• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

....Ironic...Barry's favorite tactic...denial.no wonder he never pursued law but chose public service instead.use this tactic couple of times and u in contempt of court in a heartbeat....again u are taking stated purpose of eo on faith,denying without refuting the posibillity of a different purpose.you refute by demonstrating.

still no evidence that this new EO will allow martial law and nationalization of peoples' pantries.

like I said, there is nothing to refute OR deny.....except for baseless speculation and paranoia.
 
still no evidence that this new EO will allow martial law and nationalization of peoples' pantries.

like I said, there is nothing to refute OR deny.....except for baseless speculation and paranoia.

Anything other than nuh-uh to add? Lastly, it's not baseless as I already showed - it's all in the interpretation and perspective.
 
a highly biased and agenda-driven interpretation & perspective, you mean.

As highly biased and agenda-driven of an interpretation and perspective as saying there's nothing there. :shrug:
 
Anything other than nuh-uh to add? Lastly, it's not baseless as I already showed - it's all in the interpretation and perspective.
It is evident to those with their eyes open. The. Eo also addresses ''work without compensation''and.......draft.
 
Sorry you feel that way.




What about laws against "hoarding" in an emergency? If that isn't nationalizing your personal pantry, what is?

Socialists like Obama would start a rationing program just like his socialist hero FDR.
 
This thread is beyond absurd at this point. "I'm just saying it seems suspicious."
"What seems suspicious?"
"The things in the bill"
"There's nothing suspicious there"
"Ah, denial"

This is classic Glen Beck argumentation. The whole "I'm just asking the questions" approach is used because those "asking the questions" are aware of the fact that they're arguing for something that has no basis in fact. This is the age of information, and unfortunately, a lot of the first reporting comes from social networks and people who have no idea what they're talking about. They skim through a law, propose some conspiracy theory, and suddenly it's trending and millions of people believe it just because the guy on Twitter who works at Best Buy came up with his faulty interpretation of a law or EO before the experts looked it over and wrote a fair analysis. It's such a waste of time, seriously.
 

What? What does the office of censorship have to do with anything? Roosevelt was given authority from congress to censor sensitive information about the war, set up the office of censorship, and then abolished it just after the war ended. I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say here, maybe you can enlighten me in regard to how FDR's executive order is related to the Obama EO that this thread is about.
 
"December 19, 1941"?!?!? 12 days after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. :lamo

Neither you, nor Mustachio even get the point. Do you? It's all good, bro.
 
A ton of people have been arguing over the detention provisions in the 2012 NDAA and the language in HR 347, but in these debates the entire point seems to be lost. The point being that our concern should be our ongoing problems with the war on terror. And by problems, I mean the indefinite detention of terrorism suspects, mostly in Guantanamo Bay, and the ongoing conflict in the middle east that's threatening to continue or even possibly expand.

When we start throwing around conspiracy theories about the government trying to throw American protesters into FEMA camps, we get further away from the legitimate discussions we should be having.

Interesting. Neither John Turley or Glenn Greenwald is a conspiracy theorist.

But, if that helps you to ignore the evidence... :roll:
 
believing in paranoid & ignorant conspiracy theories, makes one a conspiracy theorist.

How is it a conspiracy theory when they give complete proof, citing the language in the bills themselves?

Turley

  • Is the second most cited law professor in the country
  • Has worked as both the CBS and NBC legal analyst during national controversies
  • Ranks 38th in the top 100 most cited ‘public intellectuals’ in a recent study by a well-known judge
  • Is one of the top 10 lawyers handling military cases
  • Has served as a consultant on homeland security and constitutional issues
  • Is a frequent witness before the House and Senate on constitutional and statutory issues

Actually get information on people before you call them CTs.
 
its a conspiracy theory because he is proposing a plot by the govt. to enact martial law and steal peoples' pantries.

Really? Where did either Turley on Greenwald say that concerning the NDAA, HR 347, or the current EO?
 
New guy here. I was debating this EO with a family member and came across this forum in my research. I have read the entire bill, and honestly I don't see anything outside of what I would consider proper planning. Except for Section 502.

Sec. 502. Consultants. The head of each agency otherwise delegated functions under this order is delegated the authority of the President under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(b), (c), to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section may not be redelegated.

It seems this was one of items updated from this version
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12919.pdf

I would be interested in hearing why you think they changed that section, in particular the "without compensation" part.
 
New guy here. I was debating this EO with a family member and came across this forum in my research. I have read the entire bill, and honestly I don't see anything outside of what I would consider proper planning. Except for Section 502.



It seems this was one of items updated from this version
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12919.pdf

I would be interested in hearing why you think they changed that section, in particular the "without compensation" part.
They changed the section number bit other than that what am I missing?

From your link:
Sec. 602. Consultants. The head of each department or agency assigned functions under this order is delegated authority under sections 710(b) and (c) of the Act to employ persons of outstanding experience and ability without compensation and to employ experts, consultants, or organizations. The authority delegated by this section shall not be redelegated.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom