[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Bekenn [/i]
[B]I see nothing particularly wrong here; it's a valid concern, given how much terrorists hate this guy. Besides, it's not like the legislation would make it [i]easy[/i] to do this kind of thing; that's why it's labelled as a "doomsday scenario." [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, it's not a valid concern at all. If I were a terrorist, I'd wait and let the election play itself out and let the American people oust him. If that doesn't work, then do my evil terrorist thing.
Besides, it's not like Bush is guaranteed to be in a predetermined location during the election.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mundane [/i]
[B]sure, pumping a lot of money into Iraq, giving his friends the contracts for the work.
Of course, it is usual that a the people in power knows people, in all the big firms..but anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]
First off, if your talking about Halliburton receiving a no-bid contract for support of the military, that contract was agreed upon in mid-2001, well before Iraq, and even before September 11th.
Second, if you [I]are[/I] talking about Halliburton, the company I work for has several divisions which do business with Halliburton, so in some small part, my paycheck comes from the business we do with Halliburton.
Finally, on a regular basis, I see this “Large corporations are bad” mentality. I would be willing to bet, that not one of you could say that you do not know some one who either a) works for a larger corporation, b) works for a business that sells to a large corporation.
First of all there will be NO legislation allowing the feds to cancel the elections. BECAUSE THERE CAN NOT BE ANY. The date of the election is set in the consititution itself, and can not be pre empted or changed.
The bush administration is setting up this situation. They are going to try half hartedly to get powers to cancel and delay the election, but not push it to anywhere near where it can happen. They will back off before that.
Next they will wait for the election, if an attack happens they can say "see we warned you!" if an attack doesnt happen they will say "our increased scruitny foiled their plans!" Which might have, We know a new years 2000 attack aimed at LA was foiled at the canadian border, due to increased vigiliance by the Border Patrol.
The Bush administration is setting up a win win scenario for themselves.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by A2597 [/i]
[B]I have a question for all amaericans:
Are you actually ever afraid of a terrorist attack?
I mean, sure, it's always a possibility, but does it ever really factor into a descision?
I can only speak for myself when I say "nope, not at all". [/B][/QUOTE]
While I am in no way afraid, I can tell you that one of my best friends around here has not been completely land-locked since sept. 11. This is a family who went on three or four one to two week long vacations every year via plane, and a number of cruises. It took until this year to get up the courage to go on just one cruise (because the terror alert was not high), and even when they did go, they feared anthrax attacks and carried gas masks at all times. They still will not fly, as they fear being hijacked.
and you know what? His parents aren't the only folks around here like that.
I honestly don't understand how people can think that, of all the other flights/cruises hapenning around the world, that theirs will be the one chosen for a renewed attack on america.
[quote]Actually, it's not a valid concern at all. If I were a terrorist, I'd wait and let the election play itself out and let the American people oust him. If that doesn't work, then do my evil terrorist thing.
Besides, it's not like Bush is guaranteed to be in a predetermined location during the election.[/quote]
I wasn't talking about an attack on the President; I was talking about something like what happened in Madrid. An attack days before an election that scares the public into forcing their government to back down.
Congress sets the day for the elections, the constitution gives them this power and mandates it that it be the same throughout the land. so bush has no power over this at all.
the so called ever growing schizm between the US and europe since bush was elected is true but its not necessaryly his fault. it is in my oppinion europes reaction to the USA leaning more to the right then the socialist left that has taken over the majority of europe and europeans not liking that or fearing that to some degree.
And what gives anyone the bright idea that this "schizim" wasn't there all along? Sure, the "shrub" hasn't done much to help matters along, but the seeds of this rift were planted well before Bush Jr. stepped into the Oval Office.
A#: Hell no. If it happens, it happens. If a terrorist plugs my skinny white a**, it'll be more likely to happen over in the Gulf, rather than here in the States.
R.T.: Exactly. Moreover, people are still bitching about the 2000 elections (with good reason in some cases), so it's not too likely that Congress will change anything unless they have [I]very[/I] solid reasons to do so.
Comments
[B]I see nothing particularly wrong here; it's a valid concern, given how much terrorists hate this guy. Besides, it's not like the legislation would make it [i]easy[/i] to do this kind of thing; that's why it's labelled as a "doomsday scenario." [/B][/QUOTE]
Actually, it's not a valid concern at all. If I were a terrorist, I'd wait and let the election play itself out and let the American people oust him. If that doesn't work, then do my evil terrorist thing.
Besides, it's not like Bush is guaranteed to be in a predetermined location during the election.
Are you actually ever afraid of a terrorist attack?
I mean, sure, it's always a possibility, but does it ever really factor into a descision?
I can only speak for myself when I say "nope, not at all".
[B]sure, pumping a lot of money into Iraq, giving his friends the contracts for the work.
Of course, it is usual that a the people in power knows people, in all the big firms..but anyway. [/B][/QUOTE]
First off, if your talking about Halliburton receiving a no-bid contract for support of the military, that contract was agreed upon in mid-2001, well before Iraq, and even before September 11th.
Second, if you [I]are[/I] talking about Halliburton, the company I work for has several divisions which do business with Halliburton, so in some small part, my paycheck comes from the business we do with Halliburton.
Finally, on a regular basis, I see this “Large corporations are bad” mentality. I would be willing to bet, that not one of you could say that you do not know some one who either a) works for a larger corporation, b) works for a business that sells to a large corporation.
Jake
The bush administration is setting up this situation. They are going to try half hartedly to get powers to cancel and delay the election, but not push it to anywhere near where it can happen. They will back off before that.
Next they will wait for the election, if an attack happens they can say "see we warned you!" if an attack doesnt happen they will say "our increased scruitny foiled their plans!" Which might have, We know a new years 2000 attack aimed at LA was foiled at the canadian border, due to increased vigiliance by the Border Patrol.
The Bush administration is setting up a win win scenario for themselves.
[B]I have a question for all amaericans:
Are you actually ever afraid of a terrorist attack?
I mean, sure, it's always a possibility, but does it ever really factor into a descision?
I can only speak for myself when I say "nope, not at all". [/B][/QUOTE] [url]http://saladin.blogdrive.com/archive/60.html[/url]
Not at all.
No, I'm not afraid at all of an attack. I live in the 4th largest city in the US and we were targeted for an attack, but it was foiled.
I go about business as usual. =)
Obvously my loss would do that to some extent to these individuals, but I'd hate more to survive them...
;)
[B]I have a question for all amaericans:
Are you actually ever afraid of a terrorist attack?
I mean, sure, it's always a possibility, but does it ever really factor into a descision?
I can only speak for myself when I say "nope, not at all". [/B][/QUOTE]
While I am in no way afraid, I can tell you that one of my best friends around here has not been completely land-locked since sept. 11. This is a family who went on three or four one to two week long vacations every year via plane, and a number of cruises. It took until this year to get up the courage to go on just one cruise (because the terror alert was not high), and even when they did go, they feared anthrax attacks and carried gas masks at all times. They still will not fly, as they fear being hijacked.
and you know what? His parents aren't the only folks around here like that.
I honestly don't understand how people can think that, of all the other flights/cruises hapenning around the world, that theirs will be the one chosen for a renewed attack on america.
[quote]Actually, it's not a valid concern at all. If I were a terrorist, I'd wait and let the election play itself out and let the American people oust him. If that doesn't work, then do my evil terrorist thing.
Besides, it's not like Bush is guaranteed to be in a predetermined location during the election.[/quote]
I wasn't talking about an attack on the President; I was talking about something like what happened in Madrid. An attack days before an election that scares the public into forcing their government to back down.
the so called ever growing schizm between the US and europe since bush was elected is true but its not necessaryly his fault. it is in my oppinion europes reaction to the USA leaning more to the right then the socialist left that has taken over the majority of europe and europeans not liking that or fearing that to some degree.
A#: Hell no. If it happens, it happens. If a terrorist plugs my skinny white a**, it'll be more likely to happen over in the Gulf, rather than here in the States.
R.T.: Exactly. Moreover, people are still bitching about the 2000 elections (with good reason in some cases), so it's not too likely that Congress will change anything unless they have [I]very[/I] solid reasons to do so.