Obama Declares, "National Emergency" for H1N1!

[amicus]

Your thoughts?


Amicus

[TE999]

This flu strain has eerie similarities to the 'Spanish Flu' of 1918 which killed millions. That flu was, in essence, a form of super-Pneumonia wherein the lungs filled with fluid and the victim suffocated within hours. I have not been able to determine exactly how the 1,000+ victims of H1N1 died or if any exhibited the 1918 flu symptoms.

If a 'National Emergency' will save lives, so be it.

[Boxlicker101]

Every time I see that designation, I think of "Hiney." Maybe that's just my twisted mind.

[OLDERNWISER]

loving the notion, that y'all are probably too old to get the shot

hmmm, so sorry....

(dont worry, i will hold two aside for agent 99 and box...although i dont think you need it)

[amicus]

Speakin' fer urself there, oldernwiser?

Curious to know what a 'National Emergency' entails...goodbye Habeas Corpus...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009...u-barack-obama

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091024/...bama_swine_flu

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Emergencies_Act

http://www.prisonplanet.com/obama%E2...unfolding.html

Curious the things one can learn searching for things....

Amicus

[SixtyMinuteMan]

See, he'd have to actually suspend habeas corpus for that to be true, amicus. They're separate acts. There have been well over thirty declared national emergencies since 1976, we average around one a year. Suspension of habeas corpus can happen in a national emergency, but almost never does. And there's no way a flu outbreak is going to cause it.

The declaration of emergency enables hospitals to handle cases by methods like separate ERs for flu patients to protect everyone else, things like that. It has absolutely nothing to do with habeas corpus.

Did you know that we spent most of the Bush administration under the national emergency declared after the 9/11 attacks? And that his suspension of habeas corpus relating to "terror suspects" is the most notable use of that power in US history, and by far the most extended?

This is thin, even for you.

[amicus]

Trying to pick a fight, eh, sixtysecondsman? Perhaps others will find enlightenment as to the nature of a National Emergency by the links provided.

Of course, you already knew everything there was to know, eh?

Amicus

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Has he suspended habeas corpus, amicus?

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Christ, even your right wing lunatic site doesn't claim he's suspended habeas corpus. All your links accurately say that what he's done is remove certain federal requirements to how hospitals handle emergencies.

[Dragonlipz]

Originally Posted by SixtyMinuteMan

Christ, even your right wing lunatic site doesn't claim he's suspended habeas corpus. All your links accurately say that what he's done is remove certain federal requirements to how hospitals handle emergencies.

SMM - I AGREE with my esteemed collegue: Amicus. (I call him by my pet name for him: Mon Ami)
Obama SHOULD suspend habeus corpus as well as certain other civil liberties that impede the delivery of services.
This would foment the 'final solution' as Mon Ami and the Aryan Brotherhood have foretold...allowing those patriots not contaminated by the social and societal disease that Obama represents to rise up and defend the constitution and the Homeland....For the glory of the cause...
Right Ami? Right??

[amicus]

Sometimes, a light touch is more effective than a sledge hammer...my suggestion was intended to inform that Habeas Corpus is a possibility under a Declaration of a National Emergency, not that one has, but that it can be.

I make no secret of hating everything this administration stands for and the utmost distrust of their actions and motives.

What is your reason for supporting them? Who are you? What do you stand for? Anything?

Amicus

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Well, honesty is a good start. I stand for that. Basing my sociopolitical views on facts, as opposed to prejudice. And as far as our interaction goes, that's probably enough to go on with.

I gather you're admitting that there's no suspension of civil rights here? That it's just to help hospitals deal with the H1N1 outbreak? And that you were therefore just being your usual hateful, reactionary self?

[Dragonlipz]

Originally Posted by SixtyMinuteMan

Well, honesty is a good start. I stand for that. Basing my sociopolitical views on facts, as opposed to prejudice. And as far as our interaction goes, that's probably enough to go on with.

I gather you're admitting that there's no suspension of civil rights here? That it's just to help hospitals deal with the H1N1 outbreak? And that you were therefore just being your usual hateful, reactionary self?

His usual, inaccurate, hateful, reactionary, and racist self.......
Mon Ami cannot get over the fact that a mixed race man with the name of Barak Hossein Obama is now the President of the United Stated of America....duly elected........
I, on the other hand, have never been prouder of this country - the most compelling and beguiling social experiment to date.....
But then, I don't idolize bankrupt morality posing as fiction (Ayn Rand), racism posing as conservatism (Rush Limbaugh), or idiocy posing as Glenn Beck......
Just sayin'

[Zeb_Carter]

I was going go into a long drawn out rant about how this is just His first step in His master plan to do away with the electoral process and make Himself the emperor of America.

But no one but Ami would get it. Obama is only about Obama. He doesn't care about anyone or anything except himself or his power.

So if you really don't care about the people you represent why institute a "National Emergency"? Only two reasons come to mind...1: To look good for the press and the world. 2: to start the takeover.

Anne get your gun.

[SixtyMinuteMan]

Or, you know, because there's an emergency.

Just sayin'.

[Dragonlipz]

Originally Posted by Zeb_Carter

I was going go into a long drawn out rant about how this is just His first step in His master plan to do away with the electoral process and make Himself the emperor of America.

But no one but Ami would get it. Obama is only about Obama. He doesn't care about anyone or anything except himself or his power.

So if you really don't care about the people you represent why institute a "National Emergency"? Only two reasons come to mind...1: To look good for the press and the world. 2: to start the takeover.

Anne get your gun.

Or #3: There really is a problem with this flu strain and he's trying to do something responsible rather than frolic on his ranch in Crawford like your hero.........

[Boxlicker101]

Originally Posted by Zeb_Carter

I was going go into a long drawn out rant about how this is just His first step in His master plan to do away with the electoral process and make Himself the emperor of America.

But no one but Ami would get it. Obama is only about Obama. He doesn't care about anyone or anything except himself or his power.

So if you really don't care about the people you represent why institute a "National Emergency"? Only two reasons come to mind...1: To look good for the press and the world. 2: to start the takeover.

Anne get your gun.

I won't say I agree with you, but I will say there is a distinct possibility you are right. I have been saying for some time that Obama and his confederates are more likely than anybody in recent history to try to seize total control over the nation for themselves. Those who are sometimes described as "The Usual Suspects" probably used to say similar things about W and, if they are old enough, about Nixon.

The time is ripe for such an attempt, and Obama's party controls Congress. He is young and ambitious, which is usually desctiptive of a new dictator and he is trying to stifle news media and other agencies that he thinks oppose him and he has now declared a state of emergency. This one is innocuous, but the next one may not be. These are all steps dictators take when they seize power.

As I said, nothing may come of it, but steps have been taken in that direction.

[amicus]

Taking into consideration the range of intrusions into the market place made by the Obama Administration thus far: Nationalizing Banks and Auto Companies, Capping private corporation salaries and bonus's, attempts to stifle Broadcast and Cable News and Opinion content, attempting to Nationalize Health Care and the Energy Industry and using the Educational and Art community to further the programs of government, add this to the litany:


http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/...et-neutrality/

The FCC approved strong openness rules for wired and wireless broadband connections to the internet Thursday, leaving the details of the rules open to public debate for the next 60 days. The move will gratify President Obama’s grassroots supporters and internet services like Google, but draw the wrath of large telecoms like AT&T and the wireless industry.

The FCC’s five commissioners unanimously agreed to expand and codify rules from 2005 that require cable and DSL providers to allow their customers to use whatever devices or online services they want so long as they don’t hurt the network. A similar rule applied to AT&T’s phone monopoly in the 1960s led to the fax machine, the football phone and the internet.
The 107-page FCC proposal (.pdf) was made public several hours after the vote. However, the rules are only a draft and will be subject to intense public debate and lobbying in the next 60 days. After that, the FCC will issue final rules, which will then likely face court and Congressional challenges.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/...ality-mistake/

Now the FCC is proposing taking a free market that works, and adding another layer of innovation-stifling regulations on top of that? This may please the net neutrality advocates who helped elect the current administration, but it doesn’t add up.

Net neutrality regulations make sense in closed, monopolistic situations. But outside of small, rural markets, most of the U.S. offers a high level of competitive choice. Don’t like Comcast cable internet? Switch to SpeakEasy, Astound or SBC, or look into satellite internet. Don’t care for AT&T’s spotty 3G wireless network? Try T-Mobile or Verizon. Need help finding an alternative? Check Broadband Reports’ interactive ISP finder.

That’s why the FCC should take a very cautious, careful approach to implementing its brave, new principles. Free, unfettered innovation has been the secret to the internet’s explosive growth over the past two decades. Let’s not let a well-meaning attempt to preserve that innovation wind up doing exactly the opposite.

As Farber says, “Whatever you do, you don’t want to stifle innovation.”

~~~

Excerpts from the full text's linked above...

Regulation and control of private industry is always presented in such benign terms that few feel the need to object...

BIG mistake.

Amicus

[Huckleman2000]

Obama declares National Emergency; Right wing declares circle jerk.

[Liar]

Originally Posted by Zeb_Carter

But no one but Ami would get it. Obama is only about Obama. He doesn't care about anyone or anything except himself or his power.

I'm curious about this one. Because it seems to contradict the other common talking point from the Right side of the aisle, that of Obama being a too radical left wing extremist, wanting to change too much too fast, shouts of how terrible it is that Obama tries to "transform America", presumably into France or something.

You don't think he wants that then?

[Zeb_Carter]

Originally Posted by Liar

I'm curious about this one. Because it seems to contradict the other common talking point from the Right side of the aisle, that of Obama being a too radical left wing extremist, wanting to change too much too fast, shouts of how terrible it is that Obama tries to "transform America", presumably into France or something.

You don't think he wants that then?

He's actually trying for the Soviet Union not France with Him at the top. The only thing he wants if to install himself as the head of government like the Daley's did in Chicago. The grasshopper has learned well from the master.

[Dragonlipz]

Originally Posted by Boxlicker101

I won't say I agree with you, but I will say there is a distinct possibility you are right. I have been saying for some time that Obama and his confederates are more likely than anybody in recent history to try to seize total control over the nation for themselves. Those who are sometimes described as "The Usual Suspects" probably used to say similar things about W and, if they are old enough, about Nixon.

The time is ripe for such an attempt, and Obama's party controls Congress. He is young and ambitious, which is usually desctiptive of a new dictator and he is trying to stifle news media and other agencies that he thinks oppose him and he has now declared a state of emergency. This one is innocuous, but the next one may not be. These are all steps dictators take when they seize power.

As I said, nothing may come of it, but steps have been taken in that direction.

IF YOU BELIEVE ANY OF THE BULLSHIT YOU POSTED, YOU'RE A BIGGER LOSER THAN MON AMI (AMICUS).........

[Dragonlipz]

Originally Posted by Zeb_Carter

He's actually trying for the Soviet Union not France with Him at the top. The only thing he wants if to install himself as the head of government like the Daley's did in Chicago. The grasshopper has learned well from the master.

LOSER BABBLE......

[Dragonlipz]

Originally Posted by amicus

Taking into consideration the range of intrusions into the market place made by the Obama Administration thus far: Nationalizing Banks and Auto Companies, Capping private corporation salaries and bonus's, attempts to stifle Broadcast and Cable News and Opinion content, attempting to Nationalize Health Care and the Energy Industry and using the Educational and Art community to further the programs of government, add this to the litany:


http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/...et-neutrality/




http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2009/...ality-mistake/



~~~

Excerpts from the full text's linked above...

Regulation and control of private industry is always presented in such benign terms that few feel the need to object...

BIG mistake.

Amicus

TOTAL LOSER BABBLE.......

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxlicker101
I won't say I agree with you, but I will say there is a distinct possibility you are right. I have been saying for some time that Obama and his confederates are more likely than anybody in recent history to try to seize total control over the nation for themselves. Those who are sometimes described as "The Usual Suspects" probably used to say similar things about W and, if they are old enough, about Nixon.

The time is ripe for such an attempt, and Obama's party controls Congress. He is young and ambitious, which is usually desctiptive of a new dictator and he is trying to stifle news media and other agencies that he thinks oppose him and he has now declared a state of emergency. This one is innocuous, but the next one may not be. These are all steps dictators take when they seize power.

As I said, nothing may come of it, but steps have been taken in that direction.

Originally Posted by Dragonlipz

IF YOU BELIEVE ANY OF THE BULLSHIT YOU POSTED, YOU'RE A BIGGER LOSER THAN MON AMI (AMICUS).........

I am not predicting a coup' I'm just saying the likilihood is stronger than it has been in a long time.

I said Obama is young and amtitious. I said his party controls Congress. I said he is trying to stifle news media (Fox) that he thinks is opposed to him. I said he has declared a state of emergency. Which of those statements is so contrary to truth that you describe it as BS?