Who Wants Obama to Fail?

Obama came to power via fraud. He is not a natural born U.S. citizen. The clear proof of that is that, despite 31 lawsuits filed against him demanding he prove his eligibility for the U.S. Presidency, he has instead hired three law firms and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid discovery and evade a judicial review.

The result is that not one of these 31 cases received a hearing on its merits. But why is it that judges have been unwilling to tackle Obama’s eligibility problem?

The answer is that most now suspect Obama is not eligible and are afraid of the political chaos that would result from such a discovery. They are afraid of what his supporters would do. They know that if they overturn Obama’s presidency, his millions of fans will turn American cities into warzones.

Many people in the mainstream media also suspect that Obama is not eligible. Why are they not speaking out? It is because they know that if they do, they would be harassed by Obama’s fans and perhaps lose their jobs.

The latest news about Obama comes from the New York Times, which reports that Obama wants to:

“…transform the YouTubing-Facebooking-texting-Twittering grass-roots organization that put him in the White House into an instrument of government. That is something that Mr. Obama, who began his career as a community organizer, told aides was a top priority, even before he was elected.”

This means any time Obama makes a decision and faces opposition, he will appeal to his “Twittering grass-roots organization” (a.k.a. the mobile vulgus) to inundate lawmakers with e-mails, phone calls, even threats, in order to intimidate them into compliance and submission to his decisions.

This is not how democracy works. This is the tyranny of majority. This is the definition of mobocracy. It is the recipe for dictatorship.

Funny I actually found it through the profile of a dark skinned man off another bodybuilding site.

Got all this from this interesting read.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200902023542/editorial/obama-and-the-birth-of-mobocracy-in-america.html

[quote]pat wrote:
lixy wrote:
Absolutely!

Then, maybe the US will stop handing out billions each year and its army will get out of the hundreds of military bases it has on muslim soil.

Here fixed it for ya, bin laden.[/quote]

HA ha ha! That’s funny.

I’ll give him credit. He promised during the campaign that he would “fundamentally change” the united states. He is keeping his word.

Those of us who judge politicians by their records regardless of what they say during these utterly meaningless campaigns were screaming from the rooftops that what he meant by this was to astronomically expand an already out of control government which by stark definition also translates into further stifling of individual liberties.

In other words he would blatantly and boldly, especially with these assholes who would now be controlling the house and senate, steer this country headlong into the jaws of the very ideology she pent 50 years fighting the cold war to defeat.

Welcome to the Obama administration. The unholy trinity of Barack, Nancy and Harry.

I want him and them to fail in their mission. The genius of the United States was, and I reiterate, was, the exact diametric opposite of what these domestic enemies are perpetrating upon this nation. The spirit of our founding fathers can be neatly summed up in the constitutional phrase [quote]CONGRESS SHALL NOT[/quote]

They were all about limited government and empowered individual citizens. How anyone can say America and anything we’re seeing today in the same sentence is beyond me.

In a way, Obama is ‘stimulating’ the culmination of 70 years of debt creation. We built our economy on ever-increasing debt. That economy has now reached its limit. There is truly nothing anyone can do to stop this train wreck from happening.

The economy will simply implode, the currency will become worthless, and a new currency (enforced at gunpoint) will be introduced. Welcome to the New World Order.

[quote]Carlitosway wrote:
Obama came to power via fraud. He is not a natural born U.S. citizen. The clear proof of that is that, despite 31 lawsuits filed against him demanding he prove his eligibility for the U.S. Presidency, he has instead hired three law firms and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid discovery and evade a judicial review.

The result is that not one of these 31 cases received a hearing on its merits. But why is it that judges have been unwilling to tackle Obama’s eligibility problem?

The answer is that most now suspect Obama is not eligible and are afraid of the political chaos that would result from such a discovery. They are afraid of what his supporters would do. They know that if they overturn Obama’s presidency, his millions of fans will turn American cities into warzones.

Many people in the mainstream media also suspect that Obama is not eligible. Why are they not speaking out? It is because they know that if they do, they would be harassed by Obama’s fans and perhaps lose their jobs.

The latest news about Obama comes from the New York Times, which reports that Obama wants to:

“…transform the YouTubing-Facebooking-texting-Twittering grass-roots organization that put him in the White House into an instrument of government. That is something that Mr. Obama, who began his career as a community organizer, told aides was a top priority, even before he was elected.”

This means any time Obama makes a decision and faces opposition, he will appeal to his “Twittering grass-roots organization” (a.k.a. the mobile vulgus) to inundate lawmakers with e-mails, phone calls, even threats, in order to intimidate them into compliance and submission to his decisions.

This is not how democracy works. This is the tyranny of majority. This is the definition of mobocracy. It is the recipe for dictatorship.

Funny I actually found it through the profile of a dark skinned man off another bodybuilding site.

Got all this from this interesting read.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200902023542/editorial/obama-and-the-birth-of-mobocracy-in-america.html
[/quote]
Another Kook. Great.

[quote]100meters wrote:
Carlitosway wrote:
Obama came to power via fraud. He is not a natural born U.S. citizen. The clear proof of that is that, despite 31 lawsuits filed against him demanding he prove his eligibility for the U.S. Presidency, he has instead hired three law firms and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid discovery and evade a judicial review.

The result is that not one of these 31 cases received a hearing on its merits. But why is it that judges have been unwilling to tackle Obama’s eligibility problem?

The answer is that most now suspect Obama is not eligible and are afraid of the political chaos that would result from such a discovery. They are afraid of what his supporters would do. They know that if they overturn Obama’s presidency, his millions of fans will turn American cities into warzones.

Many people in the mainstream media also suspect that Obama is not eligible. Why are they not speaking out? It is because they know that if they do, they would be harassed by Obama’s fans and perhaps lose their jobs.

The latest news about Obama comes from the New York Times, which reports that Obama wants to:

“…transform the YouTubing-Facebooking-texting-Twittering grass-roots organization that put him in the White House into an instrument of government. That is something that Mr. Obama, who began his career as a community organizer, told aides was a top priority, even before he was elected.”

This means any time Obama makes a decision and faces opposition, he will appeal to his “Twittering grass-roots organization” (a.k.a. the mobile vulgus) to inundate lawmakers with e-mails, phone calls, even threats, in order to intimidate them into compliance and submission to his decisions.

This is not how democracy works. This is the tyranny of majority. This is the definition of mobocracy. It is the recipe for dictatorship.

Funny I actually found it through the profile of a dark skinned man off another bodybuilding site.

Got all this from this interesting read.

http://www.rightsidenews.com/200902023542/editorial/obama-and-the-birth-of-mobocracy-in-america.html

Another Kook. Great.
[/quote]

Just because it’s a biased source doesn’t mean it’s automatically untrue. Just means it’s a biased source that demands grains of salt (or more) when listening to. Of course, given your choice of links, you have your own share of biased sources to dig from. But of course, you won’t recognize anything like that as biased. He has a history of making good use of the internet and twitter. This could work for him.

[quote]Carlitosway wrote:
This is not how democracy works. This is the tyranny of majority. This is the definition of mobocracy. It is the recipe for dictatorship.

[/quote]

I defy anyone to draw a compelling distinction between the terms “democracy”, “mobocracy” and “tyranny of the majority.”

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
–Thomas Jefferson

“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.”
–Aristotle

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Carlitosway wrote:
This is not how democracy works. This is the tyranny of majority. This is the definition of mobocracy. It is the recipe for dictatorship.

I defy anyone to draw a compelling distinction between the terms “democracy”, “mobocracy” and “tyranny of the majority.”

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
–Thomas Jefferson

“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.”
–Aristotle
[/quote]

This is precisly why we have a constitution. Or should I say had a constitution?

[quote]100meters wrote:
Another Kook. Great.
[/quote]
You calling me a kook or the Dr that wrote that article? I just read that today and thought it was an interesting read like I said.

When it comes to politics I’m in the middle of things, I just don’t know what to believe in now-a-days.

[quote]100meters wrote:
<<< Another Kook. Great.
[/quote]

What kept you? I was beginning to worry.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Carlitosway wrote:
This is not how democracy works. This is the tyranny of majority. This is the definition of mobocracy. It is the recipe for dictatorship.

I defy anyone to draw a compelling distinction between the terms “democracy”, “mobocracy” and “tyranny of the majority.”

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”
–Thomas Jefferson

“Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny.”
–Aristotle
[/quote]

Which is why our founders chose a representative republican form of democracy. A form which is rendered dysfunctional in direct proportion to the expansion of the intrusiveness size of the government administrating it.

Their vision depended fully on the overwhelmingly vast majority of the citizens being self sufficient and largely self governing. That was the point. That’s what’s been lost. Witness the results.

I hate reading this thread. This is a damn un-american load of shit.

Gearge W Bush was our president and though I didn’t entirely agree with his agenda, I worked on it in hopes that it would suceed. Even against odds I hope to find a stable democracy in Iraq in the future and that his beliefs that this will have a stabilizing effect on the region are right.

Obama is our president now and although I don’t agree with all his agenda I will work hard on it in hopes that it will succeed in leading this country to a time of prosperity.

Too hope for you president to fail is un-american.

[quote]Carlitosway wrote:
100meters wrote:
Another Kook. Great.

You calling me a kook or the Dr that wrote that article? I just read that today and thought it was an interesting read like I said.

When it comes to politics I’m in the middle of things, I just don’t know what to believe in now-a-days.

[/quote]

LOL.

Culture of conspiracy: the Birthers

Bill Clinton had the Vince Foster “murder.” George W. Bush had 9/11 Truth. And the new administration has brought with it a new culture of conspiracy: The Birthers.

Out of the gaze of the mainstream and even the conservative media is a flourishing culture of advocates, theorists and lawyers, all devoted to proving that Barack Obama isn’t eligible to be president of the United States. Viewed as irrelevant by the White House, and as embarrassing by much of the Republican Party, the subculture still thrives from the conservative website WorldNetDaily, which claims that some 300,000 people have signed a petition demanding more information on Obama’s birth, to Cullman, Alabama, where Sen. Richard Shelby took a question on the subject at a town hall meeting last week.

Their confinement to the fringe hasn’t cooled the passion of believers; the obscure New York preacher James Manning turned up at a National Press Club session in December to declare the president “the most notorious criminal in the history not just of America, but of this entire planet.”

A quick reality check, before we dive in: The challenges to Obama’s eligibility have no grounding in evidence. Courts across the country have summarily rejected the movement’s theory ? that Obama can’t be a citizen because his father wasn’t ?as a misreading of U.S. law; and Hawaii officials, along with contemporary birth announcements, affirm that Obama was in fact born in Honolulu in 1961.

The conservative talk show host Michael Medved recently referred to the movement’s leaders as “crazy, nutburger, demagogue, money-hungry, exploitative, irresponsible, filthy conservative imposters” who are “the worst enemy of the conservative movement.”

“It makes us look weird. It makes us look crazy. It makes us look demented. It makes us look sick, troubled, and not suitable for civilized company,” he mourned.

Much more…

[/i]

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
Too hope for you president to fail is un-american.[/quote]

Unless, of course, one happens to believe that the president in question has an agenda that runs contrary to the principles of the United States Constitution.

In which case, hoping for him to fail in prosecuting this agenda would be un-un-American.

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
BigJawnMize wrote:
Too hope for you president to fail is un-american.

Unless, of course, one happens to believe that the president in question has an agenda that runs contrary to the principles of the United States Constitution.

In which case, hoping for him to fail in prosecuting this agenda would be un-un-American.[/quote]

Perhaps. But as I said you don’t have to agree with everything that your president pursues in his agenda. Discourse and disagreement is healthy in a democracy. I personally don’t agree with many of the provisions in the Patirot Act in regard to domestic wire-tapping, but that didn’t stop me as a government employee from trying to do more with less so that the war was able to be funded. I personally don’t agree with all the money that is being thrown at AIG and Citi, but I am working on other parts of the presidents agenda trying to make those items work.

This is about the big picture. Obama’s firt major challenge as president is a whopper. He is swimming in uncharted waters and frankly he might fail, but that doesn’t stop me from working as hard as I can on the things I can influence in hopes that it will have a positive impact on whole of the country.

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
Perhaps. But as I said you don’t have to agree with everything that your president pursues in his agenda. Discourse and disagreement is healthy in a democracy. I personally don’t agree with many of the provisions in the Patirot Act in regard to domestic wire-tapping, but that didn’t stop me as a government employee from trying to do more with less so that the war was able to be funded. I personally don’t agree with all the money that is being thrown at AIG and Citi, but I am working on other parts of the presidents agenda trying to make those items work. [/quote]

That makes you a drone. A sell-out. A hypocrite. Etc.

With your line of reasoning, you could have been one of those sticking Jews in ovens and calling it patriotism.

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
Varqanir wrote:
BigJawnMize wrote:
Too hope for you president to fail is un-american.

Unless, of course, one happens to believe that the president in question has an agenda that runs contrary to the principles of the United States Constitution.

In which case, hoping for him to fail in prosecuting this agenda would be un-un-American.

Perhaps. But as I said you don’t have to agree with everything that your president pursues in his agenda. Discourse and disagreement is healthy in a democracy. I personally don’t agree with many of the provisions in the Patirot Act in regard to domestic wire-tapping, but that didn’t stop me as a government employee from trying to do more with less so that the war was able to be funded. I personally don’t agree with all the money that is being thrown at AIG and Citi, but I am working on other parts of the presidents agenda trying to make those items work.

This is about the big picture. Obama’s firt major challenge as president is a whopper. He is swimming in uncharted waters and frankly he might fail, but that doesn’t stop me from working as hard as I can on the things I can influence in hopes that it will have a positive impact on whole of the country. [/quote]

I appreciate your viewpoint. But, if his name was President lenin, would you feel the same?

Many of us feel that the Administration with their, “Never let a crisis go to waste” is trying to convert our great land to socialism.

No matter his position, I cannot support that movement nor taking advantage of the crisis in this manner.

JeffR

[quote]lixy wrote:

That makes you a drone. A sell-out. A hypocrite. Etc.

With your line of reasoning, you could have been one of those sticking Jews in ovens and calling it patriotism.[/quote]

You are correct, I am a sell-out to the constitution of the USA. I truly believe in it even though it is attacked on the edges occasionally. I actually have the oath on my desk where I swore to uphold it.

But, Wow!!! I mean…Just ratchet it up to the most extreme example. I personally would have a hard time tossing another human being in an oven. But for example what if I had been working in another part of Hitlers government in something that I thought was a worthwhile pursuit, really how different is it from me working for the Bush goverment and its fuzzy interpetation of torture that led to Abu Grad (sp?).

Germany under Hitler and the USA under Bush/Obama are entirely different places. I fully believe in the power of the judicial branch to check the power of the executive branch when it sees fit. I personaly wish we had one branch of government under Republican control to aid in the balance of power. Hitler had near absolute power–the president doesn’t.

Again though it is un-american to want your president to fail. It is not un-american to disagree with him. And it is patriotic if you disagree with him to work to have him voted out of power.

[quote]Jeff R wrote:

I appreciate your viewpoint. But, if his name was President lenin, would you feel the same?

Many of us feel that the Administration with their, “Never let a crisis go to waste” is trying to convert our great land to socialism.

No matter his position, I cannot support that movement nor taking advantage of the crisis in this manner.

JeffR
[/quote]

JeffR

I don’t disagree. But Obama is learning from the master that preceded him. Bush used the attacks on 911 to advance his agenda in Iraq which was really just periphery to the war on terror. Bush was very good at this, he coined it shock and awe.

On the Lenin comment, again it is the constitution and its checks and balances that I hope will be preserved. If you want you could make the example more current–how about Putin. It is easy to say that you would revolt against Putin, but what if you have never known a different life. Life under Putin might be better than life under Gorby. So what foundation do you have for revolt.

[quote]BigJawnMize wrote:
I hate reading this thread. This is a damn un-american load of shit.

Gearge W Bush was our president and though I didn’t entirely agree with his agenda, I worked on it in hopes that it would suceed. Even against odds I hope to find a stable democracy in Iraq in the future and that his beliefs that this will have a stabilizing effect on the region are right.

Obama is our president now and although I don’t agree with all his agenda I will work hard on it in hopes that it will succeed in leading this country to a time of prosperity.

Too hope for you president to fail is un-american.[/quote]

Really?

Then look up some newspapers from around 1800 or so.

Hoping that your president fucks up is a proud and longstanding American tradition.