User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:32:16 AM EDT
[#1]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:37:02 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They're mystical creatures, who are to blame for all the evils in the World (at least according to Alex Jones et al). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Who are these mythical "UN Troops" that I keep hearing about? They're mystical creatures, who are to blame for all the evils in the World (at least according to Alex Jones et al). The last I heard individual countries had to contribute their own troops to fly the UN banner. Consequentially, in almost all UN engagements the bulk of "UN Troops" have been U.S. troops. Yeah, they do seem to be the favorite boogie man of the tinfoil hat crowd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:42:13 AM EDT
[#3]
 This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:45:04 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:47:06 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? Since my tax dollars (and other US taxpayers) pay for 22% or more to the UN budget - I'd say, I have a right to say it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:50:13 AM EDT
[#6]
Derp. I want to believe!! Derp.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:50:57 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. hell, convert it to condos, the general assembly hall would make a nice add on of an OmniMax theater. Maybe if it was converted to condos the parking would straighten up for a quarter mile around there. Lord knows it would start making a profit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:51:37 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? Oh, I'll agree that the UN has been counter productive to say the least. It gives the illusion of a means to solve international conflicts but usually accomplishes little to nothing (at best). Consequentially it allows countries to do little to solve a problem while giving the impression that they are going something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:57:52 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh, I'll agree that the UN has been counter productive to say the least. It gives the illusion of a means to solve international conflicts but usually accomplishes little to nothing (at best). Consequentially it allows countries to do little to solve a problem while giving the impression that they are going something. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? Oh, I'll agree that the UN has been counter productive to say the least. It gives the illusion of a means to solve international conflicts but usually accomplishes little to nothing (at best). Consequentially it allows countries to do little to solve a problem while giving the impression that they are going something. It has its uses, but I agree that it's mostly a waste. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 9:03:33 AM EDT
[#10]
I would say "no use" - get rid of it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 9:13:41 AM EDT
[#11]
OP: You are suppose to use foil on top of your head, not plastic wrap around your nose and pie hole.
Stay off wackjob websites and go celebrate the holiday with your family. Happy Thanksgiving! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 9:40:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: UN troops are like the Keystone Kops............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 11:03:23 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Except when they call in basically mercenaries from war torn countries who like to rape and murder, but yea, just like that. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: UN troops are like the Keystone Kops............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 12:21:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? No need to demolish the building. Just stop paying 22% of the the bill. Let other countries "chip in" a bit more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 12:31:02 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No need to demolish the building. Just stop paying 22% of the the bill. Let other countries "chip in" a bit more. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. Sure. Why don't you go over there and tell them, tough guy? No need to demolish the building. Just stop paying 22% of the the bill. Let other countries "chip in" a bit more. They can headquarter in Europe. Nothing they do should be binding on us.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 2:27:48 PM EDT
[#16]
1994 called, they want their Paranoid UN Conspiracy Theory back.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 2:51:54 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1994 called, they want their Paranoid UN Conspiracy Theory back. Twenty years later it is very hard not to be paranoid considering what is going on today, NSA spying on everyone, unpopular bills passed against the public's wishes, IRS targeting non profit groups that the administration doesn't like, Weapons allowed to be sold by the DOJ to drug cartels, being told specifically that the government will protect our insurance rights, questionable general election returns where a candidate receives 100% of the popular vote (statistically impossible?), anti muslim films declared the cause of a ambassador's death, 600m spent by the Feds on a web site that is no where near being ready to be opened, IRS having multi million dollar parties and not keeping records of costs, a President who won't present his grades from the madrassa of his childhood, his prep school, his underclass degree, his advanced degree, a president who mysteriously knows nothing going on in his administration. Gee, I wish that we were where back in the 90's, there seemed to be a bit more clarity back then, the dollar was worth something and our actual debt was a hell of a lot smaller. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 2:51:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 2:56:01 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence? Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 3:01:17 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence? Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. Okay... Can anyone name TWO successful UN missions of any consequence..? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 3:23:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence? Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 3:37:55 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay... Can anyone name TWO successful UN missions of any consequence..? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence? Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. Okay... Can anyone name TWO successful UN missions of any consequence..? UN forces / observers have been critical to the resolution of dozens of civil wars and regional conflicts, and still provide a key component to help maintain a fragile peace in many places. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 3:38:29 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You mean the war that still hasn't had a conclusion for 60 years, now? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence? Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. Edit. Correction - 16 that I saw.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 3:41:54 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You mean the war that still hasn't had a conclusion for 60 years, now? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence? Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. Because Kim Jong Un ruling over the entire Korean Continent would be preferred? That's what we'd have without the UN. But that was the fist and only time the UN has called for forces to conduct combat operations. Perhaps the US would have gone at it alone or engaged others bilaterally, but we went to the Security council - and the rest is history. A lof of people seem to lament that forces sent only as observers or peacekeepers don't exceed their authority and take sides if shit gets hairy - that's more than a tad ironic, based on the conspiracy theory this whole thread is about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 3:49:06 PM EDT
[#25]
I'd be a LOT more concerned with DHS than I would with this UN nonsense.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 3:57:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'd be a LOT more concerned with DHS than I would with this UN nonsense. Get both. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 5:34:17 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK So bring UN troops in would probally end up like the ObamaCare website? I can deal with that... Blue hat: turn over your rifle! Me... It is a cigarette lighter, BH: It looks like a rifle... Me: no sir... it is a cagarette lighter if Lord Barry comes I can light his cigarettes... BH: Oh all right, carry on... have a good day You left out the part where you pretend to light a Marlberl, and when you push the lighter button down his baby blue Land Rover explodes in the background. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 5:55:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The last I heard individual countries had to contribute their own troops to fly the UN banner. Consequentially, in almost all UN engagements the bulk of "UN Troops" have been U.S. troops. Yeah, they do seem to be the favorite boogie man of the tinfoil hat crowd. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who are these mythical "UN Troops" that I keep hearing about? They're mystical creatures, who are to blame for all the evils in the World (at least according to Alex Jones et al). The last I heard individual countries had to contribute their own troops to fly the UN banner. Consequentially, in almost all UN engagements the bulk of "UN Troops" have been U.S. troops. Yeah, they do seem to be the favorite boogie man of the tinfoil hat crowd. The UN is full of corruption and thuggery. The Food for Oil corruption with Saddam Hussein even put money in the pocket of Kofi Annan's family. Every one here thinks very little of Obama and that he will go to any limits to further his agenda. The Executive Order 13603 he issued gives him the right to regulate all food, water, etc in war and PEACE. It will allow him to control water distribution, food distribution, etc. and even go into your home to take your stored foods. Yeah, I know that sounds like tinfoil stuff but if the power was given to the President like Snips said (Defense Production Act in 1950) why did it take 57 years for Obama to be the eleventh president with "those powers" to write an Executive Order giving himself the right to seize infrastructure assets? If he does follow through with that order, it won't be only food they will be taking from your homes. If resistance is offered, it will be a nasty situation and it would be silly to think he hadn't foreseen it, meaning UN troops in the US doing his dirty work. I have no idea of what US troops would do in such a situation. I believe Obama is capable of trying anything he thinks he can get away with. He has laid down "legal grounds" to set up a dictatorship in short order. He even has "security police" set up in the Obamacare regulations with wide access to everyone's health care, employment, and financial records.
Congress has yet to do a damn thing about Fast and Furious, Benghazi, the wide open border to the south, etc. Don't sell Obama short on trying anything he can get by with. The MSM seems to support O in everything he does, no matter how wrong it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 6:04:57 PM EDT
[#29]
I'm good for 20, maybe 30 of 'em.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 6:06:47 PM EDT
[#30]
That's why I shoot 3gun
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 6:16:50 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Come and take it... You mean come try and take it |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 6:21:05 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You're still missing the point. The use of foreign or domestic troops against American citizens is unConstitutional. Resisting such force by taking up arms against the aggressors - even if they are your own government - is decidedly not. Why, exactly, would you imagine the Second Amendment exists? Also, the statement you made was that armed resistance somehow eliminates or invalidates the USC, which it does not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Extra-Constitutional methods - and more importantly, when and why they may be needed - are exactly the point of the DOI. I think that the point of this thread isn't that a bunch of rednecks want to topple a democratically-elected government that abides by the USC. The point of this discussion a scenario where a despotic administration has seized the levers of federal power and redress at every level, and is using that power to inflict pain and hardship on the populace. In other words, a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The situation we are discussing is exactly what the DOI addresses. And even in such a scenario, the violent overthrow of the government is not constitutional. Which was a statement that you, for some bizarre reason, objected to... You're still missing the point. The use of foreign or domestic troops against American citizens is unConstitutional. Resisting such force by taking up arms against the aggressors - even if they are your own government - is decidedly not. Why, exactly, would you imagine the Second Amendment exists? Also, the statement you made was that armed resistance somehow eliminates or invalidates the USC, which it does not. No, actually. The use of domestic troops against American citizens is completely constitutional. It's even one of the explicit powers given to the Executive office. My statement was that overthrowing the government is against the Constitution. Regime change through extra-Constitutional means. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 6:22:39 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Twelve pages later and you're still missing the point. You are correct that the USC prohibits acts of treason. However, the entire document assumes that anyone "levying war" against the US is doing so against a government that is within its Constitutional bounds. This thread concerned a specific and markedly different scenario: a tyrannical, out-of-control government that is using military force to eliminate Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. In such a case, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES for the possibility and necessity of ARMED RESISTANCE by American citizens AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT via 2A, irregardless of your assertions to the contrary. Even the definition of sedition is insurrection against an established order… and in this specific case, the "established order" is the Constitutionally-limited government. As such, any government operating outside the established Constitutional rules is not subject to Constitutional protections regarding either sedition or even treason. What you are suggesting is that if a cop trying to rape and murder a woman in her home is shot by the victim, the cop is protected by the law solely by virtue of his being a LEO. Sorry, but the law doesn't work like that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Overthrowing the government is unconstitutional, regardless of how the government is operating. ad infinitum Twelve pages later and you're still missing the point. You are correct that the USC prohibits acts of treason. However, the entire document assumes that anyone "levying war" against the US is doing so against a government that is within its Constitutional bounds. This thread concerned a specific and markedly different scenario: a tyrannical, out-of-control government that is using military force to eliminate Constitutionally-guaranteed rights. In such a case, the Constitution SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES for the possibility and necessity of ARMED RESISTANCE by American citizens AGAINST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT via 2A, irregardless of your assertions to the contrary. Even the definition of sedition is insurrection against an established order… and in this specific case, the "established order" is the Constitutionally-limited government. As such, any government operating outside the established Constitutional rules is not subject to Constitutional protections regarding either sedition or even treason. What you are suggesting is that if a cop trying to rape and murder a woman in her home is shot by the victim, the cop is protected by the law solely by virtue of his being a LEO. Sorry, but the law doesn't work like that. None of this has anything to do with what I said. Hell, I never even said a word about treason. Overthrowing the government through extra-Constitutional means is unconstitutional. Period. End of story. You can read whatever you want into that statement, but you're the one creating those ideas, not me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 6:23:06 PM EDT
[#34]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 6:24:30 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I believe that's because you haven't looked and only read Examiner tripe. That is not tripe. He did dictate and sign such an order. Executive orders specify where their authority for the particular order comes from. The Defense Act of 1955, if I recall correctly, is the big one that delegated a lot of emergency powers to the Executive. You just put out a lot of tripe as far as I am concerned. Put up up a link or shut up. Be specific, not general BS from "recall". If you actually want to know, go find the actual order that article is scared of and read it on the Federal Register. That will tell you exactly which laws delegated the powers being exercised in the order. Again, that is tripe because you have provided no link or substance of that text. More derp.
I answered your question pretty clearly. The authority that an executive order is operating under is spelled out at the beginning of the EO. If you want to know how the Executive has the authority to do [whatever] that an EO says, just read the EO. I don't know what EO you're freaked out about, so I can't link it for you... Just go read the damn thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:17:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, actually. The use of domestic troops against American citizens is completely constitutional. It's even one of the explicit powers given to the Executive office. My statement was that overthrowing the government is against the Constitution. Regime change through extra-Constitutional means. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Extra-Constitutional methods - and more importantly, when and why they may be needed - are exactly the point of the DOI. I think that the point of this thread isn't that a bunch of rednecks want to topple a democratically-elected government that abides by the USC. The point of this discussion a scenario where a despotic administration has seized the levers of federal power and redress at every level, and is using that power to inflict pain and hardship on the populace. In other words, a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The situation we are discussing is exactly what the DOI addresses. And even in such a scenario, the violent overthrow of the government is not constitutional. Which was a statement that you, for some bizarre reason, objected to... You're still missing the point. The use of foreign or domestic troops against American citizens is unConstitutional. Resisting such force by taking up arms against the aggressors - even if they are your own government - is decidedly not. Why, exactly, would you imagine the Second Amendment exists? Also, the statement you made was that armed resistance somehow eliminates or invalidates the USC, which it does not. No, actually. The use of domestic troops against American citizens is completely constitutional. It's even one of the explicit powers given to the Executive office. My statement was that overthrowing the government is against the Constitution. Regime change through extra-Constitutional means. Can you please quote that part of the Constitution? I seem to be overlooking it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 8:50:35 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you please quote that part of the Constitution? I seem to be overlooking it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Extra-Constitutional methods - and more importantly, when and why they may be needed - are exactly the point of the DOI. I think that the point of this thread isn't that a bunch of rednecks want to topple a democratically-elected government that abides by the USC. The point of this discussion a scenario where a despotic administration has seized the levers of federal power and redress at every level, and is using that power to inflict pain and hardship on the populace. In other words, a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. The situation we are discussing is exactly what the DOI addresses. And even in such a scenario, the violent overthrow of the government is not constitutional. Which was a statement that you, for some bizarre reason, objected to... You're still missing the point. The use of foreign or domestic troops against American citizens is unConstitutional. Resisting such force by taking up arms against the aggressors - even if they are your own government - is decidedly not. Why, exactly, would you imagine the Second Amendment exists? Also, the statement you made was that armed resistance somehow eliminates or invalidates the USC, which it does not. No, actually. The use of domestic troops against American citizens is completely constitutional. It's even one of the explicit powers given to the Executive office. My statement was that overthrowing the government is against the Constitution. Regime change through extra-Constitutional means. Can you please quote that part of the Constitution? I seem to be overlooking it. Article I, Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;" It's a shared power between the Executive and Legislature, rather than just the Executive. My mistake. Still, insurrections are a domestic situation. Executing the laws means your enforcing the laws against the people who would be subject to them, i.e. citizens. You may be thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using Federal troops do enforce the law. There are ways written into the US Code around that restriction and it makes doesn't prohibit using the military against insurrections. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 9:08:39 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because Kim Jong Un ruling over the entire Korean Continent Peninsula would be preferred? That's what we'd have without the UN. But that was the first and only time the UN has called for forces to conduct combat operations. Perhaps the US would have gone at it alone or engaged others bilaterally, but we went to the Security council - and the rest is history. A lof of people seem to lament that forces sent only as observers or peacekeepers don't exceed their authority and take sides if shit gets hairy - that's more than a tad ironic, based on the conspiracy theory this whole thread is about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence? Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. Because Kim Jong Un ruling over the entire Korean Continent Peninsula would be preferred? That's what we'd have without the UN. But that was the first and only time the UN has called for forces to conduct combat operations. Perhaps the US would have gone at it alone or engaged others bilaterally, but we went to the Security council - and the rest is history. A lof of people seem to lament that forces sent only as observers or peacekeepers don't exceed their authority and take sides if shit gets hairy - that's more than a tad ironic, based on the conspiracy theory this whole thread is about. FIFY. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2013 9:20:18 PM EDT
[#39]
State Department Memorandum.
Some east coast communist at the State Department authored a memo back in 1961. What's this suppose to tell me that I don't already know? I know that there are individuals out there who wish there were some ultra powerful UN that could trump national sovereignty. Don't need that memo to tell me that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 12:02:12 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: State Department Memorandum. Some east coast communist at the State Department authored a memo back in 1961. What's this suppose to tell me that I don't already know? I know that there are individuals out there who wish there were some ultra powerful UN that could trump national sovereignty. Don't need that memo to tell me that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 12:27:52 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FIFY. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can anyone name/reference ONE successful UN mission of any consequence? Well there was this thing they ended up calling the Korean war. But I'm sure most folks haven't ever heard of it. Because Kim Jong Un ruling over the entire Korean Continent Peninsula would be preferred? That's what we'd have without the UN. But that was the first and only time the UN has called for forces to conduct combat operations. Perhaps the US would have gone at it alone or engaged others bilaterally, but we went to the Security council - and the rest is history. A lof of people seem to lament that forces sent only as observers or peacekeepers don't exceed their authority and take sides if shit gets hairy - that's more than a tad ironic, based on the conspiracy theory this whole thread is about. FIFY. It's more legitimately a continent than "Europe." But yeah, I meant Peninsula. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 4:26:59 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's more legitimately a continent than "Europe." But yeah, I meant Peninsula. When you invent the concept, you get to decide which is which. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 5:15:04 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. Well to be honest I'd rather they stay inside the building when it's demolished. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 5:17:47 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well to be honest I'd rather they stay inside the building when it's demolished. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ewHulQSeUAg/ThgbE3qy0ZI/AAAAAAAAAAY/0CoOVtbAh-I/s1600/UN+Gen+Assembly.jpg This building needs to be demolished - and it's occupants told to leave. Well to be honest I'd rather they stay inside the building when it's demolished. Would you let the reps from Sweden leave? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 5:35:25 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I answered your question pretty clearly. The authority that an executive order is operating under is spelled out at the beginning of the EO. If you want to know how the Executive has the authority to do [whatever] that an EO says, just read the EO. I don't know what EO you're freaked out about, so I can't link it for you... Just go read the damn thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that's because you haven't looked and only read Examiner tripe. That is not tripe. He did dictate and sign such an order. Executive orders specify where their authority for the particular order comes from. The Defense Act of 1955, if I recall correctly, is the big one that delegated a lot of emergency powers to the Executive. You just put out a lot of tripe as far as I am concerned. Put up up a link or shut up. Be specific, not general BS from "recall". If you actually want to know, go find the actual order that article is scared of and read it on the Federal Register. That will tell you exactly which laws delegated the powers being exercised in the order. Again, that is tripe because you have provided no link or substance of that text. More derp.
I answered your question pretty clearly. The authority that an executive order is operating under is spelled out at the beginning of the EO. If you want to know how the Executive has the authority to do [whatever] that an EO says, just read the EO. I don't know what EO you're freaked out about, so I can't link it for you... Just go read the damn thing. No you didn't answer anything. It only brings on more doubt about what you have said. Why 57 years later after the Defense Production Act and 10 other Presidents was Obama the one to write an executive order giving himself absolute dictatorial powers over the essentials of American life, even in PEACE TIME? Obama's Executive Order 13603 is the most sweeping absolute grab for power any President has done since the beginning of this country. His interpretation of Congressional acts and the law in general is pure BS. How anyone can dismiss many of his actions as based on the US Constitution or law is ridiculous. The acquiescence of Congress to his power grabs is scary. To dismiss the fact that Obama might use the UN to disarm the American public is treasonous if you value American liberty IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 5:47:33 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No you didn't answer anything. It only brings on more doubt about what you have said. Why 57 years later after the Defense Powers Act and 10 other Presidents was Obama the one to write an executive order giving himself absolute dictatorial powers over the essentials of American life, even in PEACE TIME? Obama's Executive Order 13603 is the most sweeping absolute grab for power any President has done since the beginning of this country. His interpretation of Congressional acts and the law in general is pure BS. How anyone can dismiss many of his actions as based on the US Constitution or law is ridiculous. The acquiescence of Congress to his power grabs is scary. To dismiss the fact that Obama might use the UN to disarm the American public is treasonous if you value American liberty IMO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I believe that's because you haven't looked and only read Examiner tripe. That is not tripe. He did dictate and sign such an order. Executive orders specify where their authority for the particular order comes from. The Defense Act of 1955, if I recall correctly, is the big one that delegated a lot of emergency powers to the Executive. You just put out a lot of tripe as far as I am concerned. Put up up a link or shut up. Be specific, not general BS from "recall". If you actually want to know, go find the actual order that article is scared of and read it on the Federal Register. That will tell you exactly which laws delegated the powers being exercised in the order. Again, that is tripe because you have provided no link or substance of that text. More derp.
I answered your question pretty clearly. The authority that an executive order is operating under is spelled out at the beginning of the EO. If you want to know how the Executive has the authority to do [whatever] that an EO says, just read the EO. I don't know what EO you're freaked out about, so I can't link it for you... Just go read the damn thing. No you didn't answer anything. It only brings on more doubt about what you have said. Why 57 years later after the Defense Powers Act and 10 other Presidents was Obama the one to write an executive order giving himself absolute dictatorial powers over the essentials of American life, even in PEACE TIME? Obama's Executive Order 13603 is the most sweeping absolute grab for power any President has done since the beginning of this country. His interpretation of Congressional acts and the law in general is pure BS. How anyone can dismiss many of his actions as based on the US Constitution or law is ridiculous. The acquiescence of Congress to his power grabs is scary. To dismiss the fact that Obama might use the UN to disarm the American public is treasonous if you value American liberty IMO. 13603 isn't anything new. Go look at 12919 from the 90s. In fact, no new power is being grabbed in 13603. Everything in it is a power that has already been granted to the Executive by the Legislature under the Defense Production Act of 1950. The only real change is the addition of the DHS to the EO language, something that didn't exist when it was last updated. There was no power grab. The power had been grabbed (given, really) decades before. Edit: Here, I found a page that talks about why there was no actual change here. Link |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 5:51:26 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... 13603 isn't anything new. Go look at 12919 from the 90s. In fact, no new power is being grabbed in 13603. Everything in it is a power that has already been granted to the Executive by the Legislature under the Defense Production Act of 1950. The only real change is the addition of the DHS to the EO language, something that didn't exist when it was last updated. There was no power grab. The power had been grabbed (given, really) decades before. Some of the same people in this thread were in some of the many dozens of "That's not how EOs work" threads in the past. They do it all for the derpy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 5:57:27 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Some of the same people in this thread were in some of the many dozens of "That's not how EOs work" threads in the past. They do it all for the derpy. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... 13603 isn't anything new. Go look at 12919 from the 90s. In fact, no new power is being grabbed in 13603. Everything in it is a power that has already been granted to the Executive by the Legislature under the Defense Production Act of 1950. The only real change is the addition of the DHS to the EO language, something that didn't exist when it was last updated. There was no power grab. The power had been grabbed (given, really) decades before. Some of the same people in this thread were in some of the many dozens of "That's not how EOs work" threads in the past. They do it all for the derpy. Yeah, mcant is starting to seem really familiar with this "OMG, EOs enslave Amerikkka" talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 5:59:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Article I, Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;" It's a shared power between the Executive and Legislature, rather than just the Executive. My mistake. Still, insurrections are a domestic situation. Executing the laws means your enforcing the laws against the people who would be subject to them, i.e. citizens. You may be thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using Federal troops do enforce the law. There are ways written into the US Code around that restriction and it makes doesn't prohibit using the military against insurrections. I didnt see any mention of counter insurrections in what you cited. If the government stops following the Constitution, it has no "lawful" authority. I'd imagine useing foriegn troops to murder americans for not turning in their guns is considered treason, which as it happens is also insurrection. So, by resisting, that would be called a counter insurrection. Or an insurrection to counter the nillification of the Constitution by insurrection. Now if the Constitution were changed by Convention, you might say it would be legitmate to murder people for not giving up their right to protect themselves from people who want to kill them for their right to protect themselves. But I kinda doubt it would stick. What I am saying is, you might be talking out your ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2013 6:01:37 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I didnt see any mention of counter insurrections. If the government stops following the Consitution, it has no "lawful" authority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Article I, Section 8: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;" Article II, Section 2: "The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States;" It's a shared power between the Executive and Legislature, rather than just the Executive. My mistake. Still, insurrections are a domestic situation. Executing the laws means your enforcing the laws against the people who would be subject to them, i.e. citizens. You may be thinking of the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits using Federal troops do enforce the law. There are ways written into the US Code around that restriction and it makes doesn't prohibit using the military against insurrections. I didnt see any mention of counter insurrections. If the government stops following the Consitution, it has no "lawful" authority. I have no idea what you're saying. The statement was made - "The use of foreign or domestic troops against American citizens is unConstitutional.", which is why I showed that no, in fact it's a power explicitly granted in the Constitution. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
