.:.:.:.:
RTTP
.
Mobile
:.:.:.:.
[
<--back
] [
Home
][
Pics
][
News
][
Ads
][
Events
][
Forum
][
Band
][
Search
]
full forum
|
bottom
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
jump pages:[
all
|
1
|
2
]
Reply
[
login
]
SPAM Filter:
re-type this
(values are 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,A,B,C,D,E, or F)
you are quoting a heck of a lot there.
[QUOTE]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] to reply to BestialOnslaught.
Please remove excess text as not to re-post tons
message
[QUOTE="BestialOnslaught:305639"]So lemme get this straight hoser... We're supposed to rely on our "Commander In Chief" in the extremely unlikely event that a foreign army or a rebellion threatened the country, but not in the fairly realistic event that a major metropolis is demolished by a natural disaster? Basically the president only needs to be on the job when it's a military affair? Commander In Chief is but one of many hats the president wears, and he really isn't every person's Commander In Chief, that's just his military rank. Civilians are not expected to line up and salute him because the kind of duty you suggest we all have to him is one that is NOT required of the people, but only of the military. This is still sort of a democracy after all... The job comes with many other hats, and the Executive Branch IS responsible for crises of all varieties, not just those where a brown person blows some white people up. Anyway, if for some lunatic reason, the country was invaded or something, I don't see how some overprivileged incomptent moron shuttled away to some undisclosed location is going to be ANYONE's saving grace. That goes for almost any president, but in this case, looking at how the New Orleans situation was handled, I'd say if we faced a military threat right now, Washington is in no shape to handle it at all.[/QUOTE]
top
[
Vers. 0.12
][ 0.011 secs/8 queries][
refresh
][