- Joined
- May 19, 2012
- Messages
- 2,671
- Reaction score
- 535
- Location
- OC California
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Other
Holy banana crap!! I'm not sure this requires a response.
It doesn't. It's old news.
Holy banana crap!! I'm not sure this requires a response.
Little to no support? Why is he still in office? He has been impeachable for a long time now. If you are awake like you say you are, you would be aware that they are not necessarily his ideas...there's a corporate influence and a jewish think tank, as well. I didn't express my "beliefs" either, as you put it. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. Repeat after me.... I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect. I cited EO's and legislation that are in effect.Is it getting through yet?
Congratulations.I can't believe you called Snowden a whistleblower and not a wack-o conspiracy theorist!
I might agree with that statement if you amended that to being his, Obama's, personal view of social justice... not what I would equate with what would be TRUE/REAL social justice.Social justice is his agenda in my view.
Yep, sit on the sidelines and watch while your party does most the damage...sounds about right. Where did Code Pink and all the other protesters go... oh yeah, that's right, we have a liberal doing the stanky thang in the oval office... so just hold your nose til the other guys get back in...I just love irrational conspiracy nonsense like this thread ...it drives rational conservatives into the moderate column and away from the right wing...
No, that is really not how it goes at all. You cannot just say [ I mean you can, its a free country, but its just your unsupported opinion ] that she is wrong and that it is all stupid... but if that is the entire weight of your argument,well, that is just a failed fluff argument.Again, that's not how it works. You say something stupid, no one has to prove you wrong. The burden is yours to convince. No counter is required.
I compliment you in being one of the only ones here that has attempted to muster even a half-hearted real argument, and not just simply worthless and lazy opinions... but also notice that you never replied to skitzo's response to your snopes gambit... seems a valid point about emergency vs non emergency situations... so, by not answering are you signalling that you do now agree that she has a valid point, that in times of emergency while we may very well need such authority, in times of non-emergency that the government should probably not be able to have such unlimited authority?snopes.com: Executive Order 13603 -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
Read the above link.
Not surprising.
But I'm sure it's a "conspiracy" isn't it?
Snopes is in on the "New Order" coming to the USofA. :lamo
I compliment you in being one of the only ones here that has attempted to muster even a half-hearted real argument, and not just simply worthless and lazy opinions... but also notice that you never replied to skitzo's response to your snopes gambit... seems a valid point about emergency vs non emergency situations... so, by not answering are you signalling that you do now agree that she has a valid point, that in times of emergency while we may very well need such authority, in times of non-emergency that the government should probably not be able to have such unlimited authority?
Inquiring minds deserve to know...
No, that is really not how it goes at all. You cannot just say [ I mean you can, its a free country, but its just your unsupported opinion ] that she is wrong and that it is all stupid... but if that is the entire weight of your argument,well, that is just a failed fluff argument.
She has very pointedly called for anyone, ANYONE, to take any, ANY, of the statements in the various documents and prove ANY part of them wrong or to be a lie... with logic, evidence or whatever you bring to bear in defense of what you believe to be the truth in the matter. I am still reading the documents and so am still analyzing, but to just come out and make a statement calling someone else's statement stupid without any accompanying reasoning... well, guess what... that is just not very smart, far less smart even, I would hazard...
And for all of you who have not read, have not done your due diligence, as is proper prior to spouting off some wasted worthless opinion... I would say, if you have already put your hands over your eyes and ears, why not do us all a favor and put one over your mouths as well, eh?
I dunno, might well be because just calling something stupid and waving a hand in its general direction is more approaching the whole stupid thing itself. If one cannot pick out a single thing and attempt to disprove it, cannot take the time to investigate it, take even the time to point out a specific thing one finds questionable, even if one does absolutely nothing further about disproving it... well, one should consider that to be a very lazy way to "debate"... plus it is a waste of everybody's time that stops to read such fluff ...I'm not sure why some object to stupid being called what it is, stupid. But when anyone merely makes a claims, which is really what those statements amounted to too, that is not anything worth of a rebuttal. Instead, actual evidence must be presented. Largely, many misread the evidence they think they have and exaggerate the meanings of small bits, often taken out of context. But to merely say x is y is not enough for a rebuttal. You must present actual evidence.
I dunno, might well be because just calling something stupid and waving a hand in its general direction is more approaching the whole stupid thing itself. If one cannot pick out a single thing and attempt to disprove it, cannot take the time to investigate it, take even the time to point out a specific thing one finds questionable, even if one does absolutely nothing further about disproving it... well, one should consider that to be a very lazy way to "debate"... plus it is a waste of everybody's time that stops to read such fluff ...
I did my best to try to turn what you said into something that made sense, but your inability to say something more than just you "disagree with me" has foiled my attempt. I never called you a conspiracy theorist, and, I really have to wonder what is your purpose posting here? There ought to be a minimum brain cell requirement to be able to post.
Hannity: Obama Can ‘Declare Martial Law’ in Peacetime!
Due to the fact that so many here appear completely unaware that they have laughed themselves out of freedom, due process, and a government with checks and balances, I challenge anybody to refute any of the information from the above link. While you people laughed at "conspiracy theorists" who paid close attention to executive orders and bills such as the NDAA that were quietly signed with little to no media attention, the legal framework for totalitarian dictatorship was passed into law.
I suspect people don't believe it because they haven't read all the documents, and they haven't seen the implementation of it. Of course, they also completely ignore things like the DHS and every other agency arming itself to the teeth, and Obama firing 11 military generals in one day (apparently weeding out the patriots), false flag operations in Boston, Colorado, and Connecticut (all attempts to try to get Americans to demand gun confiscation and abolishment of the 2nd amendment).
Obama, and all members of congress have broken their oaths and committed treason, yet NOTHING is done about it. You're either unaware or you just don't care about you, your family, and future generations. If you don't believe it, you can read it all and see that it's there in black and white (you can link to the actual documents from the above link).
I urge you to accept my challenge and disprove any statement from the above link. Please don't dismiss it just because you can walk outside right now and see a bunch of "freedom" going on. They're no doubt making final preparations and deciding on an "event" to use as a hammer-dropper. If Americans were smart, there would be indictments and recalls, and impeachment. More likely, they're going to sit idle until the NWO has everything in place. It's very near that point, and then it's too late.
So here's a couple of things. I've had more than enough experience with Skitzo to know she's a tinfoilhat wearing loon. I've participated in enough of her bizarro-world threads to have a good read on her.
I don't disagree that our government is slowly eroding our freedoms away from us.
But that's where things stop for me.
This erosion of rights has been going on a long time. Not just since Obama took office. It's not a democrat owned thing either. The republicans are doing the same thing too.
The snopes article states exactly that. Obama is doing nothing different than at least the last 5 or 6 of his predecessors have done.
And guess what - the next president will continue with the erosion and policies of Obama and his predecessors. It's like layers of sedimentary rock. Slowly, ever so slowly building up over time.
This is why I have never voted for a D or an R in my life. I fully support third parties and truly believe the "two party" behemoth we've allowed to be created in the USofA now has us in a stranglehold.
All that being said - Skitzo takes things to levels of nuttery that prevent me from being anywhere near committed to responding to every one of her redonculous posts.
I occasionally think it's fun to pop into a few of her threads, but I don't subscribe to them and I refuse to follow with any attempt to care.
It's kinda the "feeding the troll" scenario. I don't desire to starve her to death, but I also won't waste good food on her either. :mrgreen::lol::2razz::lamo:2wave:
Here's your problem with me: I'm not a fool and you know if you engage in a true debate with me, I'll shred you like burnt hash browns. This is because there's no true substance to your argument. You are incapable of focusing on the subject matter of the debate. If I make a valid point, you countering it with a comment regarding your fascination with tin foil hats is not going to score you points. You calling me wack-o and running away, is no match for my brilliant forensic analysis such as when I showed you exactly how snopes tried to deceptively twist a few words in an attempt to downplay the seriousness of it all. You responded the way you always do - by pretending my exposure of snopes as biased insiders never happened.
I don't remember the least hint of a partisan approach being given in the OP or after, actually.It is what it is. We've all investigated it. I've given a link elsewhere showing this kind of claim has been repeated often in history, even in 80's under Reagan, It's not intelligent, but more a mindless reaction to not liking a president or a specific direction. So the person cherry picks a few things, misrepresents it, and then goes all chicken little. It's not new.
So, he agreed to support one, and I told him to pick one. I'm still waiting. You're free to pick up his burden if you dare.
If you think that executive order is hair raising, go through the 'emergency preparedness' EO's starting with President Kennedy.
Executive Orders Disposition Tables Index
It would be interesting to peruse this index but time constraints do not allow. I'd be willing to bet, however, that none of the earlier Eo's have the words "during peacetime"....
I'd say that we have a rouge Administration and Congressional leaders. I don't think that they're terrorists at this time.
I don't remember the least hint of a partisan approach being given in the OP or after, actually.
Well, lets see what we have here... lets just go with Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
Are you comfortable with those NDERs... the National Defense Executive Reserve Units? They are not military, so presumably not subject to Posse Comitatus restrictions... so a paramilitary arm of the Executive branch... not liking that much, myself.
Is this that scary thing BO was talking about all the way back in 2008 civilian national security force - YouTube
I mean the left is always talking about the brown shirts, is this now them, perhaps? When has a president in the US needed his own private military unit?
According to the order, In times of emergency and, more importantly, ...in times of no emergency... they can take total control of food resources, water supplies, energy resources, transportation, health, commerce... I mean the list is long...what exactly is that all about, do you think? What triggers this?
We usually have these type laws come up after something just happened... or as we are preparing for something to happen... so what is going on, then?
Plus, it gives no time limit as to how long this can be in place, has no congressional oversight ever mentioned... so they could go on indefinitely without anybody even knowing much of anything...
You have no problems with any of that at all... its all just the normal course of business and we should just turn a blind eye to it, shirk our responsibilities to keep our eyes on our hired hands, make sure they are doing the right things...
Taking it directly from the EO, fellow citizen: Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White HouseA: This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama’s call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.
Obama’s ‘National Security Force?’
A: No. Contrary to false Internet rumors, the new Ready Reserve Corps of doctors and other health workers will report to the surgeon general and be like the "ready reserves" in other uniformed services. They will be used during health emergencies.
Obama’s “Private Army”
See, you're facts are wrong. You've bough into nonsense, and somehow expect someone to treat it as if it reasonable. I don't how to do that. Inaccurate facts are simply inaccurate. There is no debate about that.
Taking it directly from the EO, fellow citizen: Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness | The White House
(b) The Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue necessary guidance for the NDER program, including appropriate guidance for establishment, recruitment, training, monitoring, and activation of NDER units and shall be responsible for the overall coordination of the NDER program. The authority of the President under section 710(e) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2160(e), to determine periods of national defense emergency is delegated to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(c) The head of any agency may implement section 501(a) of this order with respect to NDER operations in such agency.
(d) The head of each agency with an NDER unit may exercise the authority under section 703 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2153, to employ civilian personnel when activating all or a part of its NDER unit. The exercise of this authority shall be subject to the provisions of sections 501(e) and (f) of this order and shall not be redelegated.
(e) The head of an agency may activate an NDER unit, in whole or in part, upon the written determination of the Secretary of Homeland Security that an emergency affecting the national defense exists and that the activation of the unit is necessary to carry out the emergency program functions of the agency.
So, from the order itself it contradicts what you say that is only doctors and other health workers who will report to the surgeon general. As it states, the head of any, ANY, of the agencies can activate units, etc...
And you have them, in times of peace as well as in times of emergency, able to take over all food resources, all energy resources, all water resources, health, commerce, I mean the list goes on and on...
Again, you do not address this either, there is no time limit for ending these operations set, no time limit for involvement of Congressional oversight...
That second link has absolutely nothing to do with this EO, and the first link is tenuous at best. I don't trust the out of Chicago, Annenberg Foundation [FACTCHECK.ORG] which Obama was funded/worked for/with/under previously. Questionable at the very least. You are gonna have to do a little more of your homework there boo... you are scaring me...
Okay, I guess you can go back to sleep now.Your interpretation is factually inaccurate. What you quote doesn't mean what you think it means. It doesn't specify anyone in that link. And people to help doctors and such would not meet your sky is falling interpretation. And we have for a fact not seen any Obama troopers do anything. It's sheer fiction on your part.
I only took the first two entries, but you can find many many more.