Thus the first part of my sig. However, if this goes all the way, I need to change that. Don't want to lose my lifes work over it. Hell, I might as well bend over.
IM just going to add my old thread in here.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=65651
So NOW who thinks Bush will declare martial law and crown himself king?
@OP
Very disturbing news. Its seems all of his executive orders are lef tbroad to be interpereted on the widest possible scale. King George is great at destroying checks and balances.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=65651
So NOW who thinks Bush will declare martial law and crown himself king?
@OP
Very disturbing news. Its seems all of his executive orders are lef tbroad to be interpereted on the widest possible scale. King George is great at destroying checks and balances.
All I'll say is that I'm glad I live in the Republic of Ireland.
These executive orders can be issued by the president at any time? The congress doesn't get to vote on any of them? If that's true then it seems we've found the weak spot of American democracy. Thats just too much power for a single person.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
So am I Cyrus.CameronPoe wrote:
All I'll say is that I'm glad I live in the Republic of Ireland.
Your answer is in that thread. Good day.Pierre wrote:
I'm not Fancy Bollox, so I don't waste my time searching through some posts.usmarine2005 wrote:
I guess you can search?Pierre wrote:
I guess you did read the entire thing right?
And did you understand what it says?
So, did you understand the article?
If you mean this thread then you are incorrect. You do not appear to have posted anything.usmarine2005 wrote:
Your answer is in that thread. Good day.Pierre wrote:
I'm not Fancy Bollox, so I don't waste my time searching through some posts.usmarine2005 wrote:
I guess you can search?
So, did you understand the article?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71523&p=1
ORLY?Pierre wrote:
I'm not Fancy Bollox, so I don't waste my time searching through some posts.usmarine2005 wrote:
I guess you can search?Pierre wrote:
I guess you did read the entire thing right?
And did you understand what it says?
So, did you understand the article?
BF2S.com Rule wrote:
USE THE SEARCH BUTTON. This is not a friendly request, if you do not search, you're very likely to have your thread closed and told to search. Harshly.
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."
Xbone Stormsurgezz
!!!!!!
kmarion omg your right holy crap.
my few brain cells are stirring.
kmarion omg your right holy crap.
my few brain cells are stirring.
Last edited by Caxcal (2007-07-20 11:02:59)
You misunderstood his post.chittydog wrote:
ORLY?Pierre wrote:
I'm not Fancy Bollox, so I don't waste my time searching through some posts.usmarine2005 wrote:
I guess you can search?
So, did you understand the article?BF2S.com Rule wrote:
USE THE SEARCH BUTTON. This is not a friendly request, if you do not search, you're very likely to have your thread closed and told to search. Harshly.
Fancy would troll through peoples past posts in an attempt to find either inconsistencies or things he considered retarded. And, then he would quote-post those in an attempt to childishly discredit someone (in every other thread they participated in). He did this a lot to IRONCHEF as I recall.
P.S. I doubt the search feature exists for the express purpose of past post trolling. It exists (IMO) so that duplicate threads are not created.
Last edited by topal63 (2007-07-20 11:03:17)
ironchef was an asshole and a liar
Resume topic.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
so is this bill or whatever really passed or does it need to go through congress and such
now thats scary
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
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Shit keeps going on like this and we get our freedoms sliced theres going to be an armed rebellion!
No...that is my point babe.crimson_grunt wrote:
If you mean this thread then you are incorrect. You do not appear to have posted anything.usmarine2005 wrote:
Your answer is in that thread. Good day.Pierre wrote:
I'm not Fancy Bollox, so I don't waste my time searching through some posts.
So, did you understand the article?
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=71523&p=1
I'm sorry to burst everyone's sensationaltastic (yes, I made that up) 'NWO Is Coming' bubble, but...
Sorry again, chuy, but your 'roguegovernment' site is guilty of fear-mongering. This administration will be out of office shortly.
Read on, my scholarly friend: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.
Executive Order wrote:
... (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of ...
As you can see, it craftily avoids a constitutional breach, as the order stipulates the administration's opinion that there is public danger.Fifth Amendment wrote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sorry again, chuy, but your 'roguegovernment' site is guilty of fear-mongering. This administration will be out of office shortly.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-20 11:57:41)
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
This administration will be out of office shortly.
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.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
I'm sorry to burst everyone's 'NWO Is Coming' bubble, but...Read on, my scholar friend: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.Executive Order wrote:
... (i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of ...As you can see, it craftily avoids a constitutional breach, as the order stipulates the administration's opinion that there is public danger.Fifth Amendment wrote:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sorry again, chuy, but your 'roguegovernment' site is guilty of fear-mongering. This administration will be out of office shortly.
And honestly, I don't think anyone has a problem with what this is intended to do. The problem lies with how vague it is. Tighten up the language and I don't think anyone here would say a thing about it.
Last edited by Agent_Dung_Bomb (2007-07-20 11:58:25)
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
Last edited by KEN-JENNINGS (2007-07-20 11:58:34)
*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.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-20 12:01:16)
...because fire doesn't affect steel, right? You subscribe to that nonsense?I'm Moonshine wrote:
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.
...
Let me sum up D&ST for you in a nutshell.
God exists, god doesn't exist, religion is violent, religion has some good points, what would Jesus do, Bush is an idiot, Blair is was a sycophantic idiot, no you're the idiot, Republicans suck, Democrats suck, both parties are the same, vote independent, independent will never win, the war is just, the war isn't just, abortion is good, abortion is bad, 911 was a government conspiracy, 911 was staged by terrorists, guns kill people, people kill people, Muslims kill people, not all Muslims are bad; Christians kill people too; yeah, but not as much, Catholics are pedophiles, Irish people are drunk, gingers have no souls.
There's probably some things I've left out, but that's about the extent of our creativity.
Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2007-07-20 12:10:12)
unnamednewbie13 wrote:
... Bush ... is the Antichrist.