Does this scare anyone?

[sjbouza]

Can someone help me with this. I came across it just be accident one day just putzin round the net. When I read it I got REALLY worried. If I read it correctly, and I may be wrong, Bush signed this into law without Congressional approval. It will allow him in an "emergency" to basically take over the country?! Am I reading this right. Please someone tell me I am not and I just missed something.

National Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive

I hope I am just reading this wrong. If I am not I am worried. Watch, this guy is gonna declare a "national emergency" just before he leaves office and take over the country, just like a dictator. This guy is MAD...he is a power hungry madman!!!

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by sjbouza

Watch, this guy is gonna declare a "national emergency" just before he leaves office and take over the country, just like a dictator. This guy is MAD...he is a power hungry madman!!!

Considering the nature of the powers that be, I believe this was the point of the Bush Administration all along.

Given the track record of this administration, at best, 9/11 was "allowed" to happen, at worst it was planned. In either case it was meant for this purpose specifically. All they need to do now is allow, or manufacture another "crisis" or terrorist attack before the '08 elections, and then suspend the constitution, and thus the elections indefinitely in the name of national security.

Looking at it from that perspective, Bush not caring about public opinion or having a plan B for anything makes sense. Even not caring about the $7 trillion deficit makes sense.

Continue to repeat "9/11" in order to terrorize us into thinking of nothing but avoiding our own (horrific) deaths, while "fighting terrorism" by occupying Iraq and setting up permanent bases. No plans to "win" because they don't plan to leave. Take over the world's energy/oil supply and the US can kiss its national debt goodbye.

If they're actually not thinking about leaving office, but instead thinking about world domination, then it makes sense that they wouldn't think of reasons to be responsible for their actions, here or abroad. They're not talking about the consequences of their actions because they're not thinking about them.

Interestingly it was the vociferously anti-gay World Net Daily that reported this as news.

And think about Iran. If we nuke them - in the name of not being nuked, that will legitimize the attack, put us in control of 2 mid-east oil producing countries, AND send the message to the world that we're in control AND we're insane.

Then we'll really see the fruits of illegal wire tapping. No constitution = nothing illegal (for the government)... = no resistence. They can arrest us without cause and detain us indefinitely. They already can, they just need a reason to make it socially "acceptable."

[sjbouza]

That is what I was thinking. I have always thought and said that 9/11 was created by this office. I think that it was totally avoidable. I feel that they wanted an excuse to take total power over this country and as you said the oil in the middle east.

What is this guy thinking? Why isnt Congress doing anything about this? He is superseding his authority. Not having to gain approval from congress for anything, that is just way out there. I am beginning to really think this guy is a true madman.

Anyone want to move to Canada?

Scott

[u-dog]

Originally Posted by sjbouza

That is what I was thinking. I have always thought and said that 9/11 was created by this office. I think that it was totally avoidable. I feel that they wanted an excuse to take total power over this country and as you said the oil in the middle east.

What is this guy thinking? Why isnt Congress doing anything about this? He is superseding his authority. Not having to gain approval from congress for anything, that is just way out there. I am beginning to really think this guy is a true madman.

Anyone want to move to Canada?

Scott

How long do you suppose Canada would remain Canada and not States 51 through 63 if the republic were overthrown by neo-cons? Better stick around and stop them here.

[sjbouza]

True...true...true. I just cant believe something like this wasnt picked up by national news agencies. What does this guy have to hide? Well, that is a stupid question...he has a LOT to hide.

Anyway, udog your point is very well taken. We need to defeat them here before they can take this country by force. It will be a sad day for this country if that happens. So much for a "free country".

Scott

[kara speltz]

Originally Posted by sjbouza

True...true...true. I just cant believe something like this wasnt picked up by national news agencies. What does this guy have to hide? Well, that is a stupid question...he has a LOT to hide.

Anyway, udog your point is very well taken. We need to defeat them here before they can take this country by force. It will be a sad day for this country if that happens. So much for a "free country".

Scott

I've been afraid of this ever since 9/11 which I personally believe was allowed to happen. I haven't a doubt in the world that Bush & his cronies knew this was coming. And the closer we get to the elections, the stronger my fears increase that there will be another 9/11 created so as to put us under emergency powers. What I still don't quite fully comprehend is what happened to our supposedly free press. Bill Moyers as I see it, is just about the only media person standing up and telling the truth these days.
Corporate news seems to have decided to keep the American people in the dark. And we have no heros left who are willing to risk everything to stop this takeover.

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

I get my progressive news these days from Talking Points Memo among other sources. I'm linking to their article on this new National Security Presidential Directive 51 that says that it's really nothing new and nothing to worry about. (When you click on this link, you need to scroll down to the article titled "Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New")

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Notice that one of the experts who's not upset by the new directive is an ACLU attorney. They say it's merely an update to older plans to keep government services going if Washington D.C. get's hit with an A-Bomb or something. So maybe we should not be getting all excited about this development.

But then, again, having Bush in charge during a national emergency of any kind is a big worry---mainly because of his and his administration's incompetence.

Much more important are the hearings into the Justice Department that is exposing this administration's attempts to bias the work of the Justice Department for partisan ends--a big no no! Gonzales needs to go! Even a lot of Republicans in Congress are saying that.

Steven Webster

[Emproph]

Gonzo and Goodling

Video no longer available. Sorry guys.

[tdogg]

Sheesh Patrick, that scared the sh*t out of me!!!

Now, I can't get the other one to load, I'll have to try again later. I was truly ready for a laugh after that SCARE!

Thanks! It's good to know I'm alive...

[BrentRichards]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Friends,

I get my progressive news these days from Talking Points Memo among other sources. I'm linking to their article on this new National Security Presidential Directive 51 that says that it's really nothing new and nothing to worry about. (When you click on this link, you need to scroll down to the article titled "Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New")

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Notice that one of the experts who's not upset by the new directive is an ACLU attorney. They say it's merely an update to older plans to keep government services going if Washington D.C. get's hit with an A-Bomb or something. So maybe we should not be getting all excited about this development.

But then, again, having Bush in charge during a national emergency of any kind is a big worry---mainly because of his and his administration's incompetence.

Much more important are the hearings into the Justice Department that is exposing this administration's attempts to bias the work of the Justice Department for partisan ends--a big no no! Gonzales needs to go! Even a lot of Republicans in Congress are saying that.

Steven Webster

I'm inclined to agree, Stephen. Yes, admitted, I am a Republican. But I am far from this administration's biggest fan (understatement). Still, when I read this directive, I see nothing suggesting it would allow the President or anyone else to "seize power" in an emergency or any other time. If it did provide for that, it would be an illegal executive order. Our president is not constitutionally empowered to give himself controls (in an emergency or otherwise) reserved to the other two branches of government. You'll notice that the language of the Executive Order applies only to the Executive Branch, which is all the President has authority over directly anyway. No President can declare himself "in charge" or issue an order that extends his term beyond his elected stay in office, emergency or no. Whether Bush would LIKE to do that or not, I can't say. I'm absolutely convinced he (or any other President) COULD not do so, and this Executive Order doesn't change my mind on that one bit.

[BrentRichards]

Now THAT's funny!

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Sheesh Patrick, that scared the sh*t out of me!!!

Now, I can't get the other one to load, I'll have to try again later. I was truly ready for a laugh after that SCARE!

Thanks! It's good to know I'm alive...

Hey Toni,

That's exactly how I felt, I could feel my heart pounding. I watched that about 10 times the other night and no matter how prepared I tried to be my heart still leapt to my throat!

It was fun in a twisted sort of way but I deleted the post. I couldn't leave it up in good conscience as it's liable to kill someone...literally.

On a lighter note it looks like the daily show video is working now.

[simpleman]

Do you honestly believe that Bush planned and executed 9-11? If any government leader in the U.S. "allowed" 9-11 to happen, it was Bill Clinton. Project Able Danger was a federal intelligence program that identified Mohammed Atta (one of the hijackers) as a part of a terrorist cell. In September 2000, two whole months before Bush was even elected, much less in office (Jan. 2001), the federal agency running Able Danger was prepared to seek the help of the FBI to take down Atta's terrorist cell, because they had gathered intelligence linking him to al Qaeda, and to the 1993 WTC bombings. The agency attorneys, under the guidance of the CLINTON administration, and deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, determined that passing the intelligence to the FBI would be a violation of Atta's civil rights because he was on a Green Card, and thus the FBI was not allowed to try and take down the cell. A year later, in September 2001, just 9 months into Bush's presidency, Atta and his cohorts seized control of the airliners and flew them into the buildings.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by Steven E. Webster

Friends,

I get my progressive news these days from Talking Points Memo among other sources. I'm linking to their article on this new National Security Presidential Directive 51 that says that it's really nothing new and nothing to worry about. (When you click on this link, you need to scroll down to the article titled "Experts: Prez Directive Nothing New")

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003310.php

Notice that one of the experts who's not upset by the new directive is an ACLU attorney. They say it's merely an update to older plans to keep government services going if Washington D.C. get's hit with an A-Bomb or something. So maybe we should not be getting all excited about this development.

But then, again, having Bush in charge during a national emergency of any kind is a big worry---mainly because of his and his administration's incompetence.

Much more important are the hearings into the Justice Department that is exposing this administration's attempts to bias the work of the Justice Department for partisan ends--a big no no! Gonzales needs to go! Even a lot of Republicans in Congress are saying that.

Steven Webster

I'm with Stephen here. I'm in a Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery class right now and our discussions about a nuclear bomb going off in an American city really put this directive into perspective. This study by the Center for Mass Destruction Defense (CMADD) at the University of Georgia should put the directive into perspective:

http://www.uga.edu/news/artman/publi...arAttack.shtml

That said, I do agree that Presidential powers do need to be reigned in. We can all thank the wise authors of the constitution for limiting the President to two terms.

We all need to put some muscle into getting the right person into office in '08. This is democracy.

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Do you honestly believe that Bush planned and executed 9-11? If any government leader in the U.S. "allowed" 9-11 to happen, it was Bill Clinton. Project Able Danger was a federal intelligence program that identified Mohammed Atta (one of the hijackers) as a part of a terrorist cell. In September 2000, two whole months before Bush was even elected, much less in office (Jan. 2001), the federal agency running Able Danger was prepared to seek the help of the FBI to take down Atta's terrorist cell, because they had gathered intelligence linking him to al Qaeda, and to the 1993 WTC bombings. The agency attorneys, under the guidance of the CLINTON administration, and deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, determined that passing the intelligence to the FBI would be a violation of Atta's civil rights because he was on a Green Card, and thus the FBI was not allowed to try and take down the cell. A year later, in September 2001, just 9 months into Bush's presidency, Atta and his cohorts seized control of the airliners and flew them into the buildings.

There have been many very well done conspiracy movies about holes in the government's account of 9/11. The most downloaded one is Loose Change 2:



You can watch the democracy now debate about this film here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmE...elated&search=

[simpleman]

Loose Change is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. I don't even dignify Loose Change as a valid source of evidence for such a theory. Any moron could make a montage of videos, clips, and sounds that rips hundreds of things out of context to whatever end they wanted. Find me something legitimate, not some 22 year-old kid and his Apple's home movie.

[Emproph]

Welcome back, how was your trip? More importantly, what did you learn while you were away?

[antonyh]

Originally Posted by simpleman

Loose Change is nothing more than a conspiracy theory. I don't even dignify Loose Change as a valid source of evidence for such a theory. Any moron could make a montage of videos, clips, and sounds that rips hundreds of things out of context to whatever end they wanted. Find me something legitimate, not some 22 year-old kid and his Apple's home movie.

You should watch it sometime...just for the simple fact that it has been very influential. It was shown on the History Channel as well

[simpleman]

Originally Posted by Emproph

Welcome back, how was your trip? More importantly, what did you learn while you were away?

It was great! I was in Ireland, it's such a beautiful country.

What did I learn? Well, I guess I learned that the way we see alcohol in America is pretty silly. I drank pints with all sorts of random people, but none of them were drunks, very few of them acted foolishly like Americans. For most people ordering a pint of Guinness was like ordering a coke. I didn't once get ID'd while I was there, because nobody really bothers with it. Most everybody is responsible, so they don't assume you will be irresponsible just for drinking, like we do here. It was pretty interesting.

I also did some thinking about the state of the nation. Two 20+ hour days of flying can cause one's mind to crank a bit.

Anyway, I feel like our country has moved into a state of relativism. The "liberals" are at the forefront. Many ideas considered "liberal" or "progressive" are founded upon a kind of moral relativity. There is very little absolute left in our country. It seems as though law by law, precedent by precedent, the country is tearing down old foundations based on absolute moral principles, particularly those established under a Judeo-Christian worldview, and replacing them with new laws, policies, and precedents. Now it seems that any law founded in religious teaching is destroyed, as soon as that religious teaching is questioned. Part of me likes this flow of ideas, this dissemination of information, and this questioning of what is and has been. I like to see opposing ideas flying around. That's why I'm so provocative here, it's because I want people to express what they believe, because I find a certain satisfaction in being able to express myself. On the other hand, I feel that relativism is dangerous. Once you divorce yourself from absolutes; in other words, as the gray area in our social and political world expands, people can reason themselves from where they are, to anywhere else.

This got me thinking about reason, and how it's played into my dialogue here, and in other places and with different people. Reason, and logic, and all of these things attempt to build bridges and make connections between ideas. It is often used to find and discover answers to questions. Lines of reasoning always start with an assumption, or two, or three. The line or web of reasoning is supposed to conclude with a valid answer. The problem is, is that today we use reasoning backwards. We have already decided what our answer is, and we won't budge, so we find a way to make the line of reasoning work backward, in order to prove the answer that we know.

That's why I can never get across my points on this board. I have laid down a line of logic, and have reached a conclusion. Upon the discovery that my conclusion is different than yours, my reasoning is worked backwards. I am told that my answer, and every point on my line going back is based on my personal hatred of gays. Then, rather than defend my conclusion, I have to go back and try to liberate my entire line of reasoning from the all-destructive "hate". I never even get a chance to truly defend my final answer for its own merit, but rather only on whether or not it is founded upon hate, or simply my own beliefs about government. This destroys any meaningful dialogue, because my entire argument is invalidated by accusations of hatred and intolerance, regardless of their logical merit.

In other words, I cannot ever get anything across, because everybody just accuses me of being hateful.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by simpleman

That's why I can never get across my points on this board. I have laid down a line of logic, and have reached a conclusion. Upon the discovery that my conclusion is different than yours, my reasoning is worked backwards. I am told that my answer, and every point on my line going back is based on my personal hatred of gays. Then, rather than defend my conclusion, I have to go back and try to liberate my entire line of reasoning from the all-destructive "hate". I never even get a chance to truly defend my final answer for its own merit, but rather only on whether or not it is founded upon hate, or simply my own beliefs about government. This destroys any meaningful dialogue, because my entire argument is invalidated by accusations of hatred and intolerance, regardless of their logical merit.

In other words, I cannot ever get anything across, because everybody just accuses me of being hateful.

Really? Hateful? Hmmmmm. Don't think anyone here ever said that.

You line of 'logic' is your own. You might remember that. And for all the vauntedness of absoluteness. Well. It's just so damn easy for anyone to assume that their view must be God's view- isn't it? Isn't it queer that one's idea of absoluteness always affirms one's views?

That's not logic. That's hubris.

Originally Posted by answers.com

hu·bris (hyū'brĭs)
n.
Overbearing pride or presumption; arrogance.

We all have egos simpleman. You included. You can defend your line of thought all you want. In fact, I'd say you've done a bang-up job so far.

You're making it sound like no one appreciates you. Well darling. Try harder. When you start getting the response you want.....

Oh...but I forget.....you like to provoke, isn't that right?

Originally Posted by simpleman

I like to see opposing ideas flying around. That's why I'm so provocative here, it's because I want people to express what they believe, because I find a certain satisfaction in being able to express myself.

Maybe you're just getting your hard fought reward.

Maybe it's time to try something different.