What would you do if "it happened?"

[Syrinx]

What if you woke up tomorrow and heard that there had been a major terrorist attack, and that Bush had declared martial law. What would you do?

[everythingsxen]

1. Call shenanigans a la South Park

[Stuckinthebush]

34. *snort!*

:D

My first laugh this morning - thanks!

[LosinIt]

2. Who is gonna enforce this marshall law, the NG is all in Iraq?

[damnyankee2601]

89. It's worse that that.

It is highly doubtful that the military would do Shrub's bidding without major dissent. Could lead to civil war, probably along similar lines as last time.

[imax2268]

3. cash in my stocks

and go live down in Cabo for awhile...!!!

Sand, Sun, Senorita's, and Tequila...!!!

[ramapo]

40. Might be too late at that point

Market has crashed and closed. Travel is restricted.

I can be a pessimist...sorry

[Newsjock]

4. Working at a newspaper ...

... I'm supposedly supposed to go there. But since I'm "only" a couple hours from the Canadian border, I often wonder if it would be worth risking my life to attempt an illegal exit/entry through the wilderness.

My take is that, once we hit martial law, America is done with forever -- at least anything resembling an America I'd ever want to live in again. At that point, all the trappings of my "civilized" life -- money, possessions, etc. -- seem to become meaningless.

It's a scene I don't like thinking about, because it makes me horribly uncomfortable.

[Syrinx]

11. I understand

If me and Kleeb's revolution doesn't work, I'll be right behind you. :)

[JohnKleeb]

5. any of y'all want my cell phone number?

:evilgrin:
because I would take it to the streets likely.

[Silverhair]

18. Your cell phone can be used to track you to within 100 meters location.

No kidding on that. No, it isn't part of a "big brother" plot. It has to do with using the phones for 911 calls, so the police & rescue know where to respond to. It also saves the phone company a huge amount on electricity because they can tight beam your phone call to your phone instead of broadcasting it to the entire cell the way it is done now. System is to be fully operational in the entire country in less than two years.

[Salviati]

61. That's why I'm not getting a new one...

I've got one that I've had for almost 2 years now, and I think I'll be sticking with it for a while. No e-911 for me please...

[tom_paine]

66. It might not be part of a Big Brother plot

But what is that but semantics if it turns out to be used for such.

We have already seen protestors "preemptively arrested" and given crazily excessive bail ($1,000,000 has already happened in Philly after the Imperial Conevntion 2000 to preemptively arrested protestors and I have no doubt that it has occurred elsewhere that I haven;t heard).

Did that used to be against the 8th Amendment? Oh well, so much else of the Bill of Rights is broken down, dying, or rendered meaningless by Imperial Fiat, what's one more?

My point: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and is used in a "duckish fashion"...

it's a duck.

By the way, have you ever heard of a hub-and-spoke conspiracy? You might find this interesting, Silverhair.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22hub+and+spoke+conspiracy%22

For those like yourself who dismiss out of hand "conspiracy theories" the hub-and-spoke is the conspiracy with maximum deniability, and the most common Bushevik style conspiracy.

(many of these Google links are regarding antitrust & corporate malfeasance, but consider how the Party-Loyal Bushevik Sub-Media operates, or the Bushevik Loyalist Federalist Society Judges, etc)

[aquart]

6. If there was a major terrorist attack, I would be trying to help

the victims. I doubt another thing would be on my mind.

I would be on line for blood donation, praying that this time there would be survivors who would need it.

I would be emailing everyone I knew in the affected area, making sure they had survived.

I've been there. I know what to do.

[Red State Rebel]

19. I'll be there with you!

[ncrainbowgrrl]

37. I'd be trying to help... But would be turned away.

I'd be waiting in line to give blood. But when I got to the front of the line, I'd be "deferred." Told that I couldn't do my 'patriotic duty as an american' and then questioned later about my 'lack of patriotism' by those who believe that they have the right to judge my character.

Then, I'd be driving my car from NC to Canada with my partner and 2 kitties to seek refugee status... and learn french and fully understand the game of hockey.

[bluestateguy]

7. Ahem

I will not regard any declaration of martial law or cancellation of the election to be legitimate.

[Silverhair]

22. The enforcer of martial law won't give a damn if you regard them as legit.

They will still enforce it - swiftly and strongly. Under martial law you would get to find out what Mao meant when he said, "Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." And guess who has the really BIG guns and lots of them?

[imax2268]

8. I agree...

I'm sure that most people would do that...I did...I donated blood and such...I wanted to go with some friends who were firefighters to NY but I couldn't get the time off of work...

but if martial law was imposed...I would take off until things came back to normal...

[Syrinx]

9. I'm With Kleeb

I'm to the streets man!

[Blayde Starrfyre]

10. Protest in a way that would garner international attention

I would probably do a hunger strike.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mobius]

12. Move to Canada

Pot is legal in Montreal.

[camero]

59. Might consider this one myself

Legal or illegal.

[damnyankee2601]

92. Dont be a coward.

Stand and fight for your country. As I recall, my oath said "all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC" (emphasis added.)

[camero]

93. There is something to be said

For come out of her lest you be tainted. Most will just brush it off because it won't change their individual lives much besides economically. The ones who will be persecuted will not be seen.

I may not do it but I would consider it so I can live to fight another day.

[Rocinante]

13. Take ol Betsy off the gun rack

good for squirrels and Russkies. Wait a minute Russians aren't the bad guys anymore. Guess I will have to rethink this one.

[9215]

14. Just punch in at DU and laugh at the ludicrousness of it all!

[Frank Rose]

15. What authority would an un-elected failure

have the second time he watched a major failure of homeland security?

[Silverhair]

23. Plenty of authority.

In a disaster, people tend to rally around the leader. I am assuming a Hiroshima level of attack by WMD, either nuke, gas, or bio. The rally effect would be huge. Go against the rally effect and you will be perceived as on the side of the attackers, and dealt with as such.

Remember, under martial law - you have NO RIGHTS. Arguing with an enforcer of the law is a real fast way into a whole lot of big trouble, if you aren't just beaten right then.

[BiggJawn]

16. Oh, I don't know.....

Does the word "Maquis" ring a bell?

That ain't an "Easter Seals" advert in my sigline.

[Silverhair]

17. Nothing different.

Martial law has little effect on day to day stuff. Most people think it means soldiers on every street corner, but it doesn't. The average DUer doesn't seem to understand it at all.

It is a fundamental change in the court system, especially in the criminal court system. Convictions become super easy & fast, and punishments are very swift and severe. The enforcers are the same folks that enforce current law - the cops. They would have a more freedom in how they deal with a situation. For example, the recent police beating death that was on TV would not even be a news item. If it was reported it would be about the heroic police subduing a drugged up violent offender.

But even in martial law the economy has to keep moving, and that means folks have to get to work and goods have to move. So the daily routine sees very little change. Unless you are an enemy of the gov't, then it changes - big time.

[BeFree]

26. When they arrest us all...

...where they gonna keep us?

And who's gonna guard us?

And ain't yo' Mama gonna be pissed? In what jail are they gonna put all our Mamas? See what I'm getting at? They may declare Martial Law, but what it would really mean is War against the people. A War they cannot win.

[Silverhair]

29. They won't need to arrest us all.

First, if there is a MAJOR terrorist attack on the scale of Hiroshima, the general public will WANT martial law. You will start to have a demonstration against it and find your demonstrators outnumbered 4 to 1 by angry citizens who will be happy to bash your head in while the cops look the other way.

The cops will have a free hand to get information on the terrorist supporters & sympathizers. (That's anybody that is against martial law.) Translation: Talk or else, and they won't be bluffing. Forget the movie crap about the hero holding up against torture. People talk - fast. You get the truth by comparing notes from different victims and by already knowing some of it so you punish the lies severely. The truth pours out. The leaders get arrested. The rank and file become disorganized and docile.

[BeFree]

32. The general public

You make an awful large assumption there, sliverhair. While it may be true that some kind of order needs to be established, once a coupla hundred Joes get canned with no good reason, folks are gonna start taking notice. Especially yo' Mama.

Seems like what you are saying is that everyone is just gonna roll over and play dead. And we might, for awhile. But the fact is that there are not enough prisons to hold all of us. Hell, there ain't enough of anything, except nukes, that can control us for long.

The degree of martial law will establish where the line is drawn. If it proves to be a good law, then it may survive for a bit. But if it becomes oppressive, than you will see a severe reaction.

[Mairead]

45. "the fact is that there are not enough prisons to hold all of us"

They don't have to hold 'all of us', only the ones resisting.

In Chile after the coup, supporters of Allende were rounded up and held--and killed--in football stadiums, by the army with a few machine guns. Worked a treat.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

48. And in Argentina and Uruguay

the general public supported the imposition of martial law, including thousands of "disappearances," afer a couple of terrorist incidents that killed maybe twenty people in all.

This continued for years, despite protests from hundreds of "mamas" (Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo in Buenos Aires, for example).

The reaction after 9/11 has shattered my faith in the ability of the American people to respond to the imposition of martial law.

Judging from the mentality I saw exhibited when I was a mod in the Gun Dungeon, most of the hardcore gun rights advocates would be "defending the nation" by helping round up "terrorist sympathizers," not going to the barricades.

[BeFree]

79. This is America, not a third world country

Look, there may be a lot of crap thrown down on anyone who would forcefully react to American martial law. Maybe even killed. Forceful reactions are not advised. One should lay low and get organized.

The harder the law comes down, the harder folks will revolt. What, are you just gonna give up and never again fight for your rights? Of course not.

And using the gun dungeon as a sample of America is a bit out of the ordinary, wouldn't you say?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. Uruguay was considered the most progressive country

in South America before its right-wing dictatorship took hold. And although Argentina had a history of dictatorships, it is a culturally sophisticated and once-prosperous nation, not some Third World backwater. This is even more true of Chile-- a prosperous country with a long history of multiparty democracy.

:shrug:

[Silverhair]

51. Remember the scale of the attack I am talking about.

I am NOT talking about another big terrorist bomb somewhere. I am talking about something that kills over 20,000 people in one whack. That would send a severe psychological shock through the populace. They would DEMAND martial law. Remember too, that martial law is NOT a soldier on the street corners, but is an extreme change in the rights you have in court. They drop to zero.

Under martial law there would actually be a short term, (Emphasis on SHORT TERM) improvement, as common street criminals would be rounded up and disposed of. Few people would shed any tears for them. And leaders of any resistance would be viewed as helping terrorism - and punished.

[BeFree]

80. You may be right.. U may B crazy

You are working on a BIG if. Never before has such an attack as you suggest has occurred outside of wartime.

Then you go on to prophesize about what the coppers will do. What, are ya saying the fuzz is just gonna round everyone up and mow 'em down? Er, "disposed of". Geez, man, you don't believe in America at all do ya?

Ya really think we're all just gonna give up all our rights and lay down and die? What are ya, some kind of conspiracy theorist? Your theory is way, way out past any of the 9/11 theories. I ain't buying it. It's just too whacked out, man. Just whacked.

[Silverhair]

84. What did we do to Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor?

Now if some terrorists managed an attack that killed 20K+ people at once, don't you think that people would be afraid that they would do it again, in a different place? You seem to think that a terrorist attack would be treated as if it were a natural disaster. (Help the victims, clean up the disaster area, but otherwise - life as normal) But one terrorist attack carries with it the proof that others are possible. That threat would scare the pants off of everybody.

What would you do if a low & slow flying light plane sprayed Sarin on a busy freeway in Los Angeles in rush hour? How would you feel the next day as you drove in your city's rush hour traffic? Maybe you would want the cops to have some more real authority? Have you ever had your personal life in genuine danger? Have you ever known that fear? It does amazing things to you.

Give the cops extra power, and they would use it. I personally know of two situations where the police summarily executed a perp. (In one case the perp had shot and wounded a cop, and was now out of ammo. {Two shot pistol} Wounded cop's partner then killed the perp. // Perp fleeing scene of robbery-murder. Cops catch up to him and corner him. Perp threw down gun and money to surrender. Cop said, "Not this time." and executed perp. /// In both cases the internal affairs guys found a dead perp, a fired pistol with the perps fingerprints all over it and it matched the ballistics of the bullet in the victim. End of story.) Most cops main jobs would still be the same - traffic & street crime. Tell me they wouldn't take advantage of the new rules to take care of the street thug with a long criminal history.

[BeFree]

85. Your theory is still whacked

Using a gun battle between officers and perps as an example of what will happen to innocent Americans under martial law, is way whacked, dude.

And, the theory of a pilot spraying gas over the free-way? What have you been watching, man? Here all this time I thought you were anti-conspiracy. That you were like an insurance salesman or something. Most insurance people I know aren't down with conspiracy theories. Or are they?

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

96. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Sterling]

97. I agree the poster assumes too much.

And I politely suggest could post his thoughts in a more respectful and less condescending tone.

The “average DUer” is not as dumb as some might think.

[damnyankee2601]

91. Problem is...

...you already ARE an enemy of the Shrub "government."

[Silverhair]

94. There IS that to consider. I think they would be too busy...

to bother with me. I'm too small a fish to waste time on. I hope.

[corporatewhore]

20. Viva La Revolucion!!!!Id be forming an underground network

[Loonman]

24. Sit tight

I got all my supplies, just in case.

[LWolf]

25. I would:

I would bow my head in resignation. I would, in the spirit of democracy, concede the floor to the Americans who brought it on. Because they outnumber me. I would pause to remember the vision for a better America and better world, and then walk away and leave them all, the terrorists, the fearmongers, and the fearful, to their party.

[OneTwentyoNine]

27. Stand on a busy corner with a sign saying VOTE DEMOCRAT IN NOV!!

[truthspeaker]

28. take to the streets and participate in peaceful protest

after first loading my shotgun and stashing it in my car.

[Silverhair]

30. Real world result of your protest.

After a MAJOR terrorist attack on the scale of Hiroshima, the general population will WANT and SUPPORT a crack down. Your "peaceful" protest will run up against far greater number of angry citizen who will view you as on the side of the terrorists. It will get violent real quick, and you will find that they will have guns too. The cops will look the other way as your demonstration is crushed by a hostile public looking for someone to take their anger out on. A few skilled demigod style speakers to whip them up and your demonstration will be lucky to have survivors.

[truthspeaker]

41. I'm not convinced the American public is that far gone

[Silverhair]

52. They aren't now. But what if terrorist managed to kill 20K people

at once? That, I think, would put them over the edge.

[noonwitch]

31. Go to work, see what's going on.

I work for the state, they'll let me travel around.

[ThoughtCriminal]

33. Get a video camera

A thousand video cameras in the hands of citizens can do more damage to a corrupt regime than an equal number of assault rifles.

[MaddogTerp]

35. The bigger question is what if...

What if Bushie declared martial law WITHOUT there being a major terrorist attack? What if he did it just to avoid being voted out of office in November? In that case, I think we would all have to take to the streets to protest!

But, to answer the original ?, assuming DC was not destroyed or a total hazard, I'd be heading downtown (I'm in MD) to try to find evidence of which of the Bushies were involved or are controlling the "terrorist" actions.

[Mairead]

46. "we would all have to take to the streets to protest"

Jeez, guys, even the people here at DU, the alleged activists, aren't willing to do so much as protest with their votes! 'Take to the streets'? Har! First let's see 'take to the ballot box'!

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mairead]

56. Not so. It's already in effect: the USAPATRIOT Act.

And there's been no resistance commensurate with the danger. They can 'Nacht und Nebel' us one by one and nobody will lift a finger.

[Silverhair]

58. You are over reacting.

The Patriot Act is NOT martial law. Note: I am NOT defending the Patriot Act, and in fact, I don't like it. But over reacting and calling it martial law is silly. It sounds like a teen ager does when he is sent to his room and he howls about being imprisoned.

[Oilwellian]

72. Speaking of over reacting

I highly doubt the majority of Americans would accept martial law for very long. The definition of martial law is as follows: "the law administered by military forces that is invoked by a government in an emergency when the civilian law enforcement agencies are unable to maintain public order and safety." One single attack somewhere in this nation wouldn't constitute a need for martial law because I doubt public order and safety would be a problem EXCEPT in the affected area. It certainly wouldn't constitute imposing military rule over the entire country.

Our nation has lost hundreds of thousands lives in past wars and never once was our Constitution suspended. Our military who would be expected to uphold martial law, also swore an oath to defend and protect our Constitution. The people will realize very quickly, if the very freedoms we're supposedly sacrificing for, is taken away by our own government, then our enemies have won...be they foreign or domestic.

[Mairead]

75. I'm not sure it would depend on what the people realise.

Cops are also sworn to uphold our rights under the Constitution, but we've still had Seattle, DC, NYC, Miami....

[CaptainClark23]

77. Perceived threat

"One single attack somewhere in this nation wouldn't constitute a need for martial law because I doubt public order and safety would be a problem EXCEPT in the affected area. It certainly wouldn't constitute imposing military rule over the entire country."

I disagree, NYC and DC were 'attacked', but the measures instituted were on a national (if not global) scale.

An attack like the one hypothesised in this thread would certainly lead to Martial Law (IMO), because the threat to public safety would be imminent. If one attack, why not two, three, four, etc....

[Silverhair]

81. The original poster set as his premise that martial law had been

declared as a result of a major terrorist attack. The only way I can imagine that is if the attack is really really big, with on the order of 20K+ initial dead.

We have had lots of dead in wars before, but America, since 1814, has had a policy of doing the fighting on the other guy's territory, and the dead have pretty much been soldiers. We have never taken massive civilian casualties.

We have had martial law. What do you think the CSA was under after the civil war?

And I stand my ground that anybody who claims that we are aleady under martial law is like a teenager howling about being in jail if he is sent to his room. The Patriot Act is bad, but it isn't martial law.

[Mairead]

74. No, I'm not overreacting and no, it's not silly

Do you really believe that the Guantanamo prison is Constitutionally permitted? If you do, I recommend some research. It is extra-Constitutional. It depends for its existence on the suspension of habeas corpus, which is the keystone of Constitutional -i.e. non-martial- law.

[JanMichael]

36. No significant changes. Then again as a wacky Leftist...

...what on earth could I do differently than I'm doing now?

Organise, Educate, Agitate.

[davsand]

38. Get my kid out then decide.

I'd get my kid outta this country then I'd decide how to fight it. I have no doubt that the radical fringe from the internet and from the labor movement would be in the first waves of detainees--and that is gonna put my husband and I both in danger of arrest. Knowing that, it'd be a race to see her safe and then get into some network of resistance.

Once my child is safe I can begin to make intelligent decisions that are not ruled by fear...

Laura

[TNOE]

39. In the words of Homer Simpson

that can't be true or else I'd be terrified. That saying always makes me laugh - but in all seriousness I was talking to one of my hardcore Republican co-workers and I told him that I think that martial law could be a distinct possibility - and he said - let me tell you if that happened - hardcore Republicans like myself would be in the streets standing next to all the Democrats. I'd like to hope that would be the case..... they'd never get away with it - especially since so many are on to 9/11 and the lies about Iraq have been exposed. This administration has lost all credibility - they would be making a huge mistake - storming of the bastille comes to mind.

[calimary]

98. I hope that's true, but having witnessed the reaction to 9/11, I'm

doubtful. People would have lain down in front of a speeding train if georgie and rudy and dickie told 'em it would fight terrorism. People suspended so much reason and objectivity and critical thinking! I do not have such confidence. But, again, I hope that's true.

[CaptainClark23]

42. Obedience and loyalty, officer!

To the governmental authorities who have the best interests of my community in mind.

I would dutifully obey all orders and edicts, and go about my business as usual, happily making whatever personal sacrifices my government might demand of me.


And thats all you're going to get out of me, Sir.

God Bless America!


ON EDIT: hurm, gonna have to lose the sig-line though. kinda blows my cover....

[ProfessorGAC]

43. Just A Question

Why do some here think a declaration of martial law would allow him to cancel the election?

Lincoln didn't cancel elections during the civil war, for goodness sake! FDR didn't during WWII!

I honestly don't think the president has that authority, even under martial law, and i also don't think the population would sit still for it. The "throw the bums out" mentality at the next election would be overwhelming. Nobody in Congress would buy into such a thing, simply because of the potential for long term political fallout.

Does somebody have a reference that shows that martial law allows for the cancellation of elections? Wouldn't that violate the 4 year term provision in the body of the Constitution?
The Professor

[Mairead]

47. Martial law puts the Constitution in 'standby' mode

And since elections are mandated only by the Constitution....

[ProfessorGAC]

49. Are You Sure, or Is That Just Your Interpretation?

I don't see anything in there that says that. I just finished going through it and i don't see anything that says that all democratic activity ceases during martial law. I also don't even see that martial law suspends ALL constituional structures. The government would still exist and be in place. It doesn't lead to universal rule by the executive. At least it doesn't say any such thing.
The Professor

[Mairead]

54. "I don't see anything in there that says that"

In where? 'Martial law' means rule by the military rather than civil authorities; it's what we're seeing in Iraq today, and at Guantanmo prison. There is no provision in the Constitution for martial law, though there is a mention of suspending habeas corpus ('show the body', i.e., show cause).

The USAPATRIOT Act imposes a species of permanent martial law --the Guantanamo prison exists only because habeas corpus has been suspended for certain classes of people, but any of us could find ourselves declared by fiat to be a member of one of those classes and we'd have no recourse.

So on some level you're right--the imposition of martial law need not result in the obvious suspension of the Constitution, but when they can choose when and whether to honor its guarantees, it's been in fact suspended.

[ProfessorGAC]

62. I"m Ok With Your Read

I'm not saying you're wrong, but the Constitution doesn't spell out that there are no elections and that the rest of the gov't come to a halt under the auspices of the military. So, i buy your reasoning and i understand your point.

However, i'll stand by my earlier point that neither Congress nor a majority of the people would sit still for a suspension of elections.
The Professor

[Mairead]

76. "neither Congress nor a majority of the people would sit still"

What's your take on an oh-so-earnest 'we'd never suspend them, we're just delaying them til the crisis is over'?

[catzies]

55. Does the answer to that question lie in Executive Orders?

You know, like the Executive Order in Florida signed by Gov. Jeb Bush a few days before 9/11/01 putting martial law in effect?

[ProfessorGAC]

63. Don't Know. It's Why I Asked

The Constitution is pretty specific when it comes to responsibilities, privileges and rights of the gov't. That's why i asked the question in the first place. It's also why i think it won't happen, because 538 other elected officials, and the people wouldn't accept that the president (any president) has the right to suspend elections, martial law or not.

And, remember, that martial law was not actually declared in Florida, and they exercised no martial powers, so i don't know whether that would have withstood a challenge or not. They didn't use the powers, so nobody challenged.
The Professor

[tibbiit]

44. Silly People we are already

In Martial Law. It just doesnt appear to us like we think it would.
We have been in martial law since 9-11.
tib

[loudsue]

50. So true, tibbiit, so true.

And so much for going to the ballot box when the same guys control the computers.

:kick:

[GreenPartyVoter]

57. Pray. Hard.

I'd want to go to Canada, but I know hubby would say no.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

60. "How ya gonna come?"

"With your hands on your head or on the trigger of your gun"?

Just remember, IT CAN'T HAPPEN HERE.

[CaptainClark23]

64. "How you gonna go?"

"Shot down on the pavement, or waiting in Death Row?"

Very apt. Well quoted, WhoCounts.

BTW, never got a response from you, after your question re: libertarians for clark, hmm?

[ThomWV]

65. Grab the Shotgun and Head To Washington

to defend my country and its Constitution.

[VelmaD]

68. What you said...

stop by home nad kiss my momma then go die on the barricades. I'm under no illusions that we'd win...but we would at least have to go down fighting.

[enki23]

67. change my registration from indie to the republican party

.

[donsu]

69. when S---t happens, first they will close the banks

nt

[CaptainClark23]

73. Got Gold?

[Forkboy]

70. Go out and test it

:evilgrin:

[damnyankee2601]

90. hell, yeah. <EOM>

[loudnclear]

71. What would be different? Aren't we already under martial law?

The media just hasn't told us yet.

[JasonBerry]

82. A bad president, but martial law?

That's an official decree. I tend to agree with Silverhair that things wouldn't change all that much. I also think people would probably support the suspension of constitutional rights in a large scale attack and anybody protesting would be seen as defenders of terrorism. That's just the way it would be - imo.

[Barad Simith]

78. Get saved, join the Republican party and turn in my leftist neighbors

I'm kidding. Please don't ban me.

[wadestock]

83. I'd say.....Bush had changed the entire equation to make this happen....

911 was truly a freak.

It DID NOT confirm that we were under pressing and eminent danger of terrorism at home.

History clearly shows the opposite.

It is true that OBL had a multi-year plan to go after the trade towers because this was an ICON.

But thank your lucky stars there REALLY IS NO TERRORISM in the US (at least up till Bush has been going to war with people).

We have actually more home grown problems than what was brewing in terms of imported terrorism.

You have to soberly analyze this and also appreciate why we haven't been attacked here at home is NOT due to anything Bush has done but the simple reasons I have stated.

We have to be thankful the terrorists really haven't considered the obvious possibilities.

That whole equation may soon change as a result of Bush.

[damnyankee2601]

88. Pack up my guns and move back to the Midwest

That part of the country is the best equipped to secede and survive in a civil war.

[thebaghwan]

95. Take my boat and head for Canadian waters

n/t