Hostile takeover?

[Shana A]

It is the people's government.  It doesn't belong to only certain people.   Our constitution gives us the right to say what is dictatorial or not.

It even says, if it isn't working, we have the right to go to Washington and throw them out... do we have a quorum? >

Z

[ChildOfTheLight]

now that, is an entirely different kettle of fish to this topics discussion, its its regardless of who is president.
and no, being qualified to vote, doesnt qualify you to understand why sucha  meausre is in place. unless you are experienced at advanced command and control practice. you really cant say what is 'dictatorial' or not.
We might as well swap bus drivers for a driving comittee. one to use the gas, one to stear, one to watch, lets see how effective they are with so many lives in thier hands.
sometimes one person in total control for a period is SAFER.

R

It's also un-American.  Read the Declaration of Independence sometime to understand on what basis the American government was founded.

But then, you're a Brit, I believe.

[Suzy]

Of course this worries me greatly.  However, being in the middle of the Katrina debacle showed me just how disastrous inefficient government is.  When everybody is in charge, nobody is in charge.  The Bush administration gets it fair share of the blame and they deserve it.  But what amazes me is how many people have turned a blind eye to the absolute mishandling of the situation by Ray Nagin and his cronies.  This bigoted criminal was even re-elected afterwards.   As much as I hate to admit it, in the time of an emergency someone does need to be in charge.  In Katrina, nobody stepped up and did their job, and many people died for it.  The biggest problem is that there doesn't seem to be a realistic way to turn the power back once it is passed.  Who is to decide when the right time is?  Nobody likes to give up power once they have it. 

All I can say is, those of you who live outside the United States would be best off staying there.
Dino

Despite everything, I totally disagree with this statement.

Kristi

[Cindi Jones]

A good leader, in the time of a natural disaster, would take care of the problems.  He would promptly leave his vacation and go to work.  We've had great leaders. 

But I wouldn't even want a great leader to have absolute power.  The checks and balances must always apply.  I certainly would NEVER want Bush to have absolute power.  You think he would have left his vacation earlier had he been able to declare martial law?  Nope.  He would have declared martial law though!

Cindi

[RebeccaFog]

      i really really believe that the state is responsible for handling and managing catastrophes.  If they need assistance, they should specify to the feds what it is they need. 

      Louisiana could have done better before and after.  If I was a Governor, I would not even allow the feds to give orders to my guard.  We are going to need our state militia's to do what they were meant to do - protect us from the federal government.  [I can't believe I just wrote that]  I'm backing off of this thread.

     See you in better times,

  Rebis

[Rachael]

i think your missing the point, such powers would NOT have been brough into play during katrina,
they are for events that jepourdize the fabric of the entire nation.

R

[RebeccaFog]

i think your missing the point, such powers would NOT have been brough into play during katrina,
they are for events that jepourdize the fabric of the entire nation.

R

You're probably right.

What's with the uniform?  I like looking at the real you.

[Suzy]

they are for events that jepourdize the fabric of the entire nation.
R

Then why (and no one can explain this to me) was a storm a matter of Homeland Security?

What kind of events are you speaking of?  Please help me understand.

Kristi

[BeverlyAnn]

they are for events that jepourdize the fabric of the entire nation.
R

Then why (and no one can explain this to me) was a storm a matter of Homeland Security?

Kristi

Because one of the many idiots in the Bush regime thought that FEMA should be a part of Homeland Security instead of an independent agency.  Then under directives from above in HS, they spent 75% of their time and energy preparing to respond to terrorist attacks rather than natural disasters as FEMA was designed to do.

For those who haven't, read John Varley's Red Lightening.  As someone described it, it's the book Robert A. Heinlein would have written if he lived in George Bush's America.

Beverly

[Rachael]

fema is for all emergencies, not any paticular sort that is national scale....
if i still spoke to my father, i could provide more information, hes rather high up in the british version of fema and has taught emergency management in kuait, spain and brazil...
R

[The Middle Way]

i think your missing the point, such powers would NOT have been brough into play during katrina,
they are for events that jepourdize the fabric of the entire nation.

R

Oh you mean like Sept 11, ought one

What a great excuse for expanded executive powers

Take a real close look at the connections between the BUSH and the BIN LADEN families
seriously, look at it

Now, the fact that the building that held, NOTE THE PAST TENSE, the records of the DOD and the CIA, a nice structure called WTC 7, which went down in appx 6.5 seconds in practically a pure vertical line, which wasn't hit by any airplane, {and which event was omitted from the 9-11 commission report, entirely}

Now look at Dr Jones at BYU's 13-point study on this phenomenon, which tends to show an extremely advanced state of the art in demolition

then look at what the rest of the bunch, not just the Bush but the Dick, et al, had to gain by this


look at some cold hard facts, in the light of day

and then maybe get back to us with your apologia for untempered power


NOTA

:police:

[RebeccaFog]

should we change the name of this thread to 'hillbilly takeover'?

[The Middle Way]

only if yer offerin  me a dip in the Cement Pond, Jethro

[RebeccaFog]

I am on my way to U.C.L.A. for to pick up my PHD

- jethro bodine doing a commercial for superbanker

[Rachael]

i think your missing the point, such powers would NOT have been brough into play during katrina,
they are for events that jepourdize the fabric of the entire nation.

R

Oh you mean like Sept 11, ought one

What a great excuse for expanded executive powers

Take a real close look at the connections between the BUSH and the BIN LADEN families
seriously, look at it

Now, the fact that the building that held, NOTE THE PAST TENSE, the records of the DOD and the CIA, a nice structure called WTC 7, which went down in appx 6.5 seconds in practically a pure vertical line, which wasn't hit by any airplane, {and which event was omitted from the 9-11 commission report, entirely}

Now look at Dr Jones at BYU's 13-point study on this phenomenon, which tends to show an extremely advanced state of the art in demolition

then look at what the rest of the bunch, not just the Bush but the Dick, et al, had to gain by this


look at some cold hard facts, in the light of day

and then maybe get back to us with your apologia for untempered power


NOTA

:police:

9-11 is a good example of an event aucustrated to give power.
'change will need to come in the form of a catestrophic event, a new pearl harbour' - mr powel...

9-11 to me, was entirely us aucustrated. as binladen was in US custody at the time of 9.11, and come on... 911....
i agree with the facts you listed  none of the above.
but still it was too small an event with regards to this situation, too minor and contained.