This is a conversation that's been going on for a few days now. The whole thing started with what I thought was a pretty reasonable status messge. No big deal. At this point I'm pretty much done, but it's been an entertaining time. The best part, to me, is that he doesn't realize just how much he's deluding himself. He starts out trying to sound reasonable, but that devolves rapidly. He deleted one message about halfway through where he tells me that he'll pray to his god that I don't get incarcerated into a "FEMA REEDUCATION CAMP".
ME - I have a hard time understanding the fear of Obama that pervades the 'i didn't vote for him' crowd. Reminds me of the same terror from the left during the bush administration, but this time it makes even less sense. I mean, the guy is pretty centrist and has been pissing off his base because he's not liberal enough in action... WTF conservatives? Is this a joke?
Sun at 10:15am via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like
David - i don't like obama, and no i didn't vote for him, but i wouldn't say every one who wants him out is afraid of him. i have a problem with the way he is superseding and bypassing law because of the cult of personality he has built up around himself. with the minority populace complacent (because he's supposed to be one of us) his financial handlers (whom, by the way, are all tied to off shore and out-of-country banking consortiums) have been given free passes to continue to destroy the U.S. economy. in my opinion, he's no better than bush and is probably working for the same people and same end result. the weakening of the united states financially and militarily in the eyes of the rest of the world. it was illegal for him to accept his position as head of the UN, and highly suspect when in the works is a UN martial plan for the disarming and subjugation of the US. not every one in the US wants global influence on a local level. global governance at this point would further disrupt what possibility we have for any recovery we could make from both the bush and clinton eras.
Sun at 11:24am · Delete
David - and i hate fox news.
Sun at 11:26am · Delete
FriendJENNY -I really tried to not comment on above statement, but I just couldn't stop myself.
He took a UN position as head of security council for one month. Last time I checked, the UN was located in manhatten and was not a foreign state. IMO, it's ABOUT TIME we have a president that's interested and willing TO TALK about nuclear proliferation and disarmament.
Words like probably often fit with fiction.
Sun at 1:44pm · Delete
David - one month or a year, it is still illegal. and yes, it is considered a separate governing state. read the charter. how else would they be able to legally field an armed military force? and nuclear proliferation should be stopped, yes! but what does that have to do with his not only continuing the warrant-less wire taps, but expanded it to include a... Read More
Sun at 2:16pm · Delete
David - and that is still not addressing the fact that members of his cabinet are former CEO's, banking and Wall St. oligarchs who's companies are part of the reason for the economic downturn and some of the biggest recipients from the so called bailouts. and why are those same companies refusing or have curiously lost record of where said money went? but they are his top officials, right?
Sun at 2:24pm · Delete
FriendJENNY ...I did read the charter.
Sun at 3:16pm · Delete
ME - I really don't have much time to address your comments right now David, but this is what my thoughts boil down to: whoevers koolaid you drank was spiked with so much bullshit I can smell it from 275. I'll be on later, and I hope you have sources which don't include free republic forum trolls.
Sun at 3:16pm · Delete
David - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8
Document 6
Records of the Federal Convention
[2:183; Madison, 6 Aug.]
Sect. 7. The United States shall not grant any title of nobility.
[2:389; Madison, 23 Aug.]
On the question to agree to Art. VII--sect. 7. as reported It passed nem: contrad:
Mr Pinkney urged the necessity of preserving foreign Ministers & other officers of the U. S. independent of external influence and moved to insert--after Art VII sect 7. the clause following--"No person holding any office of profit or trust under the U. S. shall without the consent of the Legislature, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State which passed nem: contrad.
[2:572, 596; Committee of Style]
Sect. 7. The United States shall not grant any title of nobility. No person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, shall without the consent of the Legislature accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign State.
(f) No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
directly taken from the now defunct U.S. Constitution...
Sun at 4:18pm · Delete
ME - Your assumption is invalid. The UN is not considered a foreign nation. Positions held are not in violation of any law. This has been affirmed over and over again. If there was any illegal action you can be sure that lawsuit after lawsuit would be flying.
I respect that you looked it up, but you need to learn more about how the law works and how we deal with and classify the UN (which is a charter body and not a political or sovereign entity).
Sun at 4:22pm · Delete
David - so al jazeera, bbc, reuters and ap are republican forums for trolls? come on man. give me more credit than that. i get my news directlt from real news sources. i'm fighting the same fat cat heirloom trustfundians you are. who did geithner work for? rahm emanuel is a known mossad asset. you know i believe in the sovereignty and strength of Israel, ... Read More
Sun at 4:32pm · Delete
ME - You're moving the goalposts and missing the issue. He isn't in violation of the law. Or is he?
Political discussions about fat cats or whatever are fun and fine. I'll participate in those- but we need to start with your premise about the un. You were completely off base in your interpretation of the law. Until you get past that, I can't believe we can find any common ground or have a meaningful debate.
Sun at 4:38pm · Delete
David - 1. The United Nations is a Global -- for profit -- Corporation.
2. The U.S. Government, Inc. has NO Constitutional authority to enter into treaties with corporations, organizations or associations.
3. No prob. On March 19, 1970, the U.S. Senate passed/ratified? a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation.
Sun at 4:38pm · Delete
ME - You're moving the goalposts and missing the issue. He isn't in violation of the law. Or is he?
Political discussions about fat cats or whatever are fun and fine. I'll participate in those- but we need to start with your premise about the un. You were completely off base in your interpretation of the law. Until you get past that, I can't believe we can find any common ground or have a meaningful debate.
Sun at 4:38pm · Delete
David - UNITED NATIONS
TIAS 6900; 21 UST 1418
MULTILATERAL... Read More
Sun at 4:41pm · Delete
David - that was the u.s. senate ratification to recognize the u.n. as a sovereign government power.
Sun at 4:42pm · Delete
David - and my end of the argument was always that he over stepped his authority and is sabotaging the economy and security of our country. i can back up everything i say, man. your statement was that we conservatives had a fear of him. my point was that i don't fear him , i don't like him and i have valid reasoning.
Sun at 4:47pm · Delete
ME - You have every right to your opinion. I can tell you that you're in the factual wrong, but you can have that opinion all you want. If you WERE right, you would see the entire "tea party" movement jumping into court right now. The fact that NO lawyers are jumping in and having a field day with what you think is such a clear, cut and dried case should throw some alarms at your conclusion right away. You might want to rethink your logic on this one. Do some research on the rebuttal of your ideas- it's out there all over the place.
Sun at 9:25pm · Delete
David - ok, this is where i point out those posts i've pulled from real documents with all documentation and annotations that prove what i've said about the u.n. and the constitution in regards to obama and his position. and there are all kinds of lawyers in court with injunctions and dockets full of regulations that are being broken, but they aren't tied to the republican party- try libertarian. look at more than facebook. to bring up the tea parties, you have got to look past the glenn beck's douschebaggery to see the people who are not tied to right wing puppets. i've done research, have you? did you even read the posts from the documents i put right there? it's not an opinion when i can and have produced proof for my arguments and all those who oppose me can put out there is how wrong i am.
where is the paper work behind it? i didn't just pull these off some schmuck's site, it is DIRECTLY FROM THE HORSE'S ASS. that's like denying the tuskegee experiment wasn't government funded, and our government always has our best interests at heart. look up the ap reports about FEMA camps and how it is tied to the u.n. security counsel. you do some leg work to prove me wrong. not just say it, i put proof out there, you do the same.
and for the record, i do not drink fluoride laced koolaid; never have, never will.
Sun at 10:17pm · Delete
ME - U.S. Code Title 22, ch7, subch XVI, 287. Representation in an Organization, Item F.
"Nothing contained in this section shall reclude the President or the Secretary of State, at the direction of the President, from representing the United States at any meeting or session of any organ or agency of the United Nations."
U.S. Code Title 22c7xvi287. Representation in an Organization
"Neither the President nor the Secretary of State need Congressional approval in the appointing of themselves as an ex officio as representative of the United States in any organ, commission, or other body of the United Nations."
Are we done here? I read all of your arguments. I read the evidence- and then, intrigued by your evidence, I went farther. Google is a wonderful tool and can bring us all sorts of knowledge, but you also have to understand that even when it seems you have a solid legal conclusion, there are usually other intricacies that are missed. Your research was very solid- but you just stopped one step short. There is also precedent for this action- Al Gore took a similar temporary position as vp, for example.
Don't forget - you're talking about one of the single smartest constitutional lawyers in our country. Obama wouldn't screw this one up. Other things? Probably. Constitutional violations? Probably not so willingly (without precedent anyway).
Sun at 10:45pm · Delete
FriendJENNY There's no need to be snotty.
Ok, granted, I am not a UN scholar. However, to my knowledge, the UN is a governing body that is made up of sovereign states. If we're looking at sovereignty in it's truest sense- it's an independent ("free") state. I just read all your documentation.
Give me a day and I'll prove you wrong. count on it.
Sun at 10:46pm · Delete
ME - Too late ms Jenny.
Sun at 10:53pm · Delete
FriendJENNYI know, smartypants! It's ok, I'm willing to tail ride on this.
Sun at 10:58pm · Delete
David - good, at least this is now a debate about solid facts. i am actually out and about right now, but this is what was needed. it's not just constitutional violations, it's the laws being enacted on top of those that were put in place by bush and bush jr. which lets the president circumvent it entirely.i do want to continue this in a bit, i'm out on the east side right now, so further discussion will have to wait. out of curiosity, when was said law enacted?
Sun at 11:00pm · Delete
ME - Dave, I'm done here. I don't have time over the next few days to research obscure laws. Its really not fun in the least, and I have school and work which will take all of my brainpower. I am going to make it simple:
You can believe whatever you are going to believe. The one thing I hope you CAN take away from all of this is that when you come to what you think is an inescapable conclusion, you should take a minute to shake that belief to the core. Read the opposition. Read their opposition. Read the expert distillations. Avoid at all costs hyperbole and fear mongering.
And then, when you're sure you're right this time, understand that you're human and have biases and preconceptions. Relish being wrong and learning from mistakes- that's what makes us real.
Sun at 11:05pm · Delete
David - and if you read the posts, you guys were the ones coming across like you were looking down your noses at me in the "how dare you not like obama" type of way. i still have general concerns about the whole administrations, as is the duty of any real patriot who pays attention. i stuck up for the conservative side and was attacked for what i believed.
and without google, you would not have found said proof, i actually have those documents on file and in hard copy, among many i read on a consistent basis. can you say the same. i'm sure when i get home, i'll find something equally as valid for rebuttal, because i just feel that strongly about our government being held accountable that i do it for the passion of the body politic.
Sun at 11:15pm · Delete
ME - If I came across like I was looking down my nose at you then I apologize. That wasn't the intention.
I'm not going to sit here and play "find the resource". The two clauses j posted are the currently accepted legal status in practice in this country. They supercede everything you posted. Nothing has been written since that amends or removes those clauses from law, and there is no contradictory case history. J ran through findlaw to make sure.
Find another item to argue- but again, I don't have further time or energy to devote to it. And I am sorry, because it would be fun.
Sun at 11:21pm · Delete
ME - David
I am trying to be polite about this. I truly wasn't trying to be snotty in that last message either. Was just letting you know where I am coming from and the logic I used.
But... FEMA reeducation camps?? That is my cue to leave. I'm done with this conversation.
Have a good night.
Sun at 11:28pm · Delete
David - actually once i read the apology i deleted that last post which i put out about the same time you posted. sorry, again i felt the need to go on the defensive and may have spoke a bit too quickly and with out due consideration. i apologize. may we have better in depth discussions in the future.
Yesterday at 2:06am · Delete
ME - Do you really believe in such things as FEMA re-education camps, David? Yes, I know, that was in the deleted message you posted and therefore probably not fair game... but you REALLY believe in that stuff? Honestly?
Yesterday at 11:19am · Delete
David - go check out camp perry some time. really. people laugh it off, but the government is gearing up for something that will go against all freedoms we have enjoyed thus far. i have talked to so many of my friends in the military and law enforcement, and THEY are more worried than i am. and nothing is off limits with me if it warrants a valid debate.
10 hours ago · Delete
ME - I just googled camp perry, and came up with nothing. I'm not driving out there. If you have links of interest or reputable resources, I'll check them out. Anecdotal discussions with people who are in the military and law enforcement don't pass muster as reliable evidence, for me.
So, to re-ask the question, you REALLY believe that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, one of the absolutely most inefficiently run bureaucracies to have graced our planet with an absolute inability to get anything done without fubarring it, is actually somehow going to be running "re-education" camps without everyone finding out? really? that honestly passes the sniff test for you man?
And what are they "re-educating"?
"SIR, it has come to our attention that you wrote something ugly about Obama in a blog. Please take it back."
3 hours ago · Delete
David - first you'd have ask yourself "has our government ever placed it's own citizens in forced camps?" or "would the u.s. kill it's own"
to answer that all we need is look at history.
let's start with even eugenics and planned parenthood, a supposedly benevolent organization, right? founder margret sanger was a well publicized nazi sympathizer who wanted to sterilize non whites and jews here in the u.s. and got government sponsership to do so. i have family who survived the tuskegee experiment. you do know what that was? and where did she get her go ahead?
prescott bush helped her win support in the senate.
ah, prescott. g.w.'s grand dad, he worked directly under e. rowland harriman, part of brown brothers harriman. bbh was a financial wing for nazi germany here in the u.s. before and after ww2 all the way up to the mid fifties. g.h.w. bush got his start under his father's guidance. and no one has said anything about the experiments done on japanese internment camp prisoners. that's just a background on if they wanted to could they. now, for if they will, just look at how after katrina, they pushed for the militarization of fema. (speaking of katrina, i have an army corp of engineers officer who was in new orleans before and after the hurricane hit, he told me something that really pissed me off.) and you are forgetting that the patriot act makes it legal for them to enforce the draconian anti-dissent laws in a time of war. quantanimo for citizens instead of just for foreign combatants. do you think that we know about all of the u.s.'s political prisoners? i mean, people fool themselves into thinking it can't happen here, but that's because they haven't been paying attention to what laws have been put in place in the last 12 years.
40 minutes ago · Delete
ME - Interesting long chain of scary things which are basically connected by a common thread of fear for the government and very little else. Yes, I know all the stuff you talked about, and in another discussion I'll be happy to take on each item, but none of them have anything to do with your allegations of FEMA "re-education camps".
I'm waiting on any sort of real information about what you're talking about with these camps. Don't just throw unrelated conspiracies and allegations at it, either. Try for real evidence this time.
31 minutes ago · Delete
David - did you know we have foreign military bases here in the southern u.s.? russian, german, among a couple more. a curious talking point, yes, but think about if you had a job that you wanted done. you bought the equipment, got the licensing, about to start production and your workers don't believe in the project. what to do? how about grab some workers from outside the company and have them do it, cheaper and without any of the qualms or philosophical problems that your workers would have.
when they repealed posse comitatus, it made it legal. the at-will suspension of the constitution made legal by the patriot act adds power. having some one from czech republic here on a base willing to put a bullet in some u.s. citizen for a double cheeseburger and a pair of levi's makes it possible. gotta do more than google it. the internet is a tool and a toy, good for talking to people, but the truth is something you have got to find yourself out there. i've been out route 2 to camp perry a few times. they aren't gonna publicize or just put out there "hey, we're building a camp for all of you who don't like our policy!"
i hate to quote independence day, but you put all of your pieces into position and then, checkmate.
24 minutes ago · Delete
ME - David, this is all conjecture based on a prejudiced opinion. There is no actual evidence for you conclusion beyond a handful of concepts.
I'm done reading your posts at this point- it's all noise unless you have actual evidence, which you've systematically avoided giving.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I can't even begin to count the number of logical fallacies in your arguments- but go look up "moving the goalposts" for the most common one. Take some time to slow down and actually think harder about your premises - try to remember that humans have a natural tendency to see patterns where there are none. It's an evolutionary concept that we're stuck with, and it's a good part of the reason we see conspiracies.
Bring evidence, not track records. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother.
16 minutes ago · Delete
David - you want proof, follow who is funding what and where politicians get their support from and how long it's been happening. check on the rockefellers and rothschildes to start.
14 minutes ago · Delete
ME - No. I already told you, I'm not doing the research unless given compelling reasons. The rockefellers / rothschildes conspiracy theory is ancient and very thoroughly debunked. You're beginning to just sound like a garden-variety truther at this point. I was hoping for more.
The reason you're having so much trouble is because my standard of evidence is LOT higher than yours. I have a very tight threshold for bullshit.
You want conspiracies? The real ones ARE out there - but here's the hilarious part - they're ALWAYS exposed. ALWAYS. The US government is completely incompetent at keeping secrets. To even think that conspiracies on the scale you believe are even remotely possible means that you have to think that our government is actually CAPABLE of pulling it off - and it's NOT. Think of all the completely idiotic people at every level of the government, and then think about sites like WikiLeaks and all the 4chan / Anon hackers who get into government and corporate systems every day... and NOT ONE has brought any evidence?
Seriously man. Until you have evidence, don't bother me with this shit. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, so this is my last post on the matter until you bring EVIDENCE. Re-read my last post, where I talk about logical fallacies.
9 minutes ago · Delete
David - i've been giving you points for YOU to find the evidence for yourself since you don't accept my word. if you want government documents, you can't even provide them for your points how would you expect me to produce them? i do have some, but i do not put them out there, some of them have my name. you want to see them, see me. other than that, prejudiced opinion? NO ONE wanted a black president more than me... the word from the men who were there in some cases is good enough for me. you see, this is what i do. i see those people face to face that have something to say. i do more than google things and act like i know all because the internet told me it was so. point out the fallicies in the eugenics statements, bush's nazi ties, tuskegee or the fact that our government would do something as evil. i know you can google all of those things and they are just as i have said. and to say that none of that is related or relevant to current events is not only blissfully ignorant but full of wishful thinking, because history has already proven you wrong.
2 minutes ago · Delete
ME - "you can't even provide them for your points how would you expect me to produce them?"
You're the one making the claims. It's not up to me to find it for you.
Seriously, you're getting annoying man. Either produce evidence or don't.
about a minute ago · Delete
ME - I have a hard time understanding the fear of Obama that pervades the 'i didn't vote for him' crowd. Reminds me of the same terror from the left during the bush administration, but this time it makes even less sense. I mean, the guy is pretty centrist and has been pissing off his base because he's not liberal enough in action... WTF conservatives? Is this a joke?
Sun at 10:15am via Facebook for iPhone · Comment · Like
David - i don't like obama, and no i didn't vote for him, but i wouldn't say every one who wants him out is afraid of him. i have a problem with the way he is superseding and bypassing law because of the cult of personality he has built up around himself. with the minority populace complacent (because he's supposed to be one of us) his financial handlers (whom, by the way, are all tied to off shore and out-of-country banking consortiums) have been given free passes to continue to destroy the U.S. economy. in my opinion, he's no better than bush and is probably working for the same people and same end result. the weakening of the united states financially and militarily in the eyes of the rest of the world. it was illegal for him to accept his position as head of the UN, and highly suspect when in the works is a UN martial plan for the disarming and subjugation of the US. not every one in the US wants global influence on a local level. global governance at this point would further disrupt what possibility we have for any recovery we could make from both the bush and clinton eras.
Sun at 11:24am · Delete
David - and i hate fox news.
Sun at 11:26am · Delete
FriendJENNY -I really tried to not comment on above statement, but I just couldn't stop myself.
He took a UN position as head of security council for one month. Last time I checked, the UN was located in manhatten and was not a foreign state. IMO, it's ABOUT TIME we have a president that's interested and willing TO TALK about nuclear proliferation and disarmament.
Words like probably often fit with fiction.
Sun at 1:44pm · Delete
David - one month or a year, it is still illegal. and yes, it is considered a separate governing state. read the charter. how else would they be able to legally field an armed military force? and nuclear proliferation should be stopped, yes! but what does that have to do with his not only continuing the warrant-less wire taps, but expanded it to include a... Read More
Sun at 2:16pm · Delete
David - and that is still not addressing the fact that members of his cabinet are former CEO's, banking and Wall St. oligarchs who's companies are part of the reason for the economic downturn and some of the biggest recipients from the so called bailouts. and why are those same companies refusing or have curiously lost record of where said money went? but they are his top officials, right?
Sun at 2:24pm · Delete
FriendJENNY ...I did read the charter.
Sun at 3:16pm · Delete
ME - I really don't have much time to address your comments right now David, but this is what my thoughts boil down to: whoevers koolaid you drank was spiked with so much bullshit I can smell it from 275. I'll be on later, and I hope you have sources which don't include free republic forum trolls.
Sun at 3:16pm · Delete
David - Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8
Document 6
Records of the Federal Convention
[2:183; Madison, 6 Aug.]
Sect. 7. The United States shall not grant any title of nobility.
[2:389; Madison, 23 Aug.]
On the question to agree to Art. VII--sect. 7. as reported It passed nem: contrad:
Mr Pinkney urged the necessity of preserving foreign Ministers & other officers of the U. S. independent of external influence and moved to insert--after Art VII sect 7. the clause following--"No person holding any office of profit or trust under the U. S. shall without the consent of the Legislature, accept of any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State which passed nem: contrad.
[2:572, 596; Committee of Style]
Sect. 7. The United States shall not grant any title of nobility. No person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, shall without the consent of the Legislature accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign State.
(f) No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States. And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
directly taken from the now defunct U.S. Constitution...
Sun at 4:18pm · Delete
ME - Your assumption is invalid. The UN is not considered a foreign nation. Positions held are not in violation of any law. This has been affirmed over and over again. If there was any illegal action you can be sure that lawsuit after lawsuit would be flying.
I respect that you looked it up, but you need to learn more about how the law works and how we deal with and classify the UN (which is a charter body and not a political or sovereign entity).
Sun at 4:22pm · Delete
David - so al jazeera, bbc, reuters and ap are republican forums for trolls? come on man. give me more credit than that. i get my news directlt from real news sources. i'm fighting the same fat cat heirloom trustfundians you are. who did geithner work for? rahm emanuel is a known mossad asset. you know i believe in the sovereignty and strength of Israel, ... Read More
Sun at 4:32pm · Delete
ME - You're moving the goalposts and missing the issue. He isn't in violation of the law. Or is he?
Political discussions about fat cats or whatever are fun and fine. I'll participate in those- but we need to start with your premise about the un. You were completely off base in your interpretation of the law. Until you get past that, I can't believe we can find any common ground or have a meaningful debate.
Sun at 4:38pm · Delete
David - 1. The United Nations is a Global -- for profit -- Corporation.
2. The U.S. Government, Inc. has NO Constitutional authority to enter into treaties with corporations, organizations or associations.
3. No prob. On March 19, 1970, the U.S. Senate passed/ratified? a resolution recognizing the United Nations Organization as a sovereign nation.
Sun at 4:38pm · Delete
ME - You're moving the goalposts and missing the issue. He isn't in violation of the law. Or is he?
Political discussions about fat cats or whatever are fun and fine. I'll participate in those- but we need to start with your premise about the un. You were completely off base in your interpretation of the law. Until you get past that, I can't believe we can find any common ground or have a meaningful debate.
Sun at 4:38pm · Delete
David - UNITED NATIONS
TIAS 6900; 21 UST 1418
MULTILATERAL... Read More
Sun at 4:41pm · Delete
David - that was the u.s. senate ratification to recognize the u.n. as a sovereign government power.
Sun at 4:42pm · Delete
David - and my end of the argument was always that he over stepped his authority and is sabotaging the economy and security of our country. i can back up everything i say, man. your statement was that we conservatives had a fear of him. my point was that i don't fear him , i don't like him and i have valid reasoning.
Sun at 4:47pm · Delete
ME - You have every right to your opinion. I can tell you that you're in the factual wrong, but you can have that opinion all you want. If you WERE right, you would see the entire "tea party" movement jumping into court right now. The fact that NO lawyers are jumping in and having a field day with what you think is such a clear, cut and dried case should throw some alarms at your conclusion right away. You might want to rethink your logic on this one. Do some research on the rebuttal of your ideas- it's out there all over the place.
Sun at 9:25pm · Delete
David - ok, this is where i point out those posts i've pulled from real documents with all documentation and annotations that prove what i've said about the u.n. and the constitution in regards to obama and his position. and there are all kinds of lawyers in court with injunctions and dockets full of regulations that are being broken, but they aren't tied to the republican party- try libertarian. look at more than facebook. to bring up the tea parties, you have got to look past the glenn beck's douschebaggery to see the people who are not tied to right wing puppets. i've done research, have you? did you even read the posts from the documents i put right there? it's not an opinion when i can and have produced proof for my arguments and all those who oppose me can put out there is how wrong i am.
where is the paper work behind it? i didn't just pull these off some schmuck's site, it is DIRECTLY FROM THE HORSE'S ASS. that's like denying the tuskegee experiment wasn't government funded, and our government always has our best interests at heart. look up the ap reports about FEMA camps and how it is tied to the u.n. security counsel. you do some leg work to prove me wrong. not just say it, i put proof out there, you do the same.
and for the record, i do not drink fluoride laced koolaid; never have, never will.
Sun at 10:17pm · Delete
ME - U.S. Code Title 22, ch7, subch XVI, 287. Representation in an Organization, Item F.
"Nothing contained in this section shall reclude the President or the Secretary of State, at the direction of the President, from representing the United States at any meeting or session of any organ or agency of the United Nations."
U.S. Code Title 22c7xvi287. Representation in an Organization
"Neither the President nor the Secretary of State need Congressional approval in the appointing of themselves as an ex officio as representative of the United States in any organ, commission, or other body of the United Nations."
Are we done here? I read all of your arguments. I read the evidence- and then, intrigued by your evidence, I went farther. Google is a wonderful tool and can bring us all sorts of knowledge, but you also have to understand that even when it seems you have a solid legal conclusion, there are usually other intricacies that are missed. Your research was very solid- but you just stopped one step short. There is also precedent for this action- Al Gore took a similar temporary position as vp, for example.
Don't forget - you're talking about one of the single smartest constitutional lawyers in our country. Obama wouldn't screw this one up. Other things? Probably. Constitutional violations? Probably not so willingly (without precedent anyway).
Sun at 10:45pm · Delete
FriendJENNY There's no need to be snotty.
Ok, granted, I am not a UN scholar. However, to my knowledge, the UN is a governing body that is made up of sovereign states. If we're looking at sovereignty in it's truest sense- it's an independent ("free") state. I just read all your documentation.
Give me a day and I'll prove you wrong. count on it.
Sun at 10:46pm · Delete
ME - Too late ms Jenny.
Sun at 10:53pm · Delete
FriendJENNYI know, smartypants! It's ok, I'm willing to tail ride on this.
Sun at 10:58pm · Delete
David - good, at least this is now a debate about solid facts. i am actually out and about right now, but this is what was needed. it's not just constitutional violations, it's the laws being enacted on top of those that were put in place by bush and bush jr. which lets the president circumvent it entirely.i do want to continue this in a bit, i'm out on the east side right now, so further discussion will have to wait. out of curiosity, when was said law enacted?
Sun at 11:00pm · Delete
ME - Dave, I'm done here. I don't have time over the next few days to research obscure laws. Its really not fun in the least, and I have school and work which will take all of my brainpower. I am going to make it simple:
You can believe whatever you are going to believe. The one thing I hope you CAN take away from all of this is that when you come to what you think is an inescapable conclusion, you should take a minute to shake that belief to the core. Read the opposition. Read their opposition. Read the expert distillations. Avoid at all costs hyperbole and fear mongering.
And then, when you're sure you're right this time, understand that you're human and have biases and preconceptions. Relish being wrong and learning from mistakes- that's what makes us real.
Sun at 11:05pm · Delete
David - and if you read the posts, you guys were the ones coming across like you were looking down your noses at me in the "how dare you not like obama" type of way. i still have general concerns about the whole administrations, as is the duty of any real patriot who pays attention. i stuck up for the conservative side and was attacked for what i believed.
and without google, you would not have found said proof, i actually have those documents on file and in hard copy, among many i read on a consistent basis. can you say the same. i'm sure when i get home, i'll find something equally as valid for rebuttal, because i just feel that strongly about our government being held accountable that i do it for the passion of the body politic.
Sun at 11:15pm · Delete
ME - If I came across like I was looking down my nose at you then I apologize. That wasn't the intention.
I'm not going to sit here and play "find the resource". The two clauses j posted are the currently accepted legal status in practice in this country. They supercede everything you posted. Nothing has been written since that amends or removes those clauses from law, and there is no contradictory case history. J ran through findlaw to make sure.
Find another item to argue- but again, I don't have further time or energy to devote to it. And I am sorry, because it would be fun.
Sun at 11:21pm · Delete
ME - David
I am trying to be polite about this. I truly wasn't trying to be snotty in that last message either. Was just letting you know where I am coming from and the logic I used.
But... FEMA reeducation camps?? That is my cue to leave. I'm done with this conversation.
Have a good night.
Sun at 11:28pm · Delete
David - actually once i read the apology i deleted that last post which i put out about the same time you posted. sorry, again i felt the need to go on the defensive and may have spoke a bit too quickly and with out due consideration. i apologize. may we have better in depth discussions in the future.
Yesterday at 2:06am · Delete
ME - Do you really believe in such things as FEMA re-education camps, David? Yes, I know, that was in the deleted message you posted and therefore probably not fair game... but you REALLY believe in that stuff? Honestly?
Yesterday at 11:19am · Delete
David - go check out camp perry some time. really. people laugh it off, but the government is gearing up for something that will go against all freedoms we have enjoyed thus far. i have talked to so many of my friends in the military and law enforcement, and THEY are more worried than i am. and nothing is off limits with me if it warrants a valid debate.
10 hours ago · Delete
ME - I just googled camp perry, and came up with nothing. I'm not driving out there. If you have links of interest or reputable resources, I'll check them out. Anecdotal discussions with people who are in the military and law enforcement don't pass muster as reliable evidence, for me.
So, to re-ask the question, you REALLY believe that the Federal Emergency Management Agency, one of the absolutely most inefficiently run bureaucracies to have graced our planet with an absolute inability to get anything done without fubarring it, is actually somehow going to be running "re-education" camps without everyone finding out? really? that honestly passes the sniff test for you man?
And what are they "re-educating"?
"SIR, it has come to our attention that you wrote something ugly about Obama in a blog. Please take it back."
3 hours ago · Delete
David - first you'd have ask yourself "has our government ever placed it's own citizens in forced camps?" or "would the u.s. kill it's own"
to answer that all we need is look at history.
let's start with even eugenics and planned parenthood, a supposedly benevolent organization, right? founder margret sanger was a well publicized nazi sympathizer who wanted to sterilize non whites and jews here in the u.s. and got government sponsership to do so. i have family who survived the tuskegee experiment. you do know what that was? and where did she get her go ahead?
prescott bush helped her win support in the senate.
ah, prescott. g.w.'s grand dad, he worked directly under e. rowland harriman, part of brown brothers harriman. bbh was a financial wing for nazi germany here in the u.s. before and after ww2 all the way up to the mid fifties. g.h.w. bush got his start under his father's guidance. and no one has said anything about the experiments done on japanese internment camp prisoners. that's just a background on if they wanted to could they. now, for if they will, just look at how after katrina, they pushed for the militarization of fema. (speaking of katrina, i have an army corp of engineers officer who was in new orleans before and after the hurricane hit, he told me something that really pissed me off.) and you are forgetting that the patriot act makes it legal for them to enforce the draconian anti-dissent laws in a time of war. quantanimo for citizens instead of just for foreign combatants. do you think that we know about all of the u.s.'s political prisoners? i mean, people fool themselves into thinking it can't happen here, but that's because they haven't been paying attention to what laws have been put in place in the last 12 years.
40 minutes ago · Delete
ME - Interesting long chain of scary things which are basically connected by a common thread of fear for the government and very little else. Yes, I know all the stuff you talked about, and in another discussion I'll be happy to take on each item, but none of them have anything to do with your allegations of FEMA "re-education camps".
I'm waiting on any sort of real information about what you're talking about with these camps. Don't just throw unrelated conspiracies and allegations at it, either. Try for real evidence this time.
31 minutes ago · Delete
David - did you know we have foreign military bases here in the southern u.s.? russian, german, among a couple more. a curious talking point, yes, but think about if you had a job that you wanted done. you bought the equipment, got the licensing, about to start production and your workers don't believe in the project. what to do? how about grab some workers from outside the company and have them do it, cheaper and without any of the qualms or philosophical problems that your workers would have.
when they repealed posse comitatus, it made it legal. the at-will suspension of the constitution made legal by the patriot act adds power. having some one from czech republic here on a base willing to put a bullet in some u.s. citizen for a double cheeseburger and a pair of levi's makes it possible. gotta do more than google it. the internet is a tool and a toy, good for talking to people, but the truth is something you have got to find yourself out there. i've been out route 2 to camp perry a few times. they aren't gonna publicize or just put out there "hey, we're building a camp for all of you who don't like our policy!"
i hate to quote independence day, but you put all of your pieces into position and then, checkmate.
24 minutes ago · Delete
ME - David, this is all conjecture based on a prejudiced opinion. There is no actual evidence for you conclusion beyond a handful of concepts.
I'm done reading your posts at this point- it's all noise unless you have actual evidence, which you've systematically avoided giving.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I can't even begin to count the number of logical fallacies in your arguments- but go look up "moving the goalposts" for the most common one. Take some time to slow down and actually think harder about your premises - try to remember that humans have a natural tendency to see patterns where there are none. It's an evolutionary concept that we're stuck with, and it's a good part of the reason we see conspiracies.
Bring evidence, not track records. If you can't tell the difference, don't bother.
16 minutes ago · Delete
David - you want proof, follow who is funding what and where politicians get their support from and how long it's been happening. check on the rockefellers and rothschildes to start.
14 minutes ago · Delete
ME - No. I already told you, I'm not doing the research unless given compelling reasons. The rockefellers / rothschildes conspiracy theory is ancient and very thoroughly debunked. You're beginning to just sound like a garden-variety truther at this point. I was hoping for more.
The reason you're having so much trouble is because my standard of evidence is LOT higher than yours. I have a very tight threshold for bullshit.
You want conspiracies? The real ones ARE out there - but here's the hilarious part - they're ALWAYS exposed. ALWAYS. The US government is completely incompetent at keeping secrets. To even think that conspiracies on the scale you believe are even remotely possible means that you have to think that our government is actually CAPABLE of pulling it off - and it's NOT. Think of all the completely idiotic people at every level of the government, and then think about sites like WikiLeaks and all the 4chan / Anon hackers who get into government and corporate systems every day... and NOT ONE has brought any evidence?
Seriously man. Until you have evidence, don't bother me with this shit. I feel like I'm repeating myself a lot here, so this is my last post on the matter until you bring EVIDENCE. Re-read my last post, where I talk about logical fallacies.
9 minutes ago · Delete
David - i've been giving you points for YOU to find the evidence for yourself since you don't accept my word. if you want government documents, you can't even provide them for your points how would you expect me to produce them? i do have some, but i do not put them out there, some of them have my name. you want to see them, see me. other than that, prejudiced opinion? NO ONE wanted a black president more than me... the word from the men who were there in some cases is good enough for me. you see, this is what i do. i see those people face to face that have something to say. i do more than google things and act like i know all because the internet told me it was so. point out the fallicies in the eugenics statements, bush's nazi ties, tuskegee or the fact that our government would do something as evil. i know you can google all of those things and they are just as i have said. and to say that none of that is related or relevant to current events is not only blissfully ignorant but full of wishful thinking, because history has already proven you wrong.
2 minutes ago · Delete
ME - "you can't even provide them for your points how would you expect me to produce them?"
You're the one making the claims. It's not up to me to find it for you.
Seriously, you're getting annoying man. Either produce evidence or don't.
about a minute ago · Delete
Last edited:
