| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"dapra" |
| Date: |
23 May 2007 12:27:51 PM |
| Object: |
'Catastrophic Emergency' |
There is not much to add to the article. But this quote from Bush; "It
Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator". He seems to be working on it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
by Lee Rogers
The Bush administration has released a directive called the National
Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive
released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream
and alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron
Paul and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this
directive, Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency”
the President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure
constitutional government. The language in this directive would in
effect make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any 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 functions;
So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide
any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail.
Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or
Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in
time will experience an emergency on par with either of those events.
When one of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator
in charge of ensuring a working constitutional government.
The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t
say that the President will work with the other branches of government
equally to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says
clearly that there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches
that will be coordinated by the President. If the President is
coordinating these efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every
branch. The language in the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature
making it seem that it is a cooperative effort between all three
branches but than it says that the President is in charge of the
cooperative effort.
The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative
effort among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the
Federal Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity
with respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper
respect for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches,
to preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is
governed and the capability of all three branches of government to
execute constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly
succession, appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability
and support of the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic
emergency;
Further on in the document it states the following.
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for
ensuring constitutional government.
This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of
government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be
equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such
an effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is
effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all
branches of government what to do.
Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of
Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall
continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security
department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the
Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland
just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that
country an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an
emergency is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the
Homeland Enslavement department will have for us.
The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible
for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s
the case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures
for all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that
centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of
a so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.
It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define
procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very
language in the document destroys what a working constitutional
government is supposed to be. A working constitutional government
contains a separation of powers between three equally powerful branches
and this directive states that the executive branch has the power to
coordinate the activities of the other branches. This directive is a
clear violation of constitutional separation of powers and there should
be angry protests from our legislators about this anti-American garbage
that came from the President.
.
|
|
| User: "Jack Granade" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
23 May 2007 12:43:26 PM |
|
|
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
jack g.
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CKydndEkG-YA5MnbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
There is not much to add to the article. But this quote from Bush; "It
Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator". He seems to be working on it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
by Lee Rogers
The Bush administration has released a directive called the National
Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive
released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and
alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul
and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive,
Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the
President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure
constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect
make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any 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 functions;
So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide
any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail.
Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or
Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time
will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one
of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of
ensuring a working constitutional government.
The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say
that the President will work with the other branches of government equally
to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that
there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be
coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these
efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in
the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a
cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the
President is in charge of the cooperative effort.
The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort
among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal
Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with
respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect
for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to
preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed
and the capability of all three branches of government to execute
constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession,
appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of
the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
Further on in the document it states the following.
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for
ensuring constitutional government.
This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of
government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be
equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an
effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is
effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all
branches of government what to do.
Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of
Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall
continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security
department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the
Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland
just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country
an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency
is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland
Enslavement department will have for us.
The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible
for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the
case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for
all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that
centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a
so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.
It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define
procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very
language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government
is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a
separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this
directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the
activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of
constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests
from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the
President.
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
23 May 2007 12:56:18 PM |
|
|
Jack Granade wrote:
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
jack g.
Preventing dictatorship is not only a liberal idea. I'd like to think,
that most of the conservatives agree with this idea too. Of course not
the neocons and the neo-fascists.
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CKydndEkG-YA5MnbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
There is not much to add to the article. But this quote from Bush; "It
Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator". He seems to be working on it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
by Lee Rogers
The Bush administration has released a directive called the National
Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive
released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and
alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul
and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive,
Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the
President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure
constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect
make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any 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 functions;
So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide
any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail.
Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or
Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time
will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one
of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of
ensuring a working constitutional government.
The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say
that the President will work with the other branches of government equally
to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that
there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be
coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these
efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in
the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a
cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the
President is in charge of the cooperative effort.
The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort
among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal
Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with
respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect
for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to
preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed
and the capability of all three branches of government to execute
constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession,
appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of
the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
Further on in the document it states the following.
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for
ensuring constitutional government.
This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of
government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be
equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an
effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is
effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all
branches of government what to do.
Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of
Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall
continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security
department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the
Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland
just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country
an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency
is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland
Enslavement department will have for us.
The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible
for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the
case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for
all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that
centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a
so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.
It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define
procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very
language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government
is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a
separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this
directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the
activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of
constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests
from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the
President.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
23 May 2007 12:22:19 PM |
|
|
dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:WMSdnVrrrIzVHcnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com:
Jack Granade wrote:
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
jack g.
Preventing dictatorship is not only a liberal idea. I'd like to think,
that most of the conservatives agree with this idea too. Of course not
the neocons and the neo-fascists.
I guess I'm not a neo-con or a neo-fascist then, because I do not
support dictatorship of any sort.
If you believe globalresearch.ca without checking their facts very
thoroughly, I suggest you go here:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic
organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its
enemies."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Proud American" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
24 May 2007 12:24:06 PM |
|
|
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9939911FF80E7freddybear@66.150.105.47...
dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:WMSdnVrrrIzVHcnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com:
Jack Granade wrote:
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
jack g.
Preventing dictatorship is not only a liberal idea. I'd like to think,
that most of the conservatives agree with this idea too. Of course not
the neocons and the neo-fascists.
Don't forget the neo-socialists, neolibs and cradle-to-gravers.
I guess I'm not a neo-con or a neo-fascist then, because I do not
support dictatorship of any sort.
If you believe globalresearch.ca without checking their facts very
thoroughly, I suggest you go here:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic
organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its
enemies."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 May 2007 07:34:05 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 17:24:06 GMT, "Proud American"
<thinhthi@pacbell.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9939911FF80E7freddybear@66.150.105.47...
dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:WMSdnVrrrIzVHcnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com:
Jack Granade wrote:
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
jack g.
Preventing dictatorship is not only a liberal idea. I'd like to think,
that most of the conservatives agree with this idea too. Of course not
the neocons and the neo-fascists.
Don't forget the neo-socialists, neolibs and cradle-to-gravers.
Fred keeps forgetting his own people - the know-nothings.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 May 2007 08:28:28 AM |
|
|
Al Klein <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in
news:dtld531c98ngm30qvt3d1cs3ln527enmf6@4ax.com:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 17:24:06 GMT, "Proud American"
<thinhthi@pacbell.net> wrote:
"Fred Stone" <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9939911FF80E7freddybear@66.150.105.47...
dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:WMSdnVrrrIzVHcnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com:
Jack Granade wrote:
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
jack g.
Preventing dictatorship is not only a liberal idea. I'd like to
think,
that most of the conservatives agree with this idea too. Of course
not
the neocons and the neo-fascists.
Don't forget the neo-socialists, neolibs and cradle-to-gravers.
Fred keeps forgetting his own people - the know-nothings.
No, Al, I remember you just fine.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Every day, we buy -0.000005 Celsius degrees (of Global Warming
reduction) for one half of the LHC collider."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 May 2007 11:07:12 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:WMSdnVrrrIzVHcnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com:
Jack Granade wrote:
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
jack g.
Preventing dictatorship is not only a liberal idea. I'd like to think,
that most of the conservatives agree with this idea too. Of course not
the neocons and the neo-fascists.
I guess I'm not a neo-con or a neo-fascist then, because I do not
support dictatorship of any sort.
If you believe globalresearch.ca without checking their facts very
thoroughly, I suggest you go here:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
At the time I posted it, Goggle only came up with 2 or 3 hits for
'Catastrophic Emergency'. Today they are hundreds.
You may like it read the information better from WorldNetDaily;
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 May 2007 11:16:37 AM |
|
|
dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:aaadneVK9tkvlMrbnZ2dnUVZ_qKqnZ2d@comcast.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:WMSdnVrrrIzVHcnbnZ2dnUVZ_qqrnZ2d@comcast.com:
Jack Granade wrote:
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
jack g.
Preventing dictatorship is not only a liberal idea. I'd like to
think, that most of the conservatives agree with this idea too. Of
course not the neocons and the neo-fascists.
I guess I'm not a neo-con or a neo-fascist then, because I do not
support dictatorship of any sort.
If you believe globalresearch.ca without checking their facts very
thoroughly, I suggest you go here:
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
At the time I posted it, Goggle only came up with 2 or 3 hits for
'Catastrophic Emergency'. Today they are hundreds.
Big deal.
You may like it read the information better from WorldNetDaily;
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
Wing Nut Daily is hardly a recommendation for the reliability of your
information.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Every day, we buy -0.000005 Celsius degrees (of Global Warming
reduction) for one half of the LHC collider."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
23 May 2007 03:24:07 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:43:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Jack Granade"
<jgranade@pioneernet.net> in <1358v8li03thi8c@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CKydndEkG-YA5MnbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
There is not much to add to the article. But this quote from Bush; "It
Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator". He seems to be working on it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROG20070521&articleId=5721
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
by Lee Rogers
The Bush administration has released a directive called the National
Security and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. The directive
released on May 9th, 2007 has gone almost unnoticed by the mainstream and
alternative media. This is understandable considering the huge Ron Paul
and immigration news but this story is equally as huge. In this directive,
Bush declares that in the event of a “Catastrophic Emergency” the
President will be entrusted with leading the activities to ensure
constitutional government. The language in this directive would in effect
make the President a dictator in the case of such an emergency.
The directive defines a “Catastrophic Emergency” as the following.
"Catastrophic Emergency" means any 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 functions;
So what does this mean? This is entirely subjective and doesn’t provide
any real concrete definition of what such an emergency would entail.
Assuming that it means a disaster on the scale of the 9/11 attacks or
Katrina, there is no question that the United States at some point in time
will experience an emergency on par with either of those events. When one
of those events takes place, the President will be a dictator in charge of
ensuring a working constitutional government.
The language written in the directive is disturbing because it doesn’t say
that the President will work with the other branches of government equally
to ensure a constitutional government is protected. It says clearly that
there will be a cooperative effort among the three branches that will be
coordinated by the President. If the President is coordinating these
efforts it effectively puts him in charge of every branch. The language in
the directive is entirely Orwellian in nature making it seem that it is a
cooperative effort between all three branches but than it says that the
President is in charge of the cooperative effort.
The directive defines Enduring Constitutional Government as the following.
"Enduring Constitutional Government," or "ECG," means a cooperative effort
among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal
Government, coordinated by the President, as a matter of comity with
respect to the legislative and judicial branches and with proper respect
for the constitutional separation of powers among the branches, to
preserve the constitutional framework under which the Nation is governed
and the capability of all three branches of government to execute
constitutional responsibilities and provide for orderly succession,
appropriate transition of leadership, and interoperability and support of
the National Essential Functions during a catastrophic emergency;
Further on in the document it states the following.
The President shall lead the activities of the Federal Government for
ensuring constitutional government.
This directive on its face is unconstitutional because each branch of
government the executive, legislative and judicial are supposed to be
equal in power. By putting the President in charge of coordinating such an
effort to ensure constitutional government over all three branches is
effectively making the President a dictator allowing him to tell all
branches of government what to do.
Even worse is the fact that the directive states that the Secretary of
Homeland Security will serve as the lead for coordinating overall
continuity operations. We already know that the Homeland Security
department is not really working to secure the homeland. Instead the
Homeland Security department is really working to enslave the homeland
just like the Home Office over in the United Kingdom has made that country
an Orwellian hell of closed-circuit TV spy cameras. If such an emergency
is declared, we can only guess what sort of surprises the Homeland
Enslavement department will have for us.
The directive itself recognizes that each branch is already responsible
for directing their own continuity of government procedures. If that’s the
case than why does the President need to coordinate these procedures for
all of the branches? This is nothing more than a power grab that
centralizes power and will make the President a dictator in the case of a
so called “Catastrophic Emergency”.
It is insane that this directive claims that its purpose is to define
procedures to protect a working constitutional government when the very
language in the document destroys what a working constitutional government
is supposed to be. A working constitutional government contains a
separation of powers between three equally powerful branches and this
directive states that the executive branch has the power to coordinate the
activities of the other branches. This directive is a clear violation of
constitutional separation of powers and there should be angry protests
from our legislators about this anti-American garbage that came from the
President.
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
Do you have a reference for this?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
23 May 2007 04:01:35 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:jm89539hds509b08dpotdkdfqe1t7mvpe8@4ax.com:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:43:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Jack Granade"
<jgranade@pioneernet.net> in <1358v8li03thi8c@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CKydndEkG-YA5MnbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
There is not much to add to the article. But this quote from Bush;
"It Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator". He seems to be working on
it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=ROG20
070521&articleId=5721
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
by Lee Rogers
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
Do you have a reference for this?
Matt, do you have a reference other than a wacko conspiracy site for the
original story?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"The simplest way to explain the behavior of any bureaucratic
organization is to assume that it is controlled by a cabal of its
enemies."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "dapra" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 May 2007 11:08:03 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:jm89539hds509b08dpotdkdfqe1t7mvpe8@4ax.com:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:43:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Jack Granade"
<jgranade@pioneernet.net> in <1358v8li03thi8c@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CKydndEkG-YA5MnbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
There is not much to add to the article. But this quote from Bush;
"It Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator". He seems to be working on
it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=ROG20
070521&articleId=5721
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
by Lee Rogers
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
Do you have a reference for this?
Matt, do you have a reference other than a wacko conspiracy site for the
original story?
WorldNetDaily is right wing enough for you?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 May 2007 11:18:12 AM |
|
|
dapra <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in
news:aaadneRK9tl4lMrbnZ2dnUVZ_qLinZ2d@comcast.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:jm89539hds509b08dpotdkdfqe1t7mvpe8@4ax.com:
On Wed, 23 May 2007 10:43:26 -0700, in alt.atheism , "Jack Granade"
<jgranade@pioneernet.net> in <1358v8li03thi8c@corp.supernews.com>
wrote:
"dapra" <dapra1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:CKydndEkG-YA5MnbnZ2dnUVZ_h2pnZ2d@comcast.com...
There is not much to add to the article. But this quote from Bush;
"It Would Be Easier If I Was Dictator". He seems to be working on
it.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?
context=viewArticle&code=ROG20
070521&articleId=5721
Bush To Be Dictator In A Catastrophic Emergency
by Lee Rogers
FDR had the same powers but he was a Democrat. More liberal lies.
Do you have a reference for this?
Matt, do you have a reference other than a wacko conspiracy site for
the original story?
WorldNetDaily is right wing enough for you?
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55824
They're wacko enough for you.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Every day, we buy -0.000005 Celsius degrees (of Global Warming
reduction) for one half of the LHC collider."
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
24 May 2007 01:34:46 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
(mercy snipage occurs)
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
how many Americans will need to die in Darfur before you demand we leave?
whilst we're there, how do you envision the logistical requirements
being transported to the AO?
redc1c4,
just curious...... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
26 May 2007 02:42:25 PM |
|
|
In article <46553220.E048F5D0@drunkenbastards.org.ies>, redc1c4
@drunkenbastards.org.ies mumbled
Matt Silberstein wrote:
(mercy snipage occurs)
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
how many Americans will need to die in Darfur before you demand we leave?
whilst we're there, how do you envision the logistical requirements
being transported to the AO?
Shouldn't we stop meddling in the Balkan civil war first ?
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
24 May 2007 09:06:08 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46553220.E048F5D0@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
(mercy snipage occurs)
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
how many Americans will need to die in Darfur before you demand we leave?
Questions with unsupported and/or false assumptions do not deserve an
answer.
whilst we're there, how do you envision the logistical requirements
being transported to the AO?
Well now we have been stretched so far militarily that we might have
serious trouble stopping actual on-going genocide. Not that I have
demanded that the U.S. provide all of the troops, but you don't seem
to mind unstated false assumptions.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "redc1c4" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 May 2007 02:07:45 AM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46553220.E048F5D0@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
(mercy snipage occurs)
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
how many Americans will need to die in Darfur before you demand we leave?
Questions with unsupported and/or false assumptions do not deserve an
answer.
*if* we were to deploy troops to the Darfur area, sooner or later some
will be killed or injured. that is a fact of life for military operations.
since your primary reason for us leaving Iraq is US casualties, it's only
fair to ask you what the cut off point is for this proposed operation, so
that we can put it in the OPORD. that way everyone knows when we're leaving
for planning purposes. Congress will also like it that we have an "exit
strategy" and a "time line"....
whilst we're there, how do you envision the logistical requirements
being transported to the AO?
Well now we have been stretched so far militarily that we might have
serious trouble stopping actual on-going genocide. Not that I have
demanded that the U.S. provide all of the troops, but you don't seem
to mind unstated false assumptions.
what "false assumptions"? are you aware of the near complete lack of
roads, harbors, airports, rail lines and support infrastructure in
the area? do you have any idea of the logistical requirements for
sustaining a military force, let alone the relief efforts undoubtedly
required, without even getting into the quantities necessary for
conducting ongoing operations of any sort?
redc1c4,
(those are rhetorical, btw. it's obvious you know jack..... %-)
--
"Enlisted men are stupid, but extremely cunning and sly, and bear
considerable watching."
Army Officer's Guide
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
25 May 2007 02:02:08 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 25 May 2007 00:07:45 -0700, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46568B41.3D2E14FB@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On Thu, 24 May 2007 06:34:46 GMT, in alt.atheism , redc1c4
<redc1c4@drunkenbastards.org.ies> in
<46553220.E048F5D0@drunkenbastards.org.ies> wrote:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
(mercy snipage occurs)
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
how many Americans will need to die in Darfur before you demand we leave?
Questions with unsupported and/or false assumptions do not deserve an
answer.
*if* we were to deploy troops to the Darfur area, sooner or later some
will be killed or injured. that is a fact of life for military operations.
Yes.
since your primary reason for us leaving Iraq is US casualties,
False.
it's only
fair to ask you what the cut off point is for this proposed operation, so
that we can put it in the OPORD. that way everyone knows when we're leaving
for planning purposes. Congress will also like it that we have an "exit
strategy" and a "time line"....
If my objection to Iraq was that some number X of Americans died or
would die, then asking for my Y regarding Darfur would be reasonable.
However that is not my problem with Iraq so the question is, as I
said, based on false assumptions.
whilst we're there, how do you envision the logistical requirements
being transported to the AO?
Well now we have been stretched so far militarily that we might have
serious trouble stopping actual on-going genocide. Not that I have
demanded that the U.S. provide all of the troops, but you don't seem
to mind unstated false assumptions.
what "false assumptions"? are you aware of the near complete lack of
roads, harbors, airports, rail lines and support infrastructure in
the area?
I am aware that the U.S. has (or, at least, had) some ability to
provide some of those facilities. Yes, I know that we have decided to
give up much of that capability and we let Halliburton do it now, but
the capability does exist.
do you have any idea of the logistical requirements for
sustaining a military force, let alone the relief efforts undoubtedly
required, without even getting into the quantities necessary for
conducting ongoing operations of any sort?
What size of force do you think is necessary? And why do you think
that the only solution is an American only military force? Several
African countries are willing to provide troops, but they lack
equipment and our logistical capability.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
26 May 2007 02:43:56 PM |
|
|
In article <mece5392k34udngqdf1rm911s795vhltmh@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
Several African countries are willing to provide troops, but they lack
equipment and our logistical capability.
Which they have been quietly getting.....
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
26 May 2007 05:30:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:43:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<0606i.19371$3P3.5942@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <mece5392k34udngqdf1rm911s795vhltmh@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
Several African countries are willing to provide troops, but they lack
equipment and our logistical capability.
Which they have been quietly getting.....
But not enough.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
26 May 2007 07:04:22 PM |
|
|
In article <c7dh53161m5llbqrfpem3dduorig2be62n@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:43:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<0606i.19371$3P3.5942@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <mece5392k34udngqdf1rm911s795vhltmh@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
Several African countries are willing to provide troops, but they lack
equipment and our logistical capability.
Which they have been quietly getting.....
But not enough.
So ?
Why should the US involve themselves in someones civil war ?
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
27 May 2007 07:15:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 May 2007 00:04:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<aW36i.13847$Ut6.12403@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <c7dh53161m5llbqrfpem3dduorig2be62n@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:43:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<0606i.19371$3P3.5942@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <mece5392k34udngqdf1rm911s795vhltmh@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
Several African countries are willing to provide troops, but they lack
equipment and our logistical capability.
Which they have been quietly getting.....
But not enough.
So ?
Why should the US involve themselves in someones civil war ?
Preventing genocide.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
27 May 2007 11:05:27 AM |
|
|
In article <shti53d2ubkjlbroror299eupmjqfu67ss@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sun, 27 May 2007 00:04:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<aW36i.13847$Ut6.12403@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <c7dh53161m5llbqrfpem3dduorig2be62n@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:43:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<0606i.19371$3P3.5942@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <mece5392k34udngqdf1rm911s795vhltmh@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
Several African countries are willing to provide troops, but they lack
equipment and our logistical capability.
Which they have been quietly getting.....
But not enough.
So ?
Why should the US involve themselves in someones civil war ?
Preventing genocide.
Why ?
I don't recall that being a mandate in the Constitution.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
29 May 2007 09:32:10 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 27 May 2007 16:05:27 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<b%h6i.15518$j63.6074@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <shti53d2ubkjlbroror299eupmjqfu67ss@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sun, 27 May 2007 00:04:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<aW36i.13847$Ut6.12403@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <c7dh53161m5llbqrfpem3dduorig2be62n@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:43:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<0606i.19371$3P3.5942@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <mece5392k34udngqdf1rm911s795vhltmh@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
Several African countries are willing to provide troops, but they lack
equipment and our logistical capability.
Which they have been quietly getting.....
But not enough.
So ?
Why should the US involve themselves in someones civil war ?
Preventing genocide.
Why ?
I don't recall that being a mandate in the Constitution.
SFW? But if stopping genocide is not important to you, then it is also
important for the U.S. to avoid having unstable and/or Islamic
fundamentalists in Sudan. The Sudanese government, for example, gave
actual support and sanctuary to OBL.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tankfixer" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
10 Jun 2007 10:38:01 PM |
|
|
In article <vvdo5396ume2opv54ku5mvi7vf7nhjkgcn@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sun, 27 May 2007 16:05:27 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<b%h6i.15518$j63.6074@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <shti53d2ubkjlbroror299eupmjqfu67ss@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sun, 27 May 2007 00:04:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<aW36i.13847$Ut6.12403@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <c7dh53161m5llbqrfpem3dduorig2be62n@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
On Sat, 26 May 2007 19:43:56 GMT, in alt.atheism , Tankfixer
<paul.carrier@us.army.m> in
<0606i.19371$3P3.5942@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net> wrote:
In article <mece5392k34udngqdf1rm911s795vhltmh@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
Several African countries are willing to provide troops, but they lack
equipment and our logistical capability.
Which they have been quietly getting.....
But not enough.
So ?
Why should the US involve themselves in someones civil war ?
Preventing genocide.
Why ?
I don't recall that being a mandate in the Constitution.
SFW? But if stopping genocide is not important to you, then it is also
important for the U.S. to avoid having unstable and/or Islamic
fundamentalists in Sudan. The Sudanese government, for example, gave
actual support and sanctuary to OBL.
I have no problem with kicking thier butts and saving innocent folks.
It concerns me that after we have started folks who championed the idea
will abandon the troops, again.
--
Usenetsaurus n. an early pedantic internet mammal, who survived on a
diet of static text and
cascading "threads."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
11 Jun 2007 10:33:14 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:38:01 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:
In article <vvdo5396ume2opv54ku5mvi7vf7nhjkgcn@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
SFW? But if stopping genocide is not important to you, then it is also
important for the U.S. to avoid having unstable and/or Islamic
fundamentalists in Sudan. The Sudanese government, for example, gave
actual support and sanctuary to OBL.
That is so twentieth century. Sudan started trying to play nice after
that and has continued to do so, um, more or less, precisely because
the US is dragging it's heels in Darfur.
Too bad we're all tied up in Iraq right now, eh?
I have no problem with kicking thier butts and saving innocent folks.
Neither do I. But, uh, we're kinda busy way east of there.
It concerns me that after we have started folks who championed the idea
will abandon the troops, again.
The People haven't abandoned the troops. This time they've abandoned
the politicians.
The best way the Dems can lock up the White House is to put Obama and
Clinton on the same ticket. Not only will they get their own votes,
they'll get each others'. And nobody is going to kill either to make
the other President...
Swill
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Wolf With the Red Roses" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
12 Jun 2007 08:36:04 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 23:33:14 -0400, Governor Swill
<governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote something wonderfully witty:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 03:38:01 GMT, Tankfixer <paul.carrier@us.army.m>
wrote:
In article <vvdo5396ume2opv54ku5mvi7vf7nhjkgcn@4ax.com>,
RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com mumbled
SFW? But if stopping genocide is not important to you, then it is also
important for the U.S. to avoid having unstable and/or Islamic
fundamentalists in Sudan. The Sudanese government, for example, gave
actual support and sanctuary to OBL.
That is so twentieth century. Sudan started trying to play nice after
that and has continued to do so, um, more or less, precisely because
the US is dragging it's heels in Darfur.
Too bad we're all tied up in Iraq right now, eh?
I have no problem with kicking thier butts and saving innocent folks.
Neither do I. But, uh, we're kinda busy way east of there.
It concerns me that after we have started folks who championed the idea
will abandon the troops, again.
The People haven't abandoned the troops. This time they've abandoned
the politicians.
Abandoning the political hacks is the same as abandoning the troops,
especially if the political hacks begin playing games with the funding
for the troops in order to curry favor with "The People".
The best way the Dems can lock up the White House is to put Obama and
Clinton on the same ticket. Not only will they get their own votes,
they'll get each others'. And nobody is going to kill either to make
the other President...
I've heard that mentioned quite often, but personally I went and
registered as a Democrat after decades of being an Independent just so
I can have the opportunity to vote against Clinton in the primaries.
I'm planning on doing anything & everything in my power (short of any
act of violence) to try and make sure she doesn't make it onto any
ticket other then a bus.
I have a rather grave concern that a ticket of Obama & Clinton,
regardless of who is in the lead role, will result in a major act of
violence by any number of fringe groups here in the US. Just imagine
an active cell of KKK kooks or some type of militia group trying to
take both of them out with a major domestic terrorist act. I'm quite
sure the Secret Service is.
--
"On a hot summer night, would you offer your
throat to the wolf with the red roses?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
12 Jun 2007 10:08:40 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:36:04 -0400, The Wolf With the Red Roses
<Wolf@Red.com> wrote:
I've heard that mentioned quite often, but personally I went and
registered as a Democrat after decades of being an Independent just so
I can have the opportunity to vote against Clinton in the primaries.
I'm planning on doing anything & everything in my power (short of any
act of violence) to try and make sure she doesn't make it onto any
ticket other then a bus.
A Hillary/Obama ticket will do nothing but guarantee that the next
president is a Republican.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Wolf With the Red Roses" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
15 Jun 2007 12:01:09 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:08:40 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote something
wonderfully witty:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:36:04 -0400, The Wolf With the Red Roses
<Wolf@Red.com> wrote:
I've heard that mentioned quite often, but personally I went and
registered as a Democrat after decades of being an Independent just so
I can have the opportunity to vote against Clinton in the primaries.
I'm planning on doing anything & everything in my power (short of any
act of violence) to try and make sure she doesn't make it onto any
ticket other then a bus.
A Hillary/Obama ticket will do nothing but guarantee that the next
president is a Republican.
I've heard people say that, but my gawd man, if the women & blacks
even came close to getting their collective acts together & voting as
block, the ***** would be sticking to the fan for decades.
--
"On a hot summer night, would you offer your
throat to the wolf with the red roses?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Campbell remove underscore" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
15 Jun 2007 07:03:46 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 01:01:09 -0400, The Wolf With the Red Roses
<Wolf@Red.com> wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:08:40 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote something
wonderfully witty:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 09:36:04 -0400, The Wolf With the Red Roses
<Wolf@Red.com> wrote:
I've heard that mentioned quite often, but personally I went and
registered as a Democrat after decades of being an Independent just so
I can have the opportunity to vote against Clinton in the primaries.
I'm planning on doing anything & everything in my power (short of any
act of violence) to try and make sure she doesn't make it onto any
ticket other then a bus.
A Hillary/Obama ticket will do nothing but guarantee that the next
president is a Republican.
I've heard people say that, but my gawd man, if the women & blacks
even came close to getting their collective acts together & voting as
block, the ***** would be sticking to the fan for decades.
The problem is that there are too many black and women voters who will
vote for the candidate who most closely matches their political
opinions.
Another mistake the democratic party keeps making. And why I expect
the first female president to be a republican.
--
There can be no triumph without loss.
No victory without suffering.
No freedom without sacrifice.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Governor Swill" |
|
| Title: Re: 'Catastrophic Emergency' |
16 Jun 2007 12:19:12 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:03:46 -0700, Colin Campbell
<activated_95b@earthlink.net (remove underscore)> wrote:
The problem is that there are too many black and women voters who will
vote for the candidate who most closely matches their political
opinions.
Analysis of Hillary's voting record and stated positions shows that
she is closer to the opinions of middle America than any other
candidate.
Swill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
