A time of many changes in America.

page: 3
27
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 18 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
While I completely agree that the real danger in executive orders is precisely what is detailed herein - precedents being set which then become the "new normal" - sadly, those precedents have been being set for a long, long time now. It's good that people are becoming aware of this and taking issue with it in my opinion, and I agree completely that which administration (or party) is in office should not be considered irrelevant to the issue at hand.

However, unfortunately, it is relevant to just enough people that partisanship becomes sufficient in such discussions to either cause people to dismiss the danger of the precedents set, or focus on one set of precedents in lieu of others. For decades (probably longer) people have been screaming from the hilltops of the danger of expanded executive power and the dangerous precedents it could set. For years people have warned of the looming potential risks in pursuing the unitary executive theory. The same things were said: that these precedents would have ramifications far into the future, affecting the lives of countless hundreds of millions of citizens for an indefinite period of our nation's continuing existence.

Without fail, every such warning has been heard only by a few, dismissed by most, ridiculed in mainstream media, and even among those in communities like this where such issues are most commonly accepted as worth discussing soberly, divisive along partisan and ideological lines. Routine rebuffs included, "slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies," (which admittedly they can be and often are,) "unfounded paranoia," "you aren't actually losing any rights because of (insert law or legal doctrine here,)" and others.

This and other recent issues bring to mind this Thomas Jefferson quote:



...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.


Meaning, I believe, that because something is legal does not make it consistent with liberty. It's easy to say we aren't losing any rights or that a president has the power to do what he or she decides to do, if the law is written in such a way that those statements are true. But those statements being true does not mean that those laws or actions are in fact consistent with liberty.

I say this as someone who can't stand guns, personally. I have never held a gun, I don't like guns, I'm a pacifist, I feel they're dangerous, and my best friend was savagely killed by one. But I still believe in the right of responsible citizens of sound mind to possess essentially whatever property they want to. And more to the point of this topic, even if gun restrictions are necessary, I do not believe they should be conducted via executive order personally.

Peace.




posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 01:26 AM
link   
reply to post by AceWombat04
 


I say this as someone who can't stand guns, personally. I have never held a gun, I don't like guns, I'm a pacifist, I feel they're dangerous, and my best friend was savagely killed by one. But I still believe in the right of responsible citizens of sound mind to possess essentially whatever property they want to. And more to the point of this topic, even if gun restrictions are necessary, I do not believe they should be conducted via executive order personally.


I can't help but respect opinions like yours above all others. Quite literally. Unlike myself or others on the gun side ...or the myriad on the other side who all have some dog in this hunt by emotion, personal interest or some sense or moral superiority .... You have every reason to be opposite how you actually are. If I read your statement and feelings right, your actual position is one of principle DESPITE emotion and passion basically dictating otherwise.
Stands of pure principle are as rare as they are honorable.

Good for you, and I mean that!

edit on 19-1-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


When you are going to go to war, the first thing you need to know is exactly who your enemy is.

Anyone who has been paying attention, understands there isn't much difference between the dems and the repubs. Especially when you look at the executive orders of all the presidents together -- they have only built on top of eachother - like it has been planned.

NWO, ILLuminati, TPTB? We've all realized this at some point......

Please, I've just spent days reading on the Jesuits, the black pope, and the vatican .... they control the intelligence communities all over the world. CIA, FBI, M16, MOSSAD, the court systems, the presidents, the world leaders....

We need to go to war, we need to understand the enemy... Please, do some research.... It's very mind opening...



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 


Cardinal O'Conner runs this country..... the presidents answer to him. He is the seat of injustice in the USA.



posted on Jan, 19 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by Happy1
 

We need to go to war, we need to understand the enemy... Please, do some research.... It's very mind opening...

Well, this is absolutely ATS and not Politico or some stuffy establishment site so I'll bite a bit, anyway. If you'd supply some sources to go check out, I'd be at least interested in what you're talking about. I'm not going to pretend like I'm predisposed to buy what you're describing in that form ...but hey, I've been known to alter my positions plenty of times after time spent researching myself for awhile.

In particular, I would love to hear how Cardinal O'Connor would have undue influence. I'd note that people said Kennedy would run the nation as a puppet to Vatican City. It didn't happen that way...but it was a real fear among many back then as the history shows. Still? I guess I've found enough truth deeper in things I'd brush off at first glance to at least inquire about more info to those who're serious. You definitely sound serious.



posted on Jan, 21 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 
I'm terrible at linking things, so -

search for (I use MSM, I refuse to use google - it makes a biggg difference) You can start with Alberto Rivera, Count Hans Kolvenbach, jesuit trained elite.(Yasar Arrafat?) How many unknown catholics are out there.

Obviously, stay away from Rense, Alex Jones, David Icke, godlike productions crap...






top topics
 
27
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join