Obama's New Executive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness

#26
#26
JayVols said:
Cincinnatus, ftw...


The power to take control in a crisis has pretty much always been allowed. I really don't see what the big deal is. Well, I have ideas.
Click to expand...

Let me know how the federal govt gave back power after the civil war, ww 1 & 2.........ill hang up and listen
 
#27
#27
JayVols said:
Cincinnatus, ftw...


The power to take control in a crisis has pretty much always been allowed. I really don't see what the big deal is. Well, I have ideas.
Click to expand...

Cincinnaticus and George Washington are,the only two people un the history of the world to give up absolute power.
 
#28
#28
JayVols said:
Cincinnatus, ftw...


The power to take control in a crisis has pretty much always been allowed. I really don't see what the big deal is. Well, I have ideas.
Click to expand...

Slaves are made in the name of protection and security.

The issue is that people now have no faith in their politicians. This isn't just a R or D issue, but an over all opinion of how things in DC are going.

The power to step in is already in place. This is just an over reach of power by the people in Washington.
 
#29
#29
Take the non emergency stuff out and you have a workable document.

I will never understand the willingness of people to give up personal power to anybody/entity. I'm with Patrick Henry on this one.
 
#31
#31
JayVols said:
Nazi Germany's resources aren't even remotely comperable to the US' of that time. The Nazis tanks were far better engineered than US tanks. One of the reasons we won is that for every tank Germany could put in the field, we could put nearly 10. It was a tactic of attrition. We had the resources to expend. They ran out. You really wouldn't be willing to sacrifice in an hour of national emergency regardless of who is President? Or is this just an I hate anything Obama? Honestly, I could go along with a good majority of this no matter if I liked or disliked the President proposing it. BTW, I am no huge Obama fan.
Click to expand...

The government taking these things is never acceptable. Ever.

If the people feel like they are truly in danger, they will choose to give. If people do not choose to give, then they would rather lose or do not think the threat is existential. If they really think we may lose and that losing would be bad, then they will give.

Give is very different from take.

Spock is wrong. The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one. Everyone single one of us is an individual. Just because a lot of individuals think one way or need something does not make any of those individuals more important or worthy or deserving of my stuff than me, who is also an individual.
 
#32
#32
Lexvol said:
Take the non emergency stuff out and you have a workable document.

I will never understand the willingness of people to give up personal power to anybody/entity. I'm with Patrick Henry on this one.
Click to expand...

This pretty much sums up my feelings. I understand the whole Ben Franklin statement on giving up liberty in exchange for security. I agree with that in peace times. But, when a major crisis that threatens the country, I can agree with these steps on a temporary basis. What good are freedoms if the country that guarantees those freedoms ceases to exist?








OrangeEmpire said:
Let me know how the federal govt gave back power after the civil war, ww 1 & 2.........ill hang up and listen
Click to expand...


The situation after the Civil War is very complicated. I agree that the bounds were crossed. However, the crossings were perpetrated by Congress (particularly the Radical Republican Reconstructionists- Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stephens) not the POTUS. Johnson wasn't as powerful as Lincoln and couldn't keep the Radicals at bay. Boothe did no favors for the South by assassinating Lincoln.



Look I am as freedom loving and stubborn about my rights as anyone. I am not saying that these powers should be available for use on a whim. One man or a select few should not be able to invoke them either. It should require say 2/3 majority vote in both houses in Congress.

I only favor the measures in the most dire circumstance where the nation is facing a real threat of becoming extinct. As stated earlier, what good is a free country that no longer exists. I understand the concerns. I just think they are a little overblown. You guys are acting like I want tanks in every town because minor incidents such as the Iranian Idiot saying "Death to America"
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
JayVols said:
This pretty much sums up my feelings. I understand the whole Ben Franklin statement on giving up liberty in exchange for security. I agree with that in peace times. But, when a major crisis that threatens the country, I can agree with these steps on a temporary basis. What good are freedoms if the country that guarantees those freedoms ceases to exist?









The situation after the Civil War is very complicated. I agree that the bounds were crossed. However, the crossings were perpetrated by Congress (particularly the Radical Republican Reconstructionists- Charles Sumner and Thaddeus Stephens) not the POTUS. Johnson wasn't as powerful as Lincoln and couldn't keep the Radicals at bay. Boothe did no favors for the South by assassinating Lincoln.



Look I am as freedom loving and stubborn about my rights as anyone. I am not saying that these powers should be available for use on a whim. One man or a select few should not be able to invoke them either. It should require say 2/3 majority vote in both houses in Congress.

I only favor the measures in the most dire circumstance where the nation is facing a real threat of becoming extinct. As stated earlier, what good is a free country that no longer exists. I understand the concerns. I just think they are a little overblown. You guys are acting like I want tanks in every town because minor incidents such as the Iranian Idiot saying d" Death to America"
Click to expand...


My father vividly remembers canada imposing martial law in quebec because of terrorism. They caught the bastages and repealed martial law...simple.
 
#34
#34
Addendum: Re: Ben Franklin

Benjamin Franklin's famous quote stating that those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither is not in conflict with my feelings on the matter. Security and survival are different.
 
#35
#35
RespectTradition said:
The government taking these things is never acceptable. Ever.

If the people feel like they are truly in danger, they will choose to give. If people do not choose to give, then they would rather lose or do not think the threat is existential. If they really think we may lose and that losing would be bad, then they will give.

Give is very different from take.

Spock is wrong. The needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the one. Everyone single one of us is an individual. Just because a lot of individuals think one way or need something does not make any of those individuals more important or worthy or deserving of my stuff than me, who is also an individual.
Click to expand...


You are either naive or have more confidence in your fellow man than I do. It's a plan, not a blueprint to trample rights. If you would rather the nation fall than sacrifice anything, good luck. Like I said, a free nation that no longer exists is not worth much. It's like curing cancer by shooting the patient in the head with a .45. They might be dead, but you can feel proud that you didn't let them die from cancer.



Spock? You're quoting Star Trek? Really? One of the problems with this nation is that we all are too concerned with our 'stuff' and the invisible boogie man waiting in the shadows to take 'my stuff'. It's all about material things anymore. 'Stuff'.... smh
 
Last edited:
#36
#36
JayVols said:
You are either naive or have more confidence in your fellow man than I do. It's a plan, not a blueprint to trample rights. If you would rather the nation fall than sacrifice anything, good luck. Like I said, a free nation that no longer exists is not worth much. It's like curing cancer by shooting the patient in the head with a .45. They might be dead, but you can feel proud that you didn't let them die from cancer.



Spock? You're quoting Star Trek? Really? One of the problems with this nation is that we all are too concerned with our 'stuff' and the invisible boogie man waiting in the shadows to take 'my stuff'. It's all about material things anymore. 'Stuff'.... smh
Click to expand...

imo, it's less material and more an obsession with other people getting a free lunch.
 
#39
#39
slh1089 said:
Says the man that compared today's politicians to Cinicinnatus.
Click to expand...

No. You missed that pitch by a mile..... I hate all of today's pos politicians. Was merely pointing out someone that did give up absolute power. Wow.
 
#40
#40
JayVols said:
No. You missed that pitch by a mile..... I hate all of today's pos politicians. Was merely pointing out someone that did give up absolute power. Wow.
Click to expand...

Not sure how I "missed the pitch." The post you quoted said his issue with the EO was the returning of power when it was no longer necessary. You then said Cincinnatus. What is the point of saying Cincinnatus if you aren't attempting to compare him to the current situation?
 
#41
#41
slh1089 said:
Not sure how I "missed the pitch." The post you quoted said his issue with the EO was the returning of power when it was no longer necessary. You then said Cincinnatus. What is the point of saying Cincinnatus if you aren't attempting to compare him to the current situation?
Click to expand...

Was. Giving. An. Example. Of. Someone. That. Did. Lay. Down. Absolute. Power. At. The. End. Of. A. Crisis. That's all.
 
#42
#42
JayVols said:
Was. Giving. An. Example. Of. Someone. That. Did. Lay. Down. Absolute. Power. At. The. End. Of. A. Crisis. That's all.
Click to expand...

I. AM. AWARE. However, I am saying it is completely pointless to use that example. You seem to missing that point.
 
#44
#44
JayVols said:
What is the problem with providing resources to our military in a time of emergency, '68? I know you are a Constitutionalist- doesn't it give the federal govt the power to provide for the common defense? You're a good guy MG, smart, too. How is this any different from what pretty much any other president would do in a national crisis (with the exception of the non-emergency part- which I disagree with)?
Click to expand...

did my post indicate an opinion one way or the other?

the NDRP has been around since at least the Clinton Administration
 
#45
#45
slh1089 said:
I. AM. AWARE. However, I am saying it is completely pointless to use that example. You seem to missing that point.
Click to expand...

Lol. Good comeback. Seriously.

You took my example out of context. It was just something I threw out. That's why I separated it from the rest of my post. I wanted it to stand alone.
 
#46
#46
MG1968 said:
did my post indicate an opinion one way or the other?

the NDRP has been around since at least the Clinton Administration
Click to expand...

I took it that it that you were totally against it. If I was wrong, I was wrong.
 
#47
#47
JayVols said:
You are either naive or have more confidence in your fellow man than I do. It's a plan, not a blueprint to trample rights. If you would rather the nation fall than sacrifice anything, good luck. Like I said, a free nation that no longer exists is not worth much. It's like curing cancer by shooting the patient in the head with a .45. They might be dead, but you can feel proud that you didn't let them die from cancer.



Spock? You're quoting Star Trek? Really? One of the problems with this nation is that we all are too concerned with our 'stuff' and the invisible boogie man waiting in the shadows to take 'my stuff'. It's all about material things anymore. 'Stuff'.... smh
Click to expand...

I never said that people shouldn't sacrifice. I said that people should be able to choose to sacrifice or not. There is a big difference. If you steal from me then I did not sacrifice. If I choose to give it up, then I have sacrificed.

A free nation that exists because it takes away freedom is not a free nation. If they can take my freedom when they want to, or think it is necessary, then I am not a free man, I am a pet that is given the run of the house until my owner decides to put me out back when company comes over.

Your analogy is all wrong. To shoot the cancer patient so they don't die of cancer is the same as taking my freedom so I am not conquered. Not the other way around.

During WWII millions of people voluntarily enlisted. Millions of people voluntarily bought war bonds. Why? Because they felt, right or wrong, that the country was at risk and they were willing to sacrifice for it. That is history. I am not naive. If we are truly at risk, then we will CHOOSE to act. We do not need to be forced to act.

It's not all about material things. You need to understand that all rights are property rights. If we do not protect property rights then we do not have freedom at all.

(If you don't understand how all rights are property rights, then I encourage you to read some Locke. For example, freedom of speech is based upon the idea that it is my mouth, my brain, and my right to determine when and how to use them. It is the reason slavery is wrong. I own my body and have the right to use it or not use it as I will and to get the fruits derived from its use.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#49
#49
I see your points RT. Don't agree with all of them, but I understand where you are coming from. I do think that the Constitution would allow some of these actions under the Provide for a Common Defense Clause. We are just coming from opposing viewpoints which is fine with me.

I am very familiar with Locke. I agree with the vast majority of what he says. If you (I think it was you) can use a Star Trek analagy, allow me a Star Wars analagy. 'Only a Sith would deal in absolutes.'
:)

There are times (very select few times) when execptions need to be made. At least that's my view.
 
#50
#50
JayVols said:
Lol. Good comeback. Seriously.

You took my example out of context. It was just something I threw out. That's why I separated it from the rest of my post. I wanted it to stand alone.
Click to expand...

Good comeback? Ok...

Not really sure why you had to turn it into a pissing match. Sorry if your feelings got hurt a long the way.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top