Subject:
|
Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 3 Jun 2004 20:34:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1313 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
|
| |
| |
Unless the attack was something on the order of a nuke on Washington D.C., I
can’t imagine a good reason for delaying the election. Only a delay for
logistical reasons would be valid IMO.
|
|
| |
| |
But back to Bush-- if a nuke is detonated in D.C., I would have no problem
with Marshall Law until things were set right.
|
|
| |
Ummm, I take it that you aren’t going to answer the question...
|
I’m confused. It seems that John’s answer was very clear from the snipped
quotes above.
1. “A delay for logistical reasons would be valid.” Expanding on John’s point,
I would suggest that something such as Dave’s hypothetical about a power outage
that shut down voting in certain regions would require a delay. Anything more
than a few days would, however, be unacceptable.
2. “something on the order of a nuke on Washington D.C.” would necessarily
result in a period of martial law, regardless of which party was in power.
These plans have been in place at least since the spectre of nuclear war has
hung over the world. Back in high school when I went through my “afraid of
nuclear war” stage I read a lot about this, how they have pre-arranged sites
outside of DC where various governmental officials were supposed to meet up to
reconstitute a government. That’s why Cheny spent at least a couple of days (I
don’t remember the details) at an “undisclosed location” after 9-11, because
they didn’t know if such an attack was underway.
I would agree with the above thoughts (only a short (<7 days) delay if an attack
disrupted voting, martial law if an attack destroyed the bulk of the
government), though I’m not sure what that has to do with being conservative or
liberal, as I would have felt the exact same way during Clinton’s presidency.
Bruce
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) It's clear? Did he mean Marshal Law the comic? Martial law? I'm so confused... ;-) (...) I think Dave!'s scenario implies a longer term than "a few days", otherwise there isn't a lot of point to the question. Basically John is restating the (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Question for the Conservatives out there
|
| (...) Ummm, I take it that you aren't going to answer the question... Let's see: you basically blamed Kerry for any attack (and ignored that Americans traditionally rally around the incumbent if attacked, which means any attack is actually an aid to (...) (20 years ago, 3-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
