| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179304 is a reply to message #177331] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 16:47   |
 |
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
No, for not going in at all to help. That and commandeering the state's national guard are two entirely different things.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179317 is a reply to message #177331] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 17:48 |
 |
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
They tried to help by commandeering the state national guard. Face it SFE, you just hate Bush. It doesn't matter if and how he does something, because in your narrow eyes it's always WRONG. You base your beliefs on a political party rather than any ideal. That makes you a tool.
If Ted Kennedy told you to piss, you would soil yourself.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 November 2005 17:48] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179323 is a reply to message #177331] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 19:45 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
| Quote: |
That and commandeering the state's national guard are two entirely different things.
|
You don't know a damned thing about how the National Guard works, do you? The federal government may assume command of the National Guard ANY TIME IT NEEDS TO. This is called FEDERALIZATION, not commandeering. The government is well within its rights to do this. This is also the reason why the US Constitution has an amendment in it that allows citizens to form MILITIAS- because the federal government has superceding authority over ALL of this nation's official armed forces, INCLUDING those which are trained and armed by the states' governments.
Please know what you're talking about before you post it.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179332 is a reply to message #179323] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 20:34 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 15 November 2005 21:45 |
| Quote: |
That and commandeering the state's national guard are two entirely different things.
|
You don't know a damned thing about how the National Guard works, do you? The federal government may assume command of the National Guard ANY TIME IT NEEDS TO. This is called FEDERALIZATION, not commandeering. The government is well within its rights to do this. This is also the reason why the US Constitution has an amendment in it that allows citizens to form MILITIAS- because the federal government has superceding authority over ALL of this nation's official armed forces, INCLUDING those which are trained and armed by the states' governments.
Please know what you're talking about before you post it.
|
Whether or not they are allowed to commandeer the national guard is entirely beside the point. The governor of Lousiana denying the Federal government the right to their National Guard does not limit the federal government's ability to respond to disasters. Blaming the government's lackluster response on not having the Lousiana National Guard under their direct control is focusing on one of the more miniscule details of disaster relief.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179334 is a reply to message #177331] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 20:43 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Earth to SFE: The Louisiana government wasn't USING any of its assets. They let a whole FLEET of busses, there for the purpose of evacuating people if need be, just sit in a parking lot until they were rendered useless by flooding. They didn't mobilize the Guard to help coordinate the evacuation effort- which could have been done well in advance. They didn't even ASK for federal assistance when they knew they would need it- they waited until AFTER the fact, when it was already too late for the federal government to make a speedy response.
Basically, if the NG had been under federal control, shit would have gotten moving a hell of a lot faster, because the feds acted before the locals did- which is fucking pathetic, seeing as how the local government is supposed to bear the immediate responsibility for their state, city, and citizens. No matter how you slice this shitcake, the local government screwed the pooch, THEN went crying to big brother for help.
| Quote: |
Whether or not they are allowed to commandeer the national guard is entirely beside the point.
|
Federalize. The term is FEDERALIZE. Commandeer is what the police do to your car when they need it to pursue a suspect. Federalize is what the federal government does when it assumes control of the National Guard. If you insist on using the wrong term for the wrong action as a political jab, you are going to lose any credibility you might have potentially had. Wait, hold that thought...you didn't have any to begin with. Nevermind. Carry on.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
[Updated on: Tue, 15 November 2005 20:47] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179336 is a reply to message #177331] |
Tue, 15 November 2005 20:57 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
I have a question, NukeIt, when did the Bush adminstration request control of the National Guard in relation to the Hurricane hitting New Orleans?
Surely it would be before the hurricane, since that would be thinking ahead, right?
Fine, federalize. They both mean assume control of. I wasn't saying commandeer to put a negative spin on it, if that's what you thought, by the way.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179592 is a reply to message #177331] |
Thu, 17 November 2005 20:21 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
Anybody who honestly thinks that ICBMs look the way they do because the government is insecure about its masculinity (watch the damn movie, it's in there) needs a good slapping.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179594 is a reply to message #179589] |
Thu, 17 November 2005 21:14 |
|
SuperFlyingEngi
Messages: 1756
Registered: November 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| gbull wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 21:42 |
If people weren't stupid, these things wouldn't happen.
|
The point is that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to have deadly weapons because of that.
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." -- Theodore Roosevelt (1918)
"The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect "domestic security." Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent. --U.S. Supreme Court decision (407 U.S. 297 (1972)
The Liberal Media At Work
An objective look at media partisanship
|
|
|
|
| Re: He's at it again. Stupid fucking douchebag. [message #179600 is a reply to message #179594] |
Thu, 17 November 2005 22:13 |
|
Jecht
Messages: 3156
Registered: September 2004
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
| SuperFlyingEngi wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 22:14 |
| gbull wrote on Thu, 17 November 2005 21:42 |
If people weren't stupid, these things wouldn't happen.
|
The point is that people are stupid and shouldn't be allowed to have deadly weapons because of that.
|
Some*
Don't punish the people who follow the rules. Not having deadly weapons would leave you defensless against those with weapons. All my guns are in a locked case, seperate from my ammunition, and unloaded. The chance someone will get hurt - virtually zero. Not only that, but guns are to be on their safety setting until use. I agree though, not all people should be allowed to have guns. I would ensure people take a safety course beforehand with a valid gun safety license(seperate from hunter's safety). I also agree with the waiting period. I am not against gun control, but I am against banning firearms.
[Updated on: Thu, 17 November 2005 22:14] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
