President Obama’s Creepy Executive Order: "Putting the economy on a permanent war footing"

[Better Believe It]

Obama’s Creepy Executive Order: Permanent War Economy
By Matthew Rothschild
Editor of The Progressive
March 20, 2012

Entitled “National Defense Resources Preparedness,” it authorizes the President and cabinet officials to take over crucial aspects of the national economy not only during emergencies but also in peacetime.

This amounts to putting the economy on permanent war footing, even when there isn’t an emergency.

This executive order extends the power of the Presidency along lines similar to those sketched out by George W. Bush in his "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20” of May 2007.

And Obama’s order, in particular, shows how the entire economy is now in service to the military.

Read the full article at:

http://www.progressive.org/permanent_war_economy.html


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



The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 16, 2012
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
EXECUTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Read the full text of the Executive Order at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

[Richardo]

1. "...the entire economy is now in service to the military"

Like it's not already?

[Drale]

2. I hate to break it to you but

the Economy has been on a permanent war footing since 9/11.

[Better Believe It]

5. First George W. Bush's and now Obama's Executive Orders tightens that up. Isn't that right?

[markpkessinger]

46. It has been on a "war footing" a lot longer than that . . .

. . . Essentially, the U.S. never demobilized after WWII, and we have remained on a "war footing" ever since. This is a point made in Eugene Jarecki's superb documentary film, "Why We Fight".

[Skinner]

3. Help me out here.

Where in the document does it say "Putting the economy on a permanent war footing"?

I notice your thread title uses quotes, and I'm trying to find it in the text. I'm sure it's in there somewhere.

Thanks in advance.

[Better Believe It]

7. That's a quote from the lead article. "This amounts to putting the economy on permanent war footing"

Hope that is helpful to you.

I've highlighted that quote from the article to avoid any possible confusion or misunderstanding from anyone.

I doubt very much that the Executive Order" used that formulation .... that would not be a smart political move.

Do you have an opinion on the Executive Order that you'd like to share with me and other DU'ers?

I didn't quote anything from the Presidential Executive Order in my caption.

Did someone indicate to you that I did?

[Skinner]

11. Oh, right. I see.

I guess I got confused. The colon after "President Obama’s Creepy Executive Order" led me to believe that the executive order actually included the quote.

[Better Believe It]

14. No problem. I hope my bold highlighting of the quote helps to prevent any more confusion.

But thanks for bringing that to my attention.

[Skinner]

16. Well, uh, that doesn't really fix the misleading headline itself.

But I can certainly understand the reluctance to change it. The way you have it is much sexier.

[Better Believe It]

24. I'm open to any suggestions you may have on improving the caption.

For starters, I don't understand how it is misleading because the quote is in the article and the caption is about the article.

If the article was too "sexy" I'm not responsible for that.

The caption I used pointed out the main thrust and argument made by the writer. I suppose I could have watered his comments down and ignored them in the caption but Matthew Rothschild wrote what he wrote .... and on top of that I believe he's right!

Just tell me how you would like the caption to read and I'll change it!

[msanthrope]

28. Not even World Nut Daily fell for the interpretation in the OP. (See my post 27.)

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/executive-order-panic-martial-law-in-america/

[Number23]

146. But the 23 special souls who rec'd this OP certainly did!

But I think they gobble up every bit of slop the OP throws into his little trough.

[Better Believe It]

148. Do you also consider WND a dependable and truthful news source?

I don't.

I prefer progressive websites like "The Progressive" for my source of news and information.

Far right-wing websites like WND just don't present any useful news or commentary.

[Bobbie Jo]

150. Swing and a miss.

[Blue_In_AK]

188. I can't explain it,

but that comment makes me want to recommend this post. I see there are 30 recommends now, so make it 31 special souls gobbling. Thank you.

[Number23]

191. Happy to help!

Last edited Fri Apr 13, 2012, 07:09 PM - Edit history (1)

You are now the 31st person to gobble up this particular anti-Obama spiel that is so unhinged, untrue and devoid of facts that even World Net Daily wouldn't touch it. And the fact that you decided to rec this tripe THREE WEEKS AFTER IT WAS POSTED is an extra bit of special in that special sauce.

If that's what you want your name hitched to, be my guest. But sorry, I (along with others who are supporting the Democrats this election) won't be joining you.

[Blue_In_AK]

192. Who said I'm not supporting Democrats?

It was just the tone of your posts here that brought out the in me.

[Number23]

193. Like I said, if you want your name hitched to some month old, unhinged foolishness

be my guest. You're just dragging your own name through the mud, not mine.

[DevonRex]

145. Whoosh.

[TheWraith]

4. Bullshit and paranoid crap of the highest order.

Yet another example of trying to gin up terror from the renewal of orders that have been standard for decades and don't mean even close to what the propagandists claim.

[Zalatix]

186. You won't be saying that when a GOP Administration starts using this law.

[truebrit71]

190. No shit....

...

[MrDiaz]

6. you know

it is getting to be too many bush-like things Obama is doing... and I don't like it. I voted for change. What has changed? Still fighting wars, still torturing at guantanamo, still have the Patriot Act, and bush taxes. What happened to real change, government still not transparent.

[msanthrope]

19. Welcome to DU!!! That's an awful lot of memes in there.

You voted for change? Wow.

[MrDiaz]

40. yes

Or at least I thought I did, atleast we got healthcare though.

[Better Believe It]

98. Do you normally insult and belittle new DU'ers?

"stop talking about things you clearly have little understanding of."

I'm sure that will be a terrific talking point you can use with undecided or progressive voters in the coming election.

[DFab420]

111. I usually am a bit snippy with people who use hyperbole and half truths to make points yes.

And honestly am not ashamed of it.

If people want to be intellectually lazy or dishonest then I am not willing to put the time in to try and sugar coat my words to make them understand things they are willingly not understanding.

[Better Believe It]

121. Insulting personal attacks against DU'ers goes way beyond simply being a "bit snippy".

If you prefer to engage in trash talk rather than democratic debate and discussion you should consider finding a discussion board that welcomes and encourages personal attacks.

However, I've had my fill of your disruptive activity and have put you on ignore.

[DFab420]

122. I don't think there is a single personal insult or attack. The author of the post clearly has a very

limited understanding of what he/her was discussing.

I was simply pointing that fact out. Nothing personal at all. No insult to intelligence, no insult to beliefs, just a clear and brisk summation of their post.

If the person who posted this takes umbrage then we can they are more then welcome to explain their full grasp of the facts to back up their post. Which I'm sure once they did they would find their hyperbolic argument about "Real Change" would fall flat..

[Bobbie Jo]

161. The campaign of deliberate deception marches on....

You're not the only one who sees it for what it is.

[Zalatix]

118. He's right on at LEAST 3 of 4 counts. So your little attack was undeserved. n/t

[DFab420]

120. Lol he's wrong on 3 out of 4... the only one is the Patriot Act. Other then that it this is all

hyperbole and half truths.

I would hope people would be a bit more intellectually honest with themselves. You know damn well how our government works with is why Guantanamo is still open

You know that if President Obama hadn't signed the bush tax bill thousands of people on unemployment would have never seen another red cent of help.

You know that both major theaters of war are ending.

So please. Spare us the hyperbole. There are plenty of things to rationally debate and discuss. The little cart and pony show is old.

[Zalatix]

123. So you're denying that we have troops in Afghanistan?

You're denying that the Bush tax cuts are still in force?

Tell me which one is not true.

[DFab420]

124. omg dude...seriously? did you not read my post before face-mashing your keyboard?

YES the bush tax cuts are still in play but YOU KNOW it's not that fucking simple. Unemployment insurance for THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS would have been lost. I applaud the President for doing something he found distasteful to help thousands of Americans.


YES we have troops in Afghanistan until the drawdown finishes. It's not this black and white bullshit arguement that you seem unable to shake off. There are SUBTLETIES

[Zalatix]

125. You answered YES (but..!) and YES (but...!). His points were valid.

1) The Bush tax cuts are still here, just like he said.

2) We still have troops in Afghanistan. When and IF they are finally out of there, the poster you attacked will be 50% right.

Right now he's 75% right.

Now you get to explain exactly what I said that was factually wrong.

[MrDiaz]

126. I understand what you are saying

but it does not change the fact that the IRAQ war just ended 3 months ago while the afghanistan war was escalated under obama, but is now beginning the process of ending. And even though congress may be behind it, the change I was looking for towards guantanamo, hasn't changed, regardless of congress the war is still going on, regardless of congress the Bush Cuts are still there, and even though the congress is majority republicans, If i recall correctly obama had 2 years with a democratic congress, or am I wrong?

[pinto]

8. "the entire economy is now in service to the military". Hyperbolic BS, imo. Here are the players -

Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:

(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;

(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;

(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;

(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;

(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and

(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

<snip>

Sec. 701. The Defense Production Act Committee. (a) The Defense Production Act Committee (Committee) shall be composed of the following members, in accordance with section 722(b) of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2171(b):

(1) The Secretary of State;

(2) The Secretary of the Treasury;

(3) The Secretary of Defense;

(4) The Attorney General;

(5) The Secretary of the Interior;

(6) The Secretary of Agriculture;

(7) The Secretary of Commerce;

(8) The Secretary of Labor;

(9) The Secretary of Health and Human Services;

(10) The Secretary of Transportation;

(11) The Secretary of Energy;

(12) The Secretary of Homeland Security;

(13) The Director of National Intelligence;

(14) The Director of the Central Intelligence Agency;

(15) The Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers;

(16) The Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and

(17) The Administrator of General Services.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

(ed to add link)

[Better Believe It]

13. Matthew Rothschild points out in detail how that Presidential authority is delegated.

So your point is???

From the article:

"It amounts to a sweeping reassertion of Presidential authority. It reasserts the President’s authority “to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders . . . to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders.”

And it then delegates this extraordinary power to cabinet heads.

The Secretary of Agriculture has this authority “with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer.”

The Secretary of Energy has this authority “with respect to all forms of energy.”

............................

http://www.progressive.org/permanent_war_economy.html

[pinto]

15. My point - Ultimately it's an elected President's call. Not the Pentagon's.

Unresolved dissent or disputes among the parties involved go to the President, not the military. That is not military control of the entire economy.

And, for what it's worth, one role of the Presidency is to delegate authority while being responsible for the results of that delegation.

[pinboy3niner]

20. Another point: these EO's provide for executive branch compliance with the Defense Production Act

This emergency planning originates in Congress, not the White House.

[ProSense]

9. Oooh

Fear, Inc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002438496

[msanthrope]

30. Not even World Nut Daily fell for the interpretation in the OP. (See my post 27.)

It's an interesting day when WND puts forth a more cogent analysis of an EO than "The Progressive."

[uponit7771]

10. Sigh, bashers have no credibility any longer and neither do hyperbolic

...OP's

[Bobbie Jo]

12. None.

Especially this one.

[Tarheel_Dem]

17. What's even more shocking is that an admin hasn't put a stop to it. The agenda is as clear as day.

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 05:58 PM - Edit history (1)

:edited for missing word:

[FSogol]

18. That's what I want to know.

[Rex]

112. Because the admins think you are wrong?

Just a guess.

[msanthrope]

21. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer....nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

25. Is that the theory we're operating from? Cuz nothing else explains it.

[msanthrope]

32. Oh, there's the amusement factor, too. See post #27. nt

[Rex]

113. Not really shocking at all if you've spent any amount of time on DU.

I guess the admins think you guys are wrong and the actual 'poutrage party'. Would be my guess. Otherwise, why is the OP still here?

[inna]

154. pure projection on your part

[bluestate10]

79. Some bashers on DU are determined.

I seriously question their self professed claims to be progressives because all they do is attempt to help the republican party, IMO. The President and democratic congresspeople are attacked by some posters incessantly. But not one word from them on Eric Cantor, or on Paul Ryan's feloneous assault on poor people and the aged.

[dionysus]

104. it really is a poutrage fail...

[randome]

22. sssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

http://www.google.com/imgres?um=1&hl=en&rlz=1G1GGLQ_ENUS364&biw=1280&bih=922&tbm=isch&tbnid=YgALcjL-jGvW5M:&imgrefurl=http://sbrownehr.com/what-are-you-afraid-of-hr/&docid=M7wCYm-BZP47oM&imgurl=&w=300&h=300&ei=2dFoT5uECIKxgwf8v83YCQ&zoom=1

[GliderGuider]

23. It sounds to me like somebody knows something they don't want to say in plain language

It sounds like an order that sets the stage for rationing and a command economy. I don't think it's about preparing for an actual war, though.

If I were the President it's just the sort of executive order I would pass if I knew/suspected that the national or global economy was about to crash.

[Better Believe It]

26. You raise a very good point I hadn't considered.

[Tarheel_Dem]

58. ???

[GliderGuider]

60. Oh, I'm a collapsologist.

My confirmation bias helps me to see collapse behind every tree and Bush.
Economic collapse, ecological collapse, the collapse of the food supply, the collapse of civilization - stuff like that.
It's my hobby.

[Tarheel_Dem]

62. Well, as they say...."it takes all kinds"....

[EmeraldCityGrl]

172. yep. They've tried to hold it together for the last few years but

the inevitable is soon to happen.

[msanthrope]

27. Um, not even World Nut Daily fell for this overblown interpretation...

They bothered to do some research.....

“If someone wants to make the argument that this is an expansion of presidential powers, then do so based on actual language,” warns Jacobson. “There is enough that Obama actually does wrong without creating claims which do not hold up to scrutiny.”

SNIP

As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

SNIP--

Despite the vague nature of the functions, none mention anything about martial law or seizing private property. The five functions are also identical to those identified in Clinton’s EO 12919.

So why did Obama issue the order at all? A side-by-side analysis of Obama’s order compared to Clinton’s, conducted by Ed Morrissey of HotAir.com, reveals Obama’s order is essentially just an update to reflect changes in government agency structure.

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/executive-order-panic-martial-law-in-america/

Do you realize that World Nut Daily--the website that calls the Obama administration, "The Imperial Presidency"---the website that is currently hawking their founder's birther book, actually did a much better job analyzing the EO than your source?

This thread is going to be awesome.

Your source has been Snopesed by World Nut Daily.

[ProSense]

29. .

[msanthrope]

31. This is going to be the greatest thread, ever. Here's the OP, for posterity.

Star Member Better Believe It

View profile
President Obama’s Creepy Executive Order: "Putting the economy on a permanent war footing" [View all]

Last edited Wed Mar 21, 2012, 03:09 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)


Obama’s Creepy Executive Order: Permanent War Economy
By Matthew Rothschild
Editor of The Progressive
March 20, 2012

Entitled “National Defense Resources Preparedness,” it authorizes the President and cabinet officials to take over crucial aspects of the national economy not only during emergencies but also in peacetime.

This amounts to putting the economy on permanent war footing, even when there isn’t an emergency.

This executive order extends the power of the Presidency along lines similar to those sketched out by George W. Bush in his "National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51" and "Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20” of May 2007.

And Obama’s order, in particular, shows how the entire economy is now in service to the military.

Read the full article at:

http://www.progressive.org/permanent_war_economy.html


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



The White House
Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release March 16, 2012
Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness
EXECUTIVE ORDER

NATIONAL DEFENSE RESOURCES PREPAREDNESS

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended (50 U.S.C. App. 2061 et seq.), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Read the full text of the Executive Order at:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness

[one_voice]

33. Excellent...

[pinboy3niner]

34. "Your source has been Snopesed by World Nut Daily"

DUZY!!!

[Better Believe It]

35. I'm not going to depend on the right-wingnut website you used to interpret the meaning of the EO

I prefer using liberal/progressive websites as my source of information and analysis.

Absolutely no mention is made of George W. Bush's EO's and Obama's follow-up in your post and on that right-wing website. Why is that?

You may want to e-mail Matthew Rothschild to voice your opinion that the right-wing website WND has a much better analysis of Obama's Executive Order than "The Progressive" at:

https://www.progressive.org/contact

[Bobbie Jo]

39. Cherry picking by any other name...

etc...

[msanthrope]

44. Are you mischaracterizing my post deliberately or did you fail to notice the mention of the Bush EO?

You claim--

Absolutely no mention is made of George W. Bush's EO's and Obama's follow-up in your post and on that right-wing website. Why is that?2

But my post # 27 contains the excerpt from the article--

As it turns out, Obama’s executive order is nearly identical to EO 12919, issued by President Clinton on June 7, 1994, which itself was an amendment to EO 10789, issued in 1958 by President Eisenhower, and which in fact, was later amended by EO 13286, issued in 2003 by George W. Bush.

I hope that you amend your post to acknowledge that you failed to pick that up.

Don't you think your arguments would be better served by sources that are correct, as opposed to wedded to a particular viewpoint?

[Better Believe It]

65. I didn't notice the one brief mention of a Bush EO. In response to your second question ....

"Don't you think your arguments would be better served by sources that are correct, as opposed to wedded to a particular viewpoint?"

My views and opinions are better served from progressive sources such as "The Progressive" that are truthful rather than right-wing sources such WND, America's right-wing news network, that are deceptive and lie.

But, if you trust WND more than "The Progressive" for the truth that's your right.

[msanthrope]

74. How did you miss it in a 4 paragraph excerpt? As for the World Nut Daily, has it occured to you

that when even a RW mag that is currently making money on their birther theories declines to put on the tinfoil, that might be a signal to you that your progressive source is a bit, well, off????

Your theory is also getting play on the Alex Jones website. Doesn't that tell you something?

[Better Believe It]

77. Right-wing websites don't like what they view as "attacks" on the military-industrial complex.

Has that occurred to you?

[msanthrope]

80. Because WND isn't able to both critique the President and uphold the MIC? Look, the

VRWC can multitask, and Faux News proves that logic isn't needed in their appeals.

[Better Believe It]

83. I don't visit any right-wing websites like WND for my news nor for any objective critique of Obama

Do you think I should?

[msanthrope]

84. I think you should at least google before you post to save yourself some embarassment. nt

[Better Believe It]

86. I'm not embarassed by refusing to use right-wing websites like WND as a prime source of news.

Why do you trust WND for objective and factual news and information?

[msanthrope]

87. When you post an article that's nuttier than squirrel poo,

so nuts, in fact, that the wingers won't touch it, doesn't cognitive dissonance kick in?

At the risk of another Meta thread where DU is accused of being 'pro' or 'anti' something, can you understand the issue your approach presents?

The inability to process information that does not comport with one's worldview is not particularly progressive, IMHO.

Dude....not even World Nut Daily lost their shit over this....that's a clue.

[SidDithers]

94. Ask BBI about Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller website. He's used it as a source many time...

He's ignoring me

Sid

[Better Believe It]

97. The fact that you use a "nuttier than poo" right-wing website to back up your opinion says it all!

[msanthrope]

114. "Nuttier than squirrel poo." You've got to use the phrase

correctly or it doesn't make sense.

What's this about you using the Daily Caller??? Tucker Carlson? Mote, beam, eye....

[Bobbie Jo]

89. Whoooosh!

[inna]

158. "embarassment" is yours - or at least it should be

[SidDithers]

93. Are you sure about that?...

You've never posted a critique of Obama from a right-wing website?

Wanna bet?

Sid

[dionysus]

106. and the hammer drops...

[SidDithers]

140. You don't visit them for "objective critique"...

Exactly.

Sid

[Bobbie Jo]

37. LOL

The irony here is just fabulous.

[Tarheel_Dem]

41. WoW! Thanks for introducing some historical context.

[msanthrope]

49. Ironically, the OP's source was founded by one of the greatest Senators that ever served--

I seriously doubt that Senator would have endorsed such a sloppy article.

[Tarheel_Dem]

63. I couldn't agree more.

[girl gone mad]

48. Right wing wackos agree with you.

Excellent!

[ProSense]

53. Yeah,

"Right wing wackos agree with you."

...it's a good thing to appear more afraid than the "right wing wackos" when a 60-year-old executive order is updated.

[msanthrope]

55. Apparently, the RW wackos bothered to do the research the 'progressive' editor didn't do....

Which is sad, because you would think that a mag that calls itself "The Progressive" would have somebody there with access to Westlaw.

The point of episodes like this is to hold the guys on 'our side' accountable for their shortcomings....and this article was an utter failure.

[Tarheel_Dem]

59. Hard to tell the "rightwing wackos" from the "leftwing wackos" these days. They use the same.....

playbook & shrill conspiracy theories, just from different ends of the political spectrum. They're all a mess. The good news, however, is that their lunacy is mainly confined to the internet and the vast talk radio hinterlands.

[Number23]

147. Now, now don't pile on. They have to find some way to explain their blind, mindless recs

of every BBI hit piece on this president.

When someone comes running here with a story so stupid that even World Net Daily won't touch it, that says EVERYTHING that needs to be said. That 23 special souls felt compelled to rec said tripe is simply... hilarious.

[Tarheel_Dem]

149. The acorn doesn't fall from the tree, huh?

[inna]

165. posts like these make DU suck

why do you keep doing this?


absolutely disgusting/despicable

[Number23]

166. Please go find something else to do.

Viewed, read and (hopefully) absorbed.

[inna]

168. "you've had alot of fun and practice making this place suck"

lol, talk about ludicrous and thoroughly outrageous projections

[Number23]

169. You are the queen of

Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2012, 06:57 PM - Edit history (1)

Viewed, read and (hopefully) absorbed.

[inna]

170. "You sound like a crazy person who is bored out of their skull!"

*The queen of" (to quote you) personal attacks and making DU suck strikes again, lol.

Very lovely comment, too, as usual!

-please do keep it up, luv.


"And for God's sake PLEASE put me on ignore as you have been "threatening" to do for so long and still have not done."

- yawn, lying again, as usual? nice. no cigar, though.

the subthread where we went over all this starts here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=62607



"Absolutely nothing you could do would make me happier" - LOL, then... perhaps in your wildest dreams, gf.

[Number23]

175. This is the comment to which I'm referring

Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2012, 07:00 PM - Edit history (1)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=62634

Rest has been Viewed, read and (hopefully) absorbed.

[inna]

180. wow, dude, everything ok in the meat world, i hope?...

i wouldn't go as far as saying that i'm worried about you, but... you don't sound like a happy/(quite) healthy camper, you know.

lashing out at strangers on the internet may at times sound like a good idea/distraction/"sport"/use of your time... but... it's really not, as simple as that.

i'll leave it at that, since i don't have even slightest interest in responding to your personal attacks, ludicrous "insults" and absurd claims/accusations (which is, sadly, pretty much all you do, at least whenever i happen to run into you... but.. (way more than) enough said; really no time for this nonsense).

[Number23]

181. "everything ok in the meat world"

Last edited Sat Mar 31, 2012, 05:46 PM - Edit history (1)

Read and absorbed.

Poster has responded for what has to be the 26th time that she is no longer "going to respond to me" and maybe even FINALLY put me on ignore. If I have to sacrifice an emu to make it so, it shall be done! ANYTHING to get this unwell person to leave me alone.

[inna]

182. not even reading your crap

eta: you do represent the worst of du3 though, and that's the last i'm going to say to you

[Number23]

183. Don't go away mad but PLEASE GOD just go away

[inna]

171. "I have Absolutely NOTHING Intelligent to Say" -dude, lol, quit effing projecting

and own up to *at least* your constantly bullying behavior and *BEYOND VILE* personal attacks (anyone on DU3 can see those - and *if* not immediately obvious, i'll be, uh, happy to provide links, yet again! :sort of rolls eyes at this point; vile is... uh, vile. i do not use the term easily and generally do not use it unless absolutely necessary. )


ciao, for at least for a week, dudio.

and don't flatter yourself, it has nothing to do with "ignoring you", i just have a busy schedule and have no time for this ridiculousness/energy fucking drain

[Number23]

176. You obviously have alot of time

Last edited Fri Mar 30, 2012, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

Viewed, read and (hopefully) absorbed.

[ellisonz]

177. How about you both just put eachother on ignore...

...and leave it at that. Solution?

[Number23]

178. And this concerns you... how, exactly?

I'm assuming that since you decided to contribute that you actually read the thread. Read the poster with the incredibly creative and meaningful user name's response to me after I responded to someone else THREE DAYS PRIOR. And then posted a link to a subthread from two weeks ago where she stated she was going to put me on ignore. That's the only "solution" I care about and which I wholeheartedly embraced. And it's also the "solution" that she refuses to implement which has lead to the current predicament that you have willingly waded into.

So, perhaps your comment may be a bit more effective if you aimed it solely at the person who is the source of the problem. Thanks.

[ellisonz]

179. This is a public forum...

If you put her on ignore you wouldn't see her response...you have the technology, just saying

[inna]

184. btw, EVERYBODY *should* read this, to "get" what i'm talking about:

(as far as vile personal attacks/group attacks aka 'swarming', etc. are concerned):

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002127446

the subthread in question is posts #8 through #93

[geek tragedy]

136. No, the facts agree with him/her. This post is too crazy for WND.

Just in case people wonder why they get dismissed as irrational hysteria mongeringLack and conspiracy theory pimps.

[SidDithers]

81. Oh, that's awesome...

Matthew Rothschild. Even crazier than World Nut Daily.

Sid

[msanthrope]

85. Apparently he is an actual Rothschild. So I will note the delicious irony

of manufactured outrage provided by a scion of the 1%, packaged as 'progressive' and posted here as objective critique....

[bvar22]

90. FDR was a 1%er,

So, what WAS your point?
Delicious Irony.....indeed!


It is a sad day on DU when WND is touted as a credible source,
and The Progressive is marginalized.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Tarheel_Dem]

119. Is he related to this one? If so, that says it all.

[grantcart]

189. You have found the place at DU where "no shame exists"

Any bizzare unfounded discussion of the administration that can cast it in an unfavorable light will be found by simply googling the poster.

It doesn't have to meet any bar whatsoever, even that of the World Nut Daily just be anti Obama.

Housekeeping updates like this will be found to be really scary because we have a really scary black guy in the White House.

Again it could have been deleted, or edited but there it stands, in a place with no shame.

[Ikonoklast]

36. Here is a scenario for you to ponder...this is all happening in peacetime between all major players.

There is famine in China due to global climate change, now entering its third year.

Other grain-exporting countries, such as the United States, are already under huge pressure to feed their own populations due to drought and crop failures here and elsewhere, world-wide.

India has banned all wheat and rice exports. Brazil doesn't have enough soybeans to fill domestic consumption, and they ban all sales of basic food commodities to the world market.

China has hundreds of billions of dollars, but not near enough food to feed its populace. Hundreds of millions will starve if the Chinese government refuses to step in and do anything.

The Chinese government is willing to bid the price of basic commodities through the roof in order to purchase every bushel of wheat, corn and soybeans available world-wide, creating massive price increases of basic foodstuffs in this and other nations, putting millions of U.S. citizens at risk because they can no longer afford to feed their families, as a loaf of bread hits $25, and a pound of chicken cost $45.

Commodity brokers are having a field day as they make stupendous overnight fortunes speculating on the huge price run-up do to the insatiable demand coming from China, and the willingness of that government to do whatever it takes to secure enough food, damn the price paid.

Does the president of this nation invoke an executive order and step in to ban exports of basic food commodities that otherwise would have been bought on the open market by the highest bidder, or does he just let world-wide market forces dictate who gets to purchase our domestically produced foodstuffs, therefore insuring starvation in this country?

[MineralMan]

38. Bad misinterpretation of the EO. But, it serves your purpose,

I suppose.

[MrScorpio]

42. Decency expects every citizen to do their duty....

Vote for President Barack Obama come November.

[Better Believe It]

43. I've always been in favor of decency. Now what is our primary duty as citizens?

I'd say supporting and defending our freedoms and liberties provided in the Bill of Rights and opposing all forces and governmental actions that undermine and threaten our civil liberties and political rights.

Do you agree?

[Ikonoklast]

47. How will you accomplish that goal?

With rights come responsibilities.

[ProSense]

50. Well,

first you make up scary stuff about Executive Orders that have existed for years. It's like yelling "fire" upon witnessing someone repairing the "in case of emergency" sign on a fire extinguisher.

[Ikonoklast]

57. Just the Outrage Du Jour.

Or flinging poop at the wall, see what sticks.

Not insinuating anything about the OP, but that is what the Right does, one fabricated calamity after another.

All just blow away like a fart in a high wind, leaving nothing behind but a faint odor.

[AtomicKitten]

144. Great analogy.

[truedelphi]

52. You are nailing it.

People do not understand that these Presidential Executive Orders actually end up impacting us private citizens with absolute tyranny.

Because of Pres Clinton's 1994 Executive Order that allowed for FEMA to be in charge of any area that the Fed government declares an emergency area, negative activities occurred.

Remember how in 2005, we collectively watched in horror as FEMA forced people in Louisiana away from offering support to the beleagured citizens of New Orleans and other people in the coastal areas hard hit by wind and flood damage.

And FEMA sat on the stockpiles of food and medicine that were sent in by plane. What did FEMA prove good at? Why going door to door in certain New Orleans parishes and confiscating people's weapons! Even though the police force was non-existent and looting was wide spread.

[ProSense]

54. But

"You are nailing it."

...you're not!

Because of Pres Clinton's 1994 Executive Order that allowed for FEMA to be in charge of any area that the Fed government declares an emergency area, negative activities occurred.

Remember how in 2005, we collectively watched in horror as FEMA forced people in Louisiana away from offering support to the beleagured citizens of New Orleans and other people in the coastal areas hard hit by wind and flood damage.

Yeah, remember when Bush updated it in 2003?

I mean, skip the relevant stuff and it's scary as hell, right?

Bush was a fuck up. The federal government was in his hands, that was the problem.

[msanthrope]

56. Why are you bringing historical facts into a perfectly good anti-Clinton/Obama rant? nt

[truedelphi]

75. I Don't think you have proven your point to me.

So the FEMA authorization via the Executive Order had no impact?

It was discussed ad nauseum on talk radio in the nineties, long before Bush was in office.

And it was proven that what some of us worried about came to pass when Katrina occurred:

http://thinman.com/studies/katrina_and_the_new_model_site/katrina_hurricane_forum_reference.html


Above includes topic about how Canadian workers reach devastated areas five days before FEMA

Above topic also includes the following topics about FEMA: (The words of the index - not mine):
FEMA camp conditions

FEMA Communications Neglect and Sabotage

FEMA Corruption, Checks

FEMA Debit Cards

FEMA Fraud, prior to Katrina

FEMA Incompetence

FEMA Neclect, Medical Professionals

FEMA Neglect becomes homicide

FEMA Neglect

FEMA Neglect, Burying British Food

FEMA Neglect, Firefighters held in Atlanta

FEMA Neglect, Michael Brown

FEMA Neglect, Plaquemines Parish

FEMA Neglect, Weather Specialists

FEMA Public Relations

FEMA Refuses International Help

FEMA scraps debit card program

FEMA sends away Red Cross

FEMA, Animal rescue permission slips

FEMA, Communications Sabotage

FEMA, Deliberate Neglect, report by Animal Group

FEMA, List of Negligence

FEMA, Michael Brown Lies

FEMA, Neglect, Supplies sitting

FEMA, Push blame to later

So now we can get screwed over by Homeland Security, as soon as Obama is out and whatever Republican replaces him. Probably not in 2012, but later on certainly. The country goes 8 years of one Party followed by (usually) eight years of the other.

[MrScorpio]

61. If you oppose Pres. Obama so much as you always seem to do

Given that he's a Democratic president, then why are you here?

When given any opportunity to object to the man, you always seem to take it.

What has he done right in your opinion? What is the alternative COME November?

I'm just wondering.

[Better Believe It]

69. When Obama does the right thing I support him. When he advocates bad policies I oppose them.

"What has he done right in your opinion?"

Well, just recently .....


Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Obama Administration Prot...

Fri Jan 20, 2012, 11:14 AM
Better Believe It

Obama Administration Protects Birth Control Access for Women

http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1002192095

[TBF]

45. As Eisenhower would remind us this really isn't anything new -

the article itself states that "the order relies on a Korean War-era statute, the Defense Production Act of 1950, to further entwine the domestic industrial economy with the military. It talks of fostering “cooperation between the defense and commercial sectors.”"

While I personally would like to see the military industrial complex put out of business, I don't think we can expect to see that in an election year (and with a teabagger House). There is much that needs to be done, ala Occupy and hopefully more activity from labor, before we can hope to accomplish that.

[JackRiddler]

70. A permanent military emergency is not okay just because it's been around forever.

You have probably noticed this thread is full of Orwellian reflex-responses, in defense of Obama, that argue it's not a problem to maintain a militarized government with the full apparatus for military dictatorship at the ready. As long as all administrations since World War II have borne responsibility for this world-destroying, pointless insanity, and you can't just blame it on Obama, it's okay!

Why We Fight
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whywefight/

[TBF]

71. In my opinion you've got to get rid of capitalism if

you want any prayer at shutting down the imperialism. They go together. Any regulations you pass will be ignored (and the politicians bought off) until we change the economic system and take away the rewards for the aberrant behavior. Blaming this on Obama is silly in my view. He's just the latest administrator and we've had worse ... I just don't see how focusing on him helps. Instead address the underlying problem - as Occupy is doing.

[Sheepshank]

51. oh, it's you again.

*yawn*

[Tarheel_Dem]

64. My thoughts exactly.

[AtomicKitten]

139. .

[Rosco T.]

66. Does this mean that Obama could, as a necesary act of 'national secuirty'

.. he could order all the jobs and manufacturing brought home from offshore?

[Whisp]

67. Obama did not say that. Dishonest CRAP headline.

[Better Believe It]

78. Did someone say he did? The author wrote that. That's why he's called the author!

Read the article and you'll understand that is not a quote of President Obama.

And never, ever write a movie review of a film you haven't seen!

But, I don't need to tell you that.

Isn't that right?

[Whisp]

102. I've developed a habit here of not reading the continuous false crap by certain posters.

sure as shit, it's the opposite of gloom doom evil Obama.

[Better Believe It]

155. So does that mean you have withdrawn your mistaken claim that Obama was quoted in the caption?

[Whisp]

163. others here thought it was a misleading title.

so I withdraw nothing, I know your 'slant' well.

[bvar22]

68. While this isn't a major step off the cliff,

....it DOES inch us further to The Authoritarian Right.

We were taken OVER the edge during the Bush Administration with "Bi-Partisan" help from the Centrist Democrats
with the Patriot Act, the AUMF (Authorization to Use Military Force in Iraq), and a defacto Declaration of a Perpetual WAR on a Concept (Terror), and the assumption of all the Executive War Time Powers of a Unitary executive that go along a REAL War.
Can we expect the White House to surrender those powers when we have defeated "TERROR"?

Our Congress has completely abrogated its Constitutionally assigned DUTY as a Co-Equal Branch of government to provide a Check and Balance on the White House.

In 2008, I had expected our Constitution Scholar to Walk us Back from the edge,
but that didn't happen.
Instead, we have been treated to a reaffirmation of the Patriot Act, now endorsed by BOTH political parties as the New Normal
and a further incremental assault on our Constitutionally Protected Rights through a series of EOs, and legislation such as the NDAA which further increase the power of our government over its citizens, and moves our Government of the People further AWAY from accountability TO those People.

While some here seem determined to minimize the effects of these EOs,
and insist that legislation such as the NDAA only "clarifies" the powers of the White House,
and that any changes are "insignificant", no one can claim that any of these reduce the POWERS held by our White House and our government.
No One can claim that these steps make the American People more FREE, or bestows MORE rights TO The People,
or further clarifies our protections FROM our government.

Anyone watching the movement AWAY from our Constitutionally Guaranteed Liberties toward a more Authoritarian,
more SECRET, Less Transparent, Less Accountable Executive Branch SHOULD BE ALARMED.
We ARE moving in the WRONG DIRECTION, even IF it is with Baby Steps.

Where will YOU Draw the Line?

[Robb]

96. "In 2008, I had expected our Constitution Scholar to Walk us Back from the edge...."

With respect, not exactly how you put it then.

[bvar22]

99. You MUST have missed this part:

"I support a more gentle reformation of the Democratic Party, and I believe that such a reform might be possible with Obama."

As a mainstream/Center FDR/LBJ loyal Democrat,
I decry the movement of my Party To the Republican Right.
I did then, and I do NOW.

I STAND by every word I posted then,
and thank you for spending the time to dig out that Blast from the Past.
It must have been very important to you.
However, it IS a FAIL,
because I addressed your concern in March of 2008 with that closing statement.
I smiled as I read it.

I believed then that a Constitutional Scholar might indeed Walk us Back from The Edge,
AND included that sentiment in my statement of support FOR Obama in March of 2008.

You really had to dig, didn't you?
Too bad all that work turned and bit you in the ass in your attempt to discredit me.
I all my years at DU, I have been a loyal Democrat, and consistent in my STAND for Traditional Democratic Values.

No Charge.


Do you care to address ANY of the ISSUES I discussed in MY post?

Try THIS one:

"No One can claim that these steps make the American People more FREE, or bestows MORE rights TO The People,
or further clarifies our protections FROM our government."

Do YOU care to make that claim?

How about this one?

Will the Unitary Executive give up all those War Time Powers when "TERROR" is finally vanquished?

Aren't you the least bit concerned?



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Robb]

110. Struck a nerve, eh?

[bvar22]

128. Yes you struck a nerve.

..the same nerve that gets struck when anyone attempts to attack my credibility with outright mis-characterizations under the disguise of a [font color=blue]Blue Link[/font].
Were you hoping no one would actually go there and see if you were telling the truth?

No response to my challenges?

No intelligent rebuttal?

No apology for the failed attack?
.
.
.
.
.
.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Robb]

130. To the contrary.

The more we banter, the more folks might click to see your post advocating the destruction of the Democratic Party "as the only road to salvation."

Seems you spent a long time spinning that just now.

"You will know them by their works, not their excuses."

[bvar22]

132. Another failed attempt.

You seem to have a real problem truthful characterizations.
Apparently, you have invested so much time in researching my past on DU that you are unable to let it go and admit failure.
Your "Eureka" turns out to be nothing but Fools Gold.

Here is the full sentence from 2008:

"Lifelong Democrat here..
...AND lately I've been thinking that the destruction of the current incarnation of The Democratic Party may be the only road to salvation. This Democratic Party has become so beholding to Corporate interests that it no longer resembles the Party of FDR, JFK, LBJ, or even Jimmy Carter.

Can you show me an FDR/LBJ Democrat who has NOT had those "thoughts"?

Are you now a self-appointed DU Commissar of "Thought Crime"?
Do we really have to Watch what we "think"?


I am delighted that you find me so important that you would spend that amount time researching my posts on DU going back over 4 years. Is THIS is the best Disloyal Democrat post of mine you can find?
I've got over 25,000 posts at DU.
I'm sure you can do better,
and apparently you have a lot of time to waste.
So have at it, Robb!



Again, from the same post:

"I support a more gentle reformation of the Democratic Party, and I believe that such a reform might be possible with Obama.
There is absolutely NO CHANCE for any significant changes under a Hillary DLC administration."

I STAND by every word of that post.


And THAT was in front of MY house in the Deep Red South.




[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center]
[center][/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[Robb]

133. Okey doke.

[onenote]

100. If you want to argue that issuing the updated EO doesn't move us to the left, I get it.

But can you explain how it moves us to the right rather than just leaves us where we were? In other words, explain how this EO makes things substantively different from where they would be if the President had not issued the EO?

[bvar22]

109. "substantively different".. NO, and I was very clear about that in my post.

My big concern is that it does NOT Walk us back from The Edge.
It reaffirms and endorses The New Normal established during the Bush Administration's bogus War on Terror.

Was I wrong to expect a Democratic Administration to move us back to The Left
after the precipitous LURCH to The Authoritarian Right of the previous administration?

I clearly remember voting for "CHANGE".,
not the Status Quo.

I am especially concerned that this recent spate of clarifications appear to have been motivated by the success of the OWS protests, and the potential for even larger episodes of Civil Unrest this Summer.
It really looks like they are tying up the loose ends.




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[onenote]

117. Sorry. When you said this "inched us closer" I didn't realize that you viewed standing still

as moving. Thanks for the clarification.

[bvar22]

131. Putting the official Democratic Party Seal of Approval...

...on the Constitutional excesses of the Bush Administration
does indeed inch us closer.

Riddle me this:
If this EO doesn't change anything,
why go to the trouble?

The people who drafted this EO,
and the guy that signed it,
all thought that it was worth their time.


Nevermind.
Nothing to see here.
Move along.
Go shopping.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[onenote]

134. The official Democratic Party seal was already on it from 1994

The EO issued by President Obama replaced an EO that was issued by President Clinton in 1994. Despite what has been written by some, the amendment to that EO made by bush in 2003 was non substantive. In fact, these are the changes, in toto, made by bush to the Clinton-era EO:

EO 13286:

Sec. 24. Executive Order 12919 of June 3, 1994 (‘‘National Defense Industrial
Resources Preparedness’’), is amended by:

(a) striking ‘‘The Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency (‘‘Director,
FEMA’’)’’ in section 104(b) and inserting ‘‘The Secretary of Homeland
Security (‘‘the Secretary’’)’’ in lieu thereof;
(b) striking ‘‘The Director, FEMA,’’ in sections 201(c) and 601(f) and
inserting ‘‘The Secretary’’ in lieu thereof;
(c) striking ‘‘the Director, FEMA,’’ wherever it appears in sections 201(e),
202(c), 305, 501, 701(e), and 802(e), and inserting ‘‘the Secretary’’ in lieu
thereof; and
(d) inserting ‘‘the Department of Homeland Security,’’ after ‘‘Attorney General,’’
in section 801."

The EO itself,as has been the case since the 1950 Defense Production Act was enacted, has been largely the carrying out of statutory directions delegating responsibility to the Executive Branch. The 1950 Act has been amended in various ways nearly 20 times in the past 62 years. As best I can tell, the changes made by President Obama in the 18 year old Clinton EO (as non-substantively amended 9 years ago by bush) largely update the EO to reflect changes made by Congress aimed at encouraging more energy exploration -- for example, a lot of biofuels funding is done under the heading of actions taken pursuant to the planning authorized by the Act as implemented by the EO.

In any event, since you are the one claiming that the EO makes substantive changes, it seems like the burden would be on you to show at least one example of such.

[Pisces]

72. This post is creepy and misleading. Nothing new from this source.

[bluestate10]

138. I am happy to see that others are finally joining the suspicion that I have written for months.

Some posters do NOTHING but attack President Obama and democrats. While not saying a peep about extremist republicans.

[Better Believe It]

143. Are you suggesting that I fit that category? If so, what do you base your personal attack on?

[Bobbie Jo]

162. I don't think he's "suggesting" at all

A quick google search would confirm this assertion as fact.

Own it.

[Odin2005]

73. This is a paranoid misunderstanding of the EO.

[SidDithers]

76. Keep trying...nt

Sid

[Revelyell]

82. This is nothing compared to

what Bush did.

[great white snark]

88. You know it's an utter fail when your regular defenders are MIA.

Creepy indeed.

[bvar22]

91. "CREEPY" is ...

...finding a thread on DU where a group is parading under the banner of the WorldNet Daily,
and attacking The Progressive.

World Net Daily
"Independent conservative news website with an emphasis on aggressive investigative reporting and gossip."

[ProSense]

92. "Creepy"

...finding a thread on DU where a group is parading under the banner of the WorldNet Daily,
and attacking The Progressive.

...is believing that it's OK to disregard the facts because you're progressive.

Hey, it's a lie and fear-mongering propaganda, but it's the good "progressive" kind.

[bvar22]

127. Guilty as charged, mam!

And PROUD of IT!

You will never, EVER find me posting a link to,
or a reference to,
or a quote from,
or a cite to support MY position from:
*Rush Limbaugh,

*Fox News,

*Brietbart,

*Drudge,

*Hannity,

*FreeRepublic,

*Glenn Beck,

*TeaBagger Central,

*Joe the Plummer (sic)

*WorldNet Daily
(Self described as ""Independent conservative news website with an emphasis on aggressive investigative reporting and gossip.&quot

......or any other spewers of disinformation from the Right Wing Propaganda Outlets.

1) I NEVER go to these sites,
so I wouldn't know what they say.
I REFUSE to give them the traffic.

2) Going along with the old adage that a broken clock is right twice a day,
if they accidentally say something worthwhile that I agree with,
I would find another credible source, and use THAT one
before I would embarrasses myself on DU,
and lend any credibility to those sources.

3)The left is losing the Media War,
and pimping for the Right Wing outlets is something I just won't do.

I do understand that Centrists and Moderates are closer to that ideology (by definition)
than this old Mainstream FDR/LBJ Democrat,
so I understand if they (Centrists and Moderates) don't react with the same visceral hatred that I do,
but don't you find it the least bit embarrassing to be promoting those outlets?

[dionysus]

105. nice attempt to shift attention from the epic poutrage fail...

[geek tragedy]

137. The Progressive has lower standards than WND. Objectively and indisputably

in this case.

This author and his followers can sit between Orly Taitz and Jeff Rense.

[truedelphi]

151. YOu made my day by making a very good

Point. I thought one of the rules about DU is that no one is to ever look at that WorldNetDaily, and yet here in this discussion we see that the major "proof" of the OP being wrong comes from that source.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Oh for frack's face this is an update to an executive order

Starting in '44 when the US was on a war footing.

If we were on a war footing, you'd know it.

By the way this is meant for a high intensity conflict, NYET we are not in one.

Or in case we have a massive natural disaster, see a certain park blowing it's top in a super volcano.

Or perhaps civil war.

There are days.

[bvar22]

108. Updated, refined, clarified, and re-issued.

...just tying up a few loose ends.
Nothing to see here.

[onenote]

116. If you've noticed something specific that makes this worse than the EO it replaces

please point us in that direction.

[dionysus]

103. keep trying.

[AtomicKitten]

107. What's creepy is this hyperbolic characterization of an updated EO.

"Boo!"

[dionysus]

115. why, are you insinuating that the anti dem campaign isn't working?

[AtomicKitten]

129. shit doesn't work without a flashlight

Last edited Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:43 PM - Edit history (1)

[dionysus]

141. !

[geek tragedy]

135. Sheriff Arpaio writes for The Progressive now. More fodder for the nutjob

fringes of both ends of the political spectrum.

[Better Believe It]

142. That's totally false. The Progressive hates him. What's your source for that bull shit?

Shefiff Arpaio is not a supporter of or writer for The Progressive. BBI



Sheriff Arpaio should lose his throne
By José Miguel leyva
December 26, 2011

http://www.progressive.org/sheriff_arpaio.html



Sheriff Joe Arpaio Must Go
December 27, 2011

http://progressive.org/sheriff_arpaio_audio.html

[bvar22]

152. They doan need no stinkin sources.

One makes something up.
Then two chime in saying "YEAH, thats right"!!!
THEN, the post is linked to in another thread as established fact.

Its an old game, but it works well.
THAT is exactly HOW Saddam got all those fictitious Weapons of Mass Destruction.
You CAN fool most Americans ALL of the time.



You will know them by their WORKS.

[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[Better Believe It]

156. Right. That's an old propaganda technique used against uninformed people.

[Bobbie Jo]

159. !

Yes. You're quite the "it" getter, there.

[dionysus]

164. lol, projection at its finest isn't it!

[inna]

157. exactly.

as this site is becoming mockery of its former self

[inna]

153. kr

[roman7]

160. starting a fire then fanning the flames... typical tricky dick inspired repuke politics

[L0oniX]

167. The "Executive Order" is what it is. I am sure the usual DU mob will attack anyway.

I got to laugh when the term "defense" is used. How stupid do they think people are? We went over to Iraq and f*cked them with our "defense"? geeze ...yea I can understand why we need to have our own bombs that are not made in China. The up side is that at least there will be some jobs left here ...provided we stay at war somewhere. That's really special ain't it. Note how many other countries are doing the same thing ...oh wait ...many of them depend on us for their defense too. Glad my taxes are helping out all those poor countries that won't defend themselves. What a f*cked up country this is. It would take a miracle to fix it at this point. Greedy cronie capitalists own and control it all.

[Better Believe It]

173. Kick

[Bobbie Jo]

174. DEBUNKED.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=481608

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp

kick, indeed.

[Bobbie Jo]

185. Kick

For Sunday DU'ers.

[treestar]

187. Wait a minute, I thought liberals wanted the government to be able to step in

It is the right that finds that anathema, no matter what the result to the people.