation. And it was shared by a large portion of the U.S pop. And Congress/House of Reps.

Suspicion without evidence has little to no legal standing, regardless of how many people are suspicious and how high of office they hold.

[SaintB]

So this thread has proven two things that everyone already knew (again)

1. Most people who oppose President Obama have no legit reason other than they don't like him.
2. Ron Paul supporters don't know what they are actually supporting.

[Novairia]

...........................

Confederate, SHHHHHhhhh.. dont go too far.. last thing you want is the USA left to popularise the banning of racialy offensive speech [even tho the 1st amendment would be a tough nut to crack] like many europe nations have now. Seriously 3 months jail time for saying nig9er / religious insult to muslims in Norway now!

[Triumvirate of Mars]

I'll just answer this last one before I leave it off for people to continue on Obama. Things kind of got sidetracked.

as if Union troops were wandering the country rounding people up by the thousand and throwing them in dungeons. That's simply not true.

Nope. Dungeons would have been a nice thing though. - Posse Camitatus - The New York City Draft Riots.

120-2,000 killed
2,000-8,000 wounded

The military suppressed the mob using artillery and fixed bayonets, but not before numerous buildings were ransacked or destroyed, including many homes and an orphanage for black children

At the Battle of Fort Sumter next to no soldiers died. Why? Because the south had no intentions of killing anyone in the fort, lead by Major Anderson. Beauregard purposely missed as war was not what they wanted, all they wanted was their now-Sovereign nation/States. The north and more specifically, Abraham Lincoln, overreacted and called forth a force of 75,000 to attack the south, lead by General Winfield Scott. Little did they know this wouldn't be a short war with only 75,000. The thing is that the south was fighting souly in the defense of their now sovereign land.

Now states have no rights. And its always been, the people have the power. Ideolisticly of course.

[Death Metal]

Actually, it is relevant. Relevant because Piers Morgan is a British reporter.

But he was reporting on CNN, not the Telegraph, or the BBC. It's irrelevant anyway, because RON PAUL STILL SAID HE WOULD HAVE TO BE A DICTATOR TO DO WHAT HE WANTS TO DO. A bullshit straw poll on a website, that cannot verify vote fraud, doesn't change that.

Privacy is not technically covered by the Constitution.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

AMENDMENT XIV

Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.

Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.

Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So you're wrong.

And the government was wrong for effectively banning slavery in the south because it violated States Rights and State/Regional Popular Sovereignty.

States don't have rights. Don't quote 9 and 10, because they don't say shit about state rights. States are subservient to the federal government.

Especially when he goes against the Fascistic policies.

Even though he voted for those fascist policies.

If you want to be in a Socialized nation then leave the U.S.A. Because it is obviously not for you. Stop trying to destroy one of the last bastions of freedom in the world. Go to France, go to Russia, go to China for all I fucking care. Have fun with your Socialist-Communist countries.

I care about freedom, that's why I hate Ron Paul, that's why I hate libertarianism. It's a system that hates freedom. And we could learn from France, their economy is actually stable.

We're thirty years behind practically every other First World country when it comes to equal rights for homosexuals. 14th in the world for freedom of press. We're less socially progressive than practically all of Europe. So much for "last bastion of freedom".

[Death Metal]

Also, Triumvirate...

Saying States authority is more important than giving people civil liberty?

That's a very fascist way of thinking.