• Back at the office or school? Still working from home? Need to vent, or just connect with other planner and built environment types? Come join us!

    Cyburbia is a friendly big tent, where we share our experiences and thoughts about urban planning practice, planning adjacent topics, and whatever else comes to mind. No ads, no spam, no social distancing or masks required.

Should 9-11 be made a National Holiday?

Should 9-11 be made a US national holiday?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 4.2%
  • No

    Votes: 43 89.6%
  • Undecided, Other

    Votes: 3 6.3%

  • Total voters
    48
Status
Not open for further replies.

Wulf9

Member
Messages
922
Points
22
Giff and Wulf, let me guess, you are voting for Dean?




I haven't decided who to vote for yet. I will vote on issues and positions. I would be very interested in a person who tells the truth, does not pass a huge deficit onto future generations, will build international coalitions to fight international terrorists, will develop a real job creation policy and protects the environment, I would also be receptive to a person who has actually served in the military, as many of those know how horrible war actually is.

That criteria means I won't vote for George Bush, but, among Republicans, I would vote for John McCain, and I would have voted for Colin Powell before he joined the ranks of the untruthful.

Wulf
 
Last edited:

gkmo62u

Cyburbian
Messages
1,046
Points
24
Wulf

There is probably no way to find common ground. We both represent the clear divide that exists in the Country today.

Just a couple of minor thoughts...

Its not governments role to create jobs. Jobs have been lost post 9/11 for lots of reason, including the fact that companies a re running leaner and more effcient.

International coalitions already exist to fight terror, Country after Country are reporting arrests of Al Queda members etc...and have done so since 9/11.

Where you and I depart is that you want us to go to the UN for permission to defend ourselves.

When has the UN defended anyone? Ask the Rwandans.

As time goes on less and less candidates wil have served in any military capacity. Did you vote for President Clinton, he certainly did not serve.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Duke Of Dystopia said:
Incorect.

The record is kept in order for the "public institution" to necessitate the tracking and circulation of the "reading material" itself, NOT who reads it.

You know I could NEVER stay out of this one...

Grand juries and the FBI have always had the authority to subpoena records relevant to a criminal investigation, be they from the Boston Public Library or your local True Value Hardware. The Patriot Act provides this authority to FBI counterterrorism investigators - and requires a court order for it to be used. Under the Patriot Act, then, we have the following process - FBI identifies suspect, FBI goes to federal judge to request subpoena for records, federal judge must agree with FBI, federal judge issues subpoena. No "fishing" allowed, except in opponents heads. What, exactly, about this undermines your civil liberties, if they weren't already undermined under virtually every other federal criminal statute on the books? What you're basically saying, if you sincerely oppose those provisions in the Patriot Act that have been mentioned here, is that you think an Abu Nidal or Mohommed Atta ought to be given greater deference than Jimmy Hoffa or John Gotti.

Sorry, that makes no sense to me.
 

martini

Cyburbian
Messages
678
Points
19
There is no reason for a 'Patriot Day'. I feel that some thing like this will only hlep build on the fear that is already instilled on us by the media and the current administration. Besides, as I'm sure was mentioned, national holidays are for celebration, ie presidents, MLK jr, Washington, 4th of July, Thanksgiving, and New Years. Not mourning, not fear mongering. Patriotism is something that should be celebrated daily, not once a year(and not by putting a flag on your car, its NOT the same thing).

oh, and gkmo~it can be argued the Bush didn't serve either.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
martini said:
oh, and gkmo~it can be argued the Bush didn't serve either.

Not honestly.

And though I agree that 9/11 should not be a holiday, can you seriously mean that 11/11 is not a day of reflection and mourning as opposed to celebration?
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
922
Points
22
gkmo62u said:
Its not governments role to create jobs. Jobs have been lost post 9/11 for lots of reason, including the fact that companies a re running leaner and more effcient.

International coalitions already exist to fight terror, Country after Country are reporting arrests of Al Queda members etc...and have done so since 9/11.

Where you and I depart is that you want us to go to the UN for permission to defend ourselves.

When has the UN defended anyone? Ask the Rwandans.

As time goes on less and less candidates wil have served in any military capacity. Did you vote for President Clinton, he certainly did not serve.

Let's see now....

Government sets the framework for jobs. A free market exists in a range between regulation (government intrusion) and monopoly (private sector intrusion into the pricing mechanism). In a recession, one successful approach has been to spend government funds on projects that can only be completed by hiring people (roads, etc.) That tends to goose the economy.

Remember that Bill Clinton took a down economy and developed a government environment which created 22 million jobs. He didn't say "I can't improve the economy. It's George Bush's fault." The current administration took a strong but slowing economy and has now lost millions of jobs. They always blame Clinton. They don't look at the support of monopoly and the particular targets of tax cuts as factors that will contract a free market economy, but that's what they have done.

I didn't say we need to go to the U.N. for permission to defend ourselves. However, the U.N. is a good measure of international sentiment. It also provides legitimacy for wars of choice. I think it is clear now that Iraq was a "war of choice" and that the immediate and unilateral invasion was not required for our security. It was also clear that U.N. inspectors were telling the truth. It is also pretty clear that the administration did not tell the truth to the American people. Finally, I think that diplomacy would have brought together a broad coalition for either coercive inspections or military action (the coalition we are now trying to put together).

I don't usually ask for military service in Presidents. Right now, I think it would be a good idea because those with service tend to be more studied when they take military action.
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Wulf,

The economy grew over 3% in the second quarter. It's expected to grow 4.7% in the third, and in excess of 4% in the fourth. Will that be George W. Bush's fault too?
 

El Feo

Cyburbian
Messages
674
Points
19
Geez, guys I just read my last couple of posts, and I'm being a snarky ass today. Sorry.

But you still know what I mean.
 

Duke Of Dystopia

Cyburbian
Messages
2,699
Points
24
El Feo said:
Geez, guys I just read my last couple of posts, and I'm being a snarky ass today. Sorry.

Internet crashed with my response, don't want to do it again. In short, I normally agree with you, but in this case (this administration and PATRIOT I ACT) even the nations secret court believe the justice department has ABUSED provisions and use of the antiterrorist laws (last summers supreme court case where the dispute was heard).
 

Wulf9

Member
Messages
922
Points
22
El Feo said:
Wulf,

The economy grew over 3% in the second quarter. It's expected to grow 4.7% in the third, and in excess of 4% in the fourth. Will that be George W. Bush's fault too?

My comment was about jobs, not the economy.

There has been a lot of news coverage about the "jobless recovery." I don't consider there to be a "recovery" when millions of jobs are lost. I think that the president's economic program is directly responsible for the job loss. The tax cut gives money to people with jobs, so that doesn't directly create jobs. Tax cut money is going to upper income people who are as likely to put the money in stocks (no jobs created) as purchasing goods (creates jobs). The broad support of monopoly/oligopoly businesses is reducing employment and competition. (Media consolidation allows centralized programming, whereas, decentralized media requires local dj's.) I suppose that it economically more efficient, but it reduces choice and jobs.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top