What's that smell?

by **Murgatroyd** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 6:55 am

Smells to me like a Reichstag burning down.

US 'may delay vote if attacked'

Security is a major issue in the upcoming US elections
The Bush administration is reported to be investigating the possibility of postponing the presidential election in the event of a terror attack.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3885663.stm

I dunno about you guys, but I find the fact that they're actually overtly entertaining the fact terrifying.

by **Keekanoo** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:16 am

Perpetual war. Where have I heard of this one before? Oh yes, 1984.

by **Tour of Duty** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 7:27 am

there will be no terror attack.
Everytime there is going to happen something special in the US (Super Bowl) or in the world (Olympics) everybody is afraid there will be attack. But it won't come, because:
1. terrorist are shitting in there pants right now
2. if I was planning an attack, I won't do it on an event where the security is maximum.

by **RCglider** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:39 am

Smells more like
P-A-R-A-N-O-I-A

Of course, if inadequate precautions or plans (there's never enough) are made should another 911 type attack occur, Bush would be accused of letting it happen on purpose.....oops, he already did that before right?

In the words of Jim Traficant, beam me up Mr. Speaker!

by **Murgatroyd** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 8:54 am

Well, it might surprise you to discover that I for one, don't blame Bush for 9-11, two, consider myself a Republican, and three, wouldn't mind seeing GW re-elected.

However, I'm frightened by the thought that any US president or administration would attempt to postpone elections under any circumstances. That's a prime way to end up with a Presidente-for-life.

Think about the situation before dismissing it as paranoia. It's happened before, it can happen again.

by **Mugzy** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 9:41 am

Can you say Wag the Dog ?

by **RCglider** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:09 am

Originally posted by Murgatroyd
Well, it might surprise you to discover that I for one, don't blame Bush for 9-11, two, consider myself a Republican, and three, wouldn't mind seeing GW re-elected.

However, I'm frightened by the thought that any US president or administration would attempt to postpone elections under any circumstances. That's a prime way to end up with a Presidente-for-life.

Think about the situation before dismissing it as paranoia. It's happened before, it can happen again.

Some said the same thing about Clinton. He was going to declare himself King, and the black helicopters were going to round up all his political opponents. As corrupt as he is, even I had to chuckle at that.

I'm more concerned what the government does legislatively and judicially writing laws by fiat. However, you do make a valid point. Bit by bit, they are chipping away at our Constitution. This really began during the Roosevelt administration with the adaptation of Maritime law applying to U.S. citizens on land. It's nothing conspiratorial, just fact.

Without sounding like those I accuse of being paranoid, the next time you're in a court room, observe the American flag and notice the gold trim around it. Ever wonder why that is?

So, I'm not in total disagreement with you, just that the wheels have been in motion for over 70 years. Bush doesn't need to decree anything, it's already been done.

What's funny is, people don't realize their driver license is much more than a privledge to drive a car. Once you sign it, you agree to more than just following traffic law. Look up UCC (Uniformed Commercial Code). Been there, done that.

In a nutshell, we used to live under Common Law, Contract Law and Maritime Law (applied to the high seas). Since 1933, we've been under Maritime Law.

It's all in the Congressional Record.

Edit: I should add, with respect to the current two Party system, the Democrat Party has been hijacked by the whacked out Left and fallen off the cliff into the abyss. The Republican Party is moving in that direction as a whole, just not as rapidly. Both give lip service to gain votes, but in the end, both are spending/legislating us into slavery. I will only vote for Bush because I'm still too cowardly to split from the Republican Party and vote according to my conscience, once again for the lesser of two evils. I guess I'm not ready for a Kerry Socialist.

by **Colonel Ingus** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 10:53 am

Edit: I should add, with respect to the current two Party system, the Democrat Party has been hijacked by the whacked out Left and fallen off the cliff into the abyss. The Republican Party is moving in that direction as a whole, just not as rapidly. Both give lip service to gain votes, but in the end, both are spending/legislating us into slavery. I will only vote for Bush because I'm still too cowardly to split from the Republican Party and vote according to my conscience, once again for the lesser of two evils. I guess I'm not ready for a Kerry Socialist.

Aha! I guess I am not the only one who thinks that eh? Thats why I start threads like "The Slow Crumble of The US"

I guess the only thing I would say different is that I was/am not a republican, nor a democratic. Hell if I had to chose I am leaning republican. Its got the word Pub in it:D .

The only reason I am leaning Bush is the War on Terror. I have seen the Democratic track record over the past 25 years and I find it less than impressive. Not starting arguments and don't want to hear it. The facts speak for themselves.

Bush has already succesful screwed us domestically so there isn't much more danger there. We'll just have to live out the effects. I mean seriously, anyone here say "I am going to take a voluntary paycut and then spend more than I ever have before!" The important thing would be to get a democratic house or senate to keep the damage down while we prosecute the war.

BOTH party have been slowly chipping away at our liberties and building a society with more and more complex laws to restrict our freedoms.

You'll notice the quote in my sigs from Thomas Jefferson about: ..."The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

He wasn't talking about the British Monarchy, He wasn't talking about future threats like the Soviet Union. He was talking about the Government of the United States.

Hence one of the other quotes from Jefferson:
..." The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."

by **Jeffro** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 11:08 am

Originally posted by Keekanoo
Perpetual war. Where have I heard of this one before? Oh yes, 1984.

Depressing book

by **cavalierlwt** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 11:22 am

I'm not paranoid, but I think delaying the vote in the event of a terrorist attack is a big mistake. If 9/11 occurred on election day, we could still vote. As long as we have pencils and voting forms, we can vote. City clerks can move the equipment to alternate locations if they have to. Delaying the elections is a way of giving in to the terrorists. We have a great system, even with it's flaws, we can still have an election in the middle of a crisis.

by **LordShard** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 11:35 am

presidemt for life type deal was tried before in mississippi before I think it was. The governer was stopped from doing it somehow which I don't remember. (Saw it on the history channel)

by **RCglider** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 11:44 am

Originally posted by LordShard
presidemt for life type deal was tried before in mississippi before I think it was. The governer was stopped from doing it somehow which I don't remember. (Saw it on the history channel)

This may not be who you're referring to, but Huey Long was governor of Louisiana in the 1930's. If he could be ressurected, he'd be the 2004 Democrat Presidential nomineee. "Everyone a millionaire", "Share the wealth" or something like that was his slogan. The guy was a nutcase.

by **Sewer-Urchin** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 12:51 pm

The rational behind having a plan in place to delay elections is to avoid giving in to the terrorists. Look at Madrid: succesful bombings a few days before the elections completely changed the was people were voting. Before the attacks the incumbent party was leading. Some radicals blow up 4 trains and warn that more will happen if Spain stays in Iraq. People are scared and vote in the opposition. The terrorists win. Now they think if it works there, it'll work somewhere else. I personally don't think there will be an attack around election time if they think that Kerry has a legitimate shot. If Bush is clearly leading the polls then something might be tried to sway people. Again, just my $.02

by **Pierce** » Mon Jul 12, 2004 1:01 pm

I'm just hoping they don't attack and the elections continue without a hitch.

What's that smell?

What's that smell?

Who is online