Plan would make Bush leader of entire government (not just executive) in an emergency

Great Debates
141

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Well…no. THis is me simply being able to maintain focus in my reading from one paragraph to the next.
[/quote]
Is this a dig at me? Is that in keeping with the forum rules that concern you so greatly?

I am glad that you can maintain focus from one paragraph to the next. It doesn’t have anything to do with the fact that there was no assertion that Bush ordered the Air Force to do anything.

I don’t need to do any such thing. I have no problem believing that if Jews were called dirty Jews, killers of Christ, and told that they are going to roast in hell, which were in the stories I pointed to you, they may also have been told that they didn’t have a future in the Air Force. This in addition to the assertion by a woman who feared for her career because of her atheism. If you want to continue to concern yourself about whether any Jews were specifically warned that they don’t have a future, that’s on you. It only serves to illustrate an unusual peroccupation on your part.

I chose to tackle your claims, or specifically your profession of ignorance regarding the Air Force Academy. You can tackle whatever you like. You don’t need to wait for someone else to do it for you.

142

Guys, let’s not make this so freakin’ personal. Here’s the post in question, so lets look at the charges and see if the hold:

[QUOTE=AskNott]
…Congress, in the 9/11 excitement, passed a 300-page PATRIOT Act that nobody was given time to read.
[/quote]

Probably true, but not unique to the Patriot Act. Congressional bills are notoriously too long for anyone to read. And any Congressman is free to vote “no” if he or she isn’t given the time needed to understand it. Further, the opposition party in the Senate can filibuster any bill if it needs more time.

Congress deliberated for quite some time over the AUMF. Was it enough time? Who knows. As for warrantless wiretaps, that started long before the Iraq AUMF. I’ll give the poster the benefit of the doubt here, and assume he confused that with the AUMF to go into Afghanistan, which Bush did claim was the authorizing document (along with the constitution, if the AUMF wasn’t enough) for the NSA program.

Bush made a big push for allowing partial privatization of social security as well as for immigration reform, both of which were scuttled mainly by the Pubs in Congress. He also wanted Harriet Miers in the SCOTUS, again scuttled by the Pubs in Congress, as well as some of the Republican pundits. What the GOP Congress did do, or rather didn’t do, was exercise it’s role in oversight.

I’d say that qualifies as “hysterical bullshit”. Even if “hundreds of millions of dollars” are funneled into faith-based services, that would be less than .01% of the federal budget. I suppose one might say that we’re .01% of a theocracy, although that would be a stretch, too.

I doubt that “turned over” is accurate. This article in the WaPo doesn’t address the issue directly, but it sure indicates that there is more happening on the AIDS front than this poster lets on.

Seems like his evangelical connections were actually a good thing in this case.

Although there have been no cites for this, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that it happened based on what we do know happened at the Air Force Academy. What that has to do with Bush, or even if it was official policy at the academy is doubtful.

Abortion, yes. Contraception? Ridiculous. There is a belief among Bush and his crew that contraception use outside of marriage should be discouraged, because sex outside of marriage should be discouraged, but I’ve never seen anything from them that worked towards discouraging contraception inside marriage.

143

Can you folks clarify for me what you mean by a “cite from a mainstream source”? Shodan specifically insisted on it, then he provided a link to The Washington Times, which is perhaps the most right-biased newspaper in America. I could have provided a cite on the Air Force Academy discrimination directly from Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the org that helped to bring the lawsuit. I was pretty sure, though, that somebody would have called that biased.

Is The Washington Times mainstream? What about Fox News? If you quote those guys, I ought to be able to quote Mother Jones, Americans United, and the ACLU. If I cite a “Fox News lied” story from Media Matters, complete with video of the lie, will that stand up? Shouldn’t you have to refute it before brushing it off as slanted?

Where do you draw the line?

144

I wonder about this whole evangelical business. Our last five presidents belonged to churches that could be described as such, so I don’t know how that proves much.

It is a term that has a very flexible meaning.

145

[QUOTE=spifflog]
Ohh so what? He issued a directive from the White House. Has it been 5 minutes since the last “I hate Bush Thread”?

So if we have an "incident, regardless of location, that results in extraordinary levels of mass casualties, damage, or disruption severely affecting the U.S. population, infrastructure, environment, economy, or government function” would you like the President to wait four years before taking any action? Or do we think he’ll start a nuclear war, hope for destruction so her can take over?
Much ado about nothing.
[/QUOTE]

It is possible these directives are entirely innocent in their intent and entirely harmless in their potential. That doesn’t mean this debate is not worth our time. Eternal vigilance, you know?

I re-pose two key questions, which I hope somebody has the knowledge to answer:

  1. How are these directives similar to, and how are they different from, previous administrations’ emergency plans?

  2. Does a presidential directive continue in force from one administration to the next? This article doesn’t say.

146

[Quote=AskNott]
Has the US turned into a theocracy? Of course not, say the calm voices. However, hundreds of millions of dollars have been allotted to “faith-based” services.
[/quote]
Actually, the “faith based” stuff was a mild propaganda victory and a real-life political bust for Bush. As Diogenes the Cynic has pointed out on occasion, (based on information supplied by his wife who oversees such distributions), the “faith based” groups receiving funds are still limited in their actions by the laws that provided for separation of church and state that were in place in 1999 and which Bush has never gotten overturned. Some of the “faith based” groups include Catholic Relief Services and others that have provided adoption services, alcohol and drug abuse counseling, day care, career counseling, soup kitchens, hospice, and other social services for decades (always bound by the laws that prohibit them from pushing a “Catholic” or other belief perspective onto their programs).

Bush simply took the groups that happened to have already been providing services while being administered from various groups that were religious and labeled them “faith based” while failing to get any laws passed that would actually allow the local Methodist Church to go in and preach to the poor.

147

[QUOTE=tomndebb]
Actually, the “faith based” stuff was a mild propaganda victory and a real-life political bust for Bush. As Diogenes the Cynic has pointed out on occasion, (based on information supplied by his wife who oversees such distributions), the “faith based” groups receiving funds are still limited in their actions by the laws that provided for separation of church and state that were in place in 1999 and which Bush has never gotten overturned. Some of the “faith based” groups include Catholic Relief Services and others that have provided adoption services, alcohol and drug abuse counseling, day care, career counseling, soup kitchens, hospice, and other social services for decades (always bound by the laws that prohibit them from pushing a “Catholic” or other belief perspective onto their programs).

Bush simply took the groups that happened to have already been providing services while being administered from various groups that were religious and labeled them “faith based” while failing to get any laws passed that would actually allow the local Methodist Church to go in and preach to the poor.
[/QUOTE]

But didn’t he also get them more government funding than they received previously?

148

I just recently watched Jesus Camp. Whatever the origins of the phenomenon, the Christians depicted in that documentary do look to Bush as something more than just another evangelical president. At one point, they even brought out a cardboard cutout of Bush and, it seemed to me in essence, had the children pray to him.

In my opinion, this was not an accident, but the result of a calculated effort to get more than a mild propaganda victory for Bush. Why they haven’t generally seemed to catch on that Bush isn’t really going to do anything for them is another question.

149

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Guys, let’s not make this so freakin’ personal. Here’s the post in question, so lets look at the charges and see if the hold:
[/QUOTE]

They MAKE it personal John, by the knee jerk reaction of attempting to paint ‘Bush supporter’ on anyone who doesn’t dance and sing along. These assertions were complete distortions…and yet, by calling them ‘hysterical bullshit’ (which, IMHO the are) I’m imediately attacked as a Bushie.

I can’t stand the man…and I’m tired of this constant attempt to put me in his camp. To me it IS personal…and insulting too.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Probably true, but not unique to the Patriot Act. Congressional bills are notoriously too long for anyone to read. And any Congressman is free to vote “no” if he or she isn’t given the time needed to understand it. Further, the opposition party in the Senate can filibuster any bill if it needs more time.
[/QUOTE]

Again, I don’t think I’m out of line asking for a cite for this John. NO ONE had time to read it? It passed completely unread?? I’m highly skeptical. Where this gets personal is that just because I’m skeptical (and think these are wild ass claims without substance…I’ve SEEN none so far, despite the handwaving), that makes me a frigging Bush supporter, ‘tighty righty’, blah blah blah. I’m getting a bit tired of every time I don’t sing along with the right note this silly bullshit is pulled out.

You say its probably true. Provisionally then (since its you, and I respect your opinion), I’ll accept that, and take it off the ‘hysterical bullshit’ list…but I’d STILL like to see a cite.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Congress deliberated for quite some time over the AUMF. Was it enough time? Who knows. As for warrantless wiretaps, that started long before the Iraq AUMF. I’ll give the poster the benefit of the doubt here, and assume he confused that with the AUMF to go into Afghanistan, which Bush did claim was the authorizing document (along with the constitution, if the AUMF wasn’t enough) for the NSA program.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Bush made a big push for allowing partial privatization of social security as well as for immigration reform, both of which were scuttled mainly by the Pubs in Congress. He also wanted Harriet Miers in the SCOTUS, again scuttled by the Pubs in Congress, as well as some of the Republican pundits. What the GOP Congress did do, or rather didn’t do, was exercise it’s role in oversight.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I’d say that qualifies as “hysterical bullshit”. Even if “hundreds of millions of dollars” are funneled into faith-based services, that would be less than .01% of the federal budget. I suppose one might say that we’re .01% of a theocracy, although that would be a stretch, too.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. I’d also like to see a cite that substantially more money is being spent on this kind of stuff than in past administrations. Oh, I have no doubt some non-zero percentage more is being spent…but how MUCH more? I’m guessing the answer is: Not a lot more MONEY, just more lip service.

[QUOTE=John Mace]
I doubt that “turned over” is accurate. This article in the WaPo doesn’t address the issue directly, but it sure indicates that there is more happening on the AIDS front than this poster lets on.
[/QUOTE]

The poster implies with his/her ‘turned over’ statement that the US government no longer has any AIDS programs in Africa, but instead is relying completely on faith based groups to carry the water. I’d like to see a cite backing this claim up…afaik, the US government still has AIDS programs that aren’t connected to faith based groups in Africa. Am I incorrect?

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Although there have been no cites for this, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that it happened based on what we do know happened at the Air Force Academy. What that has to do with Bush, or even if it was official policy at the academy is doubtful.
[/QUOTE]

Oh, I’m fairly sure it happened…I read an article by a Jewish student saying he had been harrassed at the AF Academy. However, the implication there was that this is an official position widely acknowledged…which is bullshit. I know there have been several crack downs at the AF Academy to STOP this kind of thing (rightfully so).

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Abortion, yes. Contraception? Ridiculous. There is a belief among Bush and his crew that contraception use outside of marriage should be discouraged, because sex outside of marriage should be discouraged, but I’ve never seen anything from them that worked towards discouraging contraception inside marriage.
[/QUOTE]

Exactly. For my part, I completely disagree and am a bit pissed off at the FDA for blocking what it DOES block. However, making additional shit up is, well, making shit up.

-XT

150

No, that’s a simple question, with a simple answer. I’m simply too nice a guy to give it.

151

[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Quote me anywhere in this thread that supports this claim.
[/QUOTE]
You are right to correct me.

In an earlier post, I mentioned a list of the possible responses to having your hysterical bullshit refuted. I left off your actual response, which was “weaseling”.

If you wish to pretend that your cites did not support a specific assertion, merely because they did not, I would recommend that you not post them. A specific charge was made. Czarcasm asked, if cites establishing that (and other) assertions were provided, would I reconsider my position?

I said that I would, but Czarcasm, obviously less naive than you are, chose not to take up the challenge. You did.

Upon having your cites blown out of the water, you have chosen the option of pretending that you didn’t mean anything in particular after all.

Would you care to try to establish any of the other hysterical bullshit you are preaching, or can we take it as given that you can’t, and would prefer to change the subject?

It can’t be avoided. The Usual Suspects go ballistic at any challenge to their world view, which is predicated on BUSHSUX repeated ad infinitum. The premise of the OP is ridiculous. The notion that Bush instituted a uniquely un-Constitutional program of warrantless wiretaps is equally ridiculous. The idea that Bush funneled all our anti-AIDS funding into anti-contraceptive missionaries is a ridiculous lie.

And yet all this fat-headed stupidity gets repeated, over and over, by the Usual Suspects, and then they get pissy when they get shot down. Asknott says anyone who refuses to believe all this garbage without cites is “living in a cave”. Hentor says if we refuse to toe the BUSHSUX line, we have the naivete of a small child. And the rest of the bullshit artists are pitching whatever meaningless shit they pitch - I won’t pretend I bother to read it all.

And it is all just too bad, that we can’t have a reasonable discussion with people who lie thru their teeth. Imagine that.

Regards,
Shodan

152

Could we, like, get the discussion back to these presidential directives?

153

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Could we, like, get the discussion back to these presidential directives?
[/QUOTE]

Seriously BG…what more is there to discuss? The plan does NOT ‘make Bush leader of the entire government (not just executive) in an emergency’. It simply gives him some oversight powers in case of an emergency…yawn. As I said earlier, its a CYA move on Bush’s part…and perhaps something to divert heat from Katrina by giving him something to point to to say ‘if only I had THESE powers things would have been different’.

Thats MY opinion…YMMV, but I’ve yet to see anything close to convincing that this is the end of democracy and the American way of life, blah blah blah.

-XT

154

[QUOTE=xtisme]
Again, I don’t think I’m out of line asking for a cite for this John. NO ONE had time to read it? It passed completely unread?? I’m highly skeptical.
[/QUOTE]

The Patriot Act was over 300 pages long, and it did pretty much fly thru Congress. I suppose some of the Congresscritters could’ve read it, but do they **ever **read an entire bill? Maybe once in a blue moon. The point is, no one was forced to vote for it, so I think the idea that people didn’t have time read it is irrelevant. And the fact that few, if any, read the whole thing is entirely unremarkable. I suspect they consider that to one of the functions of their staffs, anyway.

155

[QUOTE=John Mace]
The Patriot Act was over 300 pages long, and it did pretty much fly thru Congress. I suppose some of the Congresscritters could’ve read it, but do they ever read an entire bill? Maybe once in a blue moon. The point is, no one was forced to vote for it, so I think the idea that people didn’t have time read it is irrelevant. And the fact that few, if any, read the whole thing is entirely unremarkable. I suspect they consider that to one of the functions of their staffs, anyway.
[/QUOTE]

Well…yeah. Let me back up a step here. I include ‘the staff’ as part of ‘Congress’. They are the one’s who advise the front man (or woman) on what to do after all. I assumed that no ACTUAL congresscritters would dirty themselves by reading a 300 page document (and to be fair, they have other things to spend their time on than slogging through all the details)…but they would read the summary by their advisors who DID read it. So…saying ‘no one in Congress’ read the Patriot act is ridiculous…the staff pukes HAD to have read it, and the congresscritters would have read the summaries and position papers before casting their votes…or they are even more fools than I think they are (which is saying a lot). To me this goes without saying…but perhaps others don’t know this or see it that way.

-XT

156

This thread is being concurrently Pitted.

157

Moderator’s Note: I think this thread is producing more heat (and smoke) than light; if y’all want to continue discussing this or these fascinating issue(s), the Pit is that way.

So, invoking the powers of SDMB Double Secret Executive Mod Order #J224-6(a), I’m closing the thread.

158

[QUOTE=BrainGlutton]
Could we, like, get the discussion back to these presidential directives?
[/QUOTE]

Back in post #109 I asked:

Not only was this new directive signed, but an unknown number of “classified Continuity Annexes”(whatever the hell they are) were added, and the whole of Directive 67 was revoked. Or in other words, you can’t get what this new directive actually means just by reading it alone.

159

:dubious:

And don’t you go using your l33t Mod superpowers to go posting in my closed thread, Czarcasm!