Impeach Obama, EXECUTE Obama...sound familiar?

[CowboyX]

http://on.msnbc.com/1ei7l17

[Talthas]

Yeah... sure does.








It sounds very familiar... but unlike now, there was a deafening silence from the media when it happened before.

From the linked article:

people threatened Bush at protests all the time by displaying menacing signs and messages. Yet for reasons that are not entirely clear, none of those Bush-threateners at protests was ever arrested, questioned, or investigated (at least as far as I could tell).

...explicit and implicit threats to Bush’s life were commonly displayed at public protests throughout his term as president.

I contend that the media is aggressively reporting on, highlighting and pursuing any and all possible threats to President Obama — and even hints of threats — but they purposely glossed over, ignored or failed to report similar threats to President Bush. Why? I believe it is part of an ideological bias: most mainstream networks and newspapers tried their best during the Bush administration to portray the anti-war movement as mainstream and moderate; whereas now they are trying to portray the anti-tax and anti-health-care-bill protesters as extremists and as fringe kooks. To achieve these goals, they essentially suppressed any mentions of the violent signage (including threats to Bush) at anti-war rallies, but have highlighted anything that could even conceivably be construed as a threat at anti-Obama events.

Every threat to Obama is now vigorously pursued, trumpeted and dissected by the media and the blogs, and roundly condemned. And I condemn such threats as well.

But in the past, whenever someone threatened Bush at a protest, there was a deafening silence on the part of the media and the left-leaning blogs, and consequently very little (if any) follow-through on the part of the Secret Service. Which I find quite distressing. I was condemning those threats in the past (as best I could, by drawing attention to them on my blog) — but few people were joining me in my condemnation.

If you truly, truly cared about presidents’ lives being threatened, you would be just as incensed by people threatening Bush’s life at protests as you are about (the far less frequent instances of) Obama’s life being threatened at protests.

[Talthas]

And to address your specific complaint:

Attachment 3613

Not impressed by one person speaking carelessly and being responded to appropriately.

[Sigfried]

I hardly think the media was silent about threats to Bush Jr or any president. I was certainly aware of such signs and protests during the time.

Frankly that kind of BS comes with the territory of being a world leader in a free country.

[CowboyX]

Funny, I don't see any "enemy combatant" signs nor congress members encouraging them.

[Squatch347]

So you didn't see the sign where they call him a terrorist?

Do you mean like when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stood in front of Anti-Bush protestors and said that she supported their speaking out and was a fan of their protest?

http://startthinkingright.wordpress....f-disruptions/

[Someguy]

Yeah... sure does.








It sounds very familiar... but unlike now, there was a deafening silence from the media when it happened before.

From the linked article:

So you didn't see the sign where they call him a terrorist?

Do you mean like when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stood in front of Anti-Bush protestors and said that she supported their speaking out and was a fan of their protest?

http://startthinkingright.wordpress....f-disruptions/

Flawless victory. Fatality.

[CowboyX]

So you didn't see the sign where they call him a terrorist?

I wouldn't say they're the same, but close, ok.

---------- Post added at 11:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:26 AM ----------

Do you mean like when Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stood in front of Anti-Bush protestors and said that she supported their speaking out and was a fan of their protest?

http://startthinkingright.wordpress....f-disruptions/

I happen to remember something about war protestors being called traitors, and treasonous and who could forget "you can't support the troops without supporting the mission". So does the same go here?

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

Was Pelosi directly addressed by one of these protestors? (the ones with the death to bush signs?)

[Squatch347]

I wouldn't say they're the same, but close, ok.

Legally they are the same right? Isn't that the purpose of the decision to reframe them enemy combatants?

I happen to remember something about war protestors being called traitors, and treasonous and who could forget "you can't support the troops without supporting the mission". So does the same go here?

First, I should point out that that seems beside the point, the point here is that the same offensive comments were made about the previous president too, with little to no outrage.

Second, she isn't protesting the war, she is protesting the President's decision to follow unilateral law changes without consulting Congress.

Third, her comments are certainly inappropriate. I am no fan of the President's policies, but suggesting he should be killed is ridiculous. And you'll notice the Representative, while not shouting her down, didn't support that at all as was implied.

Was Pelosi directly addressed by one of these protestors? (the ones with the death to bush signs?)

She was directly addressing them, yes.

[CowboyX]

She was directly addressing them, yes.

That's not what I asked.

---------- Post added at 10:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

Legally they are the same right? Isn't that the purpose of the decision to reframe them enemy combatants?

"Enemy combatants" has somewhat of a "foreign" tinge about it but yeah, I'll agree. However, the people Bush was supposedly terrorizing were in Iraq and Afghanistan, no? Not Americans. The lady in the video is claiming that Obama is terrorizing us.

Which is what the representative picks up on and dog whistles. "Lawlessness" "rules by decree" "picks and chooses which laws to enforce" all nonsense of course.


How was that comparable to what Pelosi said? Is there video of the Pelosi statement or anything more? Maybe a better transcript?

[Squatch347]

That's not what I asked.

It is given the context of the thread. She was voluntarily addressing a group of people, some of whom openly and to her knowledge were advocating the death of President Bush. There is no material difference here between communicating the message orally or written.

The lady in the video is claiming that Obama is terrorizing us.

Ok, how does that materially affect his response? Why is it OK to advocate for the death of a President killing foreigners, but not OK to advocate for the death of a President killing Americans?

"Lawlessness" "rules by decree" "picks and chooses which laws to enforce" all nonsense of course.

Lawless might be a bit strong, but the latter two are pretty well established facts right?

The President just finished a state of the union where he said he was willing to use executive orders to accomplish his goals (those are decrees). He also does, quite notably (and I think you've even mentioned it) pick and chooses what laws to enforce.

He made a big statement of not enforcing or defending DOMA. He just announced, yesterday, his decision not to enforce the employer mandate portion of the law that he signed in 2010.

How is that fact "nonsense?"

[CowboyX]

It is given the context of the thread. She was voluntarily addressing a group of people, some of whom openly and to her knowledge were advocating the death of President Bush. There is no material difference here between communicating the message orally or written.

Still not what I asked.

---------- Post added at 02:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:04 PM ----------

Ok, how does that materially affect his response? Why is it OK to advocate for the death of a President killing foreigners, but not OK to advocate for the death of a President killing Americans?

Because in one case it was happening the other it is not.

---------- Post added at 02:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:05 PM ----------

Lawless might be a bit strong, but the latter two are pretty well established facts right?

The President just finished a state of the union where he said he was willing to use executive orders to accomplish his goals (those are decrees). He also does, quite notably (and I think you've even mentioned it) pick and chooses what laws to enforce.

He made a big statement of not enforcing or defending DOMA. He just announced, yesterday, his decision not to enforce the employer mandate portion of the law that he signed in 2010.

How is that fact "nonsense?"

In that he deserves to be executed for it, especially since its legal.

[Talthas]

In that he deserves to be executed for it, especially since its legal.

Show specifically where in the Constitution it is written that the President of the United States can do anything except ensure that the laws of the country are "faithfully executed." Show where any legal precedent exists that justifies his unilateral changing of the laws or his refusal to enforce them as written.

[Sigfried]

Show specifically where in the Constitution it is written that the President of the United States can do anything except ensure that the laws of the country are "faithfully executed." Show where any legal precedent exists that justifies his unilateral changing of the laws or his refusal to enforce them as written.

I you to demonstrate how your challenge has anything to do what so ever with justifying execution.

[Mdougie]

Show specifically where in the Constitution it is written that the President of the United States can do anything except ensure that the laws of the country are "faithfully executed." Show where any legal precedent exists that justifies his unilateral changing of the laws or his refusal to enforce them as written.

It doesn't say what you imply it says in the constitution. The only thing that comes close is the Oath of Office. Which states. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That means that to faithfully execute the office of President and to preserve, and protect the Constitution the President may decide not to enforce a law. He is the executive, and as such that has common executive power.

[Talthas]

I you to demonstrate how your challenge has anything to do what so ever with justifying execution.

Challenge rejected. I never implied any such thing.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

It doesn't say what you imply it says in the constitution. The only thing that comes close is the Oath of Office. Which states. "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That means that to faithfully execute the office of President and to preserve, and protect the Constitution the President may decide not to enforce a law. He is the executive, and as such that has common executive power.

Show me where in the Constitution the President has the power to refuse to execute a law that has been legally passed by Congress and which has not been found to be unconstitutional.

[Mdougie]

Challenge rejected. I never implied any such thing.

---------- Post added at 06:49 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:41 PM ----------

Show me where in the Constitution the President has the power to refuse to execute a law that has been legally passed by Congress and which has not been found to be unconstitutional.

I just did. The part you misquoted, and don't understand.

He is the Chief executive. That is the inherent power of the position. In the same way a prosecutor decides what crimes to prosecute. You need to show where that power is taken from him in the constitution, but that would mean actually reading it. Seeing as how you got the oath wrong I bet it has been awhile for you.

[CowboyX]

Show specifically where in the Constitution it is written that the President of the United States can do anything except ensure that the laws of the country are "faithfully executed." Show where any legal precedent exists that justifies his unilateral changing of the laws or his refusal to enforce them as written.

Obama hasn't.

[Someguy]

I just did. The part you misquoted, and don't understand.

He is the Chief executive. That is the inherent power of the position. In the same way a prosecutor decides what crimes to prosecute. You need to show where that power is taken from him in the constitution, but that would mean actually reading it. Seeing as how you got the oath wrong I bet it has been awhile for you.

This is about the most uneducated, ignorant thing I have ever read on ODN....and I have read a lot of them. The President is bound to uphold the Constitution as chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.

Nowhere in his job description is it said or implied in any way that he has the right to simply ignore the laws he doesnt like.

Oh, don't like the law against rape, Obama? To hell with that law, just ignore it and go snatch you up a white girl.

Jesus Christ...the ignorance of your post, Mdougie, is overwhelming.

[Mdougie]

This is about the most uneducated, ignorant thing I have ever read on ODN....and I have read a lot of them. The President is bound to uphold the Constitution as chief executive, he enforces laws, treaties, and court rulings; develops federal policies; prepares the national budget; and appoints federal officials. He also approves or vetoes acts of Congress and grants pardons.

Nowhere in his job description is it said or implied in any way that he has the right to simply ignore the laws he doesnt like.

Oh, don't like the law against rape, Obama? To hell with that law, just ignore it and go snatch you up a white girl.

Jesus Christ...the ignorance of your post, Mdougie, is overwhelming.

Ah right win authoritarians always throw out the race card. I get it you don't like the black president. He will allow raping of white girls. lol

Anyway. As the chief executive he does get to decide what laws to enforce, and what is a crime. That is exactly what a pardon does. He can pardon anyone or however many people he wants. That is his power. Also, he like a prosecutor can decide not to enforce statutes. That is the nature of the executive power. If you disagree show where I am wrong in the constitution. Or haven't you read it?