On March 16th, President Obama signed a new Executive Order which expands upon a prior order issued in 1950 for Disaster Preparedness, and gives the office of the President complete control over all the resources in the United States in times of war or emergency.
The National Defense Resources Preparedness order gives the Executive Branch the power to control and allocate energy, production, transportation, food, and even water resources by decree under the auspices of national defense and national security. The order is not limited to wartime implementation, as one of the order's functions includes the command and control of resources in peacetime determinations.
<snip>
The Obama administration appears to be preparing for a long drawn out war in the Middle East, or at the very least, an expected crisis that will require the need to override Constitutional authority and claim dominion over all resources in the United States under the guise of national defense. With the rise in Disaster Preparedness growing for both individuals and states leading up to yesterday's Executive Order, the mood of the nation points strongly towards some event or disaster that will require massive preparations on a national as well as local scale.
Think of the money that you'll save by not having to have elections as well.
Plus all those wealth creating successful business men can invest their money in new factories, shops etc etc rather than using it to try and buy influence off of a successful candidate whilst sacking loads of people.
reds8n wrote: Think of the money that you'll save by not having to have elections as well.
Plus all those wealth creating successful business men can invest their money in new factories, shops etc etc rather than using it to try and buy influence off of a successful candidate whilst sacking loads of people.
Well that is one of the financial advantages of an enlightened Frazzled adminstration.
I'd joke about how old fashioned really is better, but since I know some people who really believe that a return to the time where women were nothing more than property, only land owners had any say in government, and people still held slaves would be a good thing, I'd rather not get too deeply into that. Someone might take it seriously and support it.
reds8n wrote: You could make the leadership hereditary too !
A proper return to traditional, old fashioned values from yesteryear.
In Imperial Roman times, Augustus, and Caesar were titles for Emperor and near Emperor (like Emp in training). As I am a modest person I think Caesar would be more appropriate. But it takes so much effort to say "Cee...zar." We should probably shorten that a little bit for brevity's sake.
reds8n wrote: I was thinking we'd just make you Queen and be done with it.
You get two birthdays a year !
I think a Frazzled in a giant Queen Elizabeth dress, white makeup, powdered wig, Remington 870 with matching gunbelts bandido style, sitting on a throne surrounded by slightly restive wiener dogs, would be just the thing to insure future safety for the US.
I mean, even if you were Al Qaeda, would you with that?
...absolutism!=monarchy.
Hell the concept of absolute monarchies is an 18th century invention, most monarchies throughout history are not absolute at all.
And hereditary dictatorships are too unstable.
The executive order itself doesn't do anything aside from delegate to specific cabinet departments powers already vested in the Presidency by the Defense Production Act.
dogma wrote:The executive order itself doesn't do anything aside from delegate to specific cabinet departments powers already vested in the Presidency by the Defense Production Act.
SHHHHHHH! Thats decidedly boring. Don't be a party pooper Dogma.
Easy E wrote:Isn't this just a continuation of a trend we have been seeing since the start of the Cold War?
Its not so much a trend as a legal provision that has existed since the start of the Cold War.
Its important to note, however, that while the President has the legal authority to do this, its highly unlikely he would be able to accomplish any significant use of DPA without a real emergency with which to compel Congress, and the public, to cooperate.
Easy E wrote:Isn't this just a continuation of a trend we have been seeing since the start of the Cold War?
Its not so much a trend as a legal provision that has existed since the start of the Cold War.
Its important to note, however, that while the President has the legal authority to do this, its highly unlikely he would be able to accomplish any significant use of DPA without a real emergency with which to compel Congress, and the public, to cooperate.
Maybe if 10,000 systems revolt over the locked up Senate, which the President has insured...
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know how anyone can hope to avert his triumph.
The man plans so far ahead that he got the Disaster Preparedness Order enacted in 1950, 11 years before he was even born!
I guess this confrims those rumors that Frederick Douglass perfected the production of time machines and gave one to every black person...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
dogma wrote:The executive order itself doesn't do anything aside from delegate to specific cabinet departments powers already vested in the Presidency by the Defense Production Act.
SHHHHHHH! Thats decidedly boring. Don't be a party pooper Dogma.
Besides Dakka is contractually obligated to have one of these tinfoil hat wearing threads open at all times...
reds8n wrote: I was thinking we'd just make you Queen and be done with it.
You get two birthdays a year !
I think a Frazzled in a giant Queen Elizabeth dress, white makeup, powdered wig, Remington 870 with matching gunbelts bandido style, sitting on a throne surrounded by slightly restive wiener dogs, would be just the thing to insure future safety for the US.
I mean, even if you were Al Qaeda, would you with that?
I thought you guys in Texas called that Friday night?
reds8n wrote: I was thinking we'd just make you Queen and be done with it.
You get two birthdays a year !
I think a Frazzled in a giant Queen Elizabeth dress, white makeup, powdered wig, Remington 870 with matching gunbelts bandido style, sitting on a throne surrounded by slightly restive wiener dogs, would be just the thing to insure future safety for the US.
I mean, even if you were Al Qaeda, would you with that?
I thought you guys in Texas called that Friday night?
Tuesday night. Thats too tame for proper Friday partying.
It seems to me that alarmist nonsense like the claims in the OP actually make it harder to have a conversation about the steady erosion of liberties and the general increase in the power of the president. I suspect the OP and the writer of the article he linked don't really care about that, because they're really not that interested in issues of governance and effective checks on power. I think they're much more interested in having their daily freakout over the President, which they will continue to have until someone from their side wins an election, at which point issues like the above will become entirely irrelevant.
sebster wrote:It seems to me that alarmist nonsense like the claims in the OP actually make it harder to have a conversation about the steady erosion of liberties and the general increase in the power of the president. I suspect the OP and the writer of the article he linked don't really care about that, because they're really not that interested in issues of governance and effective checks on power. I think they're much more interested in having their daily freakout over the President, which they will continue to have until someone from their side wins an election, at which point issues like the above will become entirely irrelevant.
Well, to be fair, I suspect the quoted author is more interested in getting hits (making money) than anything else.
sebster wrote:It seems to me that alarmist nonsense like the claims in the OP actually make it harder to have a conversation about the steady erosion of liberties and the general increase in the power of the president. I suspect the OP and the writer of the article he linked don't really care about that, because they're really not that interested in issues of governance and effective checks on power. I think they're much more interested in having their daily freakout over the President, which they will continue to have until someone from their side wins an election, at which point issues like the above will become entirely irrelevant.
It's amazing how you can psychoanalyze people and their intentions over the internet, having never met them.
It must be amazing to be such a pollyanna that you can live with your head in the sand.
You must think there has never been a politician that grasped for more power than his due.
Of course it's a tinfoil exercise to look into whether the U.S. president is valid or not. Why should any American care about that?
Of course birth certificates distributed over the internet can't be faked.
Of course democrat politicians don't have a proven track record of fraud or corruption.
Of course a sheriff's department can't be trusted.
Of course investigative experts can't tell the difference between xerox and photoshop.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."
Regards,
Of course it's okay to look into exactly where a republican president spent his national guard time.
Of course it's also okay for the mainstream media to fake documents to hurt his credibility. He's a republican!
reds8n wrote: I was thinking we'd just make you Queen and be done with it.
You get two birthdays a year !
I think a Frazzled in a giant Queen Elizabeth dress, white makeup, powdered wig, Remington 870 with matching gunbelts bandido style, sitting on a throne surrounded by slightly restive wiener dogs, would be just the thing to insure future safety for the US.
I mean, even if you were Al Qaeda, would you with that?
No frazzled. The gun would be in your wig. And so would a grenade so you can throw it and turn it into a smoke bomb.
I suspect one of the first things President Obama will do with his new "total takeover" powers is dramatically reduce the American people's access to tin foil. The thread on that story should be called "Obama another step closer to total takeover."
Phanatik wrote:
It's amazing how you can psychoanalyze people and their intentions over the internet, having never met them.
Given your posting history, and the particular lack of evidence for the claim made in the subject of this thread, making the claim Sebster did about your internet persona (which doesn't require meeting you) seems perfectly valid.
Phanatik wrote:
It must be amazing to be such a pollyanna that you can live with your head in the sand.
You must think there has never been a politician that grasped for more power than his due.
Simply because politicians have sought more power in the past does not mean that all politicians, or even this particular politician, seek more power, or even more power in all sectors.
More precisely, its plainly true that this EO is not about grasping for power, its merely a clarification regarding how an existential power will be used in the event that it is used.
Phanatik wrote:
Of course it's a tinfoil exercise to look into whether the U.S. president is valid or not. Why should any American care about that?
Of course birth certificates distributed over the internet can't be faked.
Of course democrat politicians don't have a proven track record of fraud or corruption.
Of course a sheriff's department can't be trusted.
Of course investigative experts can't tell the difference between xerox and photoshop.
Of course the sources I want to trust aren't feeding my confirmation bias.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I suspect one of the first things President Obama will do with his new "total takeover" powers is dramatically reduce the American people's access to tin foil. The thread on that story should be called "Obama another step closer to total takeover."
Then there will be nothing to stop the great Obama-MLB conspiracy.
Phanatik wrote:Of course it's a tinfoil exercise to look into whether the U.S. president is valid or not. Why should any American care about that?
Of course birth certificates distributed over the internet can't be faked.
Of course democrat politicians don't have a proven track record of fraud or corruption.
Of course a sheriff's department can't be trusted.
Of course investigative experts can't tell the difference between xerox and photoshop.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."
Regards,
Of course it's okay to look into exactly where a republican president spent his national guard time.
Of course it's also okay for the mainstream media to fake documents to hurt his credibility. He's a republican!
While I know perfectly well the fruitlessness of arguing with a birfer, I will do so anyway.
1.) It's not a tinfoil exercise to check to see if a president is valid or not. It is to continue to do so despite incredible amounts of evidence that he is was born in the United States.
2.) What should he have done, mailed a copy to everyone? It's 2012.
3.) Right, no Republican has ever been convicted of corruption. C'mon bro, try. 4.) The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not exactly a bastion of investigative excellence. I wish they were less concerned with their jusdiction-lacking investigation of the President, and more concerned with, you know, investigating sex crimes. But I guess catching child rapists isn't as high a priority for Sheriff Joe, since he's busy helping celebrities drive tanks into homes and shooting puppies.
5.) I haven't seen any of the credentials of this "investigative expert". Perhaps has a degree in "Cyberspace".
So far as your other laughable assertions,
1.) You're arguing that it should be OK to look into presidential vital records (like birth certificates) but not into vital records (military discharge papers)? Wow, consistency really took it in the shorts on this one. Which is it?
2.) It wasn't ok for the MSM to fake documents to hurt his credibility (which isn't actually what happened, but that's too subtle a distinction for this argument). That's why the producers behind the story were fired, Dan Rather was forced to resign, and was forced to proffer an on-air retraction and apology. That's pretty much the textbook definition of admitting something was "not OK".
Phanatik wrote:It's amazing how you can psychoanalyze people and their intentions over the internet, having never met them.
Noticing that someone is posting something that's completely ridiculous, and posing an answer to why they'd post something that's completely ridiculous isn't psychoanalysis.
You must think there has never been a politician that grasped for more power than his due.
In my previous answer I mentioned "the steady erosion of liberties and the general increase in the power of the president". It was the first fething line of my answer and you still missed it. That is just pathetic.
Anyhow, my point was that 'OMG here's a largely fictional story about the President totally about to consume complete power' and other such nonsense makes people dismissive of real encroachment of power by government and the president. I was asking you to be more responsible, stop making noise over obviously ridiculous nonsense, so that when stories of actual substance on the issue do come out they're not drowned out by your silliness.
You make people concerned with the growth of government power look bad. If that's a cause you're genuinely interested in, then you'll stop being silly. On the other hand, if you just like getting your daily dose of doom and jumping on to the internet to argue about it, then by all means carry on. Exactly where that leaves, psychoanalytically, is beyond my paygrade, but politically it makes you as a meaningless noise machine.
Phanatik wrote:Of course it's a tinfoil exercise to look into whether the U.S. president is valid or not. Why should any American care about that?
Of course birth certificates distributed over the internet can't be faked.
Of course democrat politicians don't have a proven track record of fraud or corruption.
Of course a sheriff's department can't be trusted.
Of course investigative experts can't tell the difference between xerox and photoshop.
"These aren't the droids you're looking for. Move along."
Regards,
Of course it's okay to look into exactly where a republican president spent his national guard time.
Of course it's also okay for the mainstream media to fake documents to hurt his credibility. He's a republican!
While I know perfectly well the fruitlessness of arguing with a birfer, I will do so anyway.
1.) It's not a tinfoil exercise to check to see if a president is valid or not. It is to continue to do so despite incredible amounts of evidence that he is was born in the United States.
2.) What should he have done, mailed a copy to everyone? It's 2012.
3.) Right, no Republican has ever been convicted of corruption. C'mon bro, try. 4.) The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not exactly a bastion of investigative excellence. I wish they were less concerned with their jusdiction-lacking investigation of the President, and more concerned with, you know, investigating sex crimes. But I guess catching child rapists isn't as high a priority for Sheriff Joe, since he's busy helping celebrities drive tanks into homes and shooting puppies.
5.) I haven't seen any of the credentials of this "investigative expert". Perhaps has a degree in "Cyberspace".
So far as your other laughable assertions,
1.) You're arguing that it should be OK to look into presidential vital records (like birth certificates) but not into vital records (military discharge papers)? Wow, consistency really took it in the shorts on this one. Which is it?
2.) It wasn't ok for the MSM to fake documents to hurt his credibility (which isn't actually what happened, but that's too subtle a distinction for this argument). That's why the producers behind the story were fired, Dan Rather was forced to resign, and was forced to proffer an on-air retraction and apology. That's pretty much the textbook definition of admitting something was "not OK".
Header: Birther, not birfer. Trying to label me to shut down discussion won't work. It says nothing about me but more about you.
1. What incredible amounts? If there were incredible amounts lying around somewhere, there wouldn't be an issue. Obama brought this on himself by stonewalling for so long.
2. Have a presser, hand out copies to the media. viola! Sending out a layered electronic document just raises more doubts.
3. We're not talking about a sitting republican president that won't provide documentation concerning many things from his birth to school records.
4. It might surprise you to learn that a sheriff's department can investigate more than one thing at a time. It's no surprise that mistakes can be made. I suppose I could ask what slipped past Janet Reno while she was driving tanks into buildings burning children to death, or targeting americans for assassination? (Waco, Ruby Ridge)
5. Since you have not vetted the investigative experts, they could not possibly be experts? Just, wow.
6. I never said discharge papers shouldn't be investigated. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of the left.
7. Fired. Resignations. Apologies. Sounds like something devious happened. But that's only "not okay," whereas looking into why Obama doesn't provide the normal background material gets you labelled a birther. Again, different standards for the right/left.
Phanatik wrote:It's amazing how you can psychoanalyze people and their intentions over the internet, having never met them.
Noticing that someone is posting something that's completely ridiculous, and posing an answer to why they'd post something that's completely ridiculous isn't psychoanalysis.
You must think there has never been a politician that grasped for more power than his due.
In my previous answer I mentioned "the steady erosion of liberties and the general increase in the power of the president". It was the first fething line of my answer and you still missed it. That is just pathetic.
Anyhow, my point was that 'OMG here's a largely fictional story about the President totally about to consume complete power' and other such nonsense makes people dismissive of real encroachment of power by government and the president. I was asking you to be more responsible, stop making noise over obviously ridiculous nonsense, so that when stories of actual substance on the issue do come out they're not drowned out by your silliness.
You make people concerned with the growth of government power look bad. If that's a cause you're genuinely interested in, then you'll stop being silly. On the other hand, if you just like getting your daily dose of doom and jumping on to the internet to argue about it, then by all means carry on. Exactly where that leaves, psychoanalytically, is beyond my paygrade, but politically it makes you as a meaningless noise machine.
Firstly, if I remember correctly, you are in australia? Some might consider it "silly" for someone down under to lecture americans on what they should and shouldn't get concerned about. You tend the barbie in your backyard, and we'll tend ours. It's just possible that we have a closer eye on what's going on in our own backyard than you do.
Secondly, this administration has shown a willingness to operate outside of the law, so we can go "hmm" whenever we want to when he does something. And in general, the federal government since the civil war has been grasping more and more power, so yes it could be said to be yet another step.
Lastly, its not your place to ask me to do anything. If you can't stand a provocative title about a hot-button issue, stay out of the OT .
Phanatik wrote:It's amazing how you can psychoanalyze people and their intentions over the internet, having never met them.
Noticing that someone is posting something that's completely ridiculous, and posing an answer to why they'd post something that's completely ridiculous isn't psychoanalysis.
You must think there has never been a politician that grasped for more power than his due.
In my previous answer I mentioned "the steady erosion of liberties and the general increase in the power of the president". It was the first fething line of my answer and you still missed it. That is just pathetic.
Anyhow, my point was that 'OMG here's a largely fictional story about the President totally about to consume complete power' and other such nonsense makes people dismissive of real encroachment of power by government and the president. I was asking you to be more responsible, stop making noise over obviously ridiculous nonsense, so that when stories of actual substance on the issue do come out they're not drowned out by your silliness.
You make people concerned with the growth of government power look bad. If that's a cause you're genuinely interested in, then you'll stop being silly. On the other hand, if you just like getting your daily dose of doom and jumping on to the internet to argue about it, then by all means carry on. Exactly where that leaves, psychoanalytically, is beyond my paygrade, but politically it makes you as a meaningless noise machine.
Firstly, if I remember correctly, you are in australia? Some might consider it "silly" for someone down under to lecture americans on what they should and shouldn't get concerned about. You tend the barbie in your backyard, and we'll tend ours. It's just possible that we have a closer eye on what's going on in our own backyard than you do.
Secondly, this administration has shown a willingness to operate outside of the law, so we can go "hmm" whenever we want to when he does something. And in general, the federal government since the civil war has been grasping more and more power, so yes it could be said to be yet another step.
Lastly, its not your place to ask me to do anything. If you can't stand a provocative title about a hot-button issue, stay out of the OT .
Regards,
Perhaps you guys need a time out from World affairs so you can get this "niggle" running a country process sorted out? In fairness I know you've only had a few hundred years to get it nailed down. It does seem odd that the longer you have, the worse it gets
Phanatik, if you truly believe that Obama is trying to take over the United States, or that there are serious doubts as to his birth in the United States, or that your adorable dog gives you any leeway to be a complete nutjob, then you are sadly deluded.
rubiksnoob wrote:Phanatik, if you truly believe that Obama is trying to take over the United States, or that there are serious doubts as to his birth in the United States, or that your adorable dog gives you any leeway to be a complete nutjob, then you are sadly deluded.
Hey hey hey! Don't diss cute doggies!
I was at Petsmart Saturday (shop Smart shop S er Petsmart!) getting some Tbone chow and chews for the boys, when a half lab/half pit bull that reminded me of an old dog of man ran up to me in store and demanded quality petting. Beautiful dog.
rubiksnoob wrote:Phanatik, if you truly believe that Obama is trying to take over the United States, or that there are serious doubts as to his birth in the United States, or that your adorable dog gives you any leeway to be a complete nutjob, then you are sadly deluded.
First, I believe the government is continuing the process of federalization, of which Obama is the current head. If Romney takes over and continues the process, I'll dog him. Perhaps the left will question his country club membership?
Second, there are NO doubts that Obama was born.
Last, by resorting to gratuitous name-calling, you do not shut me down but say something more about yourself.
In any case, have a nice day.
Yes, he's adorable, but a 117lb mess. He understands mass and momentum all to well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
rubiksnoob wrote:Phanatik, if you truly believe that Obama is trying to take over the United States, or that there are serious doubts as to his birth in the United States, or that your adorable dog gives you any leeway to be a complete nutjob, then you are sadly deluded.
Hey hey hey! Don't diss cute doggies!
I was at Petsmart Saturday (shop Smart shop S er Petsmart!) getting some Tbone chow and chews for the boys, when a half lab/half pit bull that reminded me of an old dog of man ran up to me in store and demanded quality petting. Beautiful dog.
I was in Petsmart on Saturday as well. I'm amazed that people can take their dogs in while shopping. My dog would start eating food off the shelf while ripping the squeaker out of the toys. He's 10 now, so he does nap more.
Ouze wrote:4.) The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not exactly a bastion of investigative excellence. I wish they were less concerned with their jusdiction-lacking investigation of the President, and more concerned with, you know, investigating sex crimes. But I guess catching child rapists isn't as high a priority for Sheriff Joe, since he's busy helping celebrities drive tanks into homes and shooting puppies.
Wow.
Just...
Wow.
Man that guy is complete and total incompetent gakhead.
Ouze wrote:4.) The Maricopa County Sheriff's Office is not exactly a bastion of investigative excellence. I wish they were less concerned with their jusdiction-lacking investigation of the President, and more concerned with, you know, investigating sex crimes. But I guess catching child rapists isn't as high a priority for Sheriff Joe, since he's busy helping celebrities drive tanks into homes and shooting puppies.
Wow.
Just...
Wow.
Man that guy is complete and total incompetent gakhead.
Don't even have to click on the links.
Mel did you mean Steven Segall or Arpaio as a total incompetent gak?
In the defense of the MCSO the investigation of the President was conducted by volunteers, using donations. Still stupid and criticized widely here locally but unrelated in anyway to the failure of MCSO to properly investigate not just sex crimes ANY crimes in El Mirage, despite the fact the 3rd District MCSO station is literally about a 2 blocks away from where the El Mirage PD station is now. Even before EM was a contract city the MCSO had a jurisdictional requirement to provide law enforcement in the area. I wish we could elect a Sheriff that could cut spending on frivolities and increase manpower rather than crusading against illegal immigration, a concern to be sure, but not when your jurisdiction has bigger fish to fry.
I mean I knew he was incompetent but to be a "tough on crime" person while also being an utter failure in investigating child molestation crimes, perhaps of the most vile and hated crimes in the world, just utterly reeks of the stench of incompetence.
Holding Arpaio personally responsible for everything every one of his divisions does is stretching a bit, kind of like blaming the AG for scandals that his Department is responsible for.
He IS incompetent, and a doddering old fool. I think if I remember however his is not the only department guilty of this brand of incompetence.
Found it: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2012/03/20/20120320phoenix-audit-police-unit-cases-kids-handled-poorly.html So it seems systemic of a deeper issue in local law enforcement. What actually concerns me more is that many of the uninvestigated cases were the children of illegal immigrants. Not a particular fan of that segment of the population, but children deserve protection regardless of their immigration status. There was a quick blurb on the news a couple weeks ago about a 12 year old girl who was missing and suspected to be in Mexico with a 28ish year old man(I think they found her). My wife looks up and goes, "oh, that's Samantha from our school." and proceeded to tell me that similar situations are common! It would seem to me that those cases merit MORE attention...in summary...feth Arpaio for fostering a level of what seems to be racially motivated incompetence. I will defend some of his policies, but it seems his administration is teeming with scandal and needs to be cleaned out: I had actually hoped that Sheriff Babeu would come North, and now it seems that he is a time bomb of his own. Although a gay Republican sheriff in Maricopa County would be pretty epic.
To be fair, if Steven Seagal dressed in military fatigues and smashed through my house and killed my dog. I would be a bit upset cos I love dogs, but a few years later, Id fething piss myself laughing spinning that yarn to the kids.
Phanatik wrote:
Header: Birther, not birfer. Trying to label me to shut down discussion won't work. It says nothing about me but more about you.
Actually, using labels to shut down discussion very often works. You've tried to do iit quite frequently in the past. You failed, because you're awful at it, but you've tried none the less.
Here's one example:
Phanatik wrote:
Evolution is a fact, not a theory.
Here's another:
Phanatik wrote:
Socialism is the gateway drug to communism.
See?
Phanatik wrote:
2. Have a presser, hand out copies to the media. viola! Sending out a layered electronic document just raises more doubts.
Why would something being on paper assuage any doubt? Printers are things, you know.
Phanatik wrote:
5. Since you have not vetted the investigative experts, they could not possibly be experts? Just, wow.
Not what was said. Without credentials no one is an expert, as no one, at all, has even tried to vet you. And even given that you might be an expert there is no reason to trust you.
Phanatik wrote:
Last, by resorting to gratuitous name-calling, you do not shut me down but say something more about yourself.
Its not gratuitous.
Phanatik wrote:
Lastly, its not your place to ask me to do anything. If you can't stand a provocative title about a hot-button issue, stay out of the OT .
If you can't stand someone asking something of you, stay out of...well...life?
Phanatik wrote:
2. Have a presser, hand out copies to the media. viola! Sending out a layered electronic document just raises more doubts.
Why would something being on paper assuage any doubt? Printers are things, you know.
I think this may solve the birther problem. They simply don't understand or trust computers and electronic evidence. What we need to do is print out Obama's birth certificate and then fax it to them.
That should solve things, right? Especially after they made that whole stink about the long form birth certificate which Obama produced.
I do find it interesting. It's a great case study in how often a group can be proven wrong and still hold on to their crazy beliefs.
Hmm, I'd be more worried that theres one of those 2012 disaster things brewing that the guys behind closed doors all know about, but they are keeping it from us.
This is a sign that hes gettin ready for when the gak hits the fan and needs to guide folks to a new salvation after the chaos.
Yeah.. I've watched too many '2012' movies so far this year.
Kilkrazy wrote:Presumably he would be barred from standing for office a second time.
It's obviously too late to remedy the fact he has been president for over three years. A court case on the matter will definitely take months.
Basically.
There would be an attempt at impeachment, it would overrun the next election and there would be an injunction to prevent his candidacy.
The net effect, though, would be a political gak storm. Lots of people calling for heads, slightly fewer people calling for an amendment stripping the "natural born citizen" language from the Constitution.
AustonT wrote:Holding Arpaio personally responsible for everything every one of his divisions does is stretching a bit, kind of like blaming the AG for scandals that his Department is responsible for.
Or blaming the president for everything wrong with the country...
Kilkrazy wrote:If Obama's birth certificate is false -- i.e. he was not born in the USA -- he isn't a citizen at all. He has never been naturalised.
I'm not entirely sure how some of the parentage mumbo jumbo works, but I'm pretty sure Obama would be a citizen by birth because his mother was a citizen that resides in the US for X amount of years regardless of his father's nationality. But I don't know for sure...like I said mumbo jumbo.
What I'd really like to know is what would happen to any treaties, agreements, executive orders, or appointments he has made if he was in fact found to be not a natural citizen. It's a ridiculous situation and I'm sure a combination of our judicial and legislative system would thoroughly feth it up by the numbers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
AustonT wrote:Holding Arpaio personally responsible for everything every one of his divisions does is stretching a bit, kind of like blaming the AG for scandals that his Department is responsible for.
Or blaming the president for everything wrong with the country...
Let's pretend that the people who are off their meds ARE right, and that Obama is NOT a citizen.
What does it say about this country that we needed to elect an illegal alien to catch Osama? plenty of "real Americans" failed at getting him.
Heck Bush Jr. is 100% red blooded American and he couldnt find Osama (not that he was trying very hard, nor looking in the right places most of the time) and we still havent found those WMDs in Iraq he assured us needed to be found before Al Queda got them...
So I guess this proves that illegal aliens do bring something of value to the country.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This whole hysteria about his citizenship remind me of a certain South Park episode:
Kilkrazy wrote:If Obama's birth certificate is false -- i.e. he was not born in the USA -- he isn't a citizen at all. He has never been naturalised.
I'm not entirely sure how some of the parentage mumbo jumbo works, but I'm pretty sure Obama would be a citizen by birth because his mother was a citizen that resides in the US for X amount of years regardless of his father's nationality. But I don't know for sure...like I said mumbo jumbo.
What I'd really like to know is what would happen to any treaties, agreements, executive orders, or appointments he has made if he was in fact found to be not a natural citizen. It's a ridiculous situation and I'm sure a combination of our judicial and legislative system would thoroughly feth it up by the numbers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
AustonT wrote:Holding Arpaio personally responsible for everything every one of his divisions does is stretching a bit, kind of like blaming the AG for scandals that his Department is responsible for.
Or blaming the president for everything wrong with the country...
Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:Hmm, I'd be more worried that theres one of those 2012 disaster things brewing that the guys behind closed doors all know about, but they are keeping it from us.
This is a sign that hes gettin ready for when the gak hits the fan and needs to guide folks to a new salvation after the chaos.
Yeah.. I've watched too many '2012' movies so far this year.
My stance on this is as it has always been; this next election is a win win; either Obama gets voted out of office, the bastard, or he stays in office and causes the appocalypse, the bastard.
What does it say about this country that we needed to elect an illegal alien to catch Osama? plenty of "real Americans" failed at getting him.
Humdrum; everyone knows the only reason we caught Osama was because the Playstation Network was down!
I'm not entirely sure how some of the parentage mumbo jumbo works, but I'm pretty sure Obama would be a citizen by birth because his mother was a citizen that resides in the US for X amount of years regardless of his father's nationality. But I don't know for sure...like I said mumbo jumbo.
What I'd really like to know is what would happen to any treaties, agreements, executive orders, or appointments he has made if he was in fact found to be not a natural citizen. It's a ridiculous situation and I'm sure a combination of our judicial and legislative system would thoroughly feth it up by the numbers
If I remember right, when you are born into two nationalities by "Foreign Affairs", you are a citizen of both countries until the age of 18, at which point you MUST decide to be one or the other. This is what my Government teacher taught me, but that was a couple years ago and I never liked him anyway, so who knows.
If I had to guess to your second point, I imagine that Congress would be such a gak storm of Reps wanting it all to be taken off the books and Dems wanting to keep them on.
If he wins the 2012 Presidential election, Rick Santorum has vowed to have all U.S. Birth Certificates (including Obama's questionable birth certificate) show a birth date 9 months earlier than what is previously on the certificate.
"Life begins at inception, it is nothing but a complete fraud to state that one's birth date is the day the cord is cut," Santorum told a gaggle of white Baptist men in Ohio today.
Under Santorum's proposal, the child's mother must apply for a birth certificate and social security number no later than the second missed period, even though the sex of the fetus can't be determined until the 4th or 5th month.
"This may limit the names of children to Pat, Casey, Leslie and Jordan, but that is a small price to pay in order to finally make abortions worthy of a death sentence," an uncontrollably blinking Santorum stated.
Santorum also explained that there is another plus to this when it comes to adding 9 months to all American's ages is that it will increase the life expectancy of all Americans. The USA will move up to around 28th amongst all world countries. This will close the gap between the USA and other countries with successful Universal Heath Care Systems. "This should help kill Obamacare once and for all," a confident Santorum said.
Phanatik wrote:Firstly, if I remember correctly, you are in australia? Some might consider it "silly" for someone down under to lecture americans on what they should and shouldn't get concerned about. You tend the barbie in your backyard, and we'll tend ours. It's just possible that we have a closer eye on what's going on in our own backyard than you do.
I like how you pretend the two things are mutually exclusive. You can, in fact, know about one thing and also know about another. It's called getting informed. Given your almost hostile approach to the idea of learning I can see how
Secondly, this administration has shown a willingness to operate outside of the law, so we can go "hmm" whenever we want to when he does something. And in general, the federal government since the civil war has been grasping more and more power, so yes it could be said to be yet another step.
Yes, but unfortunately any conversation about Obama's actual reaches of power is drowned out by people with tinfoil hats running around yelling about stupid nonsense like the story in your OP.
This is the point I've been making for three posts now, that you've been doing absolutely everything in your power to ignore. By posting insane nonsense like the original story, you stop people paying attention to real issues about government increases in power.
Lastly, its not your place to ask me to do anything. If you can't stand a provocative title about a hot-button issue, stay out of the OT .
It's not my place to tell you to read other people's posts, that's true. But it's amazing that you don't do it, and are completely unashamed about the fact that you don't even bother to read the opening line of someone's post before you reply to them.
It makes it fairly clear that you have no interest in actually learning how anything works, you'd rather just set people up as the enemy, guess what they mean and yell at them to make yourself feel good. Which, in turn, makes it fairly clear how you've ended up having such ridiculous political beliefs.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Slarg232 wrote:If I remember right, when you are born into two nationalities by "Foreign Affairs", you are a citizen of both countries until the age of 18, at which point you MUST decide to be one or the other. This is what my Government teacher taught me, but that was a couple years ago and I never liked him anyway, so who knows.
Lots of countries allow for dual-citizenship, including the USA. For instance, if I was born in the USA to Israeli parents, I could be both a citizen of Israel and the USA.
However, if a person wanted to become a naturalised citizen of the USA he would have to renounce citizenship of his former country. Weirdly enough, though, in most cases his home country won't care that he renounced his former citizenship. For instance, if I went to the USA to live and after a time became a US citizen I would have to renounce my Australian citizenship, but Australia wouldn't actually care that I'd renounced it, and I'd remain an Australian citizen as well.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
CT GAMER wrote:
"Life begins at inception, it is nothing but a complete fraud to state that one's birth date is the day the cord is cut," Santorum told a gaggle of white Baptist men in Ohio today.
Obrek wrote:Nearly choked on my cough drop there. Got a source for that CT?
If this thread has proven anything it is that factual information is optional and often counter to the mission...
While I do believe that in any serious discussion any quote attributed to someone else needs a citation I am aware the average person does not share this belief. I just like to know where these things come from to help my understanding and to use should I choose to quote the same passage in a future conversation.
dogma wrote:
Obrek wrote:Nearly choked on my cough drop there. Got a source for that CT?
In the interests of intellectual discussion and upholding my hope that some of you are respectful human beings, how about we discuss the ramifications and applications of the Disaster Preparedness Order.
I don't know anything about this DPO, but it reminds me of WW2 rationing of things like tires, oil and some types of food. So the President will have the power to ration, maybe even cut off, things like these instead of Congress. What I'm wondering is who decides what constitutes an emergency, and is there a time limit or does that same person decide when the emergency is over? How important is it that the President has power over this? I assumed that Congress has always had the power to ration important resources, so this appears to be a transfer of that power.
Kilkrazy wrote:If Obama's birth certificate is false -- i.e. he was not born in the USA -- he isn't a citizen at all. He has never been naturalised.
I'm not entirely sure how some of the parentage mumbo jumbo works, but I'm pretty sure Obama would be a citizen by birth because his mother was a citizen that resides in the US for X amount of years regardless of his father's nationality.
That's the best part of this whole stupid birfer nonsense. It's totally irrelevant where he was born.
Take a look at section C. The law is clear, short, and utterly unambiguous: Obama could have been born on Mars and would still be a US citizen as his mother was a citizen who was born in the US and had lived there 25 years.
Kilkrazy wrote:If Obama's birth certificate is false -- i.e. he was not born in the USA -- he isn't a citizen at all. He has never been naturalised.
I'm not entirely sure how some of the parentage mumbo jumbo works, but I'm pretty sure Obama would be a citizen by birth because his mother was a citizen that resides in the US for X amount of years regardless of his father's nationality.
That's the best part of this whole stupid birfer nonsense. It's totally irrelevant where he was born.
Take a look at section C. The law is clear, short, and utterly unambiguous: Obama could have been born on Mars and would still be a US citizen as his mother was a citizen who was born in the US and had lived there 25 years.
The larger issue that the birther "issue" really stems from is the disputed nature of what constitutes an American citizen.
I imagine most birthers would object to the vast majority of provisions by which a person acquires birthright citizenship, if not all of them.
mattyrm wrote: To be fair, if Steven Seagal dressed in military fatigues and smashed through my house and killed my dog. I would be a bit upset cos I love dogs, but a few years later, Id fething piss myself laughing spinning that yarn to the kids.
Every cloud and all that..
It would be a great story later, that's undeniable.
dogma wrote:I imagine most birthers would object to the vast majority of provisions by which a person acquires birthright citizenship, if not all of them.
I'm not sure they would, to be honest. The fact that so few birthers are actually aware of what would qualify as a natural born citizen (and how poorly defined that term actually is) tells you how little interest there is in actually enforcing constitutional requirements.
It's just a gut level, base thing. "I don't like Obama, I don't think he should be President, therefore I choose to believe in this thing that suggests he is not really President."
sebster wrote:It's just a gut level, base thing. "I don't like Obama, I don't think he should be President, therefore I choose to believe in this thing that suggests he is not really President."
Have you ever seen the dude? He's black as hell. Clearly he could not be American. Also, has anyone yet pointed out that his middle name is Hussein?
Slarg232 wrote:Also, you know how I know Obama will cause the end of the world?
Because even in 2008, the dead were voting for him.
I'm not sure that's an indicator of the end of the world. Dead people have been voting for decades, at least. And the best part for them, they don't even have to rise from their graves to do it.
Now, when the dead start rising from their graves to vote, then we've got some full on Revelations type end-of-the-world shenannigans.
CptJake wrote:What a fethed up comment. "Police Definition"? Please. I have a brother who is a cop in Houston that laughs at ignorant statements like this.
Slarg232 wrote:If I remember right, when you are born into two nationalities by "Foreign Affairs", you are a citizen of both countries until the age of 18, at which point you MUST decide to be one or the other. This is what my Government teacher taught me, but that was a couple years ago and I never liked him anyway, so who knows.
No need to choose. My little sister was born in England to two American Citizens (my parents, naturally). She remains a citizen of both countries, and is well past the age of 18.
Ouze wrote:
Well, I'm using the "police definition" of being black - "If you're not white, you're black".
What a fethed up comment. "Police Definition"? Please. I have a brother who is a cop in Houston that laughs at ignorant statements like this.
I have a cousin's friend's sister's boyfriend who is a SWAT team member in Springfield who would laugh at your brother's naivete for laughing at ignorant statements like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:No need to choose. My little sister was born in England to two American Citizens (my parents, naturally). She remains a citizen of both countries, and is well past the age of 18.
Ouze wrote:
Well, I'm using the "police definition" of being black - "If you're not white, you're black".
What a fethed up comment. "Police Definition"? Please. I have a brother who is a cop in Houston that laughs at ignorant statements like this.
I have a cousin's friend's sister's boyfriend who is a SWAT team member in Springfield who would laugh at your brother's naivete for laughing at ignorant statements like that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
streamdragon wrote:No need to choose. My little sister was born in England to two American Citizens (my parents, naturally). She remains a citizen of both countries, and is well past the age of 18.
Ouze wrote:Have you ever seen the dude? He's black as hell. Clearly he could not be American. Also, has anyone yet pointed out that his middle name is Hussein?
That's certainly part of it, but it's also just because he's a Democrat, and a lot of people have been told for decades now that Democrats are unimaginable evil and must not be allowed in the White House. So when one wins it's pretty easy to start believing stupid nonsense about them. Clinton had some pretty ridiculous stuff as well, and he wasn't black.
Mind you, so did Bush, so it isn't just a Republican thing, though it's pretty clear they're a fair bit worse at it.
Slarg232 wrote:If I remember right, when you are born into two nationalities by "Foreign Affairs", you are a citizen of both countries until the age of 18, at which point you MUST decide to be one or the other. This is what my Government teacher taught me, but that was a couple years ago and I never liked him anyway, so who knows.
No need to choose. My little sister was born in England to two American Citizens (my parents, naturally). She remains a citizen of both countries, and is well past the age of 18.
Might depend on certain definitions and certain countries. The United States doesn't have any provisions for making you choose if you are born with two citizenships. I cannot speak for people who become naturalized at a later age, but from the US perspective there is no need to pick once you hit 18.
My second citizenship is German, and from the perspective of Germany there is no provision for having to choose either.
One of the way the laws are applied is that while you are in one of your native countries, you are under full juristiction of that country. As far as the US is concerned, while I am in the US I am 100% American. While I am in Germany I am 100% German. As to the rest of the world I could claim one or both for practical purposes. That means that if I get in trouble in the US and get thrown in jail, I cannot call the German embassy and ask for help as a German citizen. Same scenario applies when I am in Germany, no calling the US embassy to bail me out of legal problems.
When I am traveling, I usually travel as a German. One of the main reason is that if I get kidnapped by some hostile country and they demand some cash for my release, I can usually find myself free in a reasonable amount of time even though nobody in the German government will admit to paying anybody anything. Of course the USA doesn't negotiate with terorrists, so being German is the way to go there . American citizens are not allowed to smoke Cuban cigars even if they are in a country where they are legal. So when in Europe I always enjoy being German while smoking the good stuff.
No one enforces the restriction against smoking Cubans. Just like no one presently enforces the US requirement to renounce other citizenship when you turn 18.
You're dead-on about the legal part, though. If you do have dual citizenship, your other citizenship is completely ignored while you're in one of those countries.
You did leave out both the real benefits of retaining your EU citizenship; getting to use the shorter airport security lines while you're in Europe, and having a much easier time getting a job, because you don't need a work visa.
Mannahnin wrote:No one enforces the restriction against smoking Cubans.
We don't even really enforce the travel ban.
"There appear to be staple holes in your passport."
"My word! However could they have gotten there?!?"
Mannahnin wrote:
You did leave out both the real benefits of retaining your EU citizenship; getting to use the shorter airport security lines while you're in Europe, and having a much easier time getting a job, because you don't need a work visa.
Ugh, don't remind me. I've been trying for a French work visa (well, their ridiculous equivalent of one) for the better part of a year.
Mannahnin wrote:No one enforces the restriction against smoking Cubans. Just like no one presently enforces the US requirement to renounce other citizenship when you turn 18.
Mannahnin wrote:You're dead-on about the legal part, though. If you do have dual citizenship, your other citizenship is completely ignored while you're in one of those countries.
You did leave out both the real benefits of retaining your EU citizenship; getting to use the shorter airport security lines while you're in Europe, and having a much easier time getting a job, because you don't need a work visa.
It is also fun when the Border Patrol tries to figure out why you have no entry/exit stamps in your passport when coming back into the US. Most of them seem to have a clue, but some are really messed up by it. You think there would be better training. Being able to work anywhere in Europe is a plus as well, and not needing a resident visa either if I want to live anywhere there.
Mannahnin wrote:There used to be a requirement. Nowadays it isn't, but they can revoke your US citizenship if they have reason to believe you've renounced it.
Yeah, I think most of the requirements with dual citizenship and loosing citizenships have more to do with voluntarily picking up another nationality. If you have multiple nationalities because of circumstance (birth, parent, etc..) the you can usually keep them all. If you actively pursue another citizenship then things may become more difficult.
If I joined the US military I would loose my German citizenship unless I applied for a waiver beforehand if I remember right. I am sure there are similar requirements for the US side of things if I were living in Germany and decided to enlist.
I think I am "technically" more American than German. I was born in Germany, but in a US military hospital on base. So I think I suffer from the McCain effect and would still be considered as being born on "American soil". Then I have one German and one American parent.
d-usa wrote:Might depend on certain definitions and certain countries. The United States doesn't have any provisions for making you choose if you are born with two citizenships. I cannot speak for people who become naturalized at a later age, but from the US perspective there is no need to pick once you hit 18.
Like I said earlier, naturalised is different. To become a naturalised US citizen you are required to renounce other citizenship, but the kicker is that most countries ignore that, and you remain a citizen anyway.
d-usa wrote:
It is also fun when the Border Patrol tries to figure out why you have no entry/exit stamps in your passport when coming back into the US.
Threads like this make me really want the asteroid to slam us in december. Might be the only way to change up the way the world works. I hate both parties, who should I vote for? I really wish tinfoil would do a better job of blocking out the truth.I want my blue pill back lol.
Mannahnin wrote:There used to be a requirement. Nowadays it isn't, but they can revoke your US citizenship if they have reason to believe you've renounced it.
It's way, way more difficult than that. If you are a naturalized citizen, then it's easier, but if you were born on in the US to an American citizen it's nearly impossible to revoke your citizenship, even if you've renounced it. You actually have to renounce it in a very specific way, by going to a US consulate, having a witness, and filling out a form. I read up on this extensively when Obama authorized the (imo, extrajudicial) killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, who had birthright citizenship but joined Al Qaeda. He had renounced his citizenship while in Yemen, but remained a US citizen up until the day he died (by a US drone strike). Otherwise there would have been virtually no complications for ordering his assassination.
There have been numerous efforts, mostly by Joe Lieberman, to make it as you say, where it's easier to revoke US citizenship; but none of them have passed (yet).
dogma wrote:Try having a passport with added pages.
"This is suspicious!" is the normal line.
A Mongolian diplomat was stopped at customs in the 1990s, they felt he was suspicious because they didn't believe Mongolia was really a country.
I mean, to be fair it does kind of sound made up, like a place that used to exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Deathshead420 wrote:Threads like this make me really want the asteroid to slam us in december. Might be the only way to change up the way the world works. I hate both parties, who should I vote for? I really wish tinfoil would do a better job of blocking out the truth.I want my blue pill back lol.
What? An article with an almost completely fictitious basis is posted, and that makes you despair of both parties?
Mannahnin wrote:Yeah, I've been tempted to get a Bulgarian passport since they joined the EU; I just don't want to put in the work to learn the language.
The first rule of Bulgaria Club is no one talks about Bulgaria Club!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:No one enforces the restriction against smoking Cubans.
We don't even really enforce the travel ban.
"There appear to be staple holes in your passport."
"My word! However could they have gotten there?!?"
Mannahnin wrote:
You did leave out both the real benefits of retaining your EU citizenship; getting to use the shorter airport security lines while you're in Europe, and having a much easier time getting a job, because you don't need a work visa.
Ugh, don't remind me. I've been trying for a French work visa (well, their ridiculous equivalent of one) for the better part of a year.
Amusingly enough, many forget the first president to sign such an order was a Republican, and, the fact that the US survived his presidency was far more surprising than the possibility that Obama might be re-elected.
Frazzled wrote:
I thought the travel ban had been done away with.
Nah, its just that more exceptions were added. It will be gone within a decade though, maybe sooner.
Either way, there are plenty of ways to get to Cuba without travelling from the US, and the Cubans are more than happy to refrain from stamping your passport directly.
with that?
