English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2007-01-26 13:49:30 · 22 answers · asked by MO 2 in Politics & Government Other - Politics & Government

J&C H : If I was serving you a burger, I would spit in it. By the way, I am teaching your kids in public school! Ha!

2007-01-26 16:06:37 · update #1

22 answers

YES. THAT IS A TRUE STATEMENT.

2007-01-26 13:55:23 · answer #1 · answered by Starla_C 7 · 2 3

wow, this is an interesting question from an opponent of the war (finally, thank you). unfortunately i can't answer the question but perhaps a consititutional law expert can. regardless, did you know that lincoln, during the civil, flirted with the idea of declaring martial law (can't remember anyone reporting bush has unless it was the onion who ran the story). of course, i find it interesting that the majority of our population was against that war too. goes to show that time after time the majority of the electorate is sometimes on the wrong side of history. how fascinating to think that perhaps although you're in the majority during this war you MAY be wrong on this issue just like the protesters that came before you. but being a reasonable person i'm sure you realize that only time and history will tell who is right about the war on terror. i for one am glad lincoln stuck to his principals during the civil war and did so in the face of criticism, outrage, a congress that didn't support him, generals who spoke out against his strategy, war protests, being called stupid, being called simplistic, being called unfit for the presidencey, being told the war could not be won, etc, etc, etc. i mean the similiarities between these two presidents are astounding and may say something about HAVING principals unlike those who supported the war during the 2002 elections for political purposes but flip flopped on their apparent rhetoric a year later in a ramp up for the 2004 election for political purposes. i guess at this point not much can be said for those who voted for the money before they voted against the money. oh well, i'm john kerry and i'm reporting for duty; goodnight.

2007-01-26 22:19:43 · answer #2 · answered by David W 3 · 0 1

That appears to be the plan. As Bush continues to plummet in the polls, and the public senses "what's wrong with this picture," these guys in power appear to be heading for an attack on Iran, which will lead to a major war in the Middle East. When that happens, they will counter public opinion by declaring a National Emergency and suspend Federal Elections until the "crisis has passed," thus allowing them to stay in power. Who is going to stop them?

2007-01-26 22:01:28 · answer #3 · answered by michaelsan 6 · 1 2

Absolutely not. Where do these ideas come from. The Constitution is very clear. Elections never will and never have been suspended. Martial law can only be declared in certain conditions. The wackjob person that led you to this idea is really off base.
The Constitution can not and will not be overridden by one person. And why would he want to? Think these things out.

2007-01-26 21:55:21 · answer #4 · answered by Jimfix 5 · 2 1

I dispair for the future. Judging by this ignorant question and the stupid answers it has gotten, I fear that we will lose our freedom in a few generations because of people like you. Fortunately, intelligent people will prevail and you will be able to sell us our fries and burgers.
You are teaching? Sure you are and I was the first person to walk on Mars. My kids in public school. Hardly consider West Point a public school. My cook thinks your answer is funny. As if you could serve me a burger.

2007-01-26 22:02:28 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

I believe elections would be suspended. If it happens the people who have the real power will soon find a new spokesman, the product of their views and decisions as trumpeted by Bush have brought him into disrepute at all but the densest levels.

2007-01-26 21:56:41 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

This is a joke, right? I sure hope so. I can't imagine an intelligent person thinking up something this silly. Don't forget there are two other branches of government. You young folks don't know we have been through much worse then this in the past and survived in spite of it.

2007-01-26 22:05:37 · answer #7 · answered by Debbie T 2 · 2 2

no elections would continue as planned and wouldn't change, it'd make elections completely different with uniformed soldiers there but the united states is and always will be a democracy and his term would be up

2007-01-26 21:57:15 · answer #8 · answered by armyboysmith 1 · 3 0

No, Linclon had to stand for re-election during the civil war.

2007-01-26 22:02:23 · answer #9 · answered by Roadkill 6 · 2 1

Probably...

* Martial law is defined as: military rule or authority imposed on a civilian population when the civil authorities cannot maintain law and order, as in a time of war or during an emergency.
* Hitler turned Germany into a Nazi dictatorship through executive orders.
* Executive Order 10995: All communications media are to be seized by the Federal Government. Radio, TV, newspapers, CB, Ham, telephones, and the internet will be under federal control. Hence, the First Amendment will be suspended indefinitely.
* Executive Order 10997: All electrical power, fuels, and all minerals well be seized by the federal government.
* Executive Order 10998: All food resources, farms and farm equipment will be seized by the government. You will not be allowed to hoard food since this is regulated.
* Executive Order 10999: All modes of transportation will go into government control. Any vehicle can be seized.
* Executive Order 11000: All civilians can be used for work under federal supervision.
* Executive Order 11490: Establishes presidential control over all US citizens, businesses, and churches in time of "emergency."
* Executive Order 12919: Directs various Cabinet officials to be constantly ready to take over virtually all aspects of the US economy during a State of National Emergency at the direction of the president.
* Executive Order 13010: Directs FEMA to take control over all government agencies in time of emergency. FEMA is under control of executive branch of the government.
* Executive Order 12656: "ASSIGNMENT OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS RESPONSIBILITIES", "A national emergency is any occurrence, including natural disaster, military attack, technological emergency, or other emergency that seriously degrades or seriously threatens the national security of the United States. Policy for national security emergency preparedness shall be established by the President." This order includes federal takeover of all local law enforcement agencies, wage and price controls, prohibits you from moving assets in or out of the United States, creates a draft, controls all travel in and out of the United States, and much more.
* Martial law can be declared due to natural disasters, Y2k Crisis, Stock Market crash, no electricity, riots, biological attack, .... anything leading to the breakdown of law and order.

2007-01-26 21:56:42 · answer #10 · answered by MrKnowItAll 6 · 3 3

Yes, if marshal law is declared, but if that ever happens, I'll eat your hat.

2007-01-26 21:58:21 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

fedest.com, questions and answers