• 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

Denial does not constitute refutation however intense.

A lack of evidence for something is not proof that it exists either.
 
yes, folks who want to see a conspiracy to enact martial law & nationalize peoples' pantries, will see that in this new EO.

...even if it ain't there.

And since you claim it can go that way, obviously it can go the other way where folks who want to see a magnanimous and giving government which will only act in the benefit of the people it humbly serves. Even when that isn't there either.
 
And since you claim it can go that way, obviously it can go the other way where folks who want to see a magnanimous and giving government which will only act in the benefit of the people it humbly serves.....

common CTist strawman.
 
You see what you want to see, not what is there.

And yet every thing you say is there isn't. When your argument is that it's there, but it's hidden so you can't find it, it's a pretty weak argument.
 
And yet every thing you say is there isn't. When your argument is that it's there, but it's hidden so you can't find it, it's a pretty weak argument.

Again,denial not refutation.
 
And yet every thing you say is there isn't.
What specifically did I say was there?

When your argument is that it's there, but it's hidden so you can't find it, it's a pretty weak argument.
I stated I can understand given the vagueness of the language how it can be seen that way. Given the government's overwhelming power already, that you cannot see it either means you don't know what it says, or are willfully ignoring what it says. As I already stated, it depends on one's perspective. You're perspective is one that protects this current administration so your response is not unanticipated. You could at least agree that everyone doesn't think like you and therefore may have a different interpretation.... but I'm not holding my breath.
 
short for "Conspiracy Theorist"

Interpreting language differently doesn't mean a conspiracy theory. The one document that I reviewed was completed in 2007 under Bush.... so it has nothing to do with a conspiracy nor am I remotely suggesting one.
 
Interpreting language differently doesn't mean a conspiracy theory. The one document that I reviewed was completed in 2007 under Bush.... so it has nothing to do with a conspiracy nor am I remotely suggesting one.

um..this thread is about an Executive Order issues a few days ago, not in 2007.
 
um..this thread is about an Executive Order issues a few days ago, not in 2007.

The EO references the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act from FEMA which was passed in 2007, and refers to specifics under that law. :roll:
 
what's there to deny?

not much.
Presented evidence.not much is not refutation.evidence is evidence until refutation of facts presented as evidence takes place.in this case posting members presented certain parts of the eo as evidence,concluding that ,as it is written,it can be used for a different purpose.you are denying the existence of such purpose,purely on...faith disregarding the argument .
 
I think it's worded far too vague to only grant power in the direst of circumstances.
I think "direst of circumstances" is far too vague. Decide how big you want the plan to be and I'm sure they can fill it up with scenarios and options - and still be short on possibilities and details.

You can't predict what may or may not be required to defend the country because it all depends on the specific circumstances. What's required to defend against a biological attack on the B-2 base at Whitman AFB isn't going to be the same things needed to defend against a nuclear attack on NYC, and that won't be the same as what's needed if all the critical electrical power junctions across the country are taken out. All you can do is try to list all the major things that might be needed to help defend against these attacks and keep the country running so it's not vulnerable to further attacks.
 
no evidence whatsoever has been presented that this new EO will allow POTUS to decla
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom