[Nuke]

yay, civil war! i call grey!

[swashmebuckle]

This pussy socialist judge doesn't think we can both lower taxes and win our inevitable war with the UN?

News flash, judge tax-happy: the name of this country is America, not Amsterdam! Go back to Canada!

[jr2]

WTF.  IF Obama handed over sovereignty of the US to the UN, then worry about it.  There's plenty of time for a bloodbath when it comes, which hopefully it doesn't.  I don't think Obama or any US president would be foolish enough to attempt that.  If the United States of America were to join some one-world government, then it would need to be done with the full knowledge and approval of its citizens, and the three branches of government.  You'd have to change the US Constitution, yada yada.  It's not something you would want to just foist on the people, or, indeed, you would probably have civil war.  I don't think anyone wants to go down in history as the President that started a Civil War.

Not to mention, every member of the Armed Services is sworn to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic"... realistically, the only way you could cede control to the UN or anyone would be to change the Constitution.

So, exactly how does the good judge figure Obama is going to pull this off again??

United States Armed Forces oath of enlistment
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Upon enlisting in the United States Armed Forces, each person enlisting in an armed force (whether a soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine) takes an oath of enlistment required by federal statute in 10 U.S.C. § 502. That section provides the text of the oath and sets out who may administer the oath:

§ 502. Enlistment oath: who may administer
(a) Enlistment Oath.— Each person enlisting in an armed force shall take the following oath:
"I, XXXXXXXXXX, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
(b) Who May Administer.— The oath may be taken before the President, the Vice-President, the Secretary of Defense, any commissioned officer, or any other person designated under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense.

Army Regulation 601-210, Active and Reserve Components Enlistment Program provides that:

A commissioned officer of any service will administer the Oath of Enlistment in DD Form 4 orally, in English, to each application. Make a suitable arrangement to ensure that the oath is administered in a dignified manner and in proper surroundings. display the U.S. flag prominently near the officer giving the oath. The words "So help me God" may be omitted for persons who desire to affirm rather than to swear to the oath.[1]

There is no duration defined in the Oath itself. The term of service for each enlisted person is written on the DD Form 4 series, the contract which specifies the enlistment period, which for a first-time enlistee is typically eight years, which can be a combination of active duty and time spent in a reserve component, although enlisted reservists are subject to activation until the end of the eight-year initial military obligation.
Officers do not take the same oath as enlisted personnel, instead taking a similar United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office.
United States Uniformed Services Oath of Office
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
All officers of the seven Uniformed services of the United States take swear or affirm an oath of office upon commissioning. It differs slightly from that of the oath of enlistment that enlisted members recite when they enter the service. It is required by statute, the oath being prescribed by Section 3331, Title 5, United States Code.[1] It is traditional for officers to recite the oath upon promotion but as long as the officer's service is continuous this is not actually required.[2] One notable difference between the officer and enlisted oaths is that the oath taken by officers does not include any provision to obey orders; while enlisted personnel are bound by the Uniform Code of Military Justice to obey lawful orders, officers in the service of the United States are bound by this oath to disobey any order that violates the Constitution of the United States.[3]
Text of the Oath

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

Note that the last sentence is not required to be said if the speaker has a personal or moral objection, as is true of all oaths administered by the United States government; Article Six of the United States Constitution requires that there be no religious test for public office.
The oath is for an indeterminate period; no duration is specifically defined.
Officers of the National Guard of the various States, however, take an additional oath:

I, [name], do solemly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the Governor of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___, that I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the Office of [grade] in the Army/Air National Guard of the State (Commonwealth, District, Territory) of ___ upon which I am about to enter, so help me God.[4]

Commissioned Officers (O-1 through O-10 second lieutenant or ensign through general or admiral, and W-2 through W-5 (chief warrant officers)) are commissioned under the authority of the President of the United States with the advice and consent of the United States Senate, Warrant Officers (WO-1) are given a warrant under the authority of their respective Service Secretary (e.g. Secretary of the Army), National Guard officers are additionally committed to the authority of the governor of their state. They may be activated in the service of their state in time of local or state emergency in addition to Federal activation. Reserve officers may only be activated by the President of the United States.

[swashmebuckle]

What socialist wikipedia won't tell you is that those oaths have been preemptively struck down by the 2009 world executive pact. The danger is very real my friends, and only the republican party can stop it, but it will come at a terrible price.  We have to choose between raising taxes or being overrun by a million man army from Obamastan: either way, America will be destroyed

[z64555]

What socialist wikipedia won't tell you is that those oaths have been preemptively struck down by the 2009 world executive pact.^{[Citation Needed]}

[Ghostavo]

His posts are dripping with sarcasm, there is no citation needed for that...

[NGTM-1R]

z, your sarcasm detector, it is broken.

I hope.

[z64555]

Sarcasm or no, citation is still needed.

[swashmebuckle]

No time to confirm sources, I've just learned that the Obama regime is building WMDs at this very moment!

EDIT: HOLY MOTHER OF GOD RIGHT UNDER OUR NOSES WE ARE SCREWED

[JCDNWarrior]

On the whole Obama and UN thing, doesn't he head the U.N. Security Council, and isn't that supposed to be illegal, to be working for a foreign government while also the President of the U.S? I'm not aware of what implications these things have or if it's a big deal or not.

Found two charges against Obama regarding this:

Surrendering sovereign U.S. war-making to foreign powers and international authorities by attacking Libya without consulting Congress, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article 1, Section 8 and U.S. Code Title 50, Chapter 33:1541-1548;

Accepting foreign title and office while acting as U.S. President and without consulting Congress when in 2009, Obama assumed the Chairmanship of the UN Security Council, the international body responsible for declaring war on behalf of the UN, in violation of U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 9

Above two examples taken from this website, if the above charges are shown to be true then I can understand fears that Obama might come to the decision to let the UN take charge of all things regarding U.S. government matters.

[redsniper]

Don't you see? That judge is actually very clever. (He's not actually a "judge" judge btw, that's just a title given to Texan county leaders. Why? Idk.) He knows that his county needs higher taxes to function properly, but he also knows that the only way he can pitch it to his ultra-conservative population is by appealing to their fears of foreign invasion.

"Look, guys... we need more money for new police cars and to fix potholes and stuff..... so we can better fight the UN horde!" 

[Thaeris]

Uh, from everything I've read, part of that man's occupation is to concieve of extreme scenarios, and I believe he himself stated that the liklihood of that scenario happening was extremely unlikely. Sensationalsim in the media brought that scenario to light, and sensationalism is propagating it here. Seriously, get over it.

Returning back on topic (the 2012 elections) I wanted to share this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKNpNpPRZY0&feature=related

I have nothing else to add for the moment regarding this subject.

The above quote is far more concerning, and many thanks for posting it. Everyone should be aware of that issue, especially if you are a US citizen. I think this not only sheds light on the Republican party, but I think it must reflect all of the major parties here as well. Both lend themselves to dishonesty and mal-dealings. In the above case, I don't doubt that f-ing Romney would have carried the majority of the vote on the floor, but the tampering and fixing of that outcome is so damn obvious that it's truly disgusting. What would be even more disgusting is if they let it get swept under the rug:

http://www.freedomworks.org/blog/mduncan/romney-camp-removing-rules-committee-members

http://www.redstate.com/2012/08/28/gop-rules-committee-rapidly-moving-to-shut-out-grassroots-at-200-p-m-today/

[Scotty]

So, I normally hate the GOP and their reactionary (conservative?  Hardly) policies.  That said, Paul Ryan is actually a pretty good guy.  If he were running as a candidate and not as a VP on the ticket, he might actually get my vote.

This is relevent, right?

[Thaeris]

I have discovered that I am in fact a libertarian - unfortunately with the way the system works, I don't think Ron Paul has much of a chance. A Paul/Johnson ticket would be incredible in my book.

[z64555]

I have discovered that I am in fact a libertarian - unfortunately with the way the system works, I don't think Ron Paul has much of a chance. A Paul/Johnson ticket would be incredible in my book.

Good incredible or bad incredible?

[Thaeris]

Definately a good. But, before this boils into a "you're wrong because I'm right" political discussion about candidate views, the thing I think must be countered in the nation is the disgusting nature of the political system, which does its work through stealth, subterfuge, and utter dishonesty. A union is a means of furthering an agenda, but like many trade unions, oft that agenda goes sour - this is the exact nature of both the Republican and Democratic parties today.

[The E]

Thaeris: Then I would like to ask you as well, what do you think a Romney/Ryan administration would do to improve your personal situation? And conversely, what has the Obama administration done that had a negative impact on your quality of life?

[Polpolion]

Thaeris: Then I would like to ask you as well, what do you think a Romney/Ryan administration would do to improve your personal situation? And conversely, what has the Obama administration done that had a negative impact on your quality of life?

I feel this is the wrong way to go about choosing who to vote for president. The president's actual job is so loosely related to a person's quality of life that his campaigning and campaign promises will have a far greater impact than he ever will otherwise.

[Thaeris]

If you cite any "social improvement" on the Obama front, I think you are clearly mistaken. Many of his key objectives during the 2008 election were NOT rectified, namely Guantanamo Bay, the Patroit Act, and a general expansion of US militarism. Not only were those issues not rectified, they were augmented in both scale and intensity. I need to do further research on my part for why and how one would be better off not voting "Democratic," but I think it's safe to say that any problems or issues you had with Bush have not only survived with Obama, but thrived with him.

I will note to you that I am neither for nor against socialism, but understand that socialism requires a unique environment for it to be successful - mutual ideals and goals must be shared on both a local and national level, and all members must contribute. The United States as of now does NOT meet this criteria, and large scale socialism thus cannot function efficiently or fairly. I think it is fair to state that broad-scale socialism seems to work in smaller nations, where the local level of activity does not differ much from the national level, but in nations of high populations (superpowers) socialism seems to lead to either some grandeous form of inefficiency or totalitarianism (such as USSR-esque communism). Both of those outcomes are not acceptable - the problems that be are caused by root inefficiencies elsewhere, and the Federal Government is attempting to intervene with large-scale enactments rather than regulating the root issues. The Democratic party may disagree with the arguments against socialism, but both parties are guilty of the failings due to the root causes.

[Aardwolf]

Gitmo shutdown never happened because congress wouldn't let it, and Obama didn't have the balls to use his commander-in-chief hat. Agree about PATRIOT Act / militarism gripe, though.

USSR totalitarianism was because the dictatorship was only supposed to be a transitional phase, but Stalin was a major asshole. And then China, Cuba, etc. decided to imitate them instead of doing things by the book.



Socialism > Corporatism

Anyone disagree? I'll take arguments of "what the Republicans are leading us toward isn't Corporatism" as agreement unless explicitly stated otherwise.



Maybe what needs to happen is a "private socialism" ... rather than try to get the government to create a better system through legislation, have private individuals (and maybe some progressive businesses) build a better system from the ground up. Like communes, but modernized and with Internets. Also coöps.