Bush sets up dictatorial power for self.

Post Reply New Topic

by the way, i'd much rather discussion on the actual directive than the article.....maybe i should cut that out and just post the directive....but i dunno how many people will actually read it and i'm guessing the article will at least motivate more people to actually dive in and read the directive.

Do you think the federal government is going to prevent you from criticizing it?



Really? How do you define an opposition party?



Not entirely true. Various industries, corporations, lobbying groups and clearly individuals show generally clear preferences to between the parties. Now sometimes groups will split it's donations, but often is because they are donating to different party candidates in different races.



1. There is less of popular opposition to the war itself then to the way the war is being conducted (it's all in the way the question is asked).
2. The war itself was probably less a factor in the Republican defeat then corruption in GOP.



How do they clearly have the power to "end the war in Iraq." The hold only one branch of government. They cannot force the President to sign the budgets they pass, nor can the force left of center House of Representatives force the more centrist Senate (which is only held by the Democrats Independent swing vote held by Joe Lieberman) to force through a timetable bill that Bush would wind up vetoeing. Such a bill, which is opposed by a majority of the American people, not only risks making the Democrats look like "defeatists" but could make Joe Lieberman, who is caucusing with the Democrats, flip over the Republicans.

I would also add that the removal of troops through starving of funds will not "end the war" by any measure. Al-Qaida, and other Sunni, and Shiite extremists will not end their goals of overthrowing what they view as a corrupt non-Islamic government. The war will not only continue, but it will escalate.



The House of Representatives passed a bill to put a timetable for a withdrawal. The Senate would not accept the House's conditions, and with funding already running short they gave the military full funding until September, at which time the congress can have a better look at the condition of post-surge Iraq. Neither parties' members via some oath of a party-line vote.



Third parties have never succeeded in the United States. New major parties rise only with the downfall of the major ones.The last time this occurred was in 1854. Change in platform can and has been made through the party primaries.

---



The closest thing to a law being passed saying you should "not question our own government" is the Campaign Finance Reform Bill and that has been primarily criticized by the right (who have have attacked a Republican President for signing it, not the left.). I believe the measure to be unconstitutional.



To suggest the Patriot Act only applies only to Muslims is incorrect. Many of the laws included in the act had already been employed against the Mob and white-collar criminals.



That is why I am not a believer in absolute democracy. Individual anecdotes are not a particular good method of demonstrating a pattern.



I don't understand what is so scary about it. I doesn't set up any kind of dictatorship. There really isn't anything evil, or apparently deceptive in the directive.

Why would they just put out there plan for a dictatorship on a website as a normal press release?

i think the scariest things in it are:

1. the definition given for a catastrophic emergency. it's too vague and allows for malicious interpretation.

2. there's a paradox in it.


though it's not evil, it is quite deceptive how they use words that are defined only at later points in the directive....it's done in a way to create confusion and misdirection. not to mention (people don't read the directive) it's abhorrent how much bureaucracy our government has...no wonder there's little to no transparency anymore and why the government can't function properly.

Jimservo quote “To suggest the Patriot Act only applies only to Muslims is incorrect. Many of the laws included in the act had already been employed against the Mob and white-collar criminals.” What the hell .Did you even read my post or do you just like to make arguments out of nothing. You would make a great politician if you’re not already one. I am done with your nauseating nonsense.

How specific do you want it? Do you want numbers of dead? Personal effected? Weapons employed? Location of attack? The lack of specifics in this section is largely do the unknown of potential attacks.



Where? What are you referring to specifically? Do you mean this?



and this:



In other words, do you believe that it authorizes the Executive Branch to take essentially rule the country? This section, however specifically refers to COOP, and COG, which notes the constitutional responsibility of the Legislative and Judicial Branches.

If you are worried about what happens if the Legislative and (Supreme) Judicial branches cease to exist (if there members are killed in a terrorist attack) this plan specifically acknowedges that the Executive is "coordinating with" rather then dictating to the the coordination plans of those bodies:





It is standard U.S. government practice to define the meanings of the certain words before the start of the document is not unusual at all. Rather then deceptive, it's designed to avoid confusion.



That's utterly false. I read the whole thing, and I have no doubt that many others have at all. The various sections are clearly labeled.



I agree, however this doesn't have anything to do with this document, which is actually rather short for a government document.



I was simply noting something. I was not attempting to start an argument.



If I start arguments without intending to I kind of doubt it. I also not a very good communicator 1 on 1.

i want it specific for this country and occuring on our grounds.


"means any incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government functions;"


technically, we could declare a catastrophic emergency with sudan right now by that definition. i'd hardly call that a matter of the greatest concern for us despite the disgusting nature of what's occuring in sudan. additionally, like i said, it's too vague and open for malicious use. quit spinning the issue.



the NEF takes precident leaving both COG and NEF impossible to define. this is a legal loophole that needs to be closed...the wording is sloppy and like i said, it creates a paradox. NEF takes president over many of the points stated in the directive but the NEF is not clearly defined but rather vaguely defined. with regard to stating things as being constitutional...our current government is not constitutional in any sense of the word so i tend to ignore it when they say that...politicians make up their own ideas about what constitutional means to where it fits their motives. bush would say our attack on iraq was constitutional.



i'm not answering the other point about utterly false. i wasn't implicating you there. though you completely have no comprehension for what defines clarity given that you actually think that garbled mess is clear. are you sure you're not a politician? you spin and BS like one....or maybe you're a radio talk host...lots of spin going on in what you say.






politicians never communicate one on one.

skafather84 I think He’s just a wannabe politician, you should check out his Website through his profile

Does anyone else get the feeling that they deliberately abbreviated everything of importance just to confuse people?

To be honest, "Catastrophic Emergency" is a definition merely for the sake of the document, nothing more. It has no legal purpose. The directive purpose is stated up front:

EDIT: Indeed, the planning is already underway right now. It isn't waiting for a Catastrophic Emergency because that isn't what the Directive instructs. The Catastrophic Emergency would be something that causes some disaster that this plan means to address before such a disaster occurs.



Note the National Continuity Coordinator prescribes requirements (for) executive...departments and agencies, rather the legislative ones. This is laid out in the document.



No, I disagree. The NEF is defined as:



(5) lays "the foundation for all continuity programs and capabilities and represent the overarching responsibilities of the Federal Government to lead and sustain the Nation during a crisis, and therefore sustaining the following NEFs shall be the primary focus of the Federal Government leadership during and in the aftermath of an emergency that adversely affects the performance of Government Functions." It has multiple points.

(9) makes clear:



COG is simply another definition, meaning "a coordinated effort within the Federal Government's executive branch to ensure that National Essential Functions continue to be performed during a Catastrophic Emergency".



I also would. The following was passed 296-133 by the U.S. House of Representatives, and 77-23 by the Senate. It was signed into law on October 16, 2002.



(source)



Character insults do not advance your debate whatsoever.

In the end yes, that’s where I believe the trend is headed.



Something more in line with Ron Paul’s ideas for example. As you have mentioned before, he really doesn’t fit the Republican mold.



Polls have been showing for some time now that a clear majority of Americans oppose the war in Iraq. The Iraq war is unpopular, period. You can slice it dice it any way you want, people want the troops home.



When I say end the war I think it’s pretty clear I’m talking about ending American involvement in the war.

They may lack the votes to override Bush’s veto but they aren’t exactly applying much pressure. When 37 Senate Democrats and 86 House Democrats vote to continue funding a very unpopular war started by a Republican President, who do they oppose?

The Democrats don’t have to worry about looking like "defeatists" IMO. The defeat is clearly in Bush’s hands.



My argument is that we really don’t have two parties. There have even been cases when a Dem. will switch to Rep. and vise-versa. Democrats and Republicans are different shades of the same color. Two wings of the same bird. A two headed hydra.

--------------------------------------------------------------

This Just In: Thursday, May 24, 2007

"Congress bows to Bush, OKs Iraq funds"


http://news.yahoo.com

"unusual maneuver" "crafted a procedure"
LOL, thats good one.

By what evidence to you make this claim?



One cannot define a "legitimate" opposition party merely by one's personal preferences of what one would like it to be. A party based upon Ron Paul's ideas already exists, once you get rid of the his cautious flirtation with the "9/11 Truth" people. It's called the Libertarian party, and it has failed to achieve any popular support within the United States. People with libertarian-esque views inside the Republican party have been increasingly flourishly within the party base as of late



Gallup, I believe correctly, desribes the position of the American people:



According to Gallup's survey American's oppose cutting of funding, but they also opposed the President Bush's veto of the timetable bill.

(Gallup Survey link]
(Rasmussen Report link)



Fine. However the constant refrains from many on the left (and by "the left" I am not referring to you in particular) of "ending the war" is most frustrating. Even the American people in the Gallup survey seem to have a more realistic appraisal of what will occur in the even of a withdrawal.



The reason the Democrats may have a issue is the fund shortcomings were already having an effect on operations. The Republicans could, rightly, accuse Democrats of hurting military efforts as well as the troops in the field. "Pressure" would consist of reducing supplies to the troops in the fields and support to the Iraqi allies until the U.S. was so depleted it was forced to withdrawal and the Iraqis just collapsed. Politically, this is not a good option.



History will judge the President for his decision making, however the Democratic legislature foots the bill. If the current effort in Iraq, which is improving, falters and collapses because they cut funding and that it turns negative effects for the region and the United States, it could have a negative political effect for them as well.



I know this is repeated all the time but I really don't get it. Is this because they sometimes are forced compromise with each other (which is actually one of the benefits of the two party systems: stability). Is it because neither party is a "far-left" or "far-right" (although Europeans think the GOP is the latter) or libertarian party? I don't understand.

The party platforms are radically different (url=http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php]just look at them[/url] and as far apart since they have been since the beginning of the 20th century (really, possibly since Reconstruction).

Yes, politicians switch parties, but they always have. This happens usually happens when a politician (or a citizen) finds out he has more in common sudden has more in common with one party then the other party (although sometimes people pretend they are "members of the real party. This is because the parties themselves change over time do to the influence of new people. They are not static monoliths.



Ooh...What do you think happened? Do you think it was a conspiracy? Or do you think...maybe...that the Democrats opposed (although some Democrats don't like the idea of not funding the troops) don't want to associate themselves with the bill? They do, after all, lead the House by a large margin. They are not silent in their criticisms of Bush (Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi went to Syria to meet with the declared enemy of the United States on what she termed as a "diplomatic mission" for crying out loud! Nothing happened to her!)

ADDENDUM: On April 22, I stated a topic entitled "The Republicans Face a Iraq Post-War Conundrum."

It started



Of course, I stated this keeping an eye of events going on in Capital Hill. I then proceeded to make a "rock and hard place" predictions for the Republican party in such a event. Of course, the event did not occur, at least not yet, which makes by topic post rather oddly out of place, especially in view of this rather on key response by Griff



Of course, Hillary did vote against the war funding bill this time around, but then again she knew that

1. She that despite that it would still pass.
2. Right now, the base of the party is hard-left on the war, and she may need to make a hard-left turn win the nomination.

She can always hope the mainstream media will end up forgiving her errors like they did in her Senate run if she wins the Democratic Nomination.

---

Now, as you can see one has to be careful making presumptions. One thing that is related to this is the practice of taking one's already held assumptions and using them to turn something that has no malicious intent into something that does.



Note that the coverage (fixed link) does not imply it is dangerous, or illegal act, or the Democrats (who say they will try again) said it was such a thing. These are the same Democrats who accuse President Bush of all kind of terrible actions.

To assume there was some kind of "dirty trick" behind this one must make take he presumption of that Bush actually rules over congress, or the GOP, and the Democrats are actually in cahoots, and that what the Democrats are saying about Bush are actually just intended to mollify the base (I mean, isn't it obvious that he should be impeached and tried for crimes against the constitution?). Even more, one has to make these presumptions without evidence. Unless the fact that certain corporations donated to candidates of the both major parties in different races counts as evidence of a conspiracy (of course, the two parties have hugely different policies in regards to corporate taxation and the like).