Does the U.S. Army believe Obama is an illigitamate President?

prtndr · Aug 13, 2009

Distant Lover said: ↑

Of course Washington did have Mount Vernon to retire to and he did not have any sons. If he was not independently wealthy, and if he had had an ambitious son, a royal dynasty would have been more of a temptation.
Click to expand...

Wealth is a comparative thing. If you've ever been to Mount Vernon, it's really not all that grand. It's a fairly simple house on a fairly simple farm, a farm which Washington worked, not as a hobby, but because he needed the money. Monticello, Carter's Grove, and many other 18th century plantation houses still existing in Virginia make Mount Vernon look like a sharecropper's shack. Washington was not from a terribly wealthy family, and as a young man worked as a surveyor, again because he needed the money. IIRC, most of what he had came through his marriage to Martha.

Kimiko · Aug 14, 2009

prtndr said: ↑

Wealth is a comparative thing. If you've ever been to Mount Vernon, it's really not all that grand. It's a fairly simple house on a fairly simple farm, a farm which Washington worked, not as a hobby, but because he needed the money. Monticello, Carter's Grove, and many other 18th century plantation houses still existing in Virginia make Mount Vernon look like a sharecropper's shack. Washington was not from a terribly wealthy family, and as a young man worked as a surveyor, again because he needed the money. IIRC, most of what he had came through his marriage to Martha.
Click to expand...

We've been there (as well as to Monticello), and I have to agree. The Washingtons did have a nice view, though.

deidre79 · Aug 14, 2009

coloradoblueyes said: ↑

Kimiko, we all know that there are racist out there. Shouldn't be, but there are. However, just because I honestly disagree with the policies of our current president, doesn't make me one. Some people have legitimate concerns like I do, that he is leading us into a socialist form of government.

As for those who do disagree with him based on his color, we don't want, or need you on our side.
Click to expand...

A++

prtndr · Aug 14, 2009

Distant Lover said: ↑

You deprecate democracy because you fear that the majority in the United States is moving away from the Republican Party. The angry mobs at the town hall meetings should give you hope. Retired white blue collar workers living off of Medicare and screaming about how they oppose socialized medicine indicate that many low income whites will always be stupid enough to vote in favor of your economic interests, and against their own.
Click to expand...

Actually, the "mobs" give me great hope, that the people of the United States will not descend quietly into an Obamian welfare state.

prtndr · Aug 14, 2009

coloradoblueyes said: ↑

Kimiko, we all know that there are racist out there. Shouldn't be, but there are. However, just because I honestly disagree with the policies of our current president, doesn't make me one. Some people have legitimate concerns like I do, that he is leading us into a socialist form of government.

As for those who do disagree with him based on his color, we don't want, or need you on our side.
Click to expand...

I agree with Kimmy - very well said.

stumbler · Aug 14, 2009

prtndr said: ↑

I agree with Kimmy - very well said.
Click to expand...

I'll bet you'd love to agree with Kimi, but she's not the one who said it.

twofeathers · Aug 14, 2009

Distant Lover said: ↑

Alexander Tyler lived from October 15, 1747 to January 5, 1813.
*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

When he made this statement democracy had rarely been tried in world history, so he had few examples to make conclusions from. About the only examples he did have were ancient Athens and the British Parliament. However, in Athens slaves, who were most of the population, were not allowed to vote, nor were women. Great Britain had property qualifications.

From the vantage point of the early twenty-first century we can see that democracy only devolves into a dictatorship in countries that lack democratic traditions, and which are facing serious crises of some sort.

Czarist Russia began to experiment with democracy following the Russian Revolution of 1905, but the Russian Duma was unequal to the stresses of the German invasion during World War I. Germany under the Kaiser had a Reichstag beginning in 1871, but it was unequal to the stresses of losing the First World War, the inflation of the 1920's, and the Great Depression.

In Great Britain, France, and the United States democracy survived the stresses of the American Civil War, the Great Depression, and the two world wars. There is no reason to doubt that it will continue to survive. Democracy is also spreading throughout the world.

I am not accusing Kimiko of this, but since the election of Barack Obama Americans on the right are digging up quotes like this. They are repeating the cliche, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy," and so on. This is because they sense that the Republican ascendency that has blighted my adult life is coming to an end, and that the United States will democratically evolve in directions that they do not like.

There is indeed, reason for their concern:

-------

From politicians, radio-talk show hosts, and other commentators, we have heard that we should forget about democracy, because the U.S.A. is a republic. But some questions are being posed by democracy advocates: What is a republic? What is a democracy? Should the United States be a mere republic, or a genuine democracy?

Democracy or Republic: Ron Paul Taken Apart
[SIZE=+0]October 4, 2007[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]by William P. Meyers[/SIZE]

At Google Search I noted another essay on the same topic, A Republic, Not a Democracy, by Republican Party presidential candidate Ron Paul. It was written back in 2000. Ron Paul comes out squarely against democracy. That in itself should be ugly enough to stop a presidential campaign in its tracks. But there are a few things I agree with Ron Paul on. He's a serious guy. Instead of dismissing his argument, I am going to dissect it. If you are squeamish now is a good time to click over to something funny at YouTube.

Ron Paul claims "Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny." He defends the Republican system as being on the same order as the Bill of Rights. He claims the individual rights of minorities are endangered by majority rule or democracy.

But only a fool would swallow such reasoning. What a Republic establishes (unless it is a fully democratic republic, which equates to representative democracy) is the rule of the few over the many. It does not protect everyone's individual rights: it protects the rights of the ruling minority. The Liberty of the minority becomes the subjugation of the majority. The only thing Ron Paul and I agree upon, within this topic, is that the federal government, under the Constitution, was designed that way.

The minority of 1789 given power by the U.S. Constitution were mainly descendants of European aristocrats, though some were from merchant families or had made it in the U.S. despite humbler ancestry. Who were they establishing power over? Women, for sure. Native American Indians. Slaves from Africa. White slaves (indentured servants). And, in fact, most white men, because most white men did not have enough property to qualify to vote.

Liberty is an ugly thing when it is the liberty to own slaves, to prevent women from owning property, to grab Indian lands protected by treaties, and to crush poorer white men under your boot with laws and a swarm of lawyers.

How many slaves did Patrick Henry own when he said, "Give me liberty or give me death?" Over forty.

Ron Paul is the sort of spineless pawn of the rich (I think he is rich himself) whose job as a politician is to shift all costs to the working citizens and all profits to the investor and managerial class. His freedom is your slavery.

I'll take democracy any day. I believe the rights of individuals and minority groups are important. But I don't see where that obligates me to assign to the rich the right to write laws that make them even richer and make the bulk of us poorer.

If one of Patrick Henry's slaves, or George Washington's slaves, or Thomas Jefferson's slaves had said, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death," it would ring through the centuries with a sweeter sound.

Ron Paul's advocacy against democracy is advocacy for bad government. It advocates special privileges for the rich that are denied the rest of us.

*not_secure_link*www.iiipublishing.com/blog/2007/10/blog_10_04_2007.html

Republicans and other democracy detractors point to the U.S. Constitution and bits of history, and say, "See, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution gave us a Republic. They believed democracies were dangerous and unworkable."

On that, they are partly right, but they fail to mention that democracies and republics overlap. They are not opposites. And they fail to account for the history of American government since 1788, much less the debates that took place in America prior to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was substituted for the Articles of Confederation.

Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also know as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men.

William P. Meyers, supports the Green party and has done research on this subject, I found it interesting what he wrote about. Just some food for thought. I am not voiceing an opinion just showing you some of the things I found interesting.

Biography of William P. Meyers
*not_secure_link*www.williampmeyers.org/bio.html

Click to expand...

stumbler · Aug 14, 2009

twofeathers said: ↑

Distant Lover said: ↑

Alexander Tyler lived from October 15, 1747 to January 5, 1813.
*not_secure_link*en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

When he made this statement democracy had rarely been tried in world history, so he had few examples to make conclusions from. About the only examples he did have were ancient Athens and the British Parliament. However, in Athens slaves, who were most of the population, were not allowed to vote, nor were women. Great Britain had property qualifications.

From the vantage point of the early twenty-first century we can see that democracy only devolves into a dictatorship in countries that lack democratic traditions, and which are facing serious crises of some sort.

Czarist Russia began to experiment with democracy following the Russian Revolution of 1905, but the Russian Duma was unequal to the stresses of the German invasion during World War I. Germany under the Kaiser had a Reichstag beginning in 1871, but it was unequal to the stresses of losing the First World War, the inflation of the 1920's, and the Great Depression.

In Great Britain, France, and the United States democracy survived the stresses of the American Civil War, the Great Depression, and the two world wars. There is no reason to doubt that it will continue to survive. Democracy is also spreading throughout the world.

I am not accusing Kimiko of this, but since the election of Barack Obama Americans on the right are digging up quotes like this. They are repeating the cliche, "The United States is a republic, not a democracy," and so on. This is because they sense that the Republican ascendency that has blighted my adult life is coming to an end, and that the United States will democratically evolve in directions that they do not like.

There is indeed, reason for their concern:

-------

From politicians, radio-talk show hosts, and other commentators, we have heard that we should forget about democracy, because the U.S.A. is a republic. But some questions are being posed by democracy advocates: What is a republic? What is a democracy? Should the United States be a mere republic, or a genuine democracy?

Democracy or Republic: Ron Paul Taken Apart
[SIZE=+0]October 4, 2007[/SIZE]
[SIZE=+0]by William P. Meyers[/SIZE]

At Google Search I noted another essay on the same topic, A Republic, Not a Democracy, by Republican Party presidential candidate Ron Paul. It was written back in 2000. Ron Paul comes out squarely against democracy. That in itself should be ugly enough to stop a presidential campaign in its tracks. But there are a few things I agree with Ron Paul on. He's a serious guy. Instead of dismissing his argument, I am going to dissect it. If you are squeamish now is a good time to click over to something funny at YouTube.

Ron Paul claims "Our Founders instituted a republican system to protect individual rights and property rights from tyranny." He defends the Republican system as being on the same order as the Bill of Rights. He claims the individual rights of minorities are endangered by majority rule or democracy.

But only a fool would swallow such reasoning. What a Republic establishes (unless it is a fully democratic republic, which equates to representative democracy) is the rule of the few over the many. It does not protect everyone's individual rights: it protects the rights of the ruling minority. The Liberty of the minority becomes the subjugation of the majority. The only thing Ron Paul and I agree upon, within this topic, is that the federal government, under the Constitution, was designed that way.

The minority of 1789 given power by the U.S. Constitution were mainly descendants of European aristocrats, though some were from merchant families or had made it in the U.S. despite humbler ancestry. Who were they establishing power over? Women, for sure. Native American Indians. Slaves from Africa. White slaves (indentured servants). And, in fact, most white men, because most white men did not have enough property to qualify to vote.

Liberty is an ugly thing when it is the liberty to own slaves, to prevent women from owning property, to grab Indian lands protected by treaties, and to crush poorer white men under your boot with laws and a swarm of lawyers.

How many slaves did Patrick Henry own when he said, "Give me liberty or give me death?" Over forty.

Ron Paul is the sort of spineless pawn of the rich (I think he is rich himself) whose job as a politician is to shift all costs to the working citizens and all profits to the investor and managerial class. His freedom is your slavery.

I'll take democracy any day. I believe the rights of individuals and minority groups are important. But I don't see where that obligates me to assign to the rich the right to write laws that make them even richer and make the bulk of us poorer.

If one of Patrick Henry's slaves, or George Washington's slaves, or Thomas Jefferson's slaves had said, "Give me Liberty or Give me Death," it would ring through the centuries with a sweeter sound.

Ron Paul's advocacy against democracy is advocacy for bad government. It advocates special privileges for the rich that are denied the rest of us.

*not_secure_link*www.iiipublishing.com/blog/2007/10/blog_10_04_2007.html

Republicans and other democracy detractors point to the U.S. Constitution and bits of history, and say, "See, the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution gave us a Republic. They believed democracies were dangerous and unworkable."

On that, they are partly right, but they fail to mention that democracies and republics overlap. They are not opposites. And they fail to account for the history of American government since 1788, much less the debates that took place in America prior to 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was substituted for the Articles of Confederation.

Beginning with the Constitution's adoption, America has been a Republic. But the dominant trend over the last two centuries has been to make it into a democracy as well, a representative democracy, also know as a democratic republic. True, the creation of the Constitution itself was partly a reaction against democracy. In states like Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, the situation was getting way too democratic for the monied aristocracy that had, since the American Revolution, refused to share power with ordinary men.

William P. Meyers, supports the Green party and has done research on this subject, I found it interesting what he wrote about. Just some food for thought. I am not voiceing an opinion just showing you some of the things I found interesting.

Biography of William P. Meyers
*not_secure_link*www.williampmeyers.org/bio.html
Click to expand...

There are some worthwhile things to consider here especially when we have people claiming we should return to the original intent of the founders.

For one thing the founders as this article and others have pointed out were not all that keen on a pure democracy. In fact the discussed and coined the phrase "mobocracy," and took steps to make sure that the common people didn't really have an avenue for full control. That's why they allowed democratic elections of the House of Representatives but placed selection of the more powerful house, the Senate, in the hands of State Legislatures. That helped safeguard the more elite class.

It also seems rather ridiculous to me when people try and claim we should return to the original intent of the founding fathers and even the Constitution. One because they anticipated a changing nation and a changing world and built elasticity into the constitution and our form of government. It also seems to me to be a form of denial that our nation and our world hasn't changed and didn't need to.

I also agree that much of the noise and rhetoric now is not because people think we are straying from an original intent that never really existed, but because they feel threatened by changes that might actually tip the balance of their dominance whether they are willing to admit that or not.
Click to expand...

Kimiko · Aug 14, 2009

stumbler said: ↑

There are some worthwhile things to consider here especially when we have people claiming we should return to the original intent of the founders.

For one thing the founders as this article and others have pointed out were not all that keen on a pure democracy. In fact the discussed and coined the phrase "mobocracy," and took steps to make sure that the common people didn't really have an avenue for full control. That's why they allowed democratic elections of the House of Representatives but placed selection of the more powerful house, the Senate, in the hands of State Legislatures. That helped safeguard the more elite class.

It also seems rather ridiculous to me when people try and claim we should return to the original intent of the founding fathers and even the Constitution. One because they anticipated a changing nation and a changing world and built elasticity into the constitution and our form of government. It also seems to me to be a form of denial that our nation and our world hasn't changed and didn't need to.

I also agree that much of the noise and rhetoric now is not because people think we are straying from an original intent that never really existed, but because they feel threatened by changes that might actually tip the balance of their dominance whether they are willing to admit that or not.
Click to expand...

Amen, Brother Stumbler. A most articulate exposition of the matter.

deidre79 · Aug 14, 2009

Kimiko are you safe? the FIRE? you both love European socialism which never translates well with real red white and blue.

Kimiko · Aug 14, 2009

deidre79 said: ↑

Kimiko are you safe? the FIRE?
Click to expand...

Yes....it's quite a ways away. Thank you for asking.

prtndr · Aug 14, 2009

stumbler said: ↑

I'll bet you'd love to agree with Kimi, but she's not the one who said it.
Click to expand...

Hey, dumbass - read the posts. Kimmy complimented coloradoblueeyes on that post, and I was agreeing with Kimmy's compliment. I nnow you can't be bothered with facts, but there's some small evidence you can read.

Distant Lover · Aug 14, 2009

stumbler said: ↑

It also seems rather ridiculous to me when people try and claim we should return to the original intent of the founding fathers and even the Constitution. One because they anticipated a changing nation and a changing world and built elasticity into the constitution and our form of government. It also seems to me to be a form of denial that our nation and our world hasn't changed and didn't need to.
Click to expand...

Claiming that the President's health care plan is somehow unconstitutional because the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee health coverage for everyone living in the United States seems like claiming that traffic regulations are unconstitutional because the U.S. Constitution does not specify them either.

hardtohandle · Aug 14, 2009

coloradoblueyes said: ↑

Kimiko, we all know that there are racist out there. Shouldn't be, but there are. However, just because I honestly disagree with the policies of our current president, doesn't make me one. Some people have legitimate concerns like I do, that he is leading us into a socialist form of government.

As for those who do disagree with him based on his color, we don't want, or need you on our side.
Click to expand...

So what are you gonna do about them? They seem to be your base.

Distant Lover · Aug 14, 2009

hardtohandle said: ↑

So what are you gonna do about them? They seem to be your base.
Click to expand...

Those who claim that President Obama was born in Kenya are really saying, "Look at how dark his skin is." When did anyone doubt the birth place of a white president?

Ronald Reagan began his 1980 presidential campaign in a town in Mississippi where three civil rights activists had been murdered in 1964. He gave a speech on states rights. When he talked about "the welfare queen of Chicago" people knew he was not talking about a Polish American woman. When he talked about "strapping young bucks buying T bone steak with food stamps," everyone knew that these "young bucks" were not white hill billies living in West Virginia.

Distant Lover · Aug 14, 2009

hardtohandle said: ↑

So what are you gonna do about them? They seem to be your base.
Click to expand...

Once George Wallace campaigned for governor of Alabama on a promise not to raise the sales tax. Soon after being elected, he signed a bill raising the sales tax. When someone asked him if he was afraid of angering his supporters he said, "I'll just yell 'Nigger!' and they'll never know or care a goddam about taxes."

Republican politicians do not yell "Nigger!" They whisper, "Negro." The Republican Party has become what the Democrat Party used to be in the South, the party of the white race. That is why most white blue collar workers vote Republican, and why hardly any blacks do. Anyone who is not aware of that is not paying attention.

IVA HARDON · Aug 14, 2009

bull fucking shit.:wall:

Rudharddick · Aug 14, 2009

Article One Section Two, U.S. Constitution

umpire2 said: ↑

I, personally, want to see George Washington's 'long-form' birth certificate; and John Adams' and Thomas Jefferson's and James Madison's and James Monroe's and John Quincy Adams' and Andrew Jackson's and Martin Van Buren's and William Henry Harrison's and John Tyler's and James Polk's and Zachary Taylor's and Millard Fillmore's and Franklin Pierce's and James Buchanan's and Abraham Lincoln's and Andrew Johnson's and Ulysses Grant's and Rutherford Hayes' and James Garfield's and Chester Arthur's and Grover Cleveland's and Benjamin Harrison's and William McKinley's and Theodore Rooevelt's and William Taft's and Woodrow Wilson's and Warren Harding's and Calvin Coolidge's and Herbert Hoover's and Franklin Roosevelt's and Harry Truman's and Dwight Eienhower's and John Kennedy's and Lyndon Johnson's and Richard Nixon's and Gerald Ford's and James Carter's and Ronald Reagan's and King George I Bush's and William Clinton's!!! (I don't need to see King George II Bush's, because I know he was hatched from a retarded goose's egg)...
Click to expand...

Read the Constitution all you Obamaites, It clearly states, that the President of the United States of America, shall be a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" of our several states or born in what is to become the United States. Natural Born Citizen, means BOTH parents are U.S. Citizens and their offspring has been born within the Borders of the U.S.. A mere citizen does NOT qualify, since one or the other parent was Not a citizen at the time of birth.

Oh, and by the way, do you know WHY we have a 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? It is so citizens of this country have the power to take up arms against an OPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT: which ours is becoming at a high rate of speed.

deidre79 · Aug 14, 2009

Kimiko said: ↑

Yes....it's quite a ways away. Thank you for asking.
Click to expand...

i was worried :rose:i care

Distant Lover · Aug 15, 2009

Rudharddick said: ↑

Read the Constitution all you Obamaites, It clearly states, that the President of the United States of America, shall be a "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" of our several states or born in what is to become the United States. Natural Born Citizen, means BOTH parents are U.S. Citizens and their offspring has been born within the Borders of the U.S.. A mere citizen does NOT qualify, since one or the other parent was Not a citizen at the time of birth.

Oh, and by the way, do you know WHY we have a 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States? It is so citizens of this country have the power to take up arms against an OPRESSIVE GOVERNMENT: which ours is becoming at a high rate of speed.
Click to expand...

“No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

- Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

There is no mention here that both parents must be U.S. citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court has never ruled on just exactly what a "natural born Citizen" is.

The argument that we need guns to protect ourselves against the government is an argument that would have made intuitive sense to Jesse James, John Dillinger, and Timothy McVeigh.

Log in or Sign up

prtndr Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

deidre79 Supertzar

prtndr Porn Star

prtndr Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

twofeathers Dreamcatcher

stumbler Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

deidre79 Supertzar

Kimiko Porn Star

prtndr Porn Star

Distant Lover Master of Facts

hardtohandle Sex Lover

Distant Lover Master of Facts

Distant Lover Master of Facts

IVA HARDON Porn Star

Rudharddick Porno Junky

deidre79 Supertzar

Distant Lover Master of Facts

Does the U.S. Army believe Obama is an illigitamate President?

nproxy.org

Log in or Sign up

prtndr Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

deidre79 Supertzar

prtndr Porn Star

prtndr Porn Star

stumbler Porn Star

twofeathers Dreamcatcher

stumbler Porn Star

Kimiko Porn Star

deidre79 Supertzar

Kimiko Porn Star

prtndr Porn Star

Distant Lover Master of Facts

hardtohandle Sex Lover

Distant Lover Master of Facts

Distant Lover Master of Facts

IVA HARDON Porn Star

Rudharddick Porno Junky

deidre79 Supertzar

Distant Lover Master of Facts

Useful Searches

nproxy.org