U.S. Army should take control of American Govmnt, From President Obama.

[Vast LWC]

VAST LWC....

you obviously missed my post....as such, let me repeat....

i don't believe anyone has broken the law, they have not "levied" war....if i recall it is not simply calling for removal by force that is treason under the constitution and code, it is the actually levying of war....

While I see your point, it's a semantic one.

A military coup against the US Government would surely bring many deaths with it, and that would certainly be definable as a "Civil War".

Attempting to cause said civil war to happen is certainly definable as "treason".

 

[BolshevikHunter]

They are shredding The Constitution. It is our duty to defend it. However, Anything done would have to be backed by the majority of the United States citizens. ~BH

A military coup isn't "shredding the Constitution"?

Oh shut your stinky pie hole you evil leftist Yenta. You can't read as usual I see. ~BH

 

[Vast LWC]

They are shredding The Constitution. It is our duty to defend it. However, Anything done would have to be backed by the majority of the United States citizens. ~BH

A military coup isn't "shredding the Constitution"?

Oh shut your stinky pie hole you evil leftist Yenta. You can't read as usual I see. ~BH

My post edited for senseless knee-jerk reactionism. - Vast

 

[Liability]

I wish those who think that the idiot 52ndGutter may have a "point," would keep their stupid mouths shut while they think it through for a while. For, until you guys do manage to shut yer yaps, you are making Vast LWC look like a fucking genius.

I really hate having to agree with him when he spouts off; but on the other hand, it is a better thing to do to give the devil his due than it is to pretend that he cannot ever be right even when he is.

When Vast LWC said this:

In this case you would be replacing the Consitution of the United States with a military police state for no better reason than you don't like the democratically, duly elected President.

, he was quite simply correct.

I am not a fan in any way of President Obama. But he DID win the election. He IS the President of the United States. The United States IS a Constitutional Republic in the form of a representative democracy. We change governments regularly. But we do so by the BALLOT, not by the bullet, and not by way of a military junta.

My props to Vast LWC for his position on this matter.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

VAST LWC....

you obviously missed my post....as such, let me repeat....

i don't believe anyone has broken the law, they have not "levied" war....if i recall it is not simply calling for removal by force that is treason under the constitution and code, it is the actually levying of war....

While I see your point, it's a semantic one.

A military coup against the US Government would surely bring many deaths with it, and that would certainly be definable as a "Civil War".

Attempting to cause said civil war to happen is certainly definable as "treason".

So Vast, what is your opinion on The French revolution? I am just wondering bro? ~BH

 

[Yurt]

VAST LWC....

you obviously missed my post....as such, let me repeat....

i don't believe anyone has broken the law, they have not "levied" war....if i recall it is not simply calling for removal by force that is treason under the constitution and code, it is the actually levying of war....

While I see your point, it's a semantic one.

A military coup against the US Government would surely bring many deaths with it, and that would certainly be definable as a "Civil War".

Attempting to cause said civil war to happen is certainly definable as "treason".

wording is key here.....he has not done anything to cause or would surely cause to bring deaths....hence the differencing with wondering about it, versus levying it.....

as far as this thread is concerned, no attempt has been made....thus, you're wrong to suggest any illegal behavior so far...

 

[Contumacious]

Our Founding Fathers were TRAITORS- INSURGENTS- as far as King George was concerned:


We hold these truths to be self-evident:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that, to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. .

Yes, they were "traitors". Traitors to a monarchy that governed them from a foreign land, and treated them as second class citizens.

In this case you would be replacing the Consitution of the United States with a military police state for no better reason than you don't like the democratically, duly elected President.

And you're still traitors. Again, has anyone contacted the FBI?

If I don't like a civilian dictator I definitely won't like a military dictator, or any type of dictatorship for that matter.

I was merely pointing out that the Framers approved throwing off a despotic form of government.

.

.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

A military coup isn't "shredding the Constitution"?

Show me once`where I have supported this suggested coup you mentally deranged lunatic? You nutcases can't even have a discussion without lumping everyone joining it together. It's like me saying that you are supporting a coup because your posting in this thread. You dumbass. ~BH

 

[52ndStreet]

VAST LWC....

you obviously missed my post....as such, let me repeat....

i don't believe anyone has broken the law, they have not "levied" war....if i recall it is not simply calling for removal by force that is treason under the constitution and code, it is the actually levying of war....

While I see your point, it's a semantic one.

A military coup against the US Government would surely bring many deaths with it, and that would certainly be definable as a "Civil War".

Attempting to cause said civil war to happen is certainly definable as "treason".

wording is key here.....he has not done anything to cause or would surely cause to bring deaths....hence the differencing with wondering about it, versus levying it.....

as far as this thread is concerned, no attempt has been made....thus, you're wrong to suggest any illegal behavior so far...

Thats what I was trying to tell that other FBI Snitch ,Bitch, Wrycatcher, by just suggesting a U.S. Army military takeover is not a crime. The actual physical attempt, by a States Malitia
man would be under State, and Federal Law.!!

 

[Tech_Esq]

With the recent decision of current attorney General ,Eric Holder to move the Sept 11 Terrorist to a New York City Federal civilian court, on U.S. soil, thus making New York City a Terrorists target again, I must suggest a U.S. Army temporary takeover of the United States government from the Obama administration. The U.S. Army could install a leadership tribunal of three Generals to run the country, and they could also appoint other
U.S. Army personell to run the other areas of the American government.

I feel the Obama Administration, and U.S. attorney Eric Holder, are jeopardizing
American safety and , and national security with their decision to bring Terrorists War combattants to American soil for prosecution, and their incorrect decision to close Guantanamo Bay Millitary dentention center in Cuba.

We need the U.S. Army to take over the America governement now. They must by means
of some emergency edict take control away from President Obama Now. The President
is endangering the lives of Americans, and people of the free world with his decisions, and the decisions of his Attorney general Eric Holder. They must both be removed from the America government, and detained by the U.S. Army.

We need an American milltary take over now before it is to late.
The Terrorists will target America again.

This is not a third-world country (yet) and I see no reason to act like one.

If there is a reason to revolt, it should be a popular one and not a coup d'etat. Rule should then be return to an elected government. The best thing the military could do is watch and make sure outside force takes advantage of the situation. But, I don't see it coming to this extreme either.

 

[Vast LWC]

So Vast, what is your opinion on The French revolution? I am just wondering bro? ~BH

The French Government at the time was an absolute monarchy, a Machiavellian dictatorship.

The country needed a revolution. And even then, you see how well that turned out. Years of senseless slaughter leading to Napoleon, and then more years of senseless slaughter.

But it was in fact for all the right reasons, unlike this situation, in which the administration is elected to office, and can be easily supplanted by a majority vote in the next election.

Of course, that would assume that a majority of the people want to replace the president, which is currently not the case.

 

[Vast LWC]

I wish those who think that the idiot 52ndGutter may have a "point," would keep their stupid mouths shut while they think it through for a while. For, until you guys do manage to shut yer yaps, you are making Vast LWC look like a fucking genius.

I really hate having to agree with him when he spouts off; but on the other hand, it is a better thing to do to give the devil his due than it is to pretend that he cannot ever be right even when he is.

When Vast LWC said this:

In this case you would be replacing the Consitution of the United States with a military police state for no better reason than you don't like the democratically, duly elected President.

, he was quite simply correct.

I am not a fan in any way of President Obama. But he DID win the election. He IS the President of the United States. The United States IS a Constitutional Republic in the form of a representative democracy. We change governments regularly. But we do so by the BALLOT, not by the bullet, and not by way of a military junta.

My props to Vast LWC for his position on this matter.

Thank you Liability.

Though we surely have many disagreements across the political spectrum, I would surely share your point of view during a diametrically opposed administration that I disliked.

For instance, I never called for a violent revolution during the Bush administration, though I disagreed with most of what they did.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

I can't believe that deranged Yenta Emma supports a Military coup in This Constitutional Republic. That is some doped up crazy talk. Someone should report her to the FBI. ~BH

 

[BolshevikHunter]

So Vast, what is your opinion on The French revolution? I am just wondering bro? ~BH

The French Government at the time was an absolute monarchy, a Machiavellian dictatorship.

The country needed a revolution. And even then, you see how well that turned out. Years of senseless slaughter leading to Napoleon, and then more years of senseless slaughter.

But it was in fact for all the right reasons, unlike this situation, in which the administration is elected to office, and can be easily supplanted by a majority vote in the next election.

Of course, that would assume that a majority of the people want to replace the president, which is currently not the case.

Not yet anyway. Not a bad response though, but it doesn't suprise me that somehow that was ok coming from a leftist like yourself bro. Obama is acting like a lawless Monarch right now Vast. ~BH

 

[Vast LWC]

Show me once`where I have supported this suggested coup you mentally deranged lunatic? You nutcases can't even have a discussion without lumping everyone joining it together. It's like me saying that you are supporting a coup because your posting in this thread. You dumbass. ~BH

You're right, I had you mixed up with another poster. My apologies for a knee-jerk post.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Show me once`where I have supported this suggested coup you mentally deranged lunatic? You nutcases can't even have a discussion without lumping everyone joining it together. It's like me saying that you are supporting a coup because your posting in this thread. You dumbass. ~BH

You're right, I had you mixed up with another poster. My apologies for a knee-jerk post.

Fair enough. Apology accepted. Edit it, and I will edit mine. ~BH

 

[Vast LWC]

Not yet anyway. Not a bad response though, but it doesn't suprise me that somehow that was ok coming from a leftist like yourself bro. Obama is acting like a lawless Monarch right now Vast. ~BH

But see, this is straight to the point.

There is not one thing Mr Obama has done in the 10 months of his administration that was "unconstitutional".

Some people argue that some modern government policies are in contention with the "intent" of the Constitution, but no-one has successfully been able to poiont out one thing that Mr Obama has done that is "unconstitutional".

Hell, I haven't even seen any convincing evidence that anything Mr Obama has done is "Socialist" (which is a word I hear all the time from the FoxNews crowd).

The one example they use, the takeover of the car companies, was not in fact a socialist grab for the means of production, but was a caling in of the huge amount of debt owed to the taxpayers by the auto manufacturers.

 

[Contumacious]

[.Of course, that would assume that a majority of the people want to replace the president, which is currently not the case.

Of course not.

We are being presently governed by a welfare/warfare state. Those who are the recipient of federal largesse are in hog heaven.

Taxpayers and those having to subsidize the behemoth are not fairing so well.

capisce?


.

 

[Vast LWC]

Fair enough. Apology accepted. Edit it, and I will edit mine. ~BH

Done.

 

[BolshevikHunter]

Not yet anyway. Not a bad response though, but it doesn't suprise me that somehow that was ok coming from a leftist like yourself bro. Obama is acting like a lawless Monarch right now Vast. ~BH

But see, this is straight to the point.

There is not one thing Mr Obama has done in the 10 months of his administration that was "unconstitutional".

Some people argue that some modern government policies are in contention with the "intent" of the Constitution, but no-one has successfully been able to poiont out one thing that Mr Obama has done that is "unconstitutional".

Hell, I haven't even seen any convincing evidence that anything Mr Obama has done is "Socialist" (which is a word I hear all the time from the FoxNews crowd).

The one example they use, the takeover of the car companies, was not in fact a socialist grab for the means of production, but was a caling in of the huge amount of debt owed to the taxpayers by the auto manufacturers.

Yeah well, I would say that the bail out of the International Banks, including Bush's, was clearly Un-Constitutional. Judge Napolitano (A Constitutional Judge) agree's. That's a long debate for another thread though bro. ~BH