jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (27 posts)

Isn't congress a counter-power to Obama's absolute monarchy?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago

    Obama is waging wars against Iraq, Syria... with whose dimes? If our government finances wars what about Detroit, Pittsburgh... ? What is Congress doing? If congress doesn't do its job who will?
    Art 1, sect 8 clearly states that congress shall have power to declare wars..., to raise and support armies..., to make rules for the government..., to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers...

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      ...what about Detroit, Pittsburgh?

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        Why don't you check for yourself? Are you living in the US or not? How can you not know their tragedies? So you know about Iraq but nothing about your own land, what can I say? Nothing. I'm speechless.

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          This is a problem with your writing. You assume everyone reading is as informed and intelligent as you. We are not.
          Obviously.

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            You can be intelligent and uninformed but you can't be intelligent and misinformed.

    2. cjhunsinger profile image68
      cjhunsingerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      Your ambiguity here prompts the question; do you want Obama to wage war against Detroit and Pittsburgh? I would throw in Chicago too. Don't you read the newspapers. The rest I would agree with you, and maybe bombing Detroit, but I do still have relatives there---bomb it anyway.

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        No, I meant that if we have ENOUGH money to bomb the rest of the world, why wasn't the government taking care of cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh...? It is clear that the government (by government I mean, the people that have been ruling for years now) has no interests in saving Americans. If they can kill children for oil, gas and other commodity, they will care less about Americans. And, it is exactly what is happening. They ruined economically, environmentally the country and now they are hunting for greener pasture. Our presence in the middle east and Africa is a telltale sign.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago

    "Art 1, sect 8 clearly states that CONGRESS shall have power to declare wars..., to raise and support armies..., to make rules for the government..., to make all laws which shall be necessary for carrying into execution the foregoing powers…"

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      An ex-military man informed me that our generals are advising Obama the best course/s to take, but he is ignoring them… If they resist or argue with him, they are labeled as racists. (Is this rude? un PC? off topic?)

      1. maxoxam41 profile image78
        maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

        During Kennedy's tenure those same generals were pushing Kennedy to press the nuclear button, Eisenhower warned the public against the influence and power of military industrial complex... Doesn't it say a lot about those generals?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          "October 7 - President Kennedy signs the Partial Test Ban Treaty, prohibiting all nuclear weapons testing providing an exception for underground nuclear testing only." Wikipedia
                              Why did those generals want to press Kennedy to...
                                                  Push the BUTTON?

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            Haven't you noticed that most of governments aren't well-intentioned? Haven't you noticed that when Kennedy became president a certain tension, called cold war, existed between the US and Russia? Until now Brzezinski, Obama's master, is caressing the dream of eliminating Russia from the world map? If you didn't know, and you are REALLY interested in the topic why not reading Webster Griffin Tarpley's "Obama, the postmodern coup". But, BEWARE, it requires a lot of efforts (to type on the computer the title, to look for your plastic card number, to purchase it, to wait for the delivery...).

            1. profile image60
              retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

              Nixon's bona fides as an anti-Communist were at least as strong as Kennedy's, perhaps stronger. Kennedy wasn't elected to fight the Cold Was, he was elected because - TELEVISION!!

              1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Television or because he was smarter and telegenic? Why did you think Obama was elected for his "involvement" in the community?

                1. profile image60
                  retief2000posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Obama was the culmination of a very long plan. He is proof that we lost the Cold War. Kennedy was hardly smarter. When surveyed the radio audience preferred Nixon, why - because he was smarter.

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    http://youtu.be/gbrcRKqLSRw
                    Which survey said that Nixon was the winner? Because I don't see in which subject he was better than Kennedy. But again, if it was REALLY the case, didn't the American electorate chose twice consecutively  Bush as a president?

            2. GA Anderson profile image85
              GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              As you seem to put a lot of credibility into Tarpley, I did one of those famous 20-minute google searches.

              How can one address a conspiritist(sp?)? All debunking proof is declared to be proof of the conspiracy. All skepticism of the conspiracies is deemed to be naivety.   Your Tarpley's writings may resonate with your perspectives, but other than a validation of those perspectives - what is your "proof" of his truth(s)?

              As for his credibility, here is an excerpt from one of his book promos:
              "Exhaustively documented by intensive search of dozens of archives and months of interviews with government insiders, this biography digs up all the dirt - frightening, gory, hilarious - on the Bush dynasty: how the Bushes made their fortune building up Hitler and the Nazi war machine; "

              Months of interviews? "digs up all the dirt?"  "building up the Nazi war machine?"Really? This is the expert you rely on for information?

              GA

              1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Here is a nobody talking about a man that he NEVER read. Who do you think you are? If you read the book and oppose a valid argumentation I understand but if you oppose me without knowledge I will denigrate your arrogance.
                His book is a rational testimony of the descent of the US towards a dictatorship. It is scholarly argued and supported. His intellectual reasoning and knowledge give to his book the dimension of a historical document. Since you didn't read, dare contradict me!
                Which conspiracy theory of his didn't become true? Again if he is a conspiracy theorist, what makes you? A servile and fervent jingoist? To be polite.
                Who is your "expert"? O' Reilly?

                1. GA Anderson profile image85
                  GA Andersonposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  Well... I guess you certainly nailed me didn't you.

                  I did read most of the preview pages available for a couple of his books. It did not take long for me to feel justified in my original opinion.

                  That you call his writings "rational testimony" explains much about the tone of most of your forum comments.

                  If you are right, then I am just a cell in the matrix of a controlled citizenry which will never see the the truth hidden behind the curtain.

                  If I am right, then my world must be completely alien to you. I'm betting on the latter and believe you are equally as happy in your world as I am in mine. Which is as it should be.

                  ps. Now that I see the foundational material that supports your views, I promise to never contradict you again.

                  GA

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    You can contradict but at least be informed and rational. For you to quote Tarpley through someone else's quotation shows that you are part of the mass the one that doesn't think for itself. As for me, I am not ashamed to count among my sources, Meyssan, Tarpley, David Crist, John Perkins, Naomi Klein, Mickey Huff, Andy Lee Roth, Steve Coll, Jeremy Scahill, Michael Ruppert...
                    There are two separations in the American society one that yourself calls the conspiracy theorist and the other that I called the servile and fervent jingoist. If we accept those two fringes, I agree with you, you are just a cell in the matrix of citizenry.
                    When did I say I was happy? What does allow me to say that I am happy in a nascent dictatorship? Are we spied upon yes or no? If the answer is yes then what is the difference between the US, China and Russia? Knowing that, how can someone be happy? How can someone project their offspring in a possible future? If the world becomes one government (fascist?), one economy (neoliberal?), one money (derivative of the dollar?) what will my identity, my rights become?
                    Every people is traceable through their DNA. The people is at its purest form. The majority of Germans marry a German, a French a French etc...The only ones that would bring a problem would be royalty and aristocracy, the US and Israel. Everybody knows that royalty and aristocracy mixed their blood so did Americans and Israelis. It could explain the appellation "blue blood". In a way, they all lost their original ethnicity. So if I follow my theory it would make sense (as another incentive) that the people at the top would want to eradicate the ones at the bottom.

        2. profile image84
          Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

          The generals encouraged Kennedy to use nuclear bombs against the Soviets?  Is this what you are saying?

          1. maxoxam41 profile image78
            maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

            That's exactly what they wanted.

            1. profile image84
              Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

              What is your source on this?

              1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                Why don't you first answer my original question?

                1. profile image84
                  Education Answerposted 2 years ago in reply to this

                  You're being evasive.  What was your question?  Was it directed at me?

                  1. maxoxam41 profile image78
                    maxoxam41posted 2 years ago in reply to this

                    The title of my forum. Isn't it the real subject?
                    If you knew me a little (through my interventions), you would have noticed that I am everything but evasive.

    2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 2 years ago in reply to this

      BTW
      "The president is the Commander in Chief of the army and navy of the United States according to Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers.

      He states:
      "Of all the cares and concerns of government, the direction of war most peculiarly demands those qualities which distinguish the exercise of power by a single hand. The direction of war implies the direction of the common strength; and the power of directing and employing the common strength, forms an unusual and essential part in the definition of executive authority.

 
working