How bad would the next attack have to be?

[SpidermanTuba]

How bad would the next attack have to be for you to be OK with the Congress suspending the Constitution and granting all sovereign authority to the President, until at such time the President deems it in our best interest to return that authority to the people?

 

[dilloduck]

How bad would the next attack have to be for you to be OK with the Congress suspending the Constitution and granting all sovereign authority to the President, until at such time the President deems it in our best interest to return that authority to the people?

Why? Are you just trying to see how much trouble you can get away with?

 

[trobinett]

How bad would the next attack have to be for you to be OK with the Congress suspending the Constitution and granting all sovereign authority to the President, until at such time the President deems it in our best interest to return that authority to the people?

First, there is NO LEVEL of terror, that would cause THAT to happen.

What you must understand, this country allows ALL points of views, ALL types of religion, clubs, groups, thinking, opinions, sexual expression, you name it, you can do it here.

Some see that as weakness, I see it as a strength.

So, ask your completly asinine questions, I know why you do it, but rest assured, America, and its beliefs will prevail.

Second, the terrorist have reached their peak of power, and are being systematically eliminated around the world. They CAN'T launch another attack against US.:coffee3:

 

[glockmail]

How bad would the next attack have to be for you to be OK with the Congress suspending the Constitution and granting all sovereign authority to the President, until at such time the President deems it in our best interest to return that authority to the people?

According to you liberals, it already happened.

 

[OCA]

How bad would the next attack have to be for you to be OK with the Congress suspending the Constitution and granting all sovereign authority to the President, until at such time the President deems it in our best interest to return that authority to the people?

The constitution hasn't been suspended but it looks like your intelligence may have been.

Spidey hows about some actual factual debate? I know you can do it.

 

[Avatar4321]

How bad would the next attack have to be for you to be OK with the Congress suspending the Constitution and granting all sovereign authority to the President, until at such time the President deems it in our best interest to return that authority to the people?

I really doubt anyoen is planning to grant all sovereign authority to the President any time soon. Of course, this does contradict your previous assertion that President Bush already was a dictator.

 

[José]

When I see Tuba calling the US a dictatorship I feel the same feeling of frustration and lack of hope in the human ability to think rationally that I feel when I see the super patriotic american clowns of the USMB calling Israel a democratic state.

 

[glockmail]

How bad would the next attack have to be for you to be OK with the Congress suspending the Constitution and granting all sovereign authority to the President, until at such time the President deems it in our best interest to return that authority to the people?

I think the real question is: how bad would the next attack be for this country to commit to a real war on terror. By real, I mean an Israel-style requirement that all men and women serve in the military for at least two years, closing our borders, ceasing OPEC oil imports, major strikes on Iran and Syria (including nuclear, if the terrorist attack was nuke, chemical, or bio in nature), stop complaining about "water boarding" and other techniques on captured terrorists, stop whining about Gitmo and wire taps on foreigners, and shouting down B. Streisand and Fat Mike Moore when they speak?

 

[glockmail]

.... I see the super patriotic american clowns of the USMB calling Israel a democratic state.

Perhaps you could expalin how Israel is not a democracy.

 

[José]

Originally posted by Glockmail
Perhaps you could expalin how Israel is not a democracy.

Ok glock

You can search all around the world and you won't find a single democratic state surrounded by hundreds of refugee camps inhabited by millions of individuals prevented from returning to their place of origin due to their ethnicity (arabs).

You won't find a single democratic state where the entire land is owned by the state in order to prevent members of a given ethnicity (arabs) to buy and sell it freely.

You won't find a single democratic state in the world where there is no civil marriage as measure implemented specifically to prevent mixed marriages between the "official" (jews) and the "unofficial" ethnicity (arabs).

Modern democratic states are not “owned” by any ethnic group, they respect the rights of all ethnic groups that have a historical presence on the territory comprised by the state.

Without this basic feature shared by all liberal democracies around the world, you can’t even think of calling a country a modern democratic state.

Now, you can "justify" the existence of Israel as a jewish racial dictatorship, you can present a series of arguments stating that Israel must continue to exist as such, but you simply can't deny the fact that Israel is a jewish racial dictatorship.

Any political scientist who denies the fact that Israel is a jewish racial dictatorship is intellectually dishonest.

 

[glockmail]

Ok glock

[1]You can search all around the world and you won't find a single democratic state surrounded by hundreds of refugee camps inhabited by millions of individuals prevented from returning to their place of origin due to their ethnicity (arabs).

[2]You won't find a single democratic state where the entire land is owned by the state in order to prevent members of a given ethnicity (arabs) to buy and sell it freely.

[3]You won't find a single democratic state in the world where there is no civil marriage as measure implemented specifically to prevent mixed marriages between the "official" (jews) and the "unofficial" ethnicity (arabs).

Modern democratic states are not “owned” by any ethnic group, they respect the rights of all ethnic groups that have a historical presence on the territory comprised by the state.

Without this basic feature shared by all liberal democracies around the world, you can’t even think of calling a country a modern democratic state.

Now, you can "justify" the existence of Israel as a jewish racial dictatorship, you can present a series of arguments stating that Israel must continue to exist as such, but you simply can't deny the fact that Israel is a jewish racial dictatorship.

Any political scientist who denies the fact that Israel is a jewish racial dictatorship is intellectually dishonest.

1. They are Palestinians. They have no origin, as they have been nomads since antiquity. Why don’t they go back to Lebanon, Syria, or any of the other arab states?
2. That is your conclusion. They simply don’t have the same property rights as the US.
3. Again your conclusion. Since it is a country founded on its religion then one would expect it to treat marriage as a strictly religious institution.

It appears that you have no respect for a democracy that is different than yours. Such is the nature of liberalism- zero tolerance for those who think differently than you. But why go over the top and call it a racial dictatorship? If Bush did that, would you not call it a lie?

 

[dilloduck]

1. They are Palestinians. They have no origin, as they have been nomads since antiquity. Why don’t they go back to Lebanon, Syria, or any of the other arab states?
2. That is your conclusion. They simply don’t have the same property rights as the US.
3. Again your conclusion. Since it is a country founded on its religion then one would expect it to treat marriage as a strictly religious institution.

It appears that you have no respect for a democracy that is different than yours. Such is the nature of liberalism- zero tolerance for those who think differently than you. But why go over the top and call it a racial dictatorship? If Bush did that, would you not call it a lie?

You gotta admit that a democracy that guarantees that only those of one religion can rule is a bit iffy when it comes to the personal rights issues.

 

[5stringJeff]

That's what I call a

argument.

 

[trobinett]

You gotta admit that a democracy that guarantees that only those of one religion can rule is a bit iffy when it comes to the personal rights issues.

Honestly, that IS a good point..............

 

[José]

Jeff, please don’t take my next post the wrong way but since you are a native american I can’t help but noticing the irony of your support for Israel.

So I imagined a dialogue, or rather, a monologue between you and one of your cherokee ancestors.

Look... despite the form I chose (conversation), my next post is in no way a satire.

It’s a serious post that uses the little personal information I have about you to get across a serious message.

Look...I always feel honored when any person take his time to read one of my posts and I believe the least I can do to reciprocate is express my ideas in a serious manner.

So you can trust my word because I’m always the first one to signal when I’m not speaking seriously.

 

[José]

What a sad spectacle Jeff... a cherokee indian taking the side of the “white” invader...

Do not betray the indian blood that runs through your veins...

Face up to reality and confront the fact that the palestinian people are the cherokees of Palestine.

Why can’t you even take the right side in this conflict, Jeff?

Why can’t you see that palestinians are fighting european jews that stole their land just like we fought the european whites who stole America from us, Jeff...

YOUR PEOPLE, YOUR LAND, JEFF!!

Can’t you see that 1948 meant to the palestinian people exactly what the trail of tears meant to us?

Can’t you see that Arafat was to palestinians what Sitting Bull was to our people, Jeff?

Can’t you see that Abdulaziz Rantisi was to palestinians what Crazy Horse was to our people, son?

When you call them terrorists you are insulting your own people.

You are calling us all terrorists.

Is it not enough that you accepted the religious faith of the white man?

Do you really need to believe it was OK for them to take our land away from us?

Do you really need to support the same thing happening all over again to other innocent natives in the Middle East, Jeff??

Is it OK for european jews to treat the natives of the land as foreigners just because the white man did the same thing to us a century ago, Jeff?

Does one evil justify another?

Is this the twisted “logic” you learned from the white man, Jeff??

 

[Bonnie]

I think the real question is: how bad would the next attack be for this country to commit to a real war on terror. By real, I mean an Israel-style requirement that all men and women serve in the military for at least two years, closing our borders, ceasing OPEC oil imports, major strikes on Iran and Syria (including nuclear, if the terrorist attack was nuke, chemical, or bio in nature), stop complaining about "water boarding" and other techniques on captured terrorists, stop whining about Gitmo and wire taps on foreigners, and shouting down B. Streisand and Fat Mike Moore when they speak?

THANKYOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Annie]

THANKYOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree with the sentiment, but am having a problem with waging war and not buying oil from OPEC.

 

[Gunny]

How bad would the next attack have to be for you to be OK with the Congress suspending the Constitution and granting all sovereign authority to the President, until at such time the President deems it in our best interest to return that authority to the people?

Last time that happened in the US I believe it was King FDR who did it.

 

[Bonnie]

I agree with the sentiment, but am having a problem with waging war and not buying oil from OPEC.

Sadly we're not yet in a position to tell OPEC and Chavez to shove it