The Official Star Trek Movie Forum

The Official Star Trek Movie Forum > Star Trek > Off Topic Discussions > Bush be Gone
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 04-11-2008, 08:32 PM
Gunny1's Avatar
Gunny1 Gunny1 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quark View Post
For one thing, he is the President of the United States and he could have acted sooner.
No, he couldn't.

There's a funny little thing called 'law', under an odd concept known as 'the constitution'. Not too long ago, historically speaking, there was a little tiffle known in some quarters as 'the War of Northern Aggression' - perhaps you've head of it...?

Under the rights reserved 'the Several States', Local, than State responders, including, (but not limited too) the National Guard, have primary response duty to ANY disaster. Federal agencies, such as FEMA, MAY NOT respond until so requested by appropriate state authorities.

FEMA pre-positioned teams in all the probable locations needed, as provided by law. Many sat 'twiddling their thumbs' as the crisis developed - a phrase, of course, and inaccurate, as the facts proved that many of these teams literally BEGGED the appropriate State authorities for permission to act... and were told to wait for 'higher authority'.

If you look at all the facts, Bush had little legal power to affect ANYTHING at the immediate time... most of the blame should fall on local and state authority, and yet does not, even though THEY are to blame for the final results...
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-11-2008, 08:34 PM
Quark's Avatar
Quark Quark is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Monica, California
Posts: 2,657
Default

I guess blocking off the rescue trucks which were all ready to help out made things a lot better right? FIMA did the right thing by acting five days too late. Please...Bush didn't even try to do anything. He was busy learning how to play the guitar on his vacation in Texas.

Yeah, and of all the times Bush failed to follow the Constitution, what a convenient time to abide by it now?
__________________
*The word "dabo" means "I will give" in Latin, and "Gold" in Aramaic.

J.J. "Binks" Abrams is taking over sci-fi!
Fans Expendable
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-11-2008, 08:35 PM
sir num nums sir num nums is offline
Rear Admiral
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sherwood, AR
Posts: 2,357
Default

You all just covered what I had just said...

(runs off crying in the other room, and stomping my feet) j/k
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-11-2008, 08:56 PM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

The real tragedy of all this is we're now stuck with an absolute mess in Iraq. I think it's very true we should never have gone there, we should've gone into Afghanistan, crushed the Taliban and found Osama Bin Laden and begin to drive Alqueda into the open, now we've created a situation in Iraq we can't just abandon, if we leave, what's gonna happen? The factions at war with each other will just work it out their own way I suppose, but then there's Iran, what part will they play, if they move in and begin to influence or even control the Iraqi government then we were better off with Hussein running the place.

I want for us to just get out of the place, I really do, but what will the cost be if we do just leave? Hopefully the Iraqis would just work it out and Iran would stay out of it but who really thinks that will happen? It's a catch-22. We stay, more of this sickening situation and if we leave, it's very possible we'll just have helped shaped a middle east that's even more so a launching pad for attacks against America as devastating or far worse than 911.

I'm a liberal, may not sound like it from what I just said, but I don't really know what we can do, either we get out of Iraq and then move into Afghanistan and put an end to the Taliban and then work towards putting an end to Alqueda or we keep going the route we're going which is what McCain proposes.

I want us to get out of there, and it's going to come down to whether we're willing to take that gamble or not. Personally I'm willing to take it, I hope it's the right thing to do, but I think we should pull out of Iraq. Who else thinks this? Who else around the world, not just Americans thinks this?
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-11-2008, 08:59 PM
Gunny1's Avatar
Gunny1 Gunny1 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 831
Default

Disclaimer: The following rant represents the views of the author, and in no way represents the view of this website; it's affiliates; or it's parent company. Feel free to skip said rant at your own discretion...

[RANT]

First off, before I hit anything else, let's deal with the matter of 'colorists'. Most people would use the term 'racists'; I don't like that term. It's inherent statement is that people of different pigmentations and/or historical backgrounds are different races. they aren't. I'm me, you're you - we're all 'locked in our own skulls'. We 'input' through our senses, we 'output' through what we laughingly call communication - all of this, coming and going, goes through 'filters' of personal, historical, and cultural perspectives. You are not the history of your ancestors, nor am I the history of mine. Any statement of 'color power' is equally as ridiculous, regardless of the color in question - and equally as ultimately demeaning to the 'color'/culture/individuals in question.

This is all a symptom of Mankind's innate habit of 'tribalism' - the 'Us. vs. Them' concept. Some people do it on color. This is A Bad Idea. On the other hand, some people do it on the idea of Government, instead. This, however, is ALSO A Bad Idea.

The 'government' is made up of individual people. As a whole, the 'government' has no money, no morals, and no overall purpose. However, like any other group, it has two major drives: To survive, and to prosper. (Yes, this is ALSO A Bad Idea.)

The government can serve many useful purposes - it serves only a few vital ones. Never ask the 'government' to do things - you are handing away rights and responsibilities that are your own.

Author's note: Rights and Responsibilities are not two separate things. they are not even 'flip sides to the same coin'. They are interchangeable statement. If you have the RIGHT to do something, you also have the RESPONSIBILITY to do things.

POTUS is not 'King' - and thank God for that! The President of the U.S. is 'Chief Executive'... call that 'HEAD SERVANT'. His role is defined by the Constitution - and 'Constitution of the United States' is not a document title; it's a declarative statement. 'That Which makes up the United States of America'.

I suggest you read it. It makes for interesting reading...

Congress is supposed to be made up of people who make up their constituents - NOT 'those who voted for them'. they should have no agenda of their own. Their sole purpose should be to represent and vote for the desires of their constituents. If they, in good conscience, can not do this, they should then 'quit', unable to fulfill the duties for which they were 'hired'. Party politics should be a null factor.

These Federal choices only come into play AFTER those rights/responsibilities 'reserved unto the Several States'. Considering that there was a 'little war' fought to determine exactly where these lines sit, it seems sad to see people screaming that the Federal government DIDN'T overstep them when they should have. Yes, FEDERAL trucks sat waiting for the necessary STATE approval to move out... because the law said they HAD to. This is the downside to the same law that keeps Federal 'stormtroopers' from walking in your door whenever they feel like it. It's not perfect, and never will be, unless you're willing to accept socialist-style tyranny like in Nazi Germany. So, this freedom is a two-edged sword, with the necessary checks-and-balances in federal/state/local interaction slowing response. Consider the alternatives before you complain...

[/RANT]

We now return you to your regulalry scheduled lives, already in progress...
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-11-2008, 09:03 PM
Gunny1's Avatar
Gunny1 Gunny1 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 831
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Livingston View Post
The real tragedy of all this is we're now stuck with an absolute mess in Iraq....
I like the analogy used, regardless of views (personal or political) on whether America should have gone in to Iraq in the first place:

"If you go into someone else's 'place' and break something, you are responsible for replacing or fixing it. Well, America went into Iraq and broke it - now we have to fix it..."

What has happened, has happened. While it's important to LEARN from your past mistakes, to keep from repeating them, you can't repudiate them. You're there, Iraq's a mess... so - what are you going to do about it?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-11-2008, 09:09 PM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

Yes, that's very true, I think speaking and debating about whether we should have gone in or not is beside the point for at least the moment. I don't see it as our responsibility to fix Iraq, I want whatever is best for America, if that is to leave Iraq, then let's leave, if it is to stay there and see this thing out, then we must do it.

Unfortunately I can't see into the future so I don't know what's going to happen in Iraq if we pull out, but I want for us to do so, it may be the wrong thing to do, only time will tell. And this election will decide that. For once, the people will truly choose what to do there. If we elect, Obama or Clinton, whoever the candidate will be, we will pull out, both have said as much, if we elect McCain, we will not pull out.

The worse thing we can do is politicize this mess, that's what we'll do probably but I prefer to look at it as it is and it simply is a fraking mess.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"

Last edited by Livingston : 04-11-2008 at 09:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-11-2008, 09:17 PM
jerhanner's Avatar
jerhanner jerhanner is offline
Vice Admiral
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Deep in the 100 Acre Wood
Posts: 3,905
Default

Imagine what would happen if we took a fraction of what we spend on weapons and instead bought water systems and books and medicine for countries that can't afford such things. People might not want to blow us all up anymore!
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-11-2008, 09:21 PM
Livingston's Avatar
Livingston Livingston is offline
Admiral
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Along the Kessel Run
Posts: 4,964
Default

True, if we spent what we've spent on this war for our own educational system maybe America wouldn't be so far behind many other countries. But the people that want to blow us up don't seem to care about that anyway. We could bring world peace and they'd still want to kill us.
__________________


"Death, delicious strawberry flavored death!"
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-11-2008, 09:24 PM
Gunny1's Avatar
Gunny1 Gunny1 is offline
Lieutenant Commander
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 831
Default A 'By the way...'

Just realized something i need to point out.

'Locked in our own skulls' is a truism... and much of what he come to understand/believe is understandable based on the 'input' we receive.

I take it for granted, but remembered that many don't, so will mention it here: DON'T trust the media.

Before your get your First Amendment engines all revved up, I'd better clarify:

I have nothing against the media. Unlike some, I not only don't believe in some 'vast conspiracy', I KNOW there isn't one. What I *DO* know is that there is, in fact, an unavoidable bias in print and electronic media.

First off, you have to be able to divorce yourself from the political definitions of 'liberal' and 'conservative'; though related, they aren't directly connected to the individual traits of the same (uncapitalized) names.

News, by it's nature, tends to be 'spur of the moment'. If, like myself, you examine it with an apolitical eye, you see that people of a 'conservative' bent are less likely to enter the news business; those who do, even less likely to progress to segment producer, who decides what airs.

'If it bleeds, it leads' is just good sense in the news business; and make no mistake, business it is - and the entertainment business, at that. the American press is second only to the British in terms of 'objectivity', but both are 'liberal biased'; not in a conspiracy, but by a statement of human nature. ('Wait and see' fails miserably in the news industy - go figure!)

Electronic media tends to the 'liberal liberals', print media to the 'conservative liberals'... but unless you are aware of that 'built-in bias' and look beyond it, you're unlikely to even get close to anything like the truth.

(Consider the unconscious choice of presenting a phrase, based on the presenter's own view of the situation: 'fleeing the scene' and 'leaving the area' - both techinally 'true', BUT...)
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:25 AM.


Forum theme courtesy of Mark Lambert
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2009 by Paramount Pictures. STAR TREK and all related
marks and logos are trademarks of CBS Studios Inc. All Rights Reserved.