le Voyageur 72 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 A little something to ponder on as we head into the next presidential race.... http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/mar2002/shad-m04.shtml Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster7 11 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 le Voyageur, Is there no boundary that you are unwilling to cross in order to garner support for your liberal views? Is there no accusation too outlandish? Is there no mud that you are not willing to sling? Just because Bush was wise enough to take action to ensure a centralize government would survive ists attacks, does not make him Mussolini. You do go too far Link to post Share on other sites
Quixote 10 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 The establishment of secure locations in the event of any kind of national emergency has been around for MANY years. Nice to know socialism in all it's forms is well represented by lV within the BSA. Link to post Share on other sites
le Voyageur 72 Posted January 20, 2003 Author Share Posted January 20, 2003 Yep, nothing like being the squeaky wheel...... Link to post Share on other sites
eisely 13 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Silly article. Link to post Share on other sites
RobK 10 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 Coming from a socialist website, this article is almost self-parody. What's next, are they going to trot out a Che Guevara look-a-like to decry the prison camp at Gitmo? BTW, one of the locations "believed to be in mountainous terrain in the eastern United States" is an underground complex at a resort in Greenbrier, West Virginia. It's been around for most of the past century. Link to post Share on other sites
evmori 11 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 le Voyageur, What is the point of that article? Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to post Share on other sites
le Voyageur 72 Posted January 20, 2003 Author Share Posted January 20, 2003 You've got a computer in front of you...do some homework and look for the Washington Post article on "Shadow Government", 28 Feb. 2002.....(so, will this make me a conservative Republican now???) Link to post Share on other sites
OldGreyEagle 5 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 The way I read it, all the "saved" people were from the Executive branch of the government. Maybe the guidelines should be rewritten to include the speaker of the house and the minority leader as well as the two highest ranking senators, one democrat and one republican as well the "Supremes" (look I could have said SCOTUS but this has more ring to it) If this was done, the surviving government would have remnants of all three branches. I think thats what should happen. Link to post Share on other sites
KoreaScouter 13 Posted January 20, 2003 Share Posted January 20, 2003 The most solemn obligation of a government is to protect its citizens. Government leaders who do not ensure their organizations are capable of uninterrupted operations in the event of natural or man-made emergency are negligent in their duties. This is typically done by redundant operations centers, with backup files and means of communications, sometimes with skeleton staffs. It's a concept I've lived and worked with in both the public and private sector for years. How do you think so many private businesses were able to re-establish so quickly after the terrorist attacks destroyed their headquarters in the WTC? By having a backup operations center with redundant capabilities, that's how. I guess we could, in a sinister manner, refer to that as "shadow businesses"? KS Link to post Share on other sites
Twocubdad 665 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 It bothers me somewhat that the author of this article would twist and distort the facts to try and make a cheap political point. But it really bothers me that it was done so poorly. Even the internal logic of the story doesn't make sense. How is this a "shadow" government if the real goverment has presumably been annhilated? But beyond that, they don't even have their facts right. The "most sinsiter" indictment in the article is that the administration is failing to follow proscribed president succession by not including the Speaker of the House and President Pro Temp of the Senate in the new government. But the fact is that each branch of government is responsible for it's own emergency plans. The Greenbriar, WVa, facility was in fact built for Congress to set up shop in the event of nuclear attack. Since it's cover was blown 5 or 6 years ago, Congress has presumably made other contigency plans. I think the administration is using the war on terrorism as cover to trample on our privacy and liberties, but this article is bush league (no pun intended). Link to post Share on other sites
k9gold-scout 10 Posted January 21, 2003 Share Posted January 21, 2003 This would be a good topic for The Art Bell midnight radio program.This would surely appeal to the people who make up a survival kit of gold and ammo. Link to post Share on other sites
le Voyageur 72 Posted January 22, 2003 Author Share Posted January 22, 2003 Ed, The reason for this post is twofold...first, it's a counterpoint to Rooster's love fest thread for Bush. The second, unlike the smoke and mirrors found in the far right wing rags, these guys spills the ink which allows one to explore and verify many different topics from many different sources. Both OGE and KS picked up on one of the topic, but Rooster went into the attack mode. So, what is wrong about openly talking about the continuity of government, or the direction that the Bush Adiminstration is taking this country. Or of the many other topics that has been broached. Does all the information that is fed to us by the media must come from the far right, and only from the far right. What's wrong with looking at something on the far left for a change to see where these folks are coming from, a feel a different under current in American fabric. Shouldn't being informed mean availing one's self to as much material as possible to be a better and more informed voter..... As to what Rooster or the other few negative posters have stated I could care less. Being a skeptic and a freethinker I've been called worse. Link to post Share on other sites
Rooster7 11 Posted January 22, 2003 Share Posted January 22, 2003 le Voyageur, If you're a "free thinker", why are you held captive by your politics? The fact that you would post a link to such an article demonstrates that your thoughts are very well contained and bound by preconceived notions that conservatives and their supporters are intent on evil. BTW, what exactly did I call you - "Mud slinger"? - If that's it, I guess I'm guilty.(This message has been edited by Rooster7) Link to post Share on other sites
le Voyageur 72 Posted January 22, 2003 Author Share Posted January 22, 2003 jeezs, pure baloney.....not even worthy of a comment! Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now