Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Yamato

Rand Paul: Obama thinks he's a King

97 posts in this topic

If you can't stop looking in your rear view mirror then yeah, what I said above means absolutely nothing, to you.

Y'know - the President hasn't even drafted the Executive Orders currently. As such - talk of kingship and legislation to reverse them is probably a bit premature.

Speaking of "absolutely", were you not being "absolutely clear" a week ago about not wanting to discuss anything with me "ever again"?

Let's take that to PM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Y'know - the President hasn't even drafted the Executive Orders currently. As such - talk of kingship and legislation to reverse them is probably a bit premature.

Let's take that to PM.

It belonged in a PM when you said it in the first place.

Some of us who genuinely care about liberty have been talking about "kingship" since Bush. We're late to the game to be acting like we're just now starting something new.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of us who genuinely care about liberty have been talking about "kingship" since Bush. We're late to the game to be acting like we're just now starting something new.

It goes back much further than Bush.

The Second World War Japanese internment camps were set up via Executive Order 9066 by Roosevelt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It goes back much further than Bush.

The Second World War Japanese internment camps were set up via Executive Order 9066 by Roosevelt.

Our history is rife with abuses that smack of unconstitutionality when we read the spirit of our highest law and why we even exist as a nation in the first place. It goes back further than Bush, and that confers with even greater importance for this thread, so let's not act like we're ahead of ourselves when we're already running late.

Roosevelt issued a lot of orders. He was also administrating a war that Congress declared. At least we weren't so ignorant in 1941 to skip the clearest language in our highest law about how to take our country to war. The difference between 9066 and last week is we've had plenty of hindsight to determine whether 9066 smacked of legislation or whether it was just policy that our policymakers made. But here we go again. I'll say it again, I don't care about someone else, at some other time, doing some other thing, about some other subject, belonging on some other thread, as a reason not to discuss this topic. Dig up all the bones from the past you like. Japanese Americans aren't in camps. Our Bill of Rights is under attack by these trigger-happy executives from the White House. We have the President we have despite your urge to feel defensive about him, and due to the hazardous precedent from Obama and his contemporaries, we should already be very concerned with what we're putting up with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Defending liberty is about stopping the infringement before it happens, not after. We've got 23 orders from the President

I'd be willing to bet that you have not even read a single one of the 23.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet that you have not even read a single one of the 23.

I'd be willing to bet you think I'd disagree with all 23 of them if you thought I had. The executive orders aren't the problem. Executive orders aren't unconstitutional. President Obama's track record is. Thankfully we have a few good figures in public office like Rand Paul to help protect us from anymore malfeasance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole regulated militia part, apparently.

Hu?

Which of those do you believe are covered in his executive orders?

Oh sorry, Im in NY. Soon as I can be, Im outta here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd be willing to bet you think I'd disagree with all 23 of them if you thought I had. The executive orders aren't the problem. Executive orders aren't unconstitutional. President Obama's track record is.

ok I'll byte. What "track record" are you referring to? I'd be willing to bet you really have no idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ok I'll byte. What "track record" are you referring to? I'd be willing to bet you really have no idea.

Libya was impeachable. But the derelict Congress aren't interested in eating their own. I think debates about Obama's unconstitutionality are infinitely more important than his kids going to a private school for privileged kids, or not putting his hand on his chest, his secret Muslim faith, his birth certificate, and a hundred other ridiculous diversions and conspiracies the media pumps out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Libya was impeachable.

in what respect?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in what respect?

It was unconstitutional. There is a clear legal process to taking the country to war and like the rest of the Constitution, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you feign ignorance of even that.

Libya did NOT attack the United States, Libya was NOT an imminent threat to the United States, and so Obama and his liberal cheerleaders can't cite the War Powers Resolution on Libya. Obama just makes his own power up as he goes. At least Bush had to lie to get his war started. We have lost our senses since George W. Bush and his unconstitutional shenanigans and it's partisans on both sides of the political aisle that will ensure this illegality in our government continues. You don't care when Obama does it just like another load of nonchalant Americans didn't care when Bush did it. It's the collective enablers of these abuses of power that are the greatest threat to our security today. Obama should have been impeached, not reelected.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sending contractors to Mali is the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was unconstitutional. There is a clear legal process to taking the country to war and like the rest of the Constitution, at this point I wouldn't be surprised if you feign ignorance of even that.

Libya did NOT attack the United States, Libya was NOT an imminent threat to the United States, and so Obama and his liberal cheerleaders can't cite the War Powers Resolution on Libya. Obama just makes his own power up as he goes. At least Bush had to lie to get his war started. We have lost our senses since George W. Bush and his unconstitutional shenanigans and it's partisans on both sides of the political aisle that will ensure this illegality in our government continues. You don't care when Obama does it just like another load of nonchalant Americans didn't care when Bush did it. It's the collective enablers of these abuses of power that are the greatest threat to our security today. Obama should have been impeached, not reelected.

and he gets a free ride... a crazy carpet roller coaster ride

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This debate could go on forever. The problem is that it shouldn't. The focus has been put on 'guns' in the recent media. Guns are inanimate objects. Freedom is not. The United States won it's independance at a cost..and that cost was great. The second amendment was established to allow a nation to protect itself from a government that would no longer be accountable to it's citizens...to have free reign to do as it will. I believe we, as a nation, fought to free ourselves from that same oppression at one time...and today..different political parties and belief systems argue against that right? The argument really is not about guns..it is about the right to bear them...and once that right is gone or regulated..what is next? Will 'mother' tell you what socks you are allowed to wear? Or perhaps tell you that you can no longer think for yourselves..because 'your' thinking is 'harmful' based on some politicians view of the world? Freedom...to be honest is an illusion..there are only a few that are truly free..and only a few left to see the hazards of letting someone else make your choices for you..for your own 'protection'. ...Scary world we live in these days.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was unconstitutional.

It was regulated by law. The war powers act. Therefore legal and not impeachable. If you don't like the war powers act, you can certainly attempt to get congress to change it. Write to your senators. You must understand that laws passed by Congress are constitutional, legal and not impeachable offenses. They can be repealed, superceded, ignored (by government) or declared unconstitutional by the highest court. But you saying so, doesn't make it so, or impeachable.

The War Powers Resolution of 1973 (50 U.S.C. 1541-1548)[1] is a federal law intended to check the President's power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of Congress. The resolution was adopted in the form of a United States Congress joint resolution; this provides that the President can send U.S. armed forces into action abroad only by authorization of Congress or in case of "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces."

The War Powers Resolution requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action and forbids armed forces from remaining for more than 60 days, with a further 30 day withdrawal period, without an authorization of the use of military force or a declaration of war. The resolution was passed by two-thirds of Congress, overriding a presidential veto.

In this decade, it has become somewhat anachronistic. Wars with "major" hostilities can be fought in days. Such was the case in Libya, Congress was notified, and the US turned over control to NATA and scaled down it's efforts after 60 days. Most presidents feel that the War Powers act is unconstitutional. But it's law and they need to abide by it. For the most part the Obama administration did that.

I can see the need for the ability of the president to act in a time of need, by the time congress declares war, it would be over. On the other hand you don't want the president to be starting wars all over the place without congress. The War Powers act should probably be updated.

But again nothing impeachable. Care to try for round two?

Edited by ninjadude

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was regulated by law. The war powers act. Therefore legal and not impeachable. If you don't like the war powers act, you can certainly attempt to get congress to change it. Write to your senators. You must understand that laws passed by Congress are constitutional, legal and not impeachable offenses. They can be repealed, superceded, ignored (by government) or declared unconstitutional by the highest court. But you saying so, doesn't make it so, or impeachable.

In this decade, it has become somewhat anachronistic. Wars with "major" hostilities can be fought in days. Such was the case in Libya, Congress was notified, and the US turned over control to NATA and scaled down it's efforts after 60 days. Most presidents feel that the War Powers act is unconstitutional. But it's law and they need to abide by it. For the most part the Obama administration did that.

I can see the need for the ability of the president to act in a time of need, by the time congress declares war, it would be over. On the other hand you don't want the president to be starting wars all over the place without congress. The War Powers act should probably be updated.

But again nothing impeachable. Care to try for round two?

Obama should have had his feet held to the fire over the letter of that law. Libya was not about to attack the United States. You need to acknowledge that fact and if you can't even do that, we're done here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here Rand Paul grills Secretary of State nominee John Cambodia Kerry about exactly what I'm talking about. I can't believe I actually voted for this person.

And what do we find out from the grilling? That John Kerry doesn't support the Constitution. He supports Ronald Reagan instead. And George Bush. And Bill Clinton. And the tradition in recent history of violating the Constitution and apparently thinks that even Libya was an important enough reason to do so. This is absolutely unacceptable. Kerry is a shill and Barack Obama is a contemptible tool for the establishment for tapping him.

When asked to differentiate Cambodia from Libya, he explains that Cambodia was different from Libya because it was an extension of another war, as opposed to, apparently, the standalone war that Libya was. Great kool aid John. Tastes like treason.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I left an important piece of his explanation out. To finish explaining Kerry's distinction between Cambodia and Libya, Kerry mentioned that Cambodia was different than Libya because it was an extension of another war that was being waged without the Congress over "a number of years", which means that our rule of law is dependent, according to John Kerry, on how much time the violation continues, and whether that length of time feels excessive or not, to John Kerry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

they were different. Anyone can read history and know that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They were different as peas and carrots. Same veggie group. Lets sit down and tell a veggie tale now NinjaDude or show some shred of fact in your posts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Military action

they were different. Anyone can read history and know that.

All the aforementioned cases, from Grenada to Panama to Laos to Cambodia to Libya, are unilateral military actions started by a President without the Congress.

Clinton bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan; he should have been impeached over that, not Monica Lewinsky. When these out of control executives get a clue in their heads by their predecessor getting impeached for this kind of illegal activity, we can put a stop to this crap before the next republican party President you happen to have a partisan problem with keeps carrying on the tradition and attacking God knows who. How lost in the illegal wilderness are we anymore that we're going to give our Presidents cart blanch to attack whoever they want?

I wouldn't vote for this hypocrite John Kerry unless it was to give him a pink slip on his desk.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.