Bush wants authority to postpone election

[Helenihi]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Retards. If there is a terrorist attack on election day, which is not a ridiculous scenario, what exactly do you want the government to do? Should we seriously use the election results from that day, even though 90% of people won't show up? Of course not, we'll need to redo it later. They're talking about legislation that would have a specific plan, with specific dates and instructions on when and how to reschedule the election.

Retards? Gee, what a CHARMER you are? None of us have even SEEN the legislation associated with this OBVIOUS power grab. Couple that with the fact that congress hardly ever pays much DIRECT attention to what they vote on AND the innate ignorance exhibited by the majority of the American electorate and you have a recipe for an American-flavored dictatorship. Now, if you want to sit on your brain and wax confident, that's peaches. But please don't call the people who are concerned about this "retards." We have every right to be weary of leaps in power like this in a supposedly FREE society.

Hey, wait a second! I thought we were fighting "Terrorists!!!(tm)" in Iraq so we wouldn't have to fight them here??? What's up with THAT?

Yes, none of us have seen the legislation, because it hasn't even been drafted yet. So what the hell are you freaking out about? If it specifically says something like "Can postpone the election until the following Tuesday" etc. is it still an obvious power grab? Congress pays plenty of attention to what they vote on. Watch less F 9/11 and retarded soundbites about not reading legislation and realize that each congressman has a massive staff that reads legislation for him. There is no leap in power, its a contingency plan that only happens if there's a terrorist attack.

Again, if there is a terrorist attack on election day, what do you think the government should do?

 

[thuper]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Well guess what, even the Bush-bootlicker, Rush Limbaugh, isn't going for this! :Q

If that's true, THANK GOD!

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: arsbanned
Oh, a scenario which potentially makes Bush a lifetime dictator shouldn't be questioned. Please indeed.

Where do you get this information from? So, the Department of Homeland Security is considering postponing the election IF there is a terrorist action and this somehow equals making Bush lifetime dictator? That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

listen, the terrorists want bush OUT of office. they wouldn't do anything to keep him IN office, that would be illogical now wouldn't it? If they are going to attack it is going to be now or relatively soon, that will have the most dramatic effect on the election. should an attack happen right before the election then Bush would prob. win easily.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Next we'll hear that Bush is planning a terrorist attack on election day to keep himself in office. :roll:

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Helenihi

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Helenihi
Retards. If there is a terrorist attack on election day, which is not a ridiculous scenario, what exactly do you want the government to do? Should we seriously use the election results from that day, even though 90% of people won't show up? Of course not, we'll need to redo it later. They're talking about legislation that would have a specific plan, with specific dates and instructions on when and how to reschedule the election.

Retards? Gee, what a CHARMER you are? None of us have even SEEN the legislation associated with this OBVIOUS power grab. Couple that with the fact that congress hardly ever pays much DIRECT attention to what they vote on AND the innate ignorance exhibited by the majority of the American electorate and you have a recipe for an American-flavored dictatorship. Now, if you want to sit on your brain and wax confident, that's peaches. But please don't call the people who are concerned about this "retards." We have every right to be weary of leaps in power like this in a supposedly FREE society.

Hey, wait a second! I thought we were fighting "Terrorists!!!(tm)" in Iraq so we wouldn't have to fight them here??? What's up with THAT?

Yes, none of us have seen the legislation, because it hasn't even been drafted yet. So what the hell are you freaking out about? If it specifically says something like "Can postpone the election until the following Tuesday" etc. is it still an obvious power grab? Congress pays plenty of attention to what they vote on. Watch less F 9/11 and retarded soundbites about not reading legislation and realize that each congressman has a massive staff that reads legislation for him. There is no leap in power, its a contingency plan that only happens if there's a terrorist attack.

Again, if there is a terrorist attack on election day, what do you think the government should do?

Freaking out? Again, you're pushing things to far in an effort to self-aggrandize. I can dislike and question aspects of the government at any point in the process I CHOOSE to. And I should be able to do so without someone like you accusing me of being a "retard" or "freaking out." Think about what you're licking-up for a second. Why should a person with a bomb have veto power over an election in the US, a NATIONAL election at that? To even PROPOSE such a modification to the franchise is to give the "Terrorists!!!(tm) WAY more power than they in actuality have.

Now this is funny: You admit that congress-critters depend HEAVELY on staffers to digest the mounds of paper that shuffle through the capital, but at to same time see them as informed on what they vote on? 🙂 When is the last time you had a person read a book for you and got anything REAL out of it? Yes, any legislation that tampers with voting rights is by definition, a power grab. Everything from gerrymandering to high-level crappola like this are a direct indication that our "civil servants" view the people of the country as idiots. And what's with the "suppose this, suppose that" crap? You can theorize about how good this BS is, but when I view it in a negative light I'm a "retard?"

What should they do? That an easy question for a person with a brain to answer: Clean up the mess and abide by the will of the people as represented by the election returns. Flash: Government activity is what got us into most of the messes we're faced with in this country. It doesn't take an advanced degree in quantum mechanics to see that most of the time, they should just do NOTHING.

 

[arsbanned]

Where do you get this information from? So, the Department of Homeland Security is considering postponing the election IF there is a terrorist action and this somehow equals making Bush lifetime dictator?

Notice I used the word "potentially". Reading comprehension good, mmmkay?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Really? I would have thought that would be the sound of your own voice. Huh.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: arsbanned

Where do you get this information from? So, the Department of Homeland Security is considering postponing the election IF there is a terrorist action and this somehow equals making Bush lifetime dictator?

Notice I used the word "potentially". Reading comprehension good, mmmkay?

That is the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Really? I would have thought that would be the sound of your own voice. Huh.

How does it "potentially" give Bush the opportunity to become lifetime dictator? That's like me saying that if YOU make one ignorant comment then you must be a complete idiot and nothing you say ever could add any value.

From what I've read it would simply "postpone" the election. Not do away with it entirely. Duh...:roll:

Perhaps you should brush up on your reading comprehension, mmmkay?

 

[Hossenfeffer]

I don't have a problem with them having the potential to push the election back a bit. It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. I can genuinely imagine some scenarios when I would agree with postponing.

 

[classy]

When I read that this morning I just cracked up in laughter. Now I think its clear the republicans are fearful they are about to be showed the door and recieve the left foot of fellowship from the American people. 🙂

 

[conjur]

And all of this from a Department that Bush initially opposed!

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: Hossenfeffer
I don't have a problem with them having the potential to push the election back a bit. It's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. I can genuinely imagine some scenarios when I would agree with postponing.

I don't think they are going to ask your opinion (or mine) first. I'm sure they won't even check the latest gallup poll - any hypothetical decision to delay would be purely for safety reasons - its all for our own good 🙂

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: onelove
any hypothetical decision to delay would be purely for safety reasons - its all for our own good 🙂

Yep--that other candidate is just not safe so we're cancelling elections cause we know better than you. 😀

 

[TaylorD]

I dont know what I think about this.

One the one hand of course we should hold it and not allow any terrorist activity to interfere with out lives our the process of our country.

But on the other hand it will deeply affect the voting as the train bombings in Madrid did, which will only embolden terrorists around the world.

I say hold the elections no matter what, but whoevers in the oval office for the next 4 years better be ready to kick some ass around the world.

 

[TaylorD]

Second thought:

maybe we should be sneaky and hold them a week early, catch eveyone off-guard like we did in Iraq by handing over power early!!!

Just kidding, seemed funny, though I thought it was an excellent idea given the Iraqi circumstances.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur
And all of this from a Department that Bush initially opposed!

Dude..haven't you seen star wars? Of course he initially opposes that which gives him total power...hes gotta make it look good...or at least try

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TaylorD
I dont know what I think about this.

One the one hand of course we should hold it and not allow any terrorist activity to interfere with out lives our the process of our country.

But on the other hand it will deeply affect the voting as the train bombings in Madrid did, which will only embolden terrorists around the world.

I say hold the elections no matter what, but whoevers in the oval office for the next 4 years better be ready to kick some ass around the world.

To me, it's making a mountain out of a molehill.

There are no specific signs of any attack. That doesn't mean I don't think one will happen. I wouldn't be surprised at all.

However, it would have to be rather widespread and catastrophic in order to delay the elections.

If one polling place is attacked is Ridge going to shut everything down and have Ashcroft enact martial law?

Although, I'm sure the White House legal team is poring over everything in the Constitution to be sure they don't subvert it. They would certainly NEVER think about doing something like that....

 

[TaylorD]

If one polling place is attacked is Ridge going to shut everything down and have Ashcroft enact martial law?

Although, I'm sure the White House legal team is poring over everything in the Constitution to be sure they don't subvert it. They would certainly NEVER think about doing something like that....

Lets not be ridiculous. The only chance for any delay is a catastrophic attack, which, as you said, there aren't any specific signs (like that means anything)

As for Constitutional rights, which of yours have been violated? If none, then do others rigths matter? If yes, is it only Americans rights which matter? or rights of all people around the world?

 

[arsbanned]

How does it "potentially" give Bush the opportunity to become lifetime dictator?

Because he is talking about postponing the election. Remember? That thing...we're talking about? You should have a policy of not posting when you're drunk and stoned.
The rest of your "post" is not worth responding to, and you are dismissed.
Bu-Bye!

 

[conjur]

I never said my Constitutional rights have been violated. Others have, though, under the guise of the Patriot Act.

And then there's the matter of a little place called Abu Ghraib.


But...this digresses from the topic.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: conjur
I never said my Constitutional rights have been violated. Others have, though, under the guise of the Patriot Act.

And then there's the matter of a little place called Abu Ghraib.


But...this digresses from the topic.

Just wait....if Bush is re-elected next year we get the reality tv version of "The Running Man" and guess who is going to host...you guessed it....RICHARD DAWSON!!!

CANT WAIT!!!

 

[TaylorD]

Originally posted by: conjur
I never said my Constitutional rights have been violated. Others have, though, under the guise of the Patriot Act.

And then there's the matter of a little place called Abu Ghraib.


But...this digresses from the topic.

It does digress from the topic, but if you are so concerned about the rights of those who are not American citizens, such as the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, then how could you be against the war in Iraq in the first place unless you are historically misinformed or ignorant? Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated peoples rights, as others do around the world today, and you seem to only be concerned about the violations reported in the New York Times. Which tells me either you really don't care about the rights of people around the world and/or you'd use anything to demean the Bush Admin. or Republicans. Bush wasn't over there torturing prisoners, and he may have a lot to be criticized about, but I believe the connection there is far too thin.

As for the Patriot act, whether or not it is too much I will leave to another discussion, but it brings me back to my fundamental disagreement with staunch democrats on the issue of September 11th and Terrorism.

Basically Democrats are now whining that not enough was done before Sept. 11th and that we should have acted on less information.

If you know anything about the world of intelligence you know you make a decision; either:
a)you act on potentially false information, so as to save yourself from all possible threats. Here you obviously run the risk of being wrong, in whole or in part.
b) You wait for iron clad evidence before acting, so as to never (or nearly never) be wrong. in this case you obviously risk allowing threats to go unnoticed for lack of fool-proof evidence.

One might like to think theres a middle ground between a and b, but there isn't. It doesn't have to be an overall rule, but for each situation the decision must be made.

Post Sept. 11th we went to Iraq which was certainly on thinly supported evidence, but that seemed to be an appropriate reaction after what happened to our country. I for one would prefer to act on thinly supported evidence than to wait for iron clad evidence every time.

The patriot act was meant to empower the Federal Agencies to do things they hadn't before in terms of dealing with terrorists. (Similar leeway had been made in the past to deal with organized crime, because they had become so skilled at avoiding the existing abilities of the Feds.)

 

[Corn]

Not sure why we need 2 active threads for the same discussion, but whatever. I may as well copy and paste my response from the other discussion of this topic:

This article is woefully vague--thus appearing to appeal to the tinfoilhat wearing Bush hater crowd. How long of a delay are we talking about here? A week, a year?

IMHO, I don't have a problem with a short delay in the election, so long as doesn't interfere with the constitutionally mandated date that the state electors cast their votes for president: The first Monday following the second Wednesday in December. Anything that would interfere with that date would be unacceptable IMHO. But then, this article doesn't mention anything about a time frame............


Of course there are plenty of morons who believe that Bush is attempting to anoint himself as dictator. Reason need not enter the discussion, your minds are made up. Bush = Nazi/Saddam/Satan. Of course you wouldn't recognize an original thought if it smacked you where it should have originated in the first place.

Bu-bye!

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: TaylorD

Originally posted by: conjur
I never said my Constitutional rights have been violated. Others have, though, under the guise of the Patriot Act.

And then there's the matter of a little place called Abu Ghraib.


But...this digresses from the topic.

It does digress from the topic, but if you are so concerned about the rights of those who are not American citizens, such as the prisoners at Abu Ghraib, then how could you be against the war in Iraq in the first place unless you are historically misinformed or ignorant? Saddam Hussein repeatedly violated peoples rights, as others do around the world today, and you seem to only be concerned about the violations reported in the New York Times. Which tells me either you really don't care about the rights of people around the world and/or you'd use anything to demean the Bush Admin. or Republicans. Bush wasn't over there torturing prisoners, and he may have a lot to be criticized about, but I believe the connection there is far too thin.

Wow...do you go off on tangents much?

1st, I was for the war last year (go back in the archived messages and see my posts.)

2nd, after realizing I was duped, I have become quite critical of this administration, the neocons in particular (Bush is just too dumb or too lazy to realize he's been played.)

3rd, I know Saddam needed to be removed but the way it was done was completely wrong. I see that now.

4th, while Bush wasn't the one hooking up wires to peoples' testicles or shoving broomsticks up peoples' asses, he certainly is responsible. The Buck Stops Here. He and his legal team worked to find ways around our anti-torture laws and subverting the Geneva Conventions. Their actions created the environment that caused the abuse. Go read that thread to educate yourself.

 

[TaylorD]

Wow...do you go off on tangents much?

1st, I was for the war last year (go back in the archived messages and see my posts.)

2nd, after realizing I was duped, I have become quite critical of this administration, the neocons in particular (Bush is just too dumb or too lazy to realize he's been played.)

3rd, I know Saddam needed to be removed but the way it was done was completely wrong. I see that now.

4th, while Bush wasn't the one hooking up wires to peoples' testicles or shoving broomsticks up peoples' asses, he certainly is responsible. The Buck Stops Here. He and his legal team worked to find ways around our anti-torture laws and subverting the Geneva Conventions. Their actions created the environment that caused the abuse. Go read that thread to educate yourself.

You opened up the tangent box, I just brought out more toys.

1 - I apologize, I typecast you as most democrats I argue with.
2 - I have never been a big fan of Bush but I find myself defending him here from sometimes absurd claims. I do feel there was some "duping" that took place, but I think it was intelligence faults from many sources and not some conspiracy.
3 - How should Saddam have been removed? Do you see this guy still claiming to be the Pres.? Hes a nutjob and a half, there was no other way to remove him.
4 - He isn't responsible in my mind. And this wasn't My Lai. I think it was horrible what was done but if you think Bush was behind the curtain pulling strings then you've allowed your vision to be clouted by your disdain for the administration.