| 1
members are viewing this topic |
| >Guest |
| |
|
|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
hymiebravo 
Group: Members
Posts: 4989
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
 |
Posted on: Oct. 14 2012,1:15 pm |
|
   |
90 Days, 90 Reasons is an independent initiative unaffiliated with Barack Obama’s presidential campaign. 90 Days, 90 Reasons was conceived by two guys originally from Chicago, Dave Eggers and Jordan Kurland. In late July, they looked around and saw that many of Obama’s voters and donors from 2008 needed to be reminded of all he has accomplished, and all he will do if given another term. They asked a wide range of cultural figures to explain why they’re voting for Obama in 2012, in the hopes that this might re-inspire the grassroots army that got Obama elected in the first place. Every day, a new reason will be posted—in short, Twitter form, with a longer essay available here. Please spread the word.
This initiative has been undertaken without the participation of the Obama re-election campaign.
REASON 65: President Obama ended stop-loss.
Over the summer my wife and I went to the funeral of the twenty-year-old son of a family friend killed in Afghanistan. The service was wrenching. His unit had suffered heavy casualties (including the deaths of his two closest friends) and yet was still deployed near Kandahar when men dressed as Afghan police officers ambushed him and another sentry. The funeral ended with a slide show in which our friend’s son went from toddler to soldier—with not nearly enough pictures in between.
Afterward, another friend said to me, “How is it possible I keep forgetting we’re at war?”
Here’s how:
We’ve been fighting in Afghanistan since late 2001, the longest period of continual combat in American history. But unlike other American wars, the cost of the campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq has not been shared by most Americans: there was no draft and very little sacrifice required on the home front. In fact, while every other war has—at least—been accompanied by a tax increase to pay for it, these wars have coincided with huge tax cuts, weighted toward the wealthy.
To fight two increasingly unpopular wars with an all-volunteer army, the Department of Defense under George W. Bush began issuing stop-loss orders—involuntary extensions of duty. Thousands of soldiers thought they had completed their two- to five-year missions only to be given another tour of up to 18 months. Often they were thrown back into combat. During the period of stop-loss redeployment, some soldiers committed suicide rather than go back to Afghanistan and Iraq. As John Kerry said in the 2004 presidential campaign, stop-loss was akin to a “backdoor draft.”
In the 2008 presidential campaign, then-candidate Barack Obama promised to end the Bush-era stop-loss policy if he was elected.
He did just that.
In the branding of our political parties over the last fifty years, Republicans have tried to portray themselves as the party of fiscal responsibility and strong national defense. But, in fact, they have become the party of one issue, tax cuts for the wealthy. Republicans have become the party of one man. Grover Norquist.
So every time Mitt Romney cynically offers up those familiar tropes about “cutting the deficit” and “supporting the troops,” every time Fox News fires up the flags and eagles, remember that Republicans are the ones who waged two unfunded wars with inferior equipment and overburdened soldiers. (As Donald Rumsfeld said, “You go to war with the army you have.”) Remember that Mitt Romney’s pledge to cut taxes and yet somehow increase military spending is just more of the same, pledging a strong defense without bothering to pay for it. Remember that Republicans are the ones who repeatedly vote against veterans benefits and use them as pawns in budget negotiations.
My friend asked how it was possible to keep forgetting we’re still at war:
By choosing not to care. By claiming you support the military without caring for individual soldiers. By nominating a candidate like Mitt Romney, who failed to even mention Afghanistan during his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention.
There are, of course, countless reasons for Democrats to support Barack Obama. The surprising thing is how many reasons there are for Republicans.
—Jess Walter
Spokane, Washington
http://90days90reasons.com/index.php
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Funkadelic Zombie Hunter
Group: Members
Posts: 129
Joined: Sep. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 14 2012,2:19 pm |
|
 |
It's your kool aid YOU drink it! I can think of 90 reasons not to vote for chairman 0!
--------------
The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men. - Plato
Nancy Pelosi..."dissent the highest form of patriotism"
Obama LIED people DIED
Audentis Fortuna Iuvat
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
Self-Banished
Group: Members
Posts: 22699
Joined: Feb. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 14 2012,8:24 pm |
|
|
Holy crap hymen! Where have you been??? 
--------------
 Remember boys and girls,
Don’t be a Dick …
Or a “Wayne” 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
busybee
Group: Members
Posts: 2510
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 19 2012,11:57 pm |
|
|
Seems to me that both the democratic and republican party have USED the "we are at war with terrorist/terrorism" very well because neither party cares to deal with the unemployment issues of those U.S. Soldiers who are depending on their income from the U.S. Government because there aren't any other jobs for them if they left behind their jobs as being U.S. Military Employed.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
grassman
Group: Members
Posts: 3858
Joined: Mar. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 20 2012,12:20 am |
|
|
We have become a war amongst ourselves because of these differences. When will America wake up and realize, it does not have to be a party of two. A party of in the middle,let's do what's best for the country thing. This country is being turned upside down, and nobody wants to be holding the truth stick.
--------------
git er done!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
busybee
Group: Members
Posts: 2510
Joined: May 2004
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 20 2012,12:43 am |
|
|
A war amongst ourselves is just ridicuously stupid...yet so many people buy into the "drama" of it anyway... 
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 20 2012,3:53 am |
|
|
Goshdarnit Grassman. The truth stick thing won't let my brain shut down so I can go to sleep.
Maybe that's why things seem to be getting ramped up so much lately. With the indefinite detention of citizens, the EO that gives the government the power to take and control everything, the gazillion rounds of ammo the government is purchasing. Maybe the US Titanic is about to hit the iceberg of unavoidable truth.
Maybe.
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
Liberal
Group: Moderator
Posts: 11451
Joined: Aug. 2003
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 20 2012,9:41 am |
|
|
QUOTE Q: Has President Barack Obama signed 900 executive orders, some of which create martial law? A: No. Obama’s executive orders do not create martial law. And so far he has signed 139 executive orders — not 900. FULL QUESTION I am submitting the email below for analysis by your great organization. Thank you for providing a reliable and accurate fact checking website. A Comprehensive List Of Obama’s Worst Executive Orders JUNE 15, 2012 BY LAURIE ROTH There have been over 900 Executive Orders put forth from Obama, and he is not even through his first term yet. He is creating a martial law ‘Disney Land’ of control covering everything imaginable. Some of the executive orders he has signed recently have been exposed thanks to ‘Friends of Conservative Action Alerts.’ They have compiled a choice list of ‘Emergency Powers, Martial law executive orders’: Get your headache medication out while you still can without a prescription. ⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏ ___ Is this email accurate in stating that Obama signed the below mentioned executive order that gives the right and power to the president to impose a government takeover in a time of relative peace? WARNING FROM TEXAS CONGRESSWOMAN KAY GRANGER… An Executive Order You Should Know About KayGranger Dear Friend, With all that is going in Washington these days some things don’t make the news the way they should. Fourteen days ago President Obama issued an Executive Order that you should know about. This order gives an unprecedented level of authority to the President and the federal government to take over all the fundamental parts of our economy – in the name of national security – in times of national emergency. ⬐ Click to expand/collapse the full text ⬏ FULL ANSWER We’ve received several emails that claim Obama is using his executive powers to create martial law. They’re not true. The email that states Obama has issued 900 executive orders and lists orders that previous presidents signed. The email also inaccurately describes those orders. Another viral email cuts and pastes a constituent newsletter from Republican Rep. Kay Granger of Texas. She falsely claimed that an Obama executive order created martial law. Granger has since retracted her statements and removed the newsletter from her website. It’s true that President Obama is increasingly using his executive powers in the face of staunch Republican opposition in Congress. He’s changed federal policies on immigration and welfare and appointed officials without congressional approval. But Obama’s executive actions have nothing to do with martial law. Executive orders originated under George Washington, and their use stems from interpretations of Article II of the Constitution — which created the executive branch — and from presidential precedent. Obama has not issued 900 executive orders. He has signed slightly fewer orders than President George W. Bush during this point in his first term, according to the University of California, Santa Barbara, which tracks executive orders. Obama has issued 139 executive orders as of Sept. 25. (The U.C. website listed 138 orders on Sept. 25, the same day Obama signed order 139). Bush issued 160 executive orders through Sept. 20, 2004, a comparable amount of time. The viral email that claims Obama has signed 900 executive orders lists 13 orders as evidence, all of which previous presidents signed in the 1960s and 1970s. Presidents number their executive orders consecutively. The first executive order that President Obama signed was EO-13489, which dealt with presidential records. Obama’s predecessors signed any executive order with a number lower than 13489. The first executive order the email lists and attributes to Obama is 10990, which John F. Kennedy signed in 1962. The order reestablished a council to oversee safety of civilian federal employees. It did not — as the email claims — allow a government takeover of the nation’s seaports, highways and other modes of transportation. Gerald Ford signed the last executive order listed, 11921, which updated how various federal departments and agencies prepare and respond to national emergencies. For example, the order tasked the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with a plan to protect the fishing industry.
Granger, the Texas congresswoman, made false claims about an executive order that Obama actually signed in March. Writing in a constituent newsletter, Granger claimed that Obama’s “National Defense Resources Preparedness” order amounted to martial law, adding that it was “unprecedented” and “above the law” and lacked congressional oversight.
The order was none of those things — and Granger said as much in a subsequent statement. Since the Korean War, Congress has granted the president the authority to ensure that national resources — such as the food supply and various industries — will be available to meet national security needs in times of war and other emergencies. That power is granted under the Defense Production Act, a law that dates to 1950 and must be reauthorized by Congress every few years. (The act expires in 2014.)
Like presidents before him, Obama issued an order updating the resources covered under that act, which allows presidents to delegate authority to various federal departments and agencies. For example, Obama’s order authorizes the secretaries of Defense and the Interior “to encourage the exploration, development, and mining of strategic and critical materials and other materials.”
President Bill Clinton issued a similar executive order in 1994. Some people misunderstood that order as well, prompting the Congressional Research Service to write that Clinton’s order “has nothing whatever to do with declarations of martial law. It has no effect at all on continued powers of Congress or the federal courts during periods of war or other national emergencies.”
Granger removed the newsletter from her website. And she took back almost all of her claims in an April 30 newsletter “clarifying” her position.
Granger: It is incorrect to say, as I did in my March 30th letter, that this level of power is totally unprecedented … President Obama’s Executive Order appears to continue the trend of modifying previous Executive Orders on emergency preparedness and national defense resources preparedness. There are only a few changes President Obama incorporated – such as changes to the definitions of resources covered by the law – that have been included in his order.
http://factcheck.org/2012/09/obamas-executive-orders/
In case you have an issue with factcheck
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ndrp.asp
--------------
The people are masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Rosalind_Swenson
Group: Members
Posts: 1527
Joined: May 2011
|
|
Posted on: Oct. 20 2012,10:59 am |
|
|
(Liberal @ Oct. 20 2012,9:41 am)
QUOTE
I'm not trying to be condescending when I say this, but the only issue I have with your comment is that I'm wondering why you want to rely on "fact" checkers so often instead of thinking on your own. Read the thing yourself. And from your posting: QUOTE such as the food supply and various industries — will be available to meet national security needs in times of war and other emergencies
And
QUOTE President Obama’s Executive Order appears to continue the trend of modifying previous Executive Orders on emergency preparedness and national defense resources preparedness. There are only a few changes President Obama incorporated
So what if this EO has been around for decades. It keeps getting changed. I can't even tell you how much time I wasted trying to find the original, how much time I tried piecing all the versions together and it's impossible. Then I realized it doesn't really matter, because Obama's EO is quite easy to understand. I have read many different things explaining why nobody should worry about it, but none of them has yet even touched on the worst parts of it. They just brush it away with "it's just a redo of every President before" And I'm not buying that. So please just read it FOR YOURSELF, and explain why nobody should worry about what it says.
---------------------
Sec. 102. Policy. The United States must have an industrial and technological
base capable of meeting national defense requirements and capable of contrib-
uting to the technological superiority of its national defense equipment
in peacetime and in times of national emergency. The domestic industrial
and technological base is the foundation for national defense preparedness.
The authorities provided in the Act shall be used to strengthen this base
and to ensure it is capable of responding to the national defense needs
of the United States.
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 re-
source 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 trans-
portation;
(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.
(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection
(a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations
to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures
by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense,
under both emergency and non-emergency conditions.
Sec. 801. Definitions. In addition to the definitions in section 702 of the
Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2152, the following definitions apply throughout this
order:
(a) ``Civil transportation'' includes movement of persons and property
by all modes of transportation in interstate, intrastate, or foreign commerce
within the United States, its territories and possessions, and the District
of Columbia, and related public storage and warehousing, ports, services,
equipment and facilities, such as transportation carrier shop and repair
facilities. ``Civil transportation'' also shall include direction, control, and
coordination of civil transportation capacity regardless of ownership. ``Civil
transportation'' shall not include transportation owned or controlled by the
Department of Defense, use of petroleum and gas pipelines, and coal slurry
pipelines used only to supply energy production facilities directly.
(b) ``Energy'' means all forms of energy including petroleum, gas (both
natural and manufactured), electricity, solid fuels (including all forms of
coal, coke, coal chemicals, coal liquification, and coal gasification), solar,
wind, other types of renewable energy, atomic energy, and the production,
conservation, use, control, and distribution (including pipelines) of all of
these forms of energy.
© ``Farm equipment'' means equipment, machinery, and repair parts man-
ufactured for use on farms in connection with the production or preparation
for market use of food resources.
(d) ``Fertilizer'' means any product or combination of products that contain
one or more of the elements nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium for use
as a plant nutrient.
(e) ``Food resources'' means all commodities and products, (simple, mixed,
or compound), or complements to such commodities or products, that are
capable of being ingested by either human beings or animals, irrespective
of other uses to which such commodities or products may be put, at all
stages of processing from the raw commodity to the products thereof in
vendible form for human or animal consumption. ``Food resources'' also
means potable water packaged in commercially marketable containers, all
starches, sugars, vegetable and animal or marine fats and oils, seed, cotton,
hemp, and flax fiber, but does not mean any such material after it loses
its identity as an agricultural commodity or agricultural product.
(f) ``Food resource facilities'' means plants, machinery, vehicles (including
on farm), and other facilities required for the production, processing, distribu-
tion, and storage (including cold storage) of food resources, and for the
domestic distribution of farm equipment and fertilizer (excluding transpor-
tation thereof).
(g) ``Functions'' include powers, duties, authority, responsibilities, and
discretion
___
Not one single debunking of this even touches on these things, I've read tons of them, including your Snopes and Factcheck. I've never liked either of those sites, but I did go to see what they had to say also.
--------------
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
