Conquer Club

I had someone at work tell me that Bush was going to not let elections happen. I believe that rumor may have stemmed from this liberal radio talkshow. They are claiming that another terrorist attack would suspend elections and Bush would establish marshal law. All within the realms of possibility, but will it actually happen? If it does, is Bush to blame? Conpiricists will say yes. I think this country is already divided on their stances with this administration, that if another terrorist attack were to occur at election time, and Bush took indefinite control; I think that would be the closest we would ever come to a second Civil War. However, the government seems to be so powerful, that I think any anarchy would be quelled within a year.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqV22jU6 ... re=related

This video is just 5 minutes. It includes Judge Napalitano (sp?) and Laura Schwartz (democratic strategist--if you see her on the news, she is kinda cute!)

Gip, you sounded sane at the beginning of the post, then as you went on, you kind of lost me as to your stances on this.

As much as people make Americans out to be mindless, powerless blobs of indifference (and regrettably noting the fact that many, in fact, are), still, if Bush tried anything close to that, people would flip. Big time. And if they didn't, I would make sure they did.

Oh, and other countries would flip with us.

I had someone at work tell me that Bush was going to not let elections happen.

There are more of you at work??

All within the realms of possibility, but will it actually happen?

To answer your question: No, it won't happen, because it's not within the realm of possibility.

If it does, is Bush to blame?

Let me get this straight. In this situation, Bush declares marshal law. Now you ask, "Is he to blame?" Well, I don't know, I kinda feel like you would be the one to blame, for suggesting it on this forum ('cause you know Bush sees everything on the interwebs).

InkL0sed wrote:

I had someone at work tell me that Bush was going to not let elections happen.

There are more of you at work??

All within the realms of possibility, but will it actually happen?

To answer your question: No, it won't happen, because it's not within the realm of possibility.

If it does, is Bush to blame?

Let me get this straight. In this situation, Bush declares marshal law. Now you ask, "Is he to blame?" Well, I don't know, I kinda feel like you would be the one to blame, for suggesting it on this forum ('cause you know Bush sees everything on the interwebs).

I was asking the question and, if you read my post, I answered with "The Conspiricists will say yes..."

I am just pointing out the what ifs and the scenerios of such an incident happening before the election.

F1fth is the closest to my point of view on this. I am not saying it is going to happen, I am only pondering what would happen, and as I mentioned I believe that there would be anarchy, very close to another Civil War. But do to the amount of technology and military power the government has, any uprising would be quelled quite quickly.

Well, Bush would declare martial law, but nobody would particularly care. The majority of the army would stop obeying orders and most commanders of the army would consider him insane. He would be forcibly removed from power very quickly and elections would be held on schedule.

Of course this assumes that Bush is a power hungry lunatic rather than a mediocre at best president, but hey, whatever.

Frigidus wrote:Well, Bush would declare martial law, but nobody would particularly care. The majority of the army would stop obeying orders and most commanders of the army would consider him insane. He would be forcibly removed from power very quickly and elections would be held on schedule.

Of course this assumes that Bush is a power hungry lunatic rather than a mediocre at best president, but hey, whatever.

That is an interesting statement. That there would be enough descent in the military heirarchy to stage a coupe...I can totally see that happening, there are alot of military guys that are proud to serve, but personally they can't stand Bush and have hesitation on this war policy.

My brother is a Marine, so he doesn't talk about it. He chalks it off as doing his job. He loves his country, but he has always told me that this country needs leadership, especially right now. I think that he personally thinks Bush is a dildo. But I can't truthfully speak for him, as he has never came out and said that to me. I will wait for him to retire...that should be good! Our political discussions can be a little more open.

Its never going to happen.

First off, who would enforce martial law? Our military is in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Second, this grand little experiment of ours has gone on for for over 220 years. Bush isn't nor was he ever powerful enough to erase this history and the checks and balances ingrained in our system.

Yep, thats the beauty of the American system-nothing ever happens.
Madison-what a joker lol

DaGip wrote:

InkL0sed wrote:

I had someone at work tell me that Bush was going to not let elections happen.

There are more of you at work??

All within the realms of possibility, but will it actually happen?

To answer your question: No, it won't happen, because it's not within the realm of possibility.

If it does, is Bush to blame?

Let me get this straight. In this situation, Bush declares marshal law. Now you ask, "Is he to blame?" Well, I don't know, I kinda feel like you would be the one to blame, for suggesting it on this forum ('cause you know Bush sees everything on the interwebs).

I was asking the question and, if you read my post, I answered with "The Conspiricists will say yes..."

I am just pointing out the what ifs and the scenerios of such an incident happening before the election.

F1fth is the closest to my point of view on this. I am not saying it is going to happen, I am only pondering what would happen, and as I mentioned I believe that there would be anarchy, very close to another Civil War. But do to the amount of technology and military power the government has, any uprising would be quelled quite quickly.

I understand this is hypothetical. What I don't understand is that if Bush declares martial law (which he won't), then how in the world could he possibly NOT be to blame?

You could blame the terrorists.

suggs wrote:You could blame the terrorists.

Or better yet, the FCC. Those bastards are always to blame.

Who's the FCC?
"Frightfully Caring Chaps"?

suggs wrote:You could blame the terrorists.

exactly, Bush would put the blame on terrorists, and Americans the majority of Americans would fall in line with.

suggs wrote:Who's the FCC?
"Frightfully Caring Chaps"?

Actually that's pretty accurate.

They're the Federal Communications Commission. Because television and radio are such Serious Business, they seek to stomp out, or at least censor, the more racy stuff.

DaGip wrote:

suggs wrote:You could blame the terrorists.

exactly, Bush would put the blame on terrorists, and Americans the majority of Americans would fall in line with.

I can only hope that the Democrats wouldn't let that slide. I also hope that unicorns are real and that one day I will in fact find the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Still, when all's said and done, terrorists are scum of the earth.
I'd rather sup ale with G.W. Bush than Jerry Adams anyday.

Fieryo wrote:

suggs wrote:You could blame the terrorists.

Or better yet, the FCC. Those bastards are always to blame.

Personally, I'll just blame the democrats.

suggs wrote:I'd rather sup ale with G.W. Bush than Jerry Adams anyday.

Nah. I reckon Adams would handle said ale better.

Hopefully he will establish marshall law long enough for us to eliminate all these conspiracy theorists!
or at least increase medical research funding so we can rid them of the virus their brains are afflicted with.

Always keep an open mind, but not sooooo open that your brains fall out!

These theories usually come out at the end of a president's term. They were saying the same thing about Clinton concerning the Y2K crisis.