Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Seems that way to me...read the new act below:
OT: Does this mean that Pres Bush can take Ted Kennedy's house?
- Thread starter Thomas Rogers
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
You know Dubya did not write that. He merely signed it. He doesn't know that many words.
I bet Cheney is looking for more hunting ground.
Tom
I bet Cheney is looking for more hunting ground.
Tom
Well he's not taking my house w/o a fight. :lol: And, he's not king George. 
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
The order says donations can be blocked. Doesn't say property can be seized.
Regardless, I hate laws disguised as execute orders. It's offensive to the intent of the Constitution.
Regardless, I hate laws disguised as execute orders. It's offensive to the intent of the Constitution.
Nelson Atwell
Well-Known Member
Similar rules apply to people caught in drug stings. Their property is seized and sold at auction if found to be used in the illegal activites.
I agree that laws should be written by congress. The President's role is to enact and enforce laws that the Legislative branch approves.
I agree that laws should be written by congress. The President's role is to enact and enforce laws that the Legislative branch approves.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Rich Stern, I'm not a lawyer, but blocking of "property and interests in property" seems to talk about more than just donations.
Yes, Sec 4 seems to talk about donations as one type of support for furthering the instability, but I don't think it is meant as the only thing that can be blocked.
The meat of what and how is in this text:
So, blocked or seized, it really doesn't matter (IMHO), the fact is if there are assets and those assets show up in our country (in our jurisdiction, or originate therein), and GWB and friends think they are owned by people that are hindering the stability in Iraq, then they get blocked....which to me means, they are no longer liquid, no longer able to be sold, transferred, etc...if that's not seizure it is at least "limbo".
TJR
Yes, Sec 4 seems to talk about donations as one type of support for furthering the instability, but I don't think it is meant as the only thing that can be blocked.
The meat of what and how is in this text:
So, blocked or seized, it really doesn't matter (IMHO), the fact is if there are assets and those assets show up in our country (in our jurisdiction, or originate therein), and GWB and friends think they are owned by people that are hindering the stability in Iraq, then they get blocked....which to me means, they are no longer liquid, no longer able to be sold, transferred, etc...if that's not seizure it is at least "limbo".
TJR
TJR,
Yes it is mor than just blocking donations, but it is no seizing property. It means that they can block access assets like bank accounts or buildings where you conduct these mean dispicable crimes. More like offices that you may own or lease.
This is not much different than the laws they use to confiscate cars, boats, planes, and houses, etc of drug dealers
I agree with Rich Stern that the working appears excessively harsh and sounds like they can "Block" the property without any due process of law. It sounds like they can do this based on their gut feeling rather than having been convicted of interfering with Iraq....Probably because there is no such law to cover that so it would be hard to convict someone for that.
...Rich
Yes it is mor than just blocking donations, but it is no seizing property. It means that they can block access assets like bank accounts or buildings where you conduct these mean dispicable crimes. More like offices that you may own or lease.
This is not much different than the laws they use to confiscate cars, boats, planes, and houses, etc of drug dealers
I agree with Rich Stern that the working appears excessively harsh and sounds like they can "Block" the property without any due process of law. It sounds like they can do this based on their gut feeling rather than having been convicted of interfering with Iraq....Probably because there is no such law to cover that so it would be hard to convict someone for that.
...Rich
TomT
Well-Known Member
Just more of Bush trying to be America's monarch.
Jeffrey Travis
Well-Known Member
It aggravates me everytime I see people bashing Bush and spouting like they have the answers and could do a better job. Yes, you have the right as an American to do so but whatever happened to respect?
Let the candidates battle it out during the election but once one is elected (yes, Gore lost Florida, get over it), fall in and give some support to the leader of our country. We are all on the same team, give some support, give some suggestions and quityerbitchin'. If you know so much about how to run a country (and meet the requirements) throw your name in the hat and WOW everyone with your supreme intelligence and knowledge of how to make everything better. It shouldn't matter that you were born with a plastic spoon in your mouth and only could raise $38.25 in campaign funds (most of which came from Bud Light returns from your cousin), if you really have all the answers.
Other than Reagan, who else in recent memory, would you have wanted to be at the helm during 9/11. Al Gore? Please. France would have taken us over and our ladies would be running around with hairy armpits. We needed a cowboy who was willing to kick a little ass, not some tree hugging, GLH sporting, donut chomping, post-election losing beard wearing, liar (or did he create the Internet?). Personally, I wish he would kick a little more ass but do it with leaving our troops out of harms way.
I am not a fighter but I do believe an "eye for eye". Personally I do not want to lose an eye. Make that eye your fellow countrymen - I would just as soon not have any killed in any of these terrorist ways but if it happens we must do something, not to retaliate but to make ANYONE who thinks they will be next to attack America and/or Americans that we will turn your country into a glass factory.
Ok, so you say it is the minority in those countries that are causing the problem? Well their government has to do something about. If we had some extreme nutjobs going out and putting a bad name on America, our government would do something about it. Problem is, our nutjobs seem to lash out at our own.
Ok, I'm done.
Let the candidates battle it out during the election but once one is elected (yes, Gore lost Florida, get over it), fall in and give some support to the leader of our country. We are all on the same team, give some support, give some suggestions and quityerbitchin'. If you know so much about how to run a country (and meet the requirements) throw your name in the hat and WOW everyone with your supreme intelligence and knowledge of how to make everything better. It shouldn't matter that you were born with a plastic spoon in your mouth and only could raise $38.25 in campaign funds (most of which came from Bud Light returns from your cousin), if you really have all the answers.
Other than Reagan, who else in recent memory, would you have wanted to be at the helm during 9/11. Al Gore? Please. France would have taken us over and our ladies would be running around with hairy armpits. We needed a cowboy who was willing to kick a little ass, not some tree hugging, GLH sporting, donut chomping, post-election losing beard wearing, liar (or did he create the Internet?). Personally, I wish he would kick a little more ass but do it with leaving our troops out of harms way.
I am not a fighter but I do believe an "eye for eye". Personally I do not want to lose an eye. Make that eye your fellow countrymen - I would just as soon not have any killed in any of these terrorist ways but if it happens we must do something, not to retaliate but to make ANYONE who thinks they will be next to attack America and/or Americans that we will turn your country into a glass factory.
Ok, so you say it is the minority in those countries that are causing the problem? Well their government has to do something about. If we had some extreme nutjobs going out and putting a bad name on America, our government would do something about it. Problem is, our nutjobs seem to lash out at our own.
Ok, I'm done.
Ryan Schaecher
Well-Known Member
Wow Travis.... Wow. Well said.
Rich Stern
Well-Known Member
TJR, freezing assets and seizing them are two different things.
I don't like it, but I prefer to call it what it is.
I don't like it, but I prefer to call it what it is.
Bill V
Well-Known Member
Why do I have this gut feeling that neither Travis nor R Shek followed that advice during the Clinton years?
And why do I have this gut feeling that if/when I follow that advice and "give some suggestions", they're going to take that advice back, pull their head back inside their shell, and revert to "quityerbitchin'"? Just because you don't agree with someone's advice, doesn't mean that it qualifies as "bitchin'".
A true Patriot will stand up to the Government, look them in the eye, point your finger and say "YOU ARE WRONG!".
How many here consider them selves a Patriot? Blindly following the president because he is the president is doing nothing but harm to the USA!
Wake up people.
Tom
How many here consider them selves a Patriot? Blindly following the president because he is the president is doing nothing but harm to the USA!
Wake up people.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
I dunno about a "true Patriot" but I do know what a Respectful, Responsible, Adult American (RRAA) should do.
A RRAA should recognize that whether they voted for GWB or not, that GWB is their president. If they voted for "the other guy", then they and those like them are as much to blame for GWB being president (twice) as those that voted for him. They had the chance to put up a candidate that could beat the clearly inept and incoherent candidate (and 1 term president) at the polls and failed at that task...twice. Furthermore, a RRAA wouldn't take cheap shots at GWB, call him an idiot, or a king, or the people that support him sheeple, but would instead be the adult that they should be, and give the man, the office and their fellow Americans the respect that they deserve
But it seems that RRAAs are hard to come by this day and age.
TJR
A RRAA should recognize that whether they voted for GWB or not, that GWB is their president. If they voted for "the other guy", then they and those like them are as much to blame for GWB being president (twice) as those that voted for him. They had the chance to put up a candidate that could beat the clearly inept and incoherent candidate (and 1 term president) at the polls and failed at that task...twice. Furthermore, a RRAA wouldn't take cheap shots at GWB, call him an idiot, or a king, or the people that support him sheeple, but would instead be the adult that they should be, and give the man, the office and their fellow Americans the respect that they deserve
But it seems that RRAAs are hard to come by this day and age.
TJR
Being an RRAA does not mean you MUST SUPPORT someone that is not doing a good job.
So, back in 1776, those that signed the Declaration of Independencewere not being Respectable Responsible Adult Brittish (or American, or French, or anything else).
When is it right to stand up and say you are wrong? Just because you are president, it does not mean you are always right.
Tom
So, back in 1776, those that signed the Declaration of Independencewere not being Respectable Responsible Adult Brittish (or American, or French, or anything else).
When is it right to stand up and say you are wrong? Just because you are president, it does not mean you are always right.
Tom
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Caymen, note that I never said you or anyone has to support. Just respect, not be an obstacle, and recognize that there are proper and improper ways to create change.
Standing up for what is right is very good. But to all too many people these days that simply means standing, unzipping, and pi$$ing in people's ears. That is probably one of those improper ways of dealing with the situation.
TJR
Standing up for what is right is very good. But to all too many people these days that simply means standing, unzipping, and pi$$ing in people's ears. That is probably one of those improper ways of dealing with the situation.
TJR
Is there anything wrong with calling a spade, a spade?
Tom
Tom
Eric Pennal
Well-Known Member
What a crock! WHAT - A - CROCK!! Anybody would have responded to 9/11 by invading Afghanistan, based on the evidence we had. The difference is, Gore wouldn't have taken his eye off the ball by invading Iraq the way Dick and George did. This current bunch of chicken-hawks were looking for a reason to go into Iraq before 9/11. If President Shrub was really interested in spreading democracy in that region, we would have had a better chance by finishing the job in Afghanistan, instead of creating the God-awful mess they started in Iraq.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
EricP...actually, a "CROCK" is having twelve or thirteen dead hijackers all (or overwhelmingly most) from Saudi Arabia and then invading Afghanistan instead of Saudi Arabia. That seems like the crock to me. Terrorism won't be beat by invading countries.
TJR
TJR
TomT
Well-Known Member
TJR. As I have said before, more and more elections I find myself not voting FOR a candidate as against another. That was the case with Bush. Just because he got my vote does not mean I have to like him. The problem with him and ALL politicians is that they are not listening to the people.
The recent Immigration bill was a perfect example. Polls showed that the vast majority of Americans were opposed to the bill but Bush tried his hardest to cram it down our throats anyway. Personal agendas seem to dominate our political leader's decisions these days.
The recent Immigration bill was a perfect example. Polls showed that the vast majority of Americans were opposed to the bill but Bush tried his hardest to cram it down our throats anyway. Personal agendas seem to dominate our political leader's decisions these days.
