Obama's New Executive Order - National Defense Resources Preparedness

[RespectTradition]

Originally Posted by JayVols

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.

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.

[JayVols]

Originally Posted by Lexvol

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.

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?

Originally Posted by OrangeEmpire

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

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"

[KiffinKiller]

Originally Posted by JayVols

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"

My father vividly remembers canada imposing martial law in quebec because of terrorism. They caught the bastages and repealed martial law...simple.

[JayVols]

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.

[JayVols]

Originally Posted by RespectTradition

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.

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

[KiffinKiller]

Originally Posted by JayVols

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

imo, it's less material and more an obsession with other people getting a free lunch.

[JayVols]

Originally Posted by KiffinKiller

imo, it's less material and more an obsession with other people getting a free lunch.

I would agree with that if that were the case. I didn't take it that way.

[slh1089]

Originally Posted by JayVols

You are either naive or have more confidence in your fellow man than I do.

Says the man that compared today's politicians to Cinicinnatus.

[JayVols]

Originally Posted by slh1089

Says the man that compared today's politicians to Cinicinnatus.

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.

[slh1089]

Originally Posted by JayVols

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.

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?

[JayVols]

Originally Posted by slh1089

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?

Was. Giving. An. Example. Of. Someone. That. Did. Lay. Down. Absolute. Power. At. The. End. Of. A. Crisis. That's all.

[slh1089]

Originally Posted by JayVols

Was. Giving. An. Example. Of. Someone. That. Did. Lay. Down. Absolute. Power. At. The. End. Of. A. Crisis. That's all.

I. AM. AWARE. However, I am saying it is completely pointless to use that example. You seem to missing that point.

[KiffinKiller]

go on.

[MG1968]

Originally Posted by JayVols

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)?

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

the NDRP has been around since at least the Clinton Administration

[JayVols]

Originally Posted by slh1089

I. AM. AWARE. However, I am saying it is completely pointless to use that example. You seem to missing that point.

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.