nothing new here bud. dont waste your energy. move along.I'm Moonshine wrote:
I just bought BF2 a few days ago and decided to check out the forums. I'm glad to see this many people see through all this government bull. Its amazing how much they can get away with. I'm sure they are planning their next attack on us right now so they can blame it on Iran to get us in there. Well, I got a lot of threads to catch up on, I got a lot to get off my chest.
I don't appreciate your attitude. Anyone who's watched Loose Change is an expert in my book.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nothing new here bud. dont waste your energy. move along.I'm Moonshine wrote:
I just bought BF2 a few days ago and decided to check out the forums. I'm glad to see this many people see through all this government bull. Its amazing how much they can get away with. I'm sure they are planning their next attack on us right now so they can blame it on Iran to get us in there. Well, I got a lot of threads to catch up on, I got a lot to get off my chest.
Last edited by Cerpin_Taxt (2007-07-20 12:10:26)
Ignore him. Sit down and relax. Things gets pretty heated in here and watch out for Lowing, crazeee geezer.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nothing new here bud. dont waste your energy. move along.I'm Moonshine wrote:
I just bought BF2 a few days ago and decided to check out the forums. I'm glad to see this many people see through all this government bull. Its amazing how much they can get away with. I'm sure they are planning their next attack on us right now so they can blame it on Iran to get us in there. Well, I got a lot of threads to catch up on, I got a lot to get off my chest.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
Make sure m3thod doesn't convert you either. Last time I ask for potatoes.
Ontopic though, the guy (Bush) cares so much about Iraq. But doesn't give a fuck about his country.
Ontopic though, the guy (Bush) cares so much about Iraq. But doesn't give a fuck about his country.
Did you ever get sued for copyright infringement?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
I don't appreciate your attitude. Anyone who's watched Loose Change is an expert in my book.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nothing new here bud. dont waste your energy. move along.I'm Moonshine wrote:
I just bought BF2 a few days ago and decided to check out the forums. I'm glad to see this many people see through all this government bull. Its amazing how much they can get away with. I'm sure they are planning their next attack on us right now so they can blame it on Iran to get us in there. Well, I got a lot of threads to catch up on, I got a lot to get off my chest.
The veto I was referring to would be the President vetoing the conflicting legislation, and then the legislation goes back to Congress for a majority vote. I forgot about the funding which is silly of me..lol (Troop funding?..der). That's were all of the power in Congress comes from. The power of the pocket book. A quick wikipedia check would have set me straight .KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Nope - Congress can also block funding for an executive order.Kmarion wrote:
It is an executive order. They do not need approval, but Congress can block them by passing conflicting legislation. The President can Veto the legislation, and then it goes back to Congress where it needs a majority (2/3). Checks and balances. I don't know if any executive orders have been killed that way though.Caxcal wrote:
so is this bill or whatever really passed or does it need to go through congress and such
And nope - no executive order has been vetoed. There has been only two executive orders ever blocked, both by the court system. Both had to do with forming ambiguous restrictions on monied interests (aka not the public).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schechter_ … ted_States
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_ … _States%29
Xbone Stormsurgezz
You wrote a book? I've heard modern literature's BS, but this is too much. What's the name of the book? Derailing Threads?Cerpin_Taxt wrote:
I don't appreciate your attitude. Anyone who's watched Loose Change is an expert in my book.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
nothing new here bud. dont waste your energy. move along.I'm Moonshine wrote:
I just bought BF2 a few days ago and decided to check out the forums. I'm glad to see this many people see through all this government bull. Its amazing how much they can get away with. I'm sure they are planning their next attack on us right now so they can blame it on Iran to get us in there. Well, I got a lot of threads to catch up on, I got a lot to get off my chest.
Somewhat similar news.
Bush puts CIA prisons under Geneva Conventions.
Bush puts CIA prisons under Geneva Conventions.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Give the man the Nobel Prize.
That had been one thing that bothered me for awhile. Better late than never. Of course I think it had more to do with the Supreme court ruling last month.sergeriver wrote:
Give the man the Nobel Prize.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
unnamednewbie13 is on the right track (i.e., reading the text of the executive order carefully).
The key reservation in the executive order is that it only applies to people who have committed or pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence.
So the order does not give the President authority to freeze the property of people who speak out against the war, even if he claims that speaking out against the war undermines the security and stability of Iraq.
It does not strike me as a significant expansion of Presidential power that the President can freeze the property of people who commit violent acts that interfere with efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Actually, the administration itself has committed acts of violence that undermined the security and stability of Iraq...
The key reservation in the executive order is that it only applies to people who have committed or pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence.
So the order does not give the President authority to freeze the property of people who speak out against the war, even if he claims that speaking out against the war undermines the security and stability of Iraq.
It does not strike me as a significant expansion of Presidential power that the President can freeze the property of people who commit violent acts that interfere with efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Actually, the administration itself has committed acts of violence that undermined the security and stability of Iraq...
I still dont see your point. Public danger is a matter of perception. Bush can claim all he wants, but without even a declaration of war, I dont see how he can claim that.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
*sigh* Public danger. The rest was underlined to link other portions of the sentence together. Whether or not you agree that there is public danger is irrelevant, because it is the administration's point of view.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
We aren't at war. We may be waging a war on terror, but that isn't the same as as being at war. If that is to what you are referring, then technically we haven't been covered since we started the war on drugs.
Understand, people, that I'm not trying to defend Bush here; only to dispel rumors that he is the Antichrist.
Without due process accusations will become presumed facts outside of the public eye based on the discretion of a few. Given the vagueness of the order I don't see how any freedom loving American can accept this encroachment.san4 wrote:
unnamednewbie13 is on the right track (i.e., reading the text of the executive order carefully).
The key reservation in the executive order is that it only applies to people who have committed or pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence.
So the order does not give the President authority to freeze the property of people who speak out against the war, even if he claims that speaking out against the war undermines the security and stability of Iraq.
It does not strike me as a significant expansion of Presidential power that the President can freeze the property of people who commit violent acts that interfere with efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Actually, the administration itself has committed acts of violence that undermined the security and stability of Iraq...
Xbone Stormsurgezz
somehow i doubt the administration would count itselfsan4 wrote:
unnamednewbie13 is on the right track (i.e., reading the text of the executive order carefully).
The key reservation in the executive order is that it only applies to people who have committed or pose a significant risk of committing an act of violence.
So the order does not give the President authority to freeze the property of people who speak out against the war, even if he claims that speaking out against the war undermines the security and stability of Iraq.
It does not strike me as a significant expansion of Presidential power that the President can freeze the property of people who commit violent acts that interfere with efforts to stabilize Iraq.
Actually, the administration itself has committed acts of violence that undermined the security and stability of Iraq...
and Kmarion is right, this, like everything else this administration does, is so vague that they could potentially get you for speaking out against the war if they stretched far enough
it's not like they haven't done it before
Not sure why this concerns so many people. Why am I not worried? I do not intend on putting myself in situations that would give anyone a chance to use a law like this on me.
You work for an airline right, according to this if you fly someone who then goes and undermines the war in Iraq the government can start siezing your stuff.usmarine2005 wrote:
Not sure why this concerns so many people. Why am I not worried? I do not intend on putting myself in situations that would give anyone a chance to use a law like this on me.
The main intent of the law was to seize assets of people directly funding/supporting terrorist groups. However, the vagueness of the wording could trap anyone, including yourself, if they stretched it that far. If you are in agreement with going into Iraq, even saying that you don't agree with how they are conducting the war could get you snatched. Now I may be wrong, but have you not said in the past that you don't agree with how they are conducting the war. How they are trying to weed out insurgents amongst civilians rather than treating this like a war and using the military's capabilities, even if that means some collateral damage?usmarine2005 wrote:
Not sure why this concerns so many people. Why am I not worried? I do not intend on putting myself in situations that would give anyone a chance to use a law like this on me.
Bush needs an encounter with a grassy knoll.
The fact is that there are a number of executive orders that already allow the President to freeze assets without any judicial process (see three below). It is true that the latest order is a little broader because it doesn't provide a specific list of banned organizations, but I don't think that is such a big expansion of Presidential power. The President already can freeze your assets just by asserting that you contributed to Hamas, without having to prove it to a judge or jury. Now he can assert that you committed or planned a violent act to destabilize Iraq. One unsubstantiated assertion isn't much harder to make than another.
I don't want to defend the substance of the order. The government should have to go to court to have an asset freeze imposed, rather than force a US citizen to go to court to challenge a freeze imposed by the President. I agree that these orders are disturbing and undermine fundamental civil rights. My only point is that the order doesn't go far beyond existing orders. I trust this administration less than previous ones when it comes to using power competently and responsibly, but like it or not (I don't) the President has this power.
I don't want to defend the substance of the order. The government should have to go to court to have an asset freeze imposed, rather than force a US citizen to go to court to challenge a freeze imposed by the President. I agree that these orders are disturbing and undermine fundamental civil rights. My only point is that the order doesn't go far beyond existing orders. I trust this administration less than previous ones when it comes to using power competently and responsibly, but like it or not (I don't) the President has this power.
Also, I don't think the order is particularly vague. It specifically requires violent acts or plans to commit violent acts.The Internet wrote:
In December 2001, Bush froze the assets of a US-based charity deemed to provide funds to Hamas.
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News … cle1.shtml
In 1998, Clinton froze the assets of Osama Bin Laden and other Al Qaeda leaders. The executive order also barred US companies from doing business with Al Qaeda affiliates.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/in … 082398.htm
In June 2005, Bush ordered an asset freeze on anyone contributing to certain organizations that were involved in transferring nuclear and other weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Syria. The order allows the assets of US citizens to be frozen if they aid these organizations.
http://usinfo.state.gov/ei/Archive/2005 … 14326.html
The repeated ignoring of due process of law by the admin is why they are so hated.Kmarion wrote:
5th Amendment wrote:
"No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation," the fifth amendment reads.Without due process it is blatantly unconstitutional. Of course this isn't the first time we have seen due process side stepped.New Exec Order wrote:
President Bush's executive order stipulates that any property or interests in property in the United States -- or which enter the U.S. -- believed to assist in the undermining of security in Iraq be "blocked and may not be transferred, paid, exported, withdrawn or otherwise dealt in."
Wow. When I read the thread authors name I got a little chill.
I could almost smell the ozone crackling.
?
If the press are so anti Bush and swear the will never trump up phoney allegations to support a war again why are they going on about Iran?
No I think if I was using airline money and donating it to Hamas then they could seize my property. That is the way I see it working.PureFodder wrote:
You work for an airline right, according to this if you fly someone who then goes and undermines the war in Iraq the government can start siezing your stuff.usmarine2005 wrote:
Not sure why this concerns so many people. Why am I not worried? I do not intend on putting myself in situations that would give anyone a chance to use a law like this on me.
It clearly says providing a service to someone who commits violence in Iraq is acceptable grounds to begin siezing things. Air travel is a service, hence you would be at risk if any of your passengers ever decide to become a suicide bomber.usmarine2005 wrote:
No I think if I was using airline money and donating it to Hamas then they could seize my property. That is the way I see it working.PureFodder wrote:
You work for an airline right, according to this if you fly someone who then goes and undermines the war in Iraq the government can start siezing your stuff.usmarine2005 wrote:
Not sure why this concerns so many people. Why am I not worried? I do not intend on putting myself in situations that would give anyone a chance to use a law like this on me.
Get's pretty tiring defending that asswipe Marine, come over to the dark side and embrace the hatred.usmarine2005 wrote:
No I think if I was using airline money and donating it to Hamas then they could seize my property. That is the way I see it working.PureFodder wrote:
You work for an airline right, according to this if you fly someone who then goes and undermines the war in Iraq the government can start siezing your stuff.usmarine2005 wrote:
Not sure why this concerns so many people. Why am I not worried? I do not intend on putting myself in situations that would give anyone a chance to use a law like this on me.
Not defending him, just trying to understand something...ATG wrote:
Get's pretty tiring defending that asswipe Marine, come over to the dark side and embrace the hatred.usmarine2005 wrote:
No I think if I was using airline money and donating it to Hamas then they could seize my property. That is the way I see it working.PureFodder wrote:
You work for an airline right, according to this if you fly someone who then goes and undermines the war in Iraq the government can start siezing your stuff.
"to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; "
Is that so bad?
Do you really need to ask?usmarine2005 wrote:
Not defending him, just trying to understand something...ATG wrote:
Get's pretty tiring defending that asswipe Marine, come over to the dark side and embrace the hatred.usmarine2005 wrote:
No I think if I was using airline money and donating it to Hamas then they could seize my property. That is the way I see it working.
"to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; "
Is that so bad?
Last edited by sergeriver (2007-07-20 17:06:36)