So, Are the Dems Going To *Riot* If They Lose?

Stu Farish

Stu Farish

Director / Webmaster
Staff member
That's what Edward's wife seems to be implying.

Considering the violent acts they've already commited, she just might be on to something.
 
If there are riots, it will be democrats doing it. Whatever they are going to do, they might as well get to planning it! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

How do ya' like my banner Stu? I think it matches my eyes. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
 
I heard this all morning on the radio. Seems like a cheap shot to me. These people on the political trail deal with a ton of off the wall questions and everything is examined to death. She was obviously taking some quick questions, was thrown off balance a bit by a question about rioting, tosssed out a quick answer and moved on. I hate cheap shots like this, I hate it when the Democrats do it to Republicans and I hate it when the Republicans do it to Democrats. Why can't we stick to the real issues, god knows there are plent of those.
 
Unless I've missed something, in this context, that is correct. Its in the same league as picking at a skab.

Now if they were out on the campaign trail pushing the subject it would be very different.
 
That's how they do it Michael, just throw the Idea out there and it sticks! They don't have to drive it home, say it once and the media runs off with it for you... just plant the seed and watch it grow!
 
What JRB said... A seed starts off as a small thing, almost not noticed. When it comes to sowing discord/discontent/distrust, the most effective way is to suggest something in a small way, possibly never mentioning it again. Then it just becomes one of the things said in the mix of a whole LITANY of 'small things'... Eventually it all comes together and there WILL BE A RESULT!

Words MEAN things and people DO listen. What is said by anybody that has a national audience carries enough weight that they should exercise some responsibility. Now when a politician says things like 'stolen election', 'failed presidency', 'keeping blacks from voting', etc. etc. etc., it's gonna have an effect!! Nevermind that this little snipped came from Mrs. Edwards mouth, it's all coming from the same SOURCE!

If there are riots I'd like to see them dealt with in an effective, conclusive manner. It would be a very dangerous precedent for people to think that anything might be changed if enough people riot..

I'm starting to think we live in a banana republic anymore to hear the likes of Jesse Jackass, Al Sharpton, Al Gore and some of the lesser known but very vociferous DEMONcratic hacks out there! I mean really, this riot stuff comes AFTER the announcements that the dems were to claim voter disenfranchisement whether any existed or not, and try to use the legal system to steal the election for the dems!

Michael, you're trying to walk down the middle of the road here... I'm afraid you haven't realized those days are OVER! The middle doesn't exist anymore, you're gonna get run over...
 
I totally agree with Michael in that elections in this country are getting to be ridiculous. I blame the media largely for it because everything is SO blown out of proportion that you have to wade through all the muck to try and get a handle on what is important. There again I suppose the blame is on the American public for feeding on that stuff like sharks in a feeding frenzy.

I can see pros and cons to both candidates...but I also am having a huge problem with the fact that many issues do not get discussed because there is SO much focus on things that have nothing to do with why I would or would not vote for a person. I have never voted strictly by party line and never plan to. That of course is only MY way. I just do not believe that every Republican or every Democrat could possibly be the best to represent our country. No..sorry not Nader. He is much too idealistic and should use his money (in my opinion) to change things a different way if that is indeed his reasoning for what he does.

The person I choose to vote for is a personal decision. I was raised that way...something you just do not tell the world. And...to be honest, I think we would all be better off if we all were like that. Elections might THEN stop being personality contests or beauty pageants.

Honestly, I am having a very hard time with this election because of all the bs. All I hear and see is backbiting instead of talking about the real issues. I really wish someone would just say OK this is enough and do something to change the way things are done in the country with elections.

I suppose we are all guilty in a way by posting those funny pics which is exactly why I tried my best to balance mine...but there should be an END to it all.
 
Originally posted by pyledriver:
[qb]Words MEAN things and people DO listen. What is said by anybody that has a national audience carries enough weight that they should exercise some responsibility. Now when a politician says things like 'stolen election', 'failed presidency', 'keeping blacks from voting', etc. etc. etc., it's gonna have an effect!! Nevermind that this little snipped came from Mrs. Edwards mouth, it's all coming from the same SOURCE![/qb]
Click to expand...
The above is not the same, no way is it the same as the riot comment. Mrs. Edwards was responding to a question thrown at ther from the crowd. She didn't weave the wors riot into the conversation as the Democrats have weaved the phrases you have mentioned.

With that in mind, when I hear "'stolen election', 'failed presidency', 'keeping blacks from voting', etc. etc. etc." I get as upset as any of you do. Much of that talk is nothing more that bald faced lies designed to mislead the gullible, the easily lead. Grabbing hold of this riot thing is lessening the agruement against the type of blatant smearing like the examples above.......
 
Ladyjane,

Voting for one individual over another may still be workable on the local level, but I fear that it may not be all that workable on the national level anymore. The reason is that at this level the political party of the candidate makes at least as much difference as the candidate. That is, there's a lot of ideological baggage clinging to anyone who runs for federal office, mostly due to the time they've been in other politics before running for the federal slot.

People who pay little or no attention to politics or politicians except for once every four years (who I think may make up the majority of the 'undecideds') may not really grasp what I mean. They see just Kerry and just Bush. But, each one hews to a set of ideological beliefs honed and developed over a lifetime, and which are influenced by their respective parties to some extent. Vote for Bush, you'll get part of the conservative agenda. Vote for Kerry, you'll get the liberal agenda. To include which organizations get to benefit from having White House access etc. (NRA vs. Sarah Brady, for example).

What I'm saying is that I don't think you can separate the individual candidates from their ideologies and party links. So for me, I look less at the individual's traits and more towards what there party will likely pressure them to do once in office. I consider Bush to be okay but not great, I consider Kerry to be Clinton without the slick charm and bimbo eruptions, but even more important is I see Bush and his party as constitutional original-intentists and defenders of the 2nd amendment, while Kerry and his party strike me as anti-constitutional socialists (and whining, irrational, dishonest, power-mad children as well, but that's another story).

So for me it goes way deeper than this-guy-vs.-that-guy. All the political/ideological baggage has to be factored in too. And with the way the Dems have been behaving lately, I vote party line - not FOR Republicans, but AGAINST Democrats. For me it's a matter of keeping my enemies out of power. Would be nice to be able to just think about each candidate, but I think it goes way beyond that, at least for me.

Just my $.02.
 
But there again...when you mention Sarah Brady and the Second Amendment, it appears to me that only one issue is important to you. That is of course, your right. I do not support gun control...but I also totally disagree with Bush about medications. I pay for my own medications and feel I have a right to purchase them wherever I darn (edited...OOPS) well please...just as anyone has a right to bear arms. Maybe there is no Amendment that quite supports me...but I STILL feel I have that right. *shrug*

I just do not see either party as totally representative of what I believe in. But...once again I blame the American public for letting this go on and get so far out of hand. All the politicians do now is try to compete without really telling us the total truth!

I do agree that what you say about my thinking not working...that is WHY I say that I feel something needs to be done. It is getting to where politics is a joke at ANY level....as I said, I liken elections to Beauty Pageants. I really do not want Mr./Mrs. Congeniality to represent my interests.
 
Jane, it's strange to me that you always go back to "You're a single issue Republican" but follow that right up with your ONE CONSISTANT COMPLAINT about prescription drugs.

I have a feeling that Colorado Pete isn't a single issue republican, I have doubts he would follow John Kerry on many of the issues that really matter. Why do I think that? Because politics isn't just your OPINION. A man's politics is WHO HE IS, gun ownership, national defense, right from wrong, earning from handouts, religion, morals... on and on and on.

When a person supports the second amendment they OFTEN support tough punishment for those who violate our laws. Those same people OFTEN support a strong national defense and a homeland security. It's sort of the domino affect... YES there is always a kicker in the bunch where a guy will be off of a particular platform on one or two issues but the MAJORITY of a man's character will encompass his political stance. For this reason I always wonder why you seem to think we're all second amendment pushovers. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif
 
I'm not a single issue voter. But my list starts with gun rights.

If a politician won't trust me to exercise my gun rights, then I will not trust that politician with ANYTHING, period.

The Poodle has a 20 year track record that clearly demonstrates that he does not trust me with my guns, my money, and many other things.

Couple those items with the fact that his track record is also exactly opposite of what I expect to see when I look for one to be strong on national defense and security, and there is absolutely no reason to trust him with anything at all.

What good will cheap prescription drugs be, if the price paid includes increased terrorist activity here at home? And yes, I do expect that to result if he wins. I could be wrong, but that is what I honestly expect.
 
Once again Stu, you have hit the nail, smack, dab, on the head!!! I couldn't agree more. People just seem to be turning a conviently "blind eye" to the fact that terrorism is a real threat!!

I had a co-worker tell me that he was going to vote for John Kerry because he didn't like what BUSH had done to our "economy".

I asked him what he thought would have happened after 9-11 occured if President Bush hadn't taken the FIGHT to them?!? He told me that we probably would have had to borrow money from Canada.

I went on to ask him how many terrorist attacks have occured in THIS country since BUSH started whacking and stacking them. He replied "none".

I then asked him, if we had not immediately started our ATTACK against terrorists, world wide, and we had been attacked again, where would our "economy" be now. All in all, by President Bush viciously attacking Al-Quada, and Iraq, he has avoided more attacks on our country, and has dramatically helped and "DEFENDED" our economy. He didn't have much to say after that. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Heck JRB, I'm not even a registered Republican..I'm an independent. Actually I agree with 75-85% of the right's ideology, and disagree with probably 99% of the left's (not sure about that 1% but I'll give them that much benefit of the doubt). So, the candidates mean less to me than the party structure behind them.

The reason politics is the way it is in this country is because the majority of the citizenry is apathetic and ignorant of the real issues, competing ideologies, personal histories, beliefs etc. of the politicians and their parties, and don't care to change that condition. Don't know the whole reason why - maybe the alleged lack of civics and truthful, complete history in public education, maybe the saturation of left-leaners in mainstream media, or the unwillingness of so many people to do the hard work of fact-finding and thinking for themselves further than the end of their own noses, who knows.

Wish I knew how to fix it though, gives me the willies. Our heritage as a certain type of political construction is slipping away, which is a terrible disaster.
 
terrorism
n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear [syn: act of terrorism, terrorist act]

Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

key word: calculated

I am sorry (no I am not, really /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif ), but I do not buy that story about us being safer here in the US because of what Bush has done. How long did it take for bin Laden to nail the World Trade Center after the *first* attack on it? Long enough to *calculate* and take us completely off guard. I am a firm believer that it will happen again no matter WHO is the President. I sincerely hope that I am wrong. Bush, himself, has said terrorism will not be defeated..only to take it back when he was jumped on. Personally, I appreciate that kind of honesty...I am sorry he took it back. I DO believe that Bush has a no nonsense approach and will not allow someone like Saddam to manipulate as he had been doing for years ...but I for one do not believe that will ever stop the terrorists. They are sitting patiently waiting to instill more fear in us.
As for how you believe about gun rights I agree with you...but you do NOT understand what it is (OBVIOUSLY) for people to have to pay out the a$$ for medications or that might be a concern of yours as well. We all have our concerns that affect us personally. I want the same things you do..but I also want *other* things. People who call ALL civil law attorneys *ambulance chasers* never really considered how they would feel if a drug addicted physician ruined them for life....making them unable to support a family or take care of themselves. Yes...I believe that some attorneys are a problem in that they can sue for just about ANY reason and it is out of hand...but to accuse them ALL of being ambulance chasers I feel is wrong. Some do have ethics. I have personally known some who refused cases that they felt were without merit. They DO have that right. What about the people who go looking for these attorneys? Does anyone every say that the American public is guilty of allowing this to happen?? Speaking of attorneys....has anyone ever stopped to think about the fact that what you pay for is what you get....and many of the wealthy criminals in this country walk the streets because they could afford legal representation that others could not. Is that not also an outrage?? OK ENOUGH OF THAT RANT!
I feel Kerry is full of cr*p, too...because all he harps about is the tax cut for the wealthy. YES..there was one, as is typical for the Republicans to do, BUT that alone will not repair everything that he says it will. In the debates that is ALL he said he was going to use to finance all he plans to do. BS!! Anyone with a brainstem would know that is not possible. Just say you are going to tax the hell out of us and then let us decide if we want that!
I feel all the TWO of them do is harp about a whole lot of bs..."flip flopping", "tax cuts to the wealthy", and whatever they choose to harp on on any given day and I am sick of it all! *sigh* I am going back on my word to myself and tell you that I do not like EITHER choice.

Right now the one thing that stands out in my mind is the not so gentle reminder of the Supreme Court. That right there supports what someone said earlier about voting party line for one reason. People say that they don't want it to be a political issue...but personally I think it should be. Renquist, if he should part, should be replaced with a like minded thinker. Of course no one really knows who might end up being replaced, but certainly someone will be in the next four years. I will pray for Renquist and hope he is well....I have a terrible feeling that he is much sicker than we are told. It certainly sounded that way to me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif

As for the war on terrorism, I will eat my words if in the next four years with Bush at the helm there are NO MORE terrorist attacks in this country..and I will eat them happily!
 
Ladyjane, let me clarify something if I may. First of all, there is really nothing a person or group can do to stop a "Master Minded" plot like 9-11. This is a given. If a well funded group of radical extrmests, let's call them terrorists, has a mind to conduct an attack, it is difficult to predict, and defend against as it may come from any direction at any time. The most that can be done is prevention and intelligence. The ability to more *accurately* predict and avoid such instances.

These are things that John Kerry voted against.

The "attacks" that have been thwarted are the *small scale psycological* attacks. The bombs in theaters, car bombs, suicide bombers on buses, ect. Our attack has made them run for cover in a big way.

Can you HONESTLY tell me that had we done NOTHING, we would not have already been struck again? Be it on a large or small scale.

As it stands, for now, terror attacks have occured on the "terrorists" own soil, or in nations that were to cowardly to stand against them in the first place.

Had President Bush done nothing, GOD only knows where our precious "economy" would be.

I speak from the heart here. I have a son in the Marine Corps who believes WHOLE-HEARTEDLY in what he is doing over there. I received an e-mail from him just today, and he explained to me how his convoy had been attacked just yesterday in Fallujah. Yes, my son is there, and yes, they smoked the little bast*rds who attacked them.

I will end my "rant" now, but make NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT, we are safer with George Bush as President than with Snaggle-tooth in office.
 
Jeff: I do not disagree with what you said. Perhaps I did not do a very good job of saying what I was thinking. I am just tired of hearing that we have not had another attack because of what Bush did. It *might* be true and we *might* be safer, but by *what* do we measure? That is all I was saying. I also believe I said that Bush has a no nonsense approach which I do applaud. Do I think the administration misjudged some things..yes...but the MAIN problem is that the stupid American public does not want to hear that. Bush is not allowed to be human. He was jumped on the minute he said terrorism cannot be defeated totally. As for Iraq, at this time we have no choice but to do what we are doing...to retreat would be terribly unfair to the people there who want to be free and to the people who are fighting to help them. I just am sick of hearing that it is the end all. My main point in all of it was to simply point out that candidates cannot BE honest. We do not allow them to be.

As for the economy: I am not sure, but I am also not an economist so it is hard for me to grasp it. I DO know that the stock market is not fairing well...I do not know if that really means anything in regards to the economy. Call me totally not well read on that subject.

Edit: I will pray for your son. I pray for the troops, but I really do not know anyone who is there. Our Post Office has a really neat thing where we can drop off care packages and there is a jar for collecting donations to pay for shipping.
 
Al Queda had 8 years, 1992-2000 to build wealth, membership and plan for the attacks of 9/11/2001 free of disruption. Since George Bush sent troops into Afghanistan the terror networks have been on the run in one way or another... period.

Look at it like Joe Montanna rolling back in the pocket to dump a 80 yard pass to Jerry Rice. That was the situation of 9/11/01 where they had time to plan precisely and execute their attack.

Now take away the offensive line and let 5 big burly men chase Montanna around the field while the other 6 gaurd Rice in the end zone and see what happens. Thats the equivelant of our soldiers chasing the maggots around over seas and our increased homeland security at work right here.

There is no way I'd listen to the "We're no safer" argument after the way George Bush handled this terror threat. Kerry even dropped that concept after it didn't catch on very well... oh wait, or did he pick it back up again? Who's keeping track?! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
 
Back
Top