If terrorist strike this september...

1235»

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 85
    Quote:

    Originally posted by NaplesX

    I got it.



    I am dubbing this tactic; "boomerang" argument.




    Ok, is that in place of incorrect use of circular argument?



    I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think it hold's water. If there was a nuclear spill in my neighborhood and I kept pointing out bad things that happened as a result of the nuclear spill, would that qualify as a circular or bommerang argument to you?



    Me: "Look at that two headed dog! Damn that nuclear waste!"



    You:"You always blame the nuclear waste! You and your boomerang arguments!"



    For the record, I don't think everything Bush has done is bad. Just about 99% of it. The hydrogen fuel cell initiative is a pretty good idea (not his own, and not as fast as I'd like it, but still).



    And while I think Bush deserves the bashing he gets, I did not intend this thread to be a ranting session. My original question was whether anyone thought a pre-nov 4 terrorist attack would help or hurt Bush.



    So far, some interesting responses to that point. In reflection, I'm not sure if you weighed in on this point, but forgive me if I missed your response.
  • Reply 82 of 85
    northgatenorthgate Posts: 4,461member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by segovius

    Back to the subject in hand:



    Bush seems to believe that there will be an attack before the elections also



    From Washington Post, title is hopeful isn't it: "Iran will be dealt with". Might be best to 'deal with' Iraq first though.



    Btw, if a terrorist attack were to happen then the question of Bush's re-election or not would most probably be moot. Tommy Franks is on record as saying that in such a circumstance the elections would be suspended and Martial law would be instituted for the forseeable future.



    So we've got that to look forward to then...




    Wow. Did Tommy Franks really say this? Linky?



    Considering all the arguments, not only will the Repubs go into anti-Democrat marketing over-drive, but we possibly face the option of martial-fvcking-law! I never considered this option before and it scares the bajeebus outta me!



    I guess if I were Bush, I'd be hoping for a terrorist strike this October. Well, maybe not. But, if it would "guarantee" re-election or indefinite martial law, then why not "hope" for it?
  • Reply 83 of 85
    naderfannaderfan Posts: 156member
    I really find it hard to believe that martial law would be declared here. I just think it'd be a nightmare to try to impose here. Even during times of war, we've held regular elections and I think that's one of the hallmarks of our democracy: Regardless of what's happening, we always give the people the chance to vote on a predetermined day for whoever they want. Granted, an attack would have profound effects on the voters one way or the other, but I can't imagine that they'd actually try to enforce martial law. It would have to be a massive attack for that to happen: as in nuclear bombs going off in all major cities. At least, I hope they wouldn't try to impose martial law. But I suppose you never know.
  • Reply 84 of 85
    pfflampfflam Posts: 5,053member
    [Tin-hat] It sounds like a dream come true for the Neo-Cons: they would get to "question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country" . . . as for why it must follow, becuase 'He Said So' . . . and guess what kind of person would have the say in such a situation.



    Martial Law would be the perfect excuse to be able to do everyting on the agenda from derugulation (or rather, reregulation into 'war-time' Carlysle group ramp-up mode) environmental protection bypass, to the insertion of G-d into every gathering of three or more . . . because if God is not there in spirit wherever three-or-more gather than we will force him to be!



    . . . and soon to follow would be the rounding up . . . "[/Tin-Hat]
Sign In or Register to comment.