Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


Oh. Fuck. No.

I think even my conservative friends would be a little unnerved by the implications.

Just read it. And if it disturbs you as much as it disturbs me, pass it on.


( 5 comments — Leave a comment )
May. 24th, 2007 01:37 pm (UTC)

I now have an upset stomach to go with my lovely headache this morning but better we know now then when he enacts it.
May. 24th, 2007 01:53 pm (UTC)
I was disturbed and passed onto Peter who posted it on his website which you should read since his take is very funny.
May. 24th, 2007 02:43 pm (UTC)
I guess I don't really get why it's so different than in any other time of crisis when the President appoints himself the point-man. *shrugs*

Although reading through the comments made me laugh.
May. 24th, 2007 05:29 pm (UTC)
On the surface it would make sense....

But really, in case of a disaster, it's much *better* to spread the responsibility outward, not centralize it in one figure. What happens if, as the document states, "no warning" is given, and wipes out the executive branch, or a bomb goes off in congress - they only leave *one* person out of there during State of the Unions,etc.

In a disaster of such magnitude as described in the document, the states would be the prime center of focus. A terrorist group might be able to take over a centralized government, say Russia. However, a terrorist group, when confronted by *50* separate mini-governments, all with their own police forces, not to mention civilians with arms - would be madness.

This particular government has proven it is *incapable* of handling a massive emergency - but honestly I don't think *any* federal level government can. This is just a waste of money.

Dear god I can't wait till he's bounced out of office. Unless of course, he finds a way to declare martial law and void the next election because "Thuh homeland iz under seketerin attack.

May. 25th, 2007 01:12 am (UTC)
( 5 comments — Leave a comment )