From: Gene McAloon 

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 01:34:51 -0400, "Mark"
 wrote:

>
>"Gene McAloon"  wrote: If an
attack occurs that
>interferes significantly
>> with the election, Congress would then have to vote a law allowing
>postponing.
>> That could be done easily at that time. There is no reason to pass such a
>> dangerous law now.
>
>Scenario: Multiple attacks occur on polling places on the east coast at 11AM
>EST
>Gene Solution: Congress votes in a new law at Noon.

Silly scenario. There would be no hurry for Congress to do anythng. The election
results could simply be declared unacceptable because unreliable and the
electora college prevented from doing its thing. No hurry to do any of
that.
>
>ROFL. But let's say the Congress could really act in an hour, what if their
>house is blown up, will they then vote by phone? But, putting aside the
>election for a moment, suppose their house is blown up with them in it, then
>what? They've not been forthcoming with legislation to expedite their
>replacement either.

No big problem either. The other house would likely do the law making for a time
until elections could be held with the proviso that anything it does be
subject to sunset provisions. The only real problem in that scenario is
that your dummy,
Bush, might try to declare martial law. Then we would really be in trouble.
>
>> The idea that they are waiting for the election
>> in November is farcical.
>
>Yes, it probably is. Still, I see no harm in having contigency plans in
>place an hour, or a day, or a week instead of their usual BS for years - do
"you"
>want Bush in power for a couple of extra years as Congress bickers?>
>
The fact of the matter is that you support this thorughly asinie proposal
only because it comes from your favorite dummies in the White House and
what they say
or do it is your duty to support. When have you ever disagree with the
dogma of the day?

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5