As far as I'm concerned there is no "lesser of two evils" when it comes to Obama and Romney, you pick a poison and no matter what the result is we are ultimately screwed. The Obama pick would just turn the U.S. into a European like Economy where gas will probably go over $4 a gallon.
I'm confused here. What exactly about Obama would turn us into a 'European like Economy', and why is that a bad thing? How would he do that all by himself? How would anything he could do influence Gas Prices?
So what If it's ran by religious beliefs, religions and non-religions like athiesm can co-exist with one another although it seems like athiests have a hard time respecting other people's religious beliefs. Sure they have every right not to go by it but at least don't disrespect them for it. I think it all comes down to religious consequence and the fear of the unknown for why religious people refuse to give up their own religion.
What does this even mean?
What exactly are 'atheists' doing, all 8% of them, that make it hard to coexist? Asking that your religion not be rubbed in their face every few seconds? Asking that Christianity not be assumed as the default position for every American? No one has a problem with Christians following their beliefs. What those of us outside the Christian camp (I'm agnostic, my fiance is Hindu) would appreciate is the recognition that we don't believe in the Christian dogma and do not want it be legislated as law. If your church doesn't want to marry Gays, that's fine. You can believe whatever you want, I really don't care unless it affects me. But the government needs to be distanced from religion because not everyone is Christian, and to apply Christian morals and standards to the entire country in legal form is tyrannical. The mosque that had an impossible time getting built in TN is a perfect example of what is horrific about a homogeneous country for those that are different. It's amazing how many 'Christians' will howl about the war on their religion, while making damn sure any religion they don't like is impeded as much as possible (I put 'Christians' in quotation marks because I'm referring to hypocrites here).
I don't disrespect Christians, I disrespect Christians who are ignorant and don't put their faith where their actions are. I LOVE Christian charitable organizations. They are great, even if I disagree with their beliefs, and disaster response in this country would be impossible without them. We have more volunteer organizations and volunteers in this country than any other I know of, and they are largely faith-based. But trying to stop de facto theocractic policies does not make me anti-Christian.
How would anything he could do influence Gas Prices?
Just reading around on this one it does appear that he does want to end some of the subsidies/ tax breaks that drilling companies get. If he did manage to steer that through both houses and any committees necessary to get it passed into law I can't see the Oil companies happy to swallow the shortfall in income losing those subsidies would mean so would probably end up upping the price down the chain.
Take a look at the UK we don't subsidize BP, it is now pretty my a fully private company and we shove massive amounts of tax on it so much so that I think the government gets ~50p in every £1 that gets spent on petrol.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Tom Head is a county judge. Which means he probably falls somewhere slightly below your barber and above your accountant in terms of common sense, and vice versa for intellect.
He falls about 20 tiers below a Senator's summer intern, on the scale of Political pundits.
There are 3,033 counties, and probably over a hundred thousand plus judges. And I suspect that Tom Head falls well below the 50th percentile on that scale as well.
I would not take him too seriously.
-
I mean, what the hell would he know, that you do not, about Obama's plans? Is Tom Head an insider? Does he have special powers of conspiracy solving? If so, why is he just a county judge? Does he have access to a special Internet we don't have access to for information?
He's just a dude. An outsider just like you and me. Probably lower than you and me on the "needtoknow" totem pole.
And I have not yet received my copy of the memo on the UN takeover thing.* Have you? Maybe somebody forgot to CC: me on it.
* Isn't a Korean the head of the UN or something? Does that mean Korea would run the US?
If that's the case then why is the price of gas still up to $3 a gallon and $4+ a gallon in the most populated areas of the U.S. like Las Vegas, New York, or even Chicago? Gas should be around $2 a gallon but because of high demand worldwide it makes it more expensive due to corporate greed.
Of course the U.S. Government has no control over what the Oil Industry does especially OPEC which further undermines the kind of energy policies that the Obama Administration has set in place like getting rid of the Keystone Pipeline which would've lowered the price of gas aside from creating new jobs that would've stimulated the economy for job growth.
The U.S. has as much Natural Gas as Saudi Arabia does with their Oil, the only problem is that we aren't using that Natural Gas to fuel our vehicles so instead we use Ethanol based fuels to pay less at the pump which is good but not good enough as using Natural Gas to fuel our vehicles to pay less would be a whole lot better. Electric cars are out of the question since there's no way to convert old automobiles into electric ones.
You do understand Americans still pay less then any other country for their gas. What makes America so special they should get their gas for such a discount?
Just reading around on this one it does appear that he does want to end some of the subsidies/ tax breaks that drilling companies get. If he did manage to steer that through both houses and any committees necessary to get it passed into law I can't see the Oil companies happy to swallow the shortfall in income losing those subsidies would mean so would probably end up upping the price down the chain.
Take a look at the UK we don't subsidize BP, it is now pretty my a fully private company and we shove massive amounts of tax on it so much so that I think the government gets ~50p in every £1 that gets spent on petrol.
My point here is that Obama would need congress to do all those things.
The president is an executive, just an administrator, even if during campaigns it seems like they make promises that only a king could accomplish on his own.
The president is an executive, just an administrator, even if during campaigns it seems like they make promises that only a king could accomplish on his own.
If that was a not so subtle dig at the UK the Queen has even less power than the President. The only say she really has is to give a bill royal assent to formally sign it off effectively the same as the final presidential seal.
Laws in the UK should start in the Commons and then progress through committee and the Lords. Unfortunately most of the new laws we have in the UK appear to start in the EU not in the home parliaments.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
If that was a not so subtle dig at the UK the Queen has even less power than the President. The only say she really has is to give a bill royal assent to formally sign it off effectively the same as the final presidential seal.
Laws in the UK should start in the Commons and then progress through committee and the Lords. Unfortunately most of the new laws we have in the UK appear to start in the EU not in the home parliaments.
Eh, the point is that the promises of the executive require the power of the legislative + executive branches to actually achieve.
While the President can push bills or find sponsors for them in Congress, the duty of the Executive branch is just that - to oversee day to day government operations and carry out laws passed by the Legislature. In the federal government of the USA, the Executive branch determines how we do, the Legislative determines what we do, and the Judicial branch determines can we do.
If that was a not so subtle dig at the UK the Queen has even less power than the President. The only say she really has is to give a bill royal assent to formally sign it off effectively the same as the final presidential seal.
Laws in the UK should start in the Commons and then progress through committee and the Lords. Unfortunately most of the new laws we have in the UK appear to start in the EU not in the home parliaments.
No dig, and I'm referring to pre-magna carta Royal Powers.
No dig, and I'm referring to pre-magna carta Royal Powers.
It wasn't just before Magna Carta. That style of monarchy lasted a long time and only really got phased out after the civil war and the eventual restoration. Right up to that time Parliament only sat when the ruler wanted it which was usually when they wanted money. Apart from that if they could afford it they could do it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
* Isn't a Korean the head of the UN or something? Does that mean Korea would run the US?
You neglected Muslim Korean whose also a white supremacist that goes to bunga bunga parties with Berlesconi. Or, maybe his name is for the rise of the next Japanese Empire using the UN using mind control through comics and cartoons. I mean his name is after "Bankai Moon" which could be code for connections to Japanese media firms that wish to expand their power over our youth.
This sort of reminds me of the comments Rick Perry made about Texas possibly seceding from the union a while ago. I wouldn't take them too seriously at face value.
No matter who wins the election though, there are going to be a lot of unhappy people either way. And there will be even more people unhappy when the economy continues to stagnate.
The stimulus didn't help us avoid a second Great Depression. It only postponed it. Bush Jr. tried deficit spending in a similar way that Obama did after the dot-com bust. It didn't work. What makes things any different here?
Reinhart's work places a 5-7 year average following a collapse of the financial system. There's a behavioral edge to it, which Keynes got right and Samuelson made intelligible. Austrians got right about the bad debt needing to be taken out of the system, but presuming a very different form of instability to coincide with their version of free markets.
The problem comes not so much from government nor spending, but from the fraction reserve system itself and human behaviors. The precipice of the entire fraction reserve system is essentially a belief factory, gold or whatever else is built on trust with moneyed interests. Which also comes along with gaining and giving out privileges.
Information cascade in which sheeple follow other sheeple to justify reactions over time, which leaves us with corporations with massive balance sheets that are fiscally conservatives but lacked the conditioning for consumers to be more thrifty. It's really ironic, like smoking corporation operators do not smoke themselves. Frankly, a capitalist system takes capital with a good trash bin for bad debt that was messed up with the bankruptcy "reforms." The housing debacle has a floor, because people were able to go bankrupt on their homes and walk away and create new markets. Instead, in Europe we see a more horrible situation with people having debt that last a long time.
This is also why certain economies that while they have low taxes, such as Ireland, lack local development and are more risk adverse because people have to carry bad debt in some form of record for life. For capitalism to emerge, you have to entertain creative destruction.. and not everyone likes destroying things but at times responsibility with abnormal consequences leads to long term, generational damage.
I'm confused how a new Civil War would unfold. It would require states not only attempting to separate from the US, but then turning around and taking military action against the US. Alternatively I guess it could be Obama sending troops into a US state for some reason... but that makes even less sense somehow.
That being said, is there any reason to think Obama would actually do this and this isn't blatant fearmongering? No. No there is not.
Simple solutions to problems like that. If Obama drove this, he would probably get killed by a martyr to the US people well before the government caused such a large rift civil war broke out because no one wants this.
I'm confused how a new Civil War would unfold. It would require states not only attempting to separate from the US, but then turning around and taking military action against the US. Alternatively I guess it could be Obama sending troops into a US state for some reason... but that makes even less sense somehow.
Simple solutions to problems like that. If Obama drove this, he would probably get killed by a martyr to the US people well before the government caused such a large rift civil war broke out because no one wants this.
The problem with killing Obama, Joe Biden. It would have to be a 2 for 1 bullet. Seriously, it would be like killing Bush Sr. and leaving Dan Quayle as president, but worse.
The problem with killing Obama, Joe Biden. It would have to be a 2 for 1 bullet. Seriously, it would be like killing Bush Sr. and leaving Dan Quayle as president, but worse.
I'm not sure that this line of theorizing is appropriate, or should even be allowed to continue on this forum (I know you didn't start it Bocephus, you were just the latest post).
that is Anti-American other than forge his own birth certificate
Even if that were true (or if it mattered, which it doesn't) - that doesn't make it "anti-American."
I don't see how you connected the two dots on the civil war part anyway. If UN law toppled US law, how does that necessarily create a civil war situation?
As far as I'm concerned there is no "lesser of two evils" when it comes to Obama and Romney, you pick a poison and no matter what the result is we are ultimately screwed.
Welcome to capitalism! It's not just one person at top, it's the whole system that's screwing you. The modern-day State is an institution that justifies bourgeois rule over the working-class through its laws, courts, military, police, propaganda, social pressure, and so forth! I'm glad you realized picking between 2 idiots doesn't change anything at the end of the day, but you're just scratching the surface and I would gladly invite you to keep researching more
I'm not sure that this line of theorizing is appropriate, or should even be allowed to continue on this forum (I know you didn't start it Bocephus, you were just the latest post).
Oh come on, if you don't think the term "assassination insurance" has been used to describe vice-presidents before, you're sadly mistaken.
I'm confused how a new Civil War would unfold. It would require states not only attempting to separate from the US, but then turning around and taking military action against the US. Alternatively I guess it could be Obama sending troops into a US state for some reason... but that makes even less sense somehow.
Simple solutions to problems like that. If Obama drove this, he would probably get killed by a martyr to the US people well before the government caused such a large rift civil war broke out because no one wants this.
You're correct. A Civil War would be ridiculous because a Civil War requires a substantial opposing side.
Besides, it's not as though Obama's a monarch with absolute power. He's an elected official with limited power and two major branches of government opposing him. Better solution than assassination would be to remove him from office. The president sure as hell doesn't have the kind of power we're talking about.
To describe it as a theory, yes, but we are dangerously borderline with this talk.
Are we really though? Do you actually think that Barack Obama is some evil conspirator who is going to turn American sovereignty over to the United Nations? Especially when his actions depict otherwise?
Not to mention the fact that this is somehow a huge deal for you, but talking about a civil war in the United States is fine? You're getting a confused 2 on that one.
I'm confused how a new Civil War would unfold. It would require states not only attempting to separate from the US, but then turning around and taking military action against the US. Alternatively I guess it could be Obama sending troops into a US state for some reason... but that makes even less sense somehow.
Simple solutions to problems like that. If Obama drove this, he would probably get killed by a martyr to the US people well before the government caused such a large rift civil war broke out because no one wants this.
If this scenario were to happen, it would require more than just Obama to be involved. He would require a firm majority in Congress and most likely a super-majority to get around any filibusters. If that were the case then his death would stop nothing since there would be plenty of people lined up to replace him and keep pushing the agenda through.
The way things are set up, Obama would have to be firmly in control of the country already for him to even think of anything silly like that. ie he probably would have already fought and won a civil war.
The US is much more diverse country than it was in the 19th century and there isn't as much regional loyalty as there was back then. You would get much more fragmentation in which areas rebelled and which stayed loyal to the President.
The US is much more diverse country than it was in the 19th century and there isn't as much regional loyalty as there was back then. You would get much more fragmentation in which areas rebelled and which stayed loyal to the President.
Would you though? Who, if anyone, would stay loyal to the president in this scenario?
The majority of America doesn't approve of the job he's doing now, and that's without him being Darth Sidious.
First it was George W. Bush, then it was Barack Obama; can we please have a president go through one four-year term without stupid conspiracy theories based around them being comic book villains?
Are we really though? Do you actually think that Barack Obama is some evil conspirator who is going to turn American sovereignty over to the United Nations? Especially when his actions depict otherwise?
Not to mention the fact that this is somehow a huge deal for you, but talking about a civil war in the United States is fine? You're getting a confused 2 on that one.
I just think it was getting very close to us having needlessly specific details of what would have to happen in an assassination. Not really appropriate or relevant to a discussion about a crazy judge who thinks a Civil War is coming.
I may have come across as a little more overbearing than I intended, but you and I both know how quickly this forum can devolve. I wanted to steer the conversation away from that direction.
Would you though? Who, if anyone, would stay loyal to the president in this scenario?
The majority of America doesn't approve of the job he's doing now, and that's without him being Darth Sidious.
That's my point. He would not be able to do the things that would make him unpopular enough to start an armed rebellion without having a loyal base that would support him enough that he was able to pass that kind of contentious law. ie for him to be able to pass that kind of law he would need a large enough part of the population already supporting that law.
He barely got Obamacare passed and people think he has enough power to pass a way more controversial law?
The only way this scenario could happen as described would be if the US President is first given dictatorial powers (kinda like what happened in the Star Wars universe).
I'm not even sure how Obama will be able to give control of the U.S. to the U.N. It's not feasible under any power that the President has.
It's not like he can just announce that the U.N. is in control and that magically occurs. It's not like he can somehow force a bill through Congress, seeing as how the President doesn't create bills.
And, even if he somehow magically convinces the Democratic Party to create a bill transferring all political power of the U.S. to the U.N., how are they supposed to get it through the House, which is controlled by the Republicans? And what I've seen of the news suggests that the Senate may be passed over to the Republicans as well.
This is idiocy and fear-mongering of the highest kind.
I think arguing how deep the opinion is embedded in the country at the point of a fictional decision is made with an impossible amount of sway is a bit pedantic for the point of "Civil War breaking out in the US would be near impossible to achieve" - which is all my post said.
@Jay13x: I think it's a bit extreme to worry that discussing a political assassination being more likely than Civil War will lead to a fanfic of how the assassination would take place.
UN treaties don't take precedent over American law. Congress has to approve the treaties, at which point they take precedent over state law. But Congress can also abrogate treaties as well.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Card advantage is not the same thing as card draw. Something for 2B cannot be strictly worse than something for BBB or 3BB. If you're taking out Swords to Plowshares for Plummet, you're a fool. Stop doing these things!
UN treaties don't take precedent over American law. Congress has to approve the treaties, at which point they take precedent over state law. But Congress can also abrogate treaties as well.
More specifically, once Congress approves a treaty it *is* US Law. As such it is subject to the Constitution. Any treaty which runs counter to the US Constitution is struck down by federal courts - such as, say, handing over all control to a foreign body.
Anybody who tells you that the President is going to turn our government over to the UN is either so ignorant that they aren't worth talking politics with or is lying through their teeth. You can safely disregard their opinions.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm confused here. What exactly about Obama would turn us into a 'European like Economy', and why is that a bad thing? How would he do that all by himself? How would anything he could do influence Gas Prices?
What does this even mean?
What exactly are 'atheists' doing, all 8% of them, that make it hard to coexist? Asking that your religion not be rubbed in their face every few seconds? Asking that Christianity not be assumed as the default position for every American? No one has a problem with Christians following their beliefs. What those of us outside the Christian camp (I'm agnostic, my fiance is Hindu) would appreciate is the recognition that we don't believe in the Christian dogma and do not want it be legislated as law. If your church doesn't want to marry Gays, that's fine. You can believe whatever you want, I really don't care unless it affects me. But the government needs to be distanced from religion because not everyone is Christian, and to apply Christian morals and standards to the entire country in legal form is tyrannical. The mosque that had an impossible time getting built in TN is a perfect example of what is horrific about a homogeneous country for those that are different. It's amazing how many 'Christians' will howl about the war on their religion, while making damn sure any religion they don't like is impeded as much as possible (I put 'Christians' in quotation marks because I'm referring to hypocrites here).
I don't disrespect Christians, I disrespect Christians who are ignorant and don't put their faith where their actions are. I LOVE Christian charitable organizations. They are great, even if I disagree with their beliefs, and disaster response in this country would be impossible without them. We have more volunteer organizations and volunteers in this country than any other I know of, and they are largely faith-based. But trying to stop de facto theocractic policies does not make me anti-Christian.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Just reading around on this one it does appear that he does want to end some of the subsidies/ tax breaks that drilling companies get. If he did manage to steer that through both houses and any committees necessary to get it passed into law I can't see the Oil companies happy to swallow the shortfall in income losing those subsidies would mean so would probably end up upping the price down the chain.
Take a look at the UK we don't subsidize BP, it is now pretty my a fully private company and we shove massive amounts of tax on it so much so that I think the government gets ~50p in every £1 that gets spent on petrol.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
He falls about 20 tiers below a Senator's summer intern, on the scale of Political pundits.
There are 3,033 counties, and probably over a hundred thousand plus judges. And I suspect that Tom Head falls well below the 50th percentile on that scale as well.
I would not take him too seriously.
-
I mean, what the hell would he know, that you do not, about Obama's plans? Is Tom Head an insider? Does he have special powers of conspiracy solving? If so, why is he just a county judge? Does he have access to a special Internet we don't have access to for information?
He's just a dude. An outsider just like you and me. Probably lower than you and me on the "needtoknow" totem pole.
And I have not yet received my copy of the memo on the UN takeover thing.* Have you? Maybe somebody forgot to CC: me on it.
* Isn't a Korean the head of the UN or something? Does that mean Korea would run the US?
You do understand Americans still pay less then any other country for their gas. What makes America so special they should get their gas for such a discount?
My point here is that Obama would need congress to do all those things.
The president is an executive, just an administrator, even if during campaigns it seems like they make promises that only a king could accomplish on his own.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
If that was a not so subtle dig at the UK the Queen has even less power than the President. The only say she really has is to give a bill royal assent to formally sign it off effectively the same as the final presidential seal.
Laws in the UK should start in the Commons and then progress through committee and the Lords. Unfortunately most of the new laws we have in the UK appear to start in the EU not in the home parliaments.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Eh, the point is that the promises of the executive require the power of the legislative + executive branches to actually achieve.
While the President can push bills or find sponsors for them in Congress, the duty of the Executive branch is just that - to oversee day to day government operations and carry out laws passed by the Legislature. In the federal government of the USA, the Executive branch determines how we do, the Legislative determines what we do, and the Judicial branch determines can we do.
No dig, and I'm referring to pre-magna carta Royal Powers.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
It wasn't just before Magna Carta. That style of monarchy lasted a long time and only really got phased out after the civil war and the eventual restoration. Right up to that time Parliament only sat when the ruler wanted it which was usually when they wanted money. Apart from that if they could afford it they could do it.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
You neglected Muslim Korean whose also a white supremacist that goes to bunga bunga parties with Berlesconi. Or, maybe his name is for the rise of the next Japanese Empire using the UN using mind control through comics and cartoons. I mean his name is after "Bankai Moon" which could be code for connections to Japanese media firms that wish to expand their power over our youth.
Reinhart's work places a 5-7 year average following a collapse of the financial system. There's a behavioral edge to it, which Keynes got right and Samuelson made intelligible. Austrians got right about the bad debt needing to be taken out of the system, but presuming a very different form of instability to coincide with their version of free markets.
The problem comes not so much from government nor spending, but from the fraction reserve system itself and human behaviors. The precipice of the entire fraction reserve system is essentially a belief factory, gold or whatever else is built on trust with moneyed interests. Which also comes along with gaining and giving out privileges.
Information cascade in which sheeple follow other sheeple to justify reactions over time, which leaves us with corporations with massive balance sheets that are fiscally conservatives but lacked the conditioning for consumers to be more thrifty. It's really ironic, like smoking corporation operators do not smoke themselves. Frankly, a capitalist system takes capital with a good trash bin for bad debt that was messed up with the bankruptcy "reforms." The housing debacle has a floor, because people were able to go bankrupt on their homes and walk away and create new markets. Instead, in Europe we see a more horrible situation with people having debt that last a long time.
This is also why certain economies that while they have low taxes, such as Ireland, lack local development and are more risk adverse because people have to carry bad debt in some form of record for life. For capitalism to emerge, you have to entertain creative destruction.. and not everyone likes destroying things but at times responsibility with abnormal consequences leads to long term, generational damage.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Simple solutions to problems like that. If Obama drove this, he would probably get killed by a martyr to the US people well before the government caused such a large rift civil war broke out because no one wants this.
The problem with killing Obama, Joe Biden. It would have to be a 2 for 1 bullet. Seriously, it would be like killing Bush Sr. and leaving Dan Quayle as president, but worse.
I'm not sure that this line of theorizing is appropriate, or should even be allowed to continue on this forum (I know you didn't start it Bocephus, you were just the latest post).
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Even if that were true (or if it mattered, which it doesn't) - that doesn't make it "anti-American."
I don't see how you connected the two dots on the civil war part anyway. If UN law toppled US law, how does that necessarily create a civil war situation?
Welcome to capitalism! It's not just one person at top, it's the whole system that's screwing you. The modern-day State is an institution that justifies bourgeois rule over the working-class through its laws, courts, military, police, propaganda, social pressure, and so forth! I'm glad you realized picking between 2 idiots doesn't change anything at the end of the day, but you're just scratching the surface and I would gladly invite you to keep researching more
ex-Moderator
Legacy love.
Oh come on, if you don't think the term "assassination insurance" has been used to describe vice-presidents before, you're sadly mistaken.
You're correct. A Civil War would be ridiculous because a Civil War requires a substantial opposing side.
Besides, it's not as though Obama's a monarch with absolute power. He's an elected official with limited power and two major branches of government opposing him. Better solution than assassination would be to remove him from office. The president sure as hell doesn't have the kind of power we're talking about.
To describe it as a theory, yes, but we are dangerously borderline with this talk.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
Are we really though? Do you actually think that Barack Obama is some evil conspirator who is going to turn American sovereignty over to the United Nations? Especially when his actions depict otherwise?
Not to mention the fact that this is somehow a huge deal for you, but talking about a civil war in the United States is fine? You're getting a confused 2 on that one.
If this scenario were to happen, it would require more than just Obama to be involved. He would require a firm majority in Congress and most likely a super-majority to get around any filibusters. If that were the case then his death would stop nothing since there would be plenty of people lined up to replace him and keep pushing the agenda through.
The way things are set up, Obama would have to be firmly in control of the country already for him to even think of anything silly like that. ie he probably would have already fought and won a civil war.
The US is much more diverse country than it was in the 19th century and there isn't as much regional loyalty as there was back then. You would get much more fragmentation in which areas rebelled and which stayed loyal to the President.
Would you though? Who, if anyone, would stay loyal to the president in this scenario?
The majority of America doesn't approve of the job he's doing now, and that's without him being Darth Sidious.
First it was George W. Bush, then it was Barack Obama; can we please have a president go through one four-year term without stupid conspiracy theories based around them being comic book villains?
I just think it was getting very close to us having needlessly specific details of what would have to happen in an assassination. Not really appropriate or relevant to a discussion about a crazy judge who thinks a Civil War is coming.
I may have come across as a little more overbearing than I intended, but you and I both know how quickly this forum can devolve. I wanted to steer the conversation away from that direction.
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That's my point. He would not be able to do the things that would make him unpopular enough to start an armed rebellion without having a loyal base that would support him enough that he was able to pass that kind of contentious law. ie for him to be able to pass that kind of law he would need a large enough part of the population already supporting that law.
He barely got Obamacare passed and people think he has enough power to pass a way more controversial law?
The only way this scenario could happen as described would be if the US President is first given dictatorial powers (kinda like what happened in the Star Wars universe).
It's not like he can just announce that the U.N. is in control and that magically occurs. It's not like he can somehow force a bill through Congress, seeing as how the President doesn't create bills.
And, even if he somehow magically convinces the Democratic Party to create a bill transferring all political power of the U.S. to the U.N., how are they supposed to get it through the House, which is controlled by the Republicans? And what I've seen of the news suggests that the Senate may be passed over to the Republicans as well.
This is idiocy and fear-mongering of the highest kind.
@Jay13x: I think it's a bit extreme to worry that discussing a political assassination being more likely than Civil War will lead to a fanfic of how the assassination would take place.
On phasing:
More specifically, once Congress approves a treaty it *is* US Law. As such it is subject to the Constitution. Any treaty which runs counter to the US Constitution is struck down by federal courts - such as, say, handing over all control to a foreign body.
Anybody who tells you that the President is going to turn our government over to the UN is either so ignorant that they aren't worth talking politics with or is lying through their teeth. You can safely disregard their opinions.