Congress Denied Access To Post-Terror Attack Plans

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Isn't it, statistically speaking, more likely for Congress and Supreme Court to still be functioning after a catastrophic event purely due to there being more of them than the President....

Haha look at the fat boy run from the wolf too drunk to catch any sheep.

I'm pretty sure that the protection of the President is far better then the protection of the rest of the government and if a nuclear strike is about to take place in Washington D.C. I'm also pretty confident that the safety of the President would be the first priority of every protection agency out there. Making sure that he would survive, the rest would be nice but they are expendable.

What if someone engineered a biological attack that targeted cells containing a Y chromosome... dodgy

There have been several successful and unsuccessful attacks since 9-11...

I don't see how that is the boy who cried wolf...

what disturbs me is the notion brought up by some that it probably wouldnt happen. rest absolute power in one mans hands and he probably will just use it to our advantage. nothing to worry about.

there are no circumstances which render a dictatorship necessecary.
nobody has given a good reason for destroying our constitutional government. katrina was a result in failure in leadership by all leaders. the insinuation would be that bush would have been better off handling it all himself? where is the proof of this? its just a guess. this is a dictatorship (in reality) we are talking about.

the president is in charge of the war. he has to get funding from congress and the house, and approval (mostly), but you guys are insinuating that somehow too many leaders equal confusion and its just better to have one rule. a system which is streamlined so that the president may handle an immediate response with congressional oversight(infinatly important) is already in place (though a complete failure given the 'dont ask dont tell' nature of their oversight on the failures of katrina. yeah, its not perfect, but its still an attempt at a system of checks and balances.

a perfect example of the uselessness of governing officials was new orleans after hurricaine katrina...no one took overall charge...everyone blamed everyone else and nothing got done effectively until it was far too late....the problems were further compounded when idiots made blatently wrong decisions [/B]

this is apples to oranges.

look, im trying to keep it fresh and not repeat points, but it seems we're on a loop here. i dont trust the destruction of america as we know it. there is no proof given, no past scenario given, to even hint at this being a good idea. its all blind trust and optimism and favorable guesses.

Originally posted by inimalist
There have been several successful and unsuccessful attacks since 9-11...

I don't see how that is the boy who cried wolf...

it is indeed 'the boy who cried wolf'
our own administraton has exploited outdated intelligence, superficial threats, and outright lies in order to circumvent political failures and controversy from the media....later realising that they can simply exploit anna nicole smith and paris hilton, saving alot of time and effort. (even they never suspected just how stupid and easily distracted we are.)

so while this practice is inconscequential to terrorists, it does warp the perspective of our citizens on the threat. from our point of view, every terror threat turns out to be either a lie or some minor threat blown way out of proportion.

Originally posted by Schecter
it is indeed 'the boy who cried wolf'
our own administraton has exploited outdated intelligence, superficial threats, and outright lies in order to circumvent political failures and controversy from the media....later realising that they can simply exploit anna nicole smith and paris hilton, saving alot of time and effort. (even they never suspected just how stupid and easily distracted we are.)

so while this practice is inconscequential to terrorists, it does warp the perspective of our citizens on the threat. from our point of view, every terror threat turns out to be either a lie or some minor threat blown way out of proportion.

3/11?

7/7?

certainly not "lies" or "minor threats blown out of proportion". I do understand you point, and maybe I didn't say mine properly.

Yes, the government lies to you, but if you haven't figured that out yet...

The Wolf is out there eating sheep, there are more growling in the bushes. Taking seriously even the smallest amount of intelligence that deals with terrorism (as retarded of a term that is) is only sane.

I'm not American, so I guess I don't personally have to deal with the "Bush is a liar" thing (Though it personally just seems like an I told you so argument). Maybe the answer is to stop trusting the political establishment.

I do agree about the media, and I will say they have done a terrible job of making the public aware of what the actual threat to them might be. Mind you, the media is a competitive entertainment outlet and must compete with other entertainment for ratings. Giving people what they want can hardly be their fault.

there are no circumstances which render a dictatorship necessecary.

what other options are there after a complete physical destruction of government?...say for instance an attack on capitol hill during a debate where most or all of your government are in attendance

at some point someone has to take charge and desicions would have to be made without checks and balances

the only other option would be to suspend all governmental desicions until elections could take place to replace the officials that were lost...and this is completely nonsensical and impossible under those circumstances

the insinuation would be that bush would have been better off handling it all himself?

now i believe we're getting more to your point...which is, once again, your issues with the current government...for some reason i cant help but think you would be less concerned if the possible "dictator" was a political figure that you approve of

Originally posted by inimalist
3/11?

7/7?

these did not occur on our soil. i know thats incredibly self centered and idiotic, but thats the u.s.
please dont shoot the messenger.

Originally posted by inimalist
certainly not "lies" or "minor threats blown out of proportion". I do understand you point, and maybe I didn't say mine properly.

Yes, the government lies to you, but if you haven't figured that out yet...

my point was that EVERY single terror threat toward the u.s. which plastered all over the news has always turned out to be, as i said, political/media circumvention. so far its worked for them like a charm. search on youtube for "nexus of politics and terror".

Originally posted by inimalist
The Wolf is out there eating sheep, there are more growling in the bushes. Taking seriously even the smallest amount of intelligence that deals with terrorism (as retarded of a term that is) is only sane.

true, but to alert every media outlet that an attack is imminent, every time, is retarded. thats what im talking about.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm not American, so I guess I don't personally have to deal with the "Bush is a liar" thing (Though it personally just seems like an I told you so argument). Maybe the answer is to stop trusting the political establishment.

our own constitution was written by the political establishment with a complete lack of trust for themselves. 'patriots' today claim that a true patriot supports their president in whatever he does. this behavior is factually unamerican, unless that term has been revamped.

Originally posted by inimalist
I do agree about the media, and I will say they have done a terrible job of making the public aware of what the actual threat to them might be. Mind you, the media is a competitive entertainment outlet and must compete with other entertainment for ratings. Giving people what they want can hardly be their fault.

while true, the media also acts as a government outlet for information in the case of an emergency. this is what has been exploited and fist-raped for the last 6 years. it is the administration/dept of homeland security which determines these emergencies, and NOT the corporations which run the news stations.

Originally posted by jaden101

now i believe we're getting more to your point...which is, once again, your issues with the current government...for some reason i cant help but think you would be less concerned if the possible "dictator" was a political figure that you approve of

ad hominiem dribble, and this conversation is just about over unless you want to get back to a reasonable debate on the issue?

:edit: and to dignify your childish question: no i would not trust a single american dictator.

i guess the strategy is: if you cant get someone to agree with everything you say, attempt to discredit them by labeling them as a liar and deciever. nice 👆

Originally posted by jaden101
what other options are there after a complete physical destruction of government?...say for instance an attack on capitol hill during a debate where most or all of your government are in attendance

The chain of command of Government exists even if all the members are killed. What you are proposing is a situation where every single government official is killed, which would be a successful invasion from the enemy.

Originally posted by jaden101
at some point someone has to take charge and desicions would have to be made without checks and balances

even if all members of government are killed, the checks and balances are written into the constitution. You need to propose a moment when the constitution no longer would be relevant, which would be when the government refuses to follow it, and thus, fascism.

Originally posted by jaden101
the only other option would be to suspend all governmental desicions until elections could take place to replace the officials that were lost...and this is completely nonsensical and impossible under those circumstances

why?

Originally posted by jaden101
now i believe we're getting more to your point...which is, once again, your issues with the current government...for some reason i cant help but think you would be less concerned if the possible "dictator" was a political figure that you approve of

oh, right, because the only reason to be anti-fascist is because you hate Bush.

Maybe if you made a decent point, that would be a plausible observation... But wait! Fascism existed before Bush... and so did anti-fascism.... OMFG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Schecter
these did not occur on our soil. i know thats incredibly self centered and idiotic, but thats the u.s.
please dont shoot the messenger.

fair enough. My only response would be that, with MAYBE the exception of Spain, the people making the attacks do not differentiate between soil like that.

Originally posted by Schecter
my point was that EVERY single terror threat toward the u.s. which plastered all over the news has always turned out to be, as i said, political/media circumvention. so far its worked for them like a charm. search on youtube for "nexus of politics and terror".

I remember the 2004 elections. That was all Bush said, over and over again. I couldn't believe that people bought it, but it does work I guess...

Originally posted by Schecter
true, but to alert every media outlet that an attack is imminent, every time, is retarded. thats what im talking about.

Again, I'm not an America, and I don't watch TV, so its not something I deal with. I'll believe what you are saying and agree that it is stupid... However, if people didn't glue themselves to the TV with every terror report, maybe the media would be forced to cover it reasonably.

Originally posted by Schecter
our own constitution was written by the political establishment with a complete lack of trust for themselves. 'patriots' today claim that a true patriot supports their president in whatever he does. this behavior is factually unamerican, unless that term has been revamped.

The only time I would have been proud to call myself an American would have been in the late 1700s. Aside from that, ****in eh Canada!

Originally posted by Schecter
while true, the media also acts as a government outlet for information in the case of an emergency. this is what has been exploited and fist-raped for the last 6 years. it is the administration/dept of homeland security which determines these emergencies, and NOT the corporations which run the news stations.

What came first, the chicken or the egg 😛

well...i guess the chicken, if that chicken is tony snow

ad hominiem dribble, and this conversation is just about over unless you want to get back to a reasonable debate on the issue?

obviously you hadn't noticed that i was the only person debating sensibly with you.

:edit: and to dignify your childish question: no i would not trust a single american dictator.

i wasn't asking a question.

i guess the strategy is: if you cant get someone to agree with everything you say, attempt to discredit them by labeling them as a liar and deciever. nice

who's doing that? certainly not me.

although the apparent strategy would be if someone doesn't agree with you just say they're talking dribble and/or put them on ignore

The chain of command of Government exists even if all the members are killed. What you are proposing is a situation where every single government official is killed, which would be a successful invasion from the enemy.

this would be the case if we were discussing an invading army but we could simply be talking about a single attack. while i'm aware that their is a chain of command in that some minor ranking appointed official maybe be in command...it is not the case that this person would be voted into power but merely given it through circumstance...so that would mean that the constitution is effectively there to PROMOTE a dictatorship in the event of government being destroyed

why?

what do you mean why?...either someone who is not elected will be given power or you follow the democratic values and begin elections in the middle of a national emergency

one of those options is clearly not feasible...i'm sure you can work out which

oh, right, because the only reason to be anti-fascist is because you hate Bush.

Maybe if you made a decent point, that would be a plausible observation... But wait! Fascism existed before Bush... and so did anti-fascism.... OMFG

clearly you have absolutely no idea what fascism is

Originally posted by jaden101
put them on ignore

good idea

I have placed one perosn in my ignore list in my years here. It's a last resort.

you can see why i got the impression i did from this

have the seeds for a dictatorship have been planted? all it would take is another 9/11 for BUSH to claim absolute power and render the house and congress helpless.

clearly your concerns are defined to a small time frame...ie...between now and when Bush leaves office...or at least that's the impression i get from your posts

i place people on ignore when they resort to cheap tricks, ad hominem attacks and insinuation to distract and divert, and weak attempts to provoke an angry response. clowning in other words.

:edit: apparently the suggestion is that this is an objective topic and im supposed to ignore the fact that the bush administration is attempting to enact this. the implication being that if it wasnt bush, but rather someone of my liking, i would accept it. this is diversionary tactic and not a debate. this is failure. now wait for reversal of blame. oh wait, already happened. nevermind.

Originally posted by Schecter
i place people on ignore when they resort to cheap tricks, ad hominem attacks and insinuation to distract and divert, and weak attempts to provoke an angry response. clowning in other words.

good? 😄

Originally posted by Schecter
i place people on ignore when they resort to cheap tricks, ad hominem attacks and insinuation to distract and divert, and weak attempts to provoke an angry response. clowning in other words.

:edit: apparently the belief i reject is that this is an objective topic and im supposed to ignore the fact that the bush administration is attempting to enact this. the implication being that if it wasnt bush, but rather someone of my liking, i would accept it. this is diversionary tactics and not a debate. this is failure. now wait for reversal of blame. oh wait, already happened. nevermind.

well then all you had to say was "that's not the case...i wouldn't want anyone, even if i supported them politically, to have absolute power"...instead of flying off at the deep end and resorting to petty insult...

isn't that a much more appropriate response given that you seem to want serious debate on the topic?

it was a baseless accusation and had no place in this discussion, which im sure you know. now have a nice life, k?