Rogue 9 wrote:If Bush tries to permanently seize power (which I very much doubt he'll do) and he isn't shot/arrested on the spot (which I very much doubt he wouldn't be) and Congress and enough of the military go along with it (which I very much doubt they would) then its time for a counterrevolution to restore the Constitution and I'll be first in line to start one. However, I'll give the chance of that happening a generous .00001% That's just too much stupidity to be believed right there. Never happen.
You're not the only one in line; so's Rogues 1 through 10, 12, and little old me in the Gratan,
Rogue 9 wrote:Erm... You're a dumbass. The idea was that you can't falsely sound the fire alarm in a crowded theater and then claim free speech when prosecuted for the ensuing unnecessary stampede. If there really is a fire then of course you sound the alarm! But if there is not, and you scream "FIRE!" at the top of your lungs, and people die as a result, free speech does not protect you. That is what Holmes was referring to. Not anything about not warning people about a real fire and letting them die.
See, people always say that thats a matter of free speech. It's not a first amendment issue. Sure, you have all the right you want to yell FIRE in a theatre, etc. but you will suffer the consequences of causing undue harm. It's not a violation of the first amendment, its merely delimiting the consequences before the act of causing harm.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
Rogue 9 wrote:Erm... You're a dumbass. The idea was that you can't falsely sound the fire alarm in a crowded theater and then claim free speech when prosecuted for the ensuing unnecessary stampede. If there really is a fire then of course you sound the alarm! But if there is not, and you scream "FIRE!" at the top of your lungs, and people die as a result, free speech does not protect you. That is what Holmes was referring to. Not anything about not warning people about a real fire and letting them die.
See, people always say that thats a matter of free speech. It's not a first amendment issue. Sure, you have all the right you want to yell FIRE in a theatre, etc. but you will suffer the consequences of causing undue harm. It's not a violation of the first amendment, its merely delimiting the consequences before the act of causing harm.
Elfdart wrote:Let's say Osama hits us hard at noon on election day -3,000 killed. Congress then reschedules the election for the next Tuesday. Wouldn't Al-Queda try to hit us again in seven days just to see if they could cause another delay? Wouldn't others try to pile on, knowing that Osama would get the blame?
As I said before, if I was Osama, I would DEFINITELY order more attacks, no matter how many losses I took. To fuck up a US election once would be a coup. To do it over and over would be a masterstroke. This whole business of election do-overs is like a giant "KICK ME" sign on our backs. It's an invitation for more attacks.
Al-Qaeda has never been capable of more than a one-shot operation against a very small number of targets at most. Nothing in their history suggests they could mount a campaign lasting multiple days against multiple cities and particularly over such a large territory as the North American continent. So this scenario is unlikely.
It takes a long time to prepare for a presidential election. To reschedule the whole thing on such short notice is going to be utter chaos. The voter registries alone would be more fucked up than a football bat. What do we do about absentee ballots? Overseas ballots? The only delays that I think would work would be local, or statewide rescheduling. For example, if Los Angeles and Chicago were hit, only the votes in those two areas would be rescheduled. The elections in the rest of the country should stand as is.
Agreed. The preparations for the national presidential elections would already have been in place, and the overwhelming majority of polling places would be unaffected even by a 9/11-style attack.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
Elfdart wrote:Let's say Osama hits us hard at noon on election day -3,000 killed. Congress then reschedules the election for the next Tuesday. Wouldn't Al-Queda try to hit us again in seven days just to see if they could cause another delay? Wouldn't others try to pile on, knowing that Osama would get the blame?
As I said before, if I was Osama, I would DEFINITELY order more attacks, no matter how many losses I took. To fuck up a US election once would be a coup. To do it over and over would be a masterstroke. This whole business of election do-overs is like a giant "KICK ME" sign on our backs. It's an invitation for more attacks.
Al-Qaeda has never been capable of more than a one-shot operation against a very small number of targets at most. Nothing in their history suggests they could mount a campaign lasting multiple days against multiple cities and particularly over such a large territory as the North American continent. So this scenario is unlikely.
But don't you think that the prospect of screwing one or more elections would be such an inviting target that they would at least try it?
Elfdart wrote:Let's say Osama hits us hard at noon on election day -3,000 killed. Congress then reschedules the election for the next Tuesday. Wouldn't Al-Queda try to hit us again in seven days just to see if they could cause another delay? Wouldn't others try to pile on, knowing that Osama would get the blame?
As I said before, if I was Osama, I would DEFINITELY order more attacks, no matter how many losses I took. To fuck up a US election once would be a coup. To do it over and over would be a masterstroke. This whole business of election do-overs is like a giant "KICK ME" sign on our backs. It's an invitation for more attacks.
Al-Qaeda has never been capable of more than a one-shot operation against a very small number of targets at most. Nothing in their history suggests they could mount a campaign lasting multiple days against multiple cities and particularly over such a large territory as the North American continent. So this scenario is unlikely.
But don't you think that the prospect of screwing one or more elections would be such an inviting target that they would at least try it?
The point is that they have never exhibited the capability to attempt such an operation, and given how 9/11 had backfired upon Al-Qaeda as well as the likely increased vigilance against such an attempt, I don't see their gaining any clear advantage for the effort.
When ballots have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to bullets.
—Abraham Lincoln
People pray so that God won't crush them like bugs.
—Dr. Gregory House
Oil an emergency?! It's about time, Brigadier, that the leaders of this planet of yours realised that to remain dependent upon a mineral slime simply doesn't make sense.
—The Doctor "Terror Of The Zygons" (1975)
Rogue 9 wrote:Hmmm. Well, at least I was closer than Elfdart.
No, no, I'm not saying you were wrong, I'm just saying that it really isn't a matter of First Amendment rights at all, even tho it is curtailing them. It's a matter of preventative measures and the appropriate placement of responsibility. Like I said, you can yell fire all you want, but if people get hurt, you're to blame. It can also be construed as an attempt to cause injurious action. So it's not a violation of first amendment rights.
Sì! Abbiamo un' anima! Ma è fatta di tanti piccoli robot.
Rogue 9 wrote:If Bush tries to permanently seize power (which I very much doubt he'll do) and he isn't shot/arrested on the spot (which I very much doubt he wouldn't be) and Congress and enough of the military go along with it (which I very much doubt they would) then its time for a counterrevolution to restore the Constitution and I'll be first in line to start one. However, I'll give the chance of that happening a generous .00001% That's just too much stupidity to be believed right there. Never happen.
You're not the only one in line; so's Rogues 1 through 10, 12, and little old me in the Gratan,
How about Rogue 11? Say, don't we have a poster by the name of Rogue 11 around here somewhere? Lurks, mostly.
MKSheppard wrote:Can't delay the vote. It has to happen Nov 2nd. It's teh Law.
Thanks, Shep. The CONSTITUTION states when the election is to take place, NOT Congress or anyone else. If a city is attacked -even blown up- the voting should proceed as planned. Anything else reeks of the kind of bullshit we see in banana republics, when some sort of incident is contrived just in time to stall or cancel the voting.
For all the tough talk about how people would rally around a president if we were attacked... I wouldn't bet the rent money on it. It could just as easily create a backlash against the Pres.
As I have said before, when has Bush let the law stand in his way?
Never let the facts stand in the way of a good knee jerk, right?
Any city gets what it admires, will pay for, and, ultimately, deserves…We want and deserve tin-can architecture in a tinhorn culture. And we will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but by those we have destroyed.--Ada Louise Huxtable, "Farewell to Penn Station", New York Times editorial, 30 October 1963 X-Ray Blues
RedImperator wrote:They'd never be able to get away with that and there's not a shred of evidence that's what they're actually planning. Besides, why would they? Americans support the president in the face of catastrophe and probably re-elect Bush by a landslide.
They've already gotten away with far more things than I would have thought possible a few years ago. I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration to try something like this, and I wouldn't put it past the American public to gobble it up rather than be labeled "unpatriotic."
Elfdart wrote:Thanks, Shep. The CONSTITUTION states when the election is to take place, NOT Congress or anyone else. If a city is attacked -even blown up- the voting should proceed as planned. Anything else reeks of the kind of bullshit we see in banana republics, when some sort of incident is contrived just in time to stall or cancel the voting.
The Constitution also stipulates a speration between church and state, along with a lot of other things that the Bush administration has ignored. Don't depend on a piece of paper to defend your freedoms for you.
"Stop! No one can survive these deadly rays!"
"These deadly rays will be your death!"
- Thor and Akton, Starcrash
"Before man reaches the moon your mail will be delivered within hours from New York to California, to England, to India or to Australia by guided missiles.... We stand on the threshold of rocket mail."
- Arthur Summerfield, US Postmaster General 1953 - 1961
