My fellow Americans, if you aren't worried yet, you should be

[Alisa]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/the-battle-plan-iii-deplo_b_133662.html

Maybe our friends abroad will grant us asylum when all hell breaks loose?

 

[georgedwilkinson]

I'll try not to roll over any Mercedes or Beamers or light any mansions on fire in my neighborhood. Maybe I can escape the great taser death.

 

[Rich]

So much for the land of the free

 

[ajetrumpet]

I think you're worried over nothing Alisa. But you certainly do join the crowd VERY WELL.

As a side note to this, I find the economic turmoil actually quite amusing, because I have nothing to lose. If I had anything at all, including money, I might be worried, but this is really the best time in the history of our nation to be dead-ass broke and in debt up to your eyeballs. I personally am incapable of feeling what the people at the top are feeling. And quite honestly, I really don't care, because none of this affects my life whatsoever!

 

[Alisa]

I think you're worried over nothing Alisa. But you certainly do join the crowd VERY WELL.

As a side note to this, I find the economic turmoil actually quite amusing, because I have nothing to lose. If I had anything at all, including money, I might be worried, but this is really the best time in the history of our nation to be dead-ass broke and in debt up to your eyeballs. I personally am incapable of feeling what the people at the top are feeling. And quite honestly, I really don't care, because none of this affects my life whatsoever!

I wouldn't be worried if democracy weren't such a fragile thing.
As for the economic turmoil, it will be amusing until our actual standard of living is diminished - I think this will be the case in short order.

 

[ajetrumpet]

As for the economic turmoil, it will be amusing until our actual standard of living is diminished - I think this will be the case in short order.

I think you may be right...

 

[redneckgeek]

The president needs to be prepared for any eventuality - whether we like it or not. If McCain wins, there will be civil unrest immediately. Should Bush just allow it to happen?

BTW: If Robin Hood wins, there will probably be massive civil unrest, too. It'll just take a few years for it to set in. Either way, I'm joining the first angry mob to pass my house on the way to DC.

 

[Rich]

The president needs to be prepared for any eventuality - whether we like it or not. If McCain wins, there will be civil unrest immediately. Should Bush just allow it to happen?

BTW: If Robin Hood wins, there will probably be massive civil unrest, too. It'll just take a few years for it to set in. Either way, I'm joining the first angry mob to pass my house on the way to DC.

How odd, I thought the whole right to bear arms excuse centered around the notion of preventing a dictatorial government

 

[statsman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/naomi-wolf/the-battle-plan-iii-deplo_b_133662.html

Maybe our friends abroad will grant us asylum when all hell breaks loose?

WOW talk about fear mongering and appealing to the LOWEST common demominator.
McCain knows that he's toast and is now scraping the bottom of the barrell to keep from being whitewashed in Nov.

 

[georgedwilkinson]

That is the liberal way, my friend. That's how Obama has gained so much popularity.

 

[dkinley]

Fearmongering ...

In a state that I consult for, their Dept of Emergency Management is always playing 'games' to simulate outbreaks of viruses, natural disasters, chemical spills, civil riots and terrorist attacks. One of the findings from the reporting and outcomes is that states are ill-prepared to contain or handle any such event of a large scope. There are not enough emergency responders and not enough security (local, national guard) for these larger events - in respects to the scale of geography and population density.

This is what this article or the other ones that speak to the same don't tell you. So if a brigade on each coast wants to train to assist the states in these measures, I say go ahead. Better than being caught with your shorts about your ankles. Now, if the federales are doing this as a subterfuge for more nefarious reasons, then the article is justified - but I think this is farfetched based on what I have witnessed when those outcomes were pushed upwards.

But again, limited scope and out of context for the most part in my opinion. But that doesn't stop liberals or anyone who is an independant and no way identifies with the democrats but yet pushes their agenda from spreading it.

-dK

 

[Rich]

That is the liberal way, my friend. That's how Obama has gained so much popularity.

Didn't Bush use the same method to get the patriot act through?

 

[dkinley]

Didn't Bush use the same method to get the patriot act through?

Or, if you look at history -- you can see the Clinton used the same method when he pushed the Antiterroism Act in 1996. It was pushed through Congress in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. To further clarify, the Patriot Act builds on this act and enhances it's incursions into civil liberties.


-dK

 

[Banana]

I am currently two minds about this.

WRT fearmongering, it's a old trick out of politics playbook: if you want more power, scare the hell out of people telling them that something awful™ will happen if you don't have the extra power. See: bailout, Patriot act, yellowcake.

But six years ago, my International Law teacher had warned the students about a startling development- They had signed in a law (I can't remember which bill; will need to dig it up) that effectively reversed the power structure of polices. Historically, it was the Sheriff that had most power; if FBI or other federal law enforcement wanted to investigate a case in their jurisdiction, they had to ask Sheriff for the permission. Most of time, that was not a problem, though there were few cases where Sheriff decided that his people would take care of it without any outsiders butting in. One rationale for this structure was to prevent government from using police force to suppress civil disobedience. Of course, with Department of Homeland Security, it all has changed and Sheriffs are now under any federal law enforcement's jurisdiction, effectively nationalizing the police force.

So reading that article, to my mind, seems to be continuation of that bad policy of a national police force.

But as I said before, I'm two minds and will remain until I have more information, preferably solid information from someone a bit less alarmist.


EDIT: Dkinley- excellent point about that antiterrorist bill! Goes to show that neither party have any shame for fearmongering.

 

[Rich]

Or, if you look at history -- you can see the Clinton used the same method when he pushed the Antiterroism Act in 1996. It was pushed through Congress in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing. To further clarify, the Patriot Act builds on this act and enhances it's incursions into civil liberties.


-dK

So once again Bill whilst taking a balanced and measured approach to a problem gets the blame by Republicans for another one of Bush's knee jerk reactions

 

[dkinley]

lolololol

Hmm. So all of the Dem's that voted for the Patriot Act were not balanced and measured?

-dK

 

[Rich]

lolololol

Hmm. So all of the Dem's that voted for the Patriot Act were not balanced and measured?

-dK

No, they were lied to

 

[dkinley]

So .. to make sure I have this right ....

They were handed a bill, in writing, at which time they could have done all the research and got information from their Democratic chairperson's of the committees and then scratched through whatever provision they disagreed with with the same pen they wrote in their earmark with?

-dK

 

[georgedwilkinson]

Don't forget all the national leaders of all the non-US countries. Did they lie, too?

 

[ajetrumpet]

Don't know George....but they're WORKING ON IT!