# Suspend the 2012 election?



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Remember a couple of us being told we were radical when we said electing Obama would endanger elections? Ya, we were the crazy ones. Well today on the radio I heard an audio of a liberal woman from some state calling for just that. Her excuse was the demonstrations. She says if any violence occurs we may have to suspend the elections. Why?

Obama is smart enough to know he hasn't got a chance. That's why he started the class warefare. Now he has handlers organizing these demostrations, and within months these demonstrations will become riots. Iran is calling it American fall, and comparing it to Arab Spring.

We don't have radical conservatives saying things we have not to smart liberals who don't see anything happening. Blind and foolish.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

I'm not sure it is the same woman but our DumbAzz governor made that statement a week or two ago! :eyeroll:


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

One nameless liberal women advocating the suspension of an election vs. 220 year precedent backed up by the the United States Constitution....... Sounds reasonable. About as reasonable as using one persons opinion to paint a blanket opinion of a whole group.

I heard in a bar last weekend, some conservative guy say that 6 year olds should be able to bring machine guns to school to settle issues with classmates. I told you that all conservatives were gun violent idiots that hate school children.

Nice leap in logic, plainsman.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

Her name is Beverly Pardue gov of NC. She is such a left winger she would trip and break her neck if she tried to turn right. :eyeroll:

Here is and artible from The Canadian Free Press. You want see this from the media here.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/40802

And I would like to add that I think this was done to test the water to see what the dem's can do to keep power!


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Testing the waters for what? A overturning of 220 years of election precedent and the United States Constitution? Our election process and Constitution has withstood wars (including the Civil War), Presidential successions, protests, massive social movements,terror attacks etc. And now you are saying one person, president or group of misguided protesters are going to do away with our election process?

Do you realize how stupid that makes you guys sound? Sit back and use your brain rather than your paranoid heart.

But I expect nothing less from a this group of "broad" thinkers. See birther debate, Obama is a muslim debate, Obama and Hitler are one in the same debate, and under an Obama Presidency, no one will have guns debate.... as reference points.

The conservative viewpoint is very valid and on the winning side at this point in time but when you continually push the above thinking/theories, many dismiss you guys as fringe crack pots. Say what you want but that is a fact!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Kook-Aid10, a governor is a lot different than a guy in a bar. Also, read Saul Alinsky and you will see it follows his plan and the other Marxist type publications. Go back and read the things we predicted before the election. Then compare them to where we are today. A number of us were spot on and more willing to face reality than delusional bliss.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Plainsman said:


> Remember a couple of us being told we were radical when we said electing Obama would endanger elections? Ya, we were the crazy ones.* Well today on the radio I heard an audio of a liberal woman from some state calling for just that*. Her excuse was the demonstrations. She says if any violence occurs we may have to suspend the elections. Why?
> 
> .


Directly from your original post. Your original post was spawned by "a liberal women from some state."

Also, the fact that it was a governor, holds no more weight to cancelling an election. A governor really can't overturn an election in the US. See amending the Constitution in your 9th grade Civics book for the proper methods.....

You claim kool-aid, yet you pose factless theories, after factless theories out there.....without considering any other explanation.

To be fair, numerous pre-inaguration predictions have also been proven false, paranoia. Again, see my previously printed list.

I am just glad that your predicted police state allows me to carry a gun out hunting....but too bad I had to pay a $50 per gun tax...oh wait.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Gooseguy....

I don't want to beat my chest. But everything which I predicted pre-election and also with every big bill that this administration has gotten passed has been spot on! Just go back and dig up the threads.

HC bill - won't lower the cost of health insurance one bit
Cash for clunkers - won't stimulate the economy People still lost jobs at the factories.
Bank bail outs - won't help save homes and the banks will just pocket the majority of the money and keep foreclosing
etc.

Now I am not an economist or anything like that. I just know history. It is repeating itself. I am also not doom and gloom like others on this site but yet some of the things they are worried about are slipping more and more to the truth....ie fast and furious, the possible impeachment or looking into obama's campaign contributions and then awarding the contracts to that defunked company now, etc.

The economy....One major thing that needs to happen is interest rates need to creep back up around 10% mark. This will get people back investing. It is what was needed in the late 70's and early 80's. Because right now my money is safer under my matress with me sleeping on it with my pistol on my nightstand than in any bank. The FDIC can only pay back about 10% of all the money they are supposed to have insured!!! Think about that....that is scary as hell.

The jobs bill.....he wants goverment to "create" jobs. Goverment cant create jobs a need is what creates jobs. Example.... I need my lawn mowed and I can't mow my lawn. I need some one to do it...that created a job. It will just be like the cash for clunkers. The goverment will spend money (which they don't have) to make an artificial need....ie a bridge that is perfectly fine needs to be repaired. So once that job is done and the goverment spends that money. The people will be right back to square one....unemployed and collecting welfare. What has happened....the goverment spent more money via having the bridge repaired. Which inturn makes our taxes go up, national debt increases, and we are right back to square one. If you don't believe me....look at the cash for clunkers and the auto bail out!

Then obama going on saying that the GOP has not said why they won't back his job's plan is a lie. They have over and over. They have stated what they will agree too and also what they want different in it. It is all political BS he is playing. I hope that people have finally gotten rid of the blinders with this guy and the Dems....also some Republicans as well. They are politicians first and leaders second. That is our problem.

Sorry for the rant....but people we are far from even the bottom of this recession with out a snowballs chance in well you know where of getting out of it with all the BS in washington.


----------



## ShineRunner (Sep 11, 2002)

This is kinda long but it is true, just in case anyone doesn't believe that our gun's can't be confiscated!!! Read it all the way through and send to all your friends especially the one's that don't believe the government isn't trying to disarm the public especially the present administration!!! :******:

JUST A SHOTGUN

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door.

Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear,
you hear muffled whispers.

At least two people have broken into your
house and are moving your way.

With your heart pumping, you reach down
beside your bed and pick up your shotgun.

You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch
toward the door and open it.

In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar.
When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike,
you raise the shotgun and fire.

The blast knocks both thugs to the floor.

One writhes and screams while the second
man crawls to the front door and lurches outside.

As you pick up the telephone to call police,
you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years
before, and the few that are privately owned
are so stringently regulated as to make them useless..

Yours was never registered.

Police arrive and inform you
that the second burglar has died.

They arrest you for First Degree Murder
and Illegal Possession of a Firearm.

When you talk to your attorney, he tells
you not to worry: authorities will probably
plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years,"
he replies, as if that's nothing.
"Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead
story in the local newspaper.

Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric
vigilante while the two men you shot
are represented as choirboys.

Their friends and relatives can't find
an unkind word to say about them..

Buried deep down in the article, authorities
acknowledge that both "victims" have been 
arrested numerous times.

But the next day's headline says it all:

"Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die."

The thieves have been transformed from career 
criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters..

As the days wear on, the story takes wings.

The national media picks it up,
then the international media.

The surviving burglar 
has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing
to sue you, and he'll probably win.

The media publishes reports that your
home has been burglarized several times in 
the past and that you've been critical 
of local police for their lackof effort in 
apprehending the suspects.

After the last break-in, you told your neighbor
that you would be prepared next time.

The District Attorney uses this to allege
that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial.

The charges haven't been reduced,
as your lawyer had so confidently predicted.

When you take the stand, your anger at
the injustice of it all works against you..

Prosecutors paint a picture of you
as a mean, vengeful man.

It doesn't take long for the jury to convict
you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth,
Norfolk, England, killed one burglar 
and wounded a second.

In April, 2000, he was convicted
and is now serving a life term...

How did it become a crime to defend one's
own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903.

This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling 
pistols to minors or felons and established 
that handgun sales were to be made only to 
those who had a license. The Firearms Act 
of 1920 expanded licensing to include not 
only handguns but all firearms except shotguns..

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed 
the carrying of any weapon by private citizens 
and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began 
in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987.

Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed man with
a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets 
shooting everyone he saw.

When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty 
years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. 
(The seizure of all privately owned handguns 
was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, 
Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic 
weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher 
at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed 
all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. 
Now the press had a real kook with which 
to beat up law-abiding gun owners. 
Day after day, week after week, the media 
gave up all pretense of objectivity and 
demanded a total ban on all handguns. 
The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, 
sealed the fate of the few sidearms still 
owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government 
incrementally took away most gun rights, 
the notion that a citizen had the right to armed 
self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. 
Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to 
people who were threatened, claiming that 
self-defense was no longer considered a reason 
to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or 
robbers or rapists were charged while the 
real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, 
a police spokesman was quoted as saying, 
"We cannot have people 
take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors 
had been robbed numerous times, 
and several elderly people were severely injured 
in beatings by young thugs 
who had no fear of the consequences. 
Martin himself, a collector of antiques, 
had seen most of his collection 
trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, 
citizens who owned handguns 
were given three months to turn them over 
to local authorities.

Being good British subjects, 
most people obeyed the law. 
The few who didn't were visited by police 
and threatened with ten-year prison sentences 
if they didn't comply.

Police later bragged that they'd taken 
nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns?
The guns had been registered and licensed.
Kind of like cars. Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA ; THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING 
FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"...It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, 
tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."
--Samuel Adams

You had better wake up, because Obama is doing this very same thing, 
over here, if he can get it done. And there are stupid people 
in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.


----------



## Gooseguy10 (Oct 10, 2006)

Chuck-

Outside of his willingness/ability to track down high profile terrorists and kill them, I think the guy is a failure as a president. I didn't vote for him in 2008 and won't next year (if we have an election :roll: ). I am sure plainsman's racoon skin undies will get in a bind and call me a liar, but it is the true.

My whole point is that people out there (include many on here) keep pushing factless crap. Such as the birther deal, he is Hitler, he is a muslim and now the Obama is going to suspend elections. This crap leaves many thinking that the right doesn't have anything to stand on but a pure, BLIND hatred for Obama. In fact when the right pushes crap like that over and over again, it makes the right sound like a bunch of far fetched idiots.

If you truely hate Obama as our president, stick to Chuck's list. This guy is so very beatable if you just look at the facts. In my opinion many of you are doing the Conservatives a dis-service by constantaly pushing the non-factor bs. The people you are playing to are already going to vote Non-Obama. It is the other 60% of right leaning centrists that need to be convinced. And when you compare Obama to Hitler or make wild claims about suspending the constitution....you show those people that the right is a bunch of narrow thinking morons as opposed to the ideology that makes sense!

That is all I am saying.....and have said throughout the past 3 years on the occasion that I check this forum.

Happy hunting!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Who compared Obama to Hitler?

My list is a lot like Chucks. However, I would still like to see a real birth certificate, because he is hiding something. I don't know what, but don't you get curious. I have a great curiosity, and when a public servant tries to hide something I want to more than ever what it is they hide.

Remember when Hillary wanted the treaty with Mexico? The treaty she was proposing would have restricted our second amendment rights, just like the one they want to sign with the United Nations. She said a large percentage of the guns that were used in Mexican violence came from the United States. I explained that the vast majority came from other countries and had no serial numbers for tracking. Those with serial numbers were sent back to the United States, and perhaps 70% of the 10% they sent to the United States did originate there. I also said something was very fishy about the whole thing. Now what do we learn. We learned that our own ATG was the culprit.

Goosguy most of what I said has already been proven correct, or the truth is still squelched. I agree many of these things sound outlandish, and it's to bad they are accurate.

Do you really choose to believe Obama sat in church with reverend Wright for 20 years and never heard him talk like the videos we watched of him. He was close friends and called the man his mentor. Do you think that is reasonable. Do you judge anyone by the company they keep. Obama's friend who helped start Obama's campaign says he didn't kill enough people when he bombed and killed people back in the 1960's. The man shows no remorse. His name is Bill Ayers.

Edit: Oh, by the way, did you know that rev Wright was Muslim? Did you know his good friend is Muammar Gaddafi ? Did you know the two of them went together to visit Muammar Gaddafi ? Do you remember Obama's elementary school records list him as Muslim. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck ----- well, you know.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

OK, remember I said Obama's rhetoric may cause violence, and that could lead to liberals asking for a suspension of the election.

Today:


> Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals
> Citizen journalist Ringo captured this speaker at the Occupy Los Angeles camp a few days ago letting the cat out of the bag: After dismissing nonviolence as a dead end, he admits that for the Occupiers to achieve their goals, violence and bloodshed will be necessary:


So lets watch and see what unfolds shall we?

For the full story with video: http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/ ... our-goals/

Goosguy, I understand that it would be very hard to pull off suspending an election. Things would have to be near a revolution. However, I think this idiot lady was testing the water for others to see what public reaction would be. I simply find it interesting, and it showcases that liberals have little respect for the constitution like you and I do. These ideas are only radical if we are way, way off base. So far we have not been off base. Some we have been proven right, and some other things you disagree with have not been proven either way. The conservatives on here are about 10 and ? , not 10 and 0, not 10 and 3 etc. Right on many things, and unknown on the rest.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I am sure plainsman's racoon skin undies will get in a bind and call me a liar, but it is the true.


I guess I'm not sophisticated enough for you. Would you feel better if I took down that old picture of me with the beard I grew for the centennial and put up one with a three piece suite?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

The news in what she said is really about the fact that people think like that in this country. I have watched CNN,MSNBC,FOX and listened and read comments and interviews from people all across this country who are in the so called Wall Street protests.

If you really want become scared, listen and learn! The demands and beliefs are unreal! In one breath they say they want the country back and to do that, all wealth must be forcibly taken from WS banks and bankers and given to people like them. Others want Obama to declare any Rep terrorists, the list goes on and on. Now if these comments where only shown or heard on Fox some could say that it was edited to make it sound as bad as it does. But NYT,Boston Globe,MSNBC all have people making absolutely nonsense claims!

So while I am not a conspiracy freak, the reality is that the entitlement mentality cancer that has invaded the body of the US is growing and needs to be treated. Obama would gladly suspend the Constitution to provide for his supporters. If you think otherwise, his latest comments regarding his Jobs Bill is a good example. Having people as a sitting Gov make comments like she did, is another prime example of people in power that have no Constitutional thoughts. She tried back tracking but it is clear that she was serious.

Then good old Penneta today telling Congress there inaction or to paraphrase it a bit better, The REP for not bowing to Obama and his wishes are putting our troops in harms way!

The fact is that there are enough people who want more Gov handouts than we realize, many of them are working people that do not see that they are part in part of the problem. So if Plainsman or others this next election is not only about beating Obama, it has to be about resting control back to the people who are the back bone of this nation.

business owners, workers who go to work and put in a days work for a days pay and do not expect someone to carry their lunch or have an organization push for more than a company can sustain and survive. It is about the debt load that is crippling advancement because it is stifling investment capital from being used to grow our economy back.

ND is not going to help in that regard with who we get send to Washington in the Senate. Berg or Heidi! kalk may in the House I am undecided on that as of yet!

Then look at the tone that the Dem's are taking in ND! The red headed mouth is pushing for rent control and if that starts where does it stop?

So to be honest, i grew up during the 70's of high interest and run away inflation, saw what it took and the time it took to get the country turned back around. Saw the decline start again under Clinton and then the brakes taken off during the second term under bush. Then saw the bus get steered toward the cliff and it shifted into high gear with Obama and Pelosi and Reid!

I never expected that it would or could happen but it did!

So people like Plainsman are not extreme or viewed as far out if the person looking is not on the left or close to the left to begin with. This country cannot survive with a centrist leadership, it has to be a conservative leadership that may only last a 4 year period, because we cannot survive any more moderate or Left leaning leadership a least for the near future!

So stop buying into the media crap about far right extreme ideas!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Jesse Jackson Jr. recently compared Obama to Lincoln. He said when the south rebelled Lincoln took drastic measures to put them back in line. He said we now have a rebellious congress and Obama must bypass them and institute whatever he thinks is right. Looks like non of these guys ever read the constitution either.

Comments like we make here only tick people off if they are a good ways left. It's good to give evidence though because some may be recoverable. I would expect the Wall Street protesters to be upset with my attitude, but those with their head on straight will think about what we say here.


----------

