# Are they declaring Martial Law for Elections?



## ladybug (Aug 18, 2002)

I've been told that they will be possibly instating martial law 3 days before the elections, has anyone else heard this? :shrug: Because if it is true that would be tommorrow...I have a feeling the elections are going to be scary time no matter who gets elected!:croc:


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

1. who told you this.
2. who is "they"
3. don't be scared, just be prepared.

(ps, whoever told you that they are preparing to declare martial law 3 days before the election isn't very good at the conspiracy/tin foil deal and needs to do a little better work. Think about this... would you vote for anyone who supported or declared martial law unconstitutionally? There is no such thing as "preemptive" martial law, constitutionally.)


----------



## JGex (Dec 27, 2005)

Well it's nice to see the Rumor Mill is alive and kicking.

Who starts this stuff?


----------



## chickenista (Mar 24, 2007)

Well, if they did the martial law thing and imposed a curfew that would cut the voting tme off very early and that would not fly well at all. 
that would cause some serious trouble. In fact, I think declaring martial law would start more trouble than it would ever, ever stop.
Plus, who would enforce it?
We don't have enough patrols to control that many people and we have no troops.
I wouldn't worry about it too much.....
unless they do it and then I am digging a bunker under my house immediately.


----------



## rkintn (Dec 12, 2002)

JGex said:


> Well it's nice to see the Rumor Mill is alive and kicking.
> 
> Who starts this stuff?



"They" do, of course! LOL


----------



## ladybug (Aug 18, 2002)

Some folks I know have said that the National Guard has been talking about the possibility of needing martial law to keep the peace during elections(A Just in Case scenario). I'm just concerned about it because I have 4 small children and don't really know what to expect having never seen "martial law" enacted. One of the guys is in the National Guard and said they have been preparing just in case.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

What is so bad about martial law?


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2008)

I don't believe we're going to have martial law any time soon. 

But I could be wrong.


----------



## Kmac15 (May 19, 2007)

just be prepared for anything you can.
I would not think we would have this BEFORE the election but would not be surprised if it was needed the night of or the next day.

Make sure your gas tanks are full, you don't need to go to the grocery store, and have a little cash on hand.


----------



## wvstuck (Sep 19, 2008)

Martial law = Scary

All forms and levels of government are seized by the Military, including the courts, police and local government office and agencies. 

In strict dictionary terms, martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. When we say a region or country is "under martial law," we mean to say that the military is in control of the area, that it acts as the police, as the courts, as the legislature. The degree of control might vary - a nation may have a civilian legislature but have the courts administered by the military. Or the legislature and courts may operate under civilian control with a military ruler. In each case, martial law is in effect, even if it is not called "martial law."

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_mlaw.html

Note: I don't think any one of the seriously insane candidates would risk supporting Martial Law and possibly sparking an uprising or revolution when things are already so tense. Keep in mind, Iraq is not as big as California, how in the world our Military thinks it could control the whole U.S. is mind boggling. A study done by the Pentagon in the late 80's estimated 40 to 60% of the Military might defect and join the Revolution on the opposing side of the government before they would shoot law abiding Americans should a major backlash ever occur.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/

The 3rd Infantry Divisionâs 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.

Now theyâre training for the same mission â with a twist â at home.

Beginning Oct. 1 for 12 months, the 1st BCT will be under the day-to-day control of U.S. Army North, the Army service component of Northern Command, as an on-call federal response force for natural or manmade emergencies and disasters, including terrorist attacks.


----------



## texican (Oct 4, 2003)

ladybug, each of us is responsible for our own security... there will be no one available to protect individuals.... if something bad happens, hopefully you will already have prepped for such an eventuality, and will be able to dissuade the zombie hordes from feasting... If you don't have firearms, machetes will work, in a pinch...


----------



## wvstuck (Sep 19, 2008)

At the most a US. Army Brigade is 5000 soldiers. That is not even enough to declare Martial Law on New York City.

It would take an Army the size of China's (100 million) to enforce martial law nationwide in the US. *Talk about insurgency*


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2008)

I went googling and thought I might find a couple of links to post.

Good Lord! There's a lot of conspiracy theories and fear mongering out there.

I'll just post the search results. Pick a few links at random for the fun of it.

[ame]http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&q=martial+law+election&btnG=Google+Search[/ame]


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Sonshine said:


> http://www.armytimes.com/news/2008/09/army_homeland_090708w/
> 
> The 3rd Infantry Divisionâs 1st Brigade Combat Team has spent 35 of the last 60 months in Iraq patrolling in full battle rattle, helping restore essential services and escorting supply convoys.
> 
> ...


Do you know how many people are in the 1st Brigade's combat team?

If not, look it up.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

wvstuck said:


> At the most a US. Army Brigade is 5000 soldiers. That is not even enough to declare Martial Law on New York City.
> 
> It would take an Army the size of China's (100 million) to enforce martial law nationwide in the US. *Talk about insurgency*


oops, I see someone beat me to that line of thought.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Yes, but how many are being prepped? This is one brigade from the army. What about the National Guard? Air Force? AF Reserves? Army Reserves, etc. Why even have one brigade stationed state side with this type of mission? I don't know, maybe I do need a tin foil hat, but this does make me wonder, and I do know that others are being prepared for civil unrest, just don't know how many.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Well if you're too worried about it you can contact them. and learn about their mission. If you go to that page... be prepared because they have nefarious things like ratings of local schools and family housing situations.

I don't think you'll have to fear the 1st combat team any time too soon.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Sonshine, I wanted to add this... I don't think that having combat teams on active duty in the U.S. for the purpose of putting down civil unrest is a good idea at all. But I think it's more of a frog/pot scenario. I don't think the 1st combat team will be shooting at us for election day... just my opinion.

Here is the wiki about the 'home duty' status...



> 2008 deployment of 1st Brigade within the U.S.
> 
> As reported in the Army Times in late September 2008, the 3rd Infantry Divisionâs 1st Brigade Combat Team has been deployed to active duty on American soil for 12 months for what is expected will be a permanent mission to respond to the threat of terrorist attacks on American soil and control crowds of American citizens in the case of mass civil unrest.
> 
> ...


http://themodernhomestead.com/Blog/wp-admin/index.php?page=stats


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

I guess it's the timing that concerns me the most.


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/police-prepare-for-unrest-2008-10-21.html


----------



## glenmontcelt (Oct 27, 2008)

I am a newby to this forum but would like to pose a response. It was my undestanding that Pres GW Bush declared Federal Martial Law after 9/11 and it wa never fully enacted nor was it revoked. Some of you more educated folks may have more info on this but it was my impression that a Fed Martial LAw situation empowers the Pres. to act w/o congress and has the full military to back his decisions.He just never really put it into full force.If that is true where does it leave us, legally?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

NickieL said:


> http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/police-prepare-for-unrest-2008-10-21.html


The Hill is a rag. Nothing personal, but they write so much garbage that I need to put on boots to visit their website.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

glenmontcelt said:


> I am a newby to this forum but would like to pose a response. It was my undestanding that Pres GW Bush declared Federal Martial Law after 9/11 and it wa never fully enacted nor was it revoked. Some of you more educated folks may have more info on this but it was my impression that a Fed Martial LAw situation empowers the Pres. to act w/o congress and has the full military to back his decisions.He just never really put it into full force.If that is true where does it leave us, legally?


Hi Glen, welcome aboard.

I've not seen any examples of martial law and have heard this type of rumor (different presidents, different situations, ie. we've been in a declared state of emergency since 1929, 1939, etc. etc.)

This election will come and go, there may be some civil unrest at points, but nothing (in my opinion) greater than you saw in the 60's and then we'll get on with business. 

If the president could have legally acted without congress for the last 7 years, I think he would have used that to his advantage on several occasions (ie where the supreme court made rulings against the administration concerning Gitmo and prisoners of war).


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> If the president could have legally acted without congress for the last 7 years, I think he would have used that to his advantage on several occasions (ie where the supreme court made rulings against the administration concerning Gitmo and prisoners of war).



Strategically waiting to the end of his term to cause a ruckus makes perfect sense to me (hypothetically). ESPECIALLY if a fellow statesman comes into office after his depature with a will and ability to pardon people.


Kind of like a political sucker punch and a get out of jail free card all in one.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Meh... why leave at all if you are going to grossly abuse the constitution?


----------



## NickieL (Jun 15, 2007)

good point...so you thing bush isn't going to give up the office?


----------



## Guest (Nov 2, 2008)

This is America that we know. Anybody, anywhere, can criticize the President of the USA. And never fear repercussions. On this forum, Bush is criticized constantly. It's perfectly acceptable to call him "W". the initial of his middle name. BUT, whenever anyone calls Obama by his middle name, it's a big deal somehow. Looked what happened to that poor guy that dared to even question Obama? He was thoroughly excoriated. That's just the beginning. One thing you can count on, if Obama IS elected, there will be no criticism. There won't be much laughing either.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

NickieL said:


> good point...so you thing bush isn't going to give up the office?




I wouldn't assume, presume or otheriwse indicate something that insane. I am merely pointing out the potential and/or possibility based on powers people have discussed in this thread. 

I don't do exhaustive research or have faith in facts of any kind. It may not be based in fact at all. I am merely speculating on human nature (something I AM skillful at) and analyzing why on earth someone would "need" those powers in the first place (should they be real at all). I follow my intuition which was based solely on information in this conversation, not necessarily reality as the majority visualizes it.


I never voiced a preference to either party in this thread. I was merely pointing out a potential alliance between party members and what benefits could be reaped from that in relation to the possibly imaginary powers sited above. IE: all thread based and related......MARTIAL LAW (hint hint)

It's called theory. Anyone who wants to argue MCcain vs. Obama belongs in general chat. Any educated voter has made a decision and discussion about who is better is a mute point. If the polls were the same today as they will be on election it's next to over anyway. 

All I am concerned with is prepping and personal security. As far as either candidate I only care which one effects me DIRECTLY. I have voted a few years and never seen a darned thing change in my life, in the end after all the smart mouthed pre game hoopla is over we will go back to life as usual.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

NickieL said:


> good point...so you thing bush isn't going to give up the office?


hmmm, is that the logical conclusion drawn from my statement or is there a cognitive disconnect somewhere?

Folks... stop reading "the hill" "truthout.org" and the "democratic underground" and "prison planet" for a while.

If Bush had wanted to become a dictator he would have done it when there was he had the American people behind him with the national emergency of 9/11 (or another contrived emergency). The worst possible time to establish the imaginary "martial law" and "dictatorship" would be right before a hotly contested election.


As noted, if President Bush was interested in dictatorship, he would have been all over the press... shutting them down, harassing them, etc. There are things that he did that are wrong and there are things he has done right. He doesn't want to stay in there one day after January 20th (IMO) and will be glad to head back to his ranch.

The most terrible thing he has done (again IMO) is to gather the powers that he actually FELT were necessary during the time of terror for the future use of a future president. Each president acquires a few more powers and a few more powers and from Bush on back through our Presidents, even the ones I am diametrically opposed to, I don't think any of them would have ever seriously considered the overthrowing of our governments basics in the constitution (things like the pres. term limits, etc) but I don't hold that same feeling going forward.

I don't trust John McCain or Barack Obama, with the exception of 2 or 3 issues they are virtually the same. Both are talking about "carbon credits" etc. Both are talking about vast new "service programs", both voted for the bailout.

Each president we see a little further slide down the slope, and because we keep voting "for the lesser of two evils" we will never stop the slide. Principle should never be forsaken for "practicality" and "winning" because we all become unprincipled losers.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> we all become unprincipled losers.



I may be a loser but am certainly not unprincipled. 

This whole election thing is getting sort of epic and goofy. I keep wishing we could see the candidates have a world wrestling style hyped up pre fight shouting match.

A couple big growles, huge flexes with insults and threats grunted through clenched teeth.......yeah good stuff. Then throw them in a cage with some cool props like folding metal chairs, a chainsaw, a boa snake etc. 

Nothing like a submission match, hate to see any candidate in wrestling tights but what the heck!! :viking: Couple pile drivers and a good sleeper hold should make all of this way more fun.


Holy carp, what were we talking about again?............


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Yes, but how many are being prepped? This is one brigade from the army. What about the National Guard? Air Force? AF Reserves? Army Reserves, etc. Why even have one brigade stationed state side with this type of mission? I don't know, maybe I do need a tin foil hat, but this does make me wonder, and I do know that others are being prepared for civil unrest, just don't know how many.


How many soldiers, sailors, airmen -- people -- are we talking about? Including active and reserve, and national guard, 6 million, right?

And _none of them_ would throw the BS flag and walk out? _Everyone_ would just blindly obey orders? Really?

You know, we're talking about actual people here, not Hollywood cut-outs, not wind-up toys, human beings that, contrary to popular belief, have _empathy_ for each other and for the people they are protecting -- and all of these people can read, and have read the Constitution, their Oath of Enlistments, and the Army/Navy/Air Force Regs, as well as the UCMJ.

_Why_ do you think that they are these nameless, faceless, emotionless robots that need a wind-up key to work?


----------



## SCRich (Feb 27, 2008)

Narshalla said:


> _Why_ do you think that they are these nameless, faceless, emotionless robots that need a wind-up key to work?


Cuz too many people watch too many movies and TV... It brainwash from the liberal media and hollywierd. Too many people have not worn their tin foil hats for protection and received a sufficent dosage of carp to actually believe some of these things!


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> The Hill is a rag. Nothing personal, but they write so much garbage that I need to put on boots to visit their website.


The Hill isnt' the only "rag" reporting police departments getting ready for trouble:

http://www.ajc.com/services/content/printedition/2008/11/01/pollpolice.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/31/cities-law-enforcement-prepped-for-election-day/




.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Did you read the articles you posted?



> Rybak said mayors have been having conference calls and others are pushing absentee and early voting as well. âSome of the strategies Iâve heard are to provide people an option to bypass the line by using a clipboard instead of the traditional booth,â he said. Mayors are also trying to devise ways to let people know when polling places are not crowded.
> 
> âAmerica will go to the polls Tuesday and safely elect a new president. They may have to wait in line a little longer if what we expect to happen happens but none of the mayors Iâve talked to are concerned about serious safety issues,â he said.


and



> For many departments traditional Election Day protocols will be in place. In New York City, for instance, officers will be stationed outside voting precincts in case there are disturbances inside. In Louisville and Cincinnati officers will be prepared to answer calls for service but there are no plans of having them inside precincts. Chicago police will treat the day as a major event with all 13,000 of the departmentâs officers on call. Houston police will station officers near unnamed polls as potential crowd control and the Mobility Response Team will be available to address traffic control if necessary. Police in Dade County, Fla., will respond as needed but the Metro-Dade department is not planning additional patrols.


My point specifically is "The Hill" is a pro-Obama/democratic biased site that has a lot to gain if people are afraid of the election day violence if their candidate doesn't win.

Just prep for the worst, no sense getting all bent out of shape for something that most likely won't happen. 

It's really no different than any other election/day in America. Just be aware of your surroundings and be ready to respond appropriately.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

I heard this morning on Coast to Coast (XM replay) What the problem could be. The SCOTUS is to decide tomorrow if OBAMA is qualified to be president.

They are to see if he has a birth certificate or not, naturalization papers ect.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Really? Do you have a link about the SCOTUS ruling on Obama's qualification? As far as I know there is nothing that could have went to the SCOTUS to be ruled on.


----------



## Stephen in SOKY (Jun 6, 2006)

Case # 08-4340 Docket date October 31.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Thanks Stephen... I went to the SCOTUS site.

Here is the information at the top of that case:



> No. 08-570
> Title:
> Philip J. Berg, Petitioner
> v.
> ...


http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/08-570.htm

Does that seem that the answer is due on Dec 1. ???


----------



## jasper (Aug 28, 2006)

Stephen in SOKY said:


> Case # 08-4340 Docket date October 31.


i looked up that number and it seems to be the court of appeals


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

So - if he wins the Courts could decide he was not qualified.?
Would that then make Biden Pres-elect, or would there be emergency voting?
Curious

Angie


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

It's a big if!!! of course.

Here is the basic things that could happen.

1. If Mc Caine wins nothing the case goes away.
2. If Obama wins but can't produce the info...

A. the electoral collage would just elect someone else. Doesn't have to be Biden.
B. They put in Biden and a different VP.
C. He gets to be a figure head President but is lorded over by those in the know. He's a lame duck on inauguration day. 

3. He can and does produce the info. All is well crisis is averted.

4...

Lots of conspiracy websites and money to be made!!!!
(This is by far the most likely out come.)


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

From what I have been reading the SCOTUS doesn't even have to hear this case... it was just FILED. It gets assigned a docket number and they don't ever have to hear it if they don't want to.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> He can and does produce the info. All is well crisis is averted.


The crisis is not averted because it could happen again in the future and probably will. The world now knows that a foreigner can "sneak" into US politics and run for office without showing proof of where they were born.



.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

seedspreader said:


> From what I have been reading the SCOTUS doesn't even have to hear this case... it was just FILED. It gets assigned a docket number and they don't ever have to hear it if they don't want to.


I think you need to read my post about the possible out comes and refer to Item 4


----------



## bee (May 12, 2002)

I know my tinfoil hat gets a little tight at times but even I can't believe we could get to the day before the election with a man on the ballot for president that is NOT qualified to be elected?? Surely there is a process in place to verify his birth place a long time ago. I heard Bill O Rielly say he had seen the certificate and it "looked OK to him"......

Be safe all and get out and vote!


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Martial law prior to the elections is improbable without some sort of event to give them _causus belli_. However, it's not outside the realm of probability that some sort of event could occur in the next 24 hours that might grant them that. I doubt it, but it's happened before in other countries. I see nothing in the American character that would preclude a coup d'etat, tyrannical overlords, or a socialist takeover in the space of a single night. We're as ripe for it as ever a people were.

Both candidates we've been given a choice between are equally bad, both in their rhetoric and their voting records. I don't have very high hopes for the next 4 years, but I just bought a bunch of apple trees so that'll occupy my mind for the next few days as I get those planted. I'm considering not voting at all this year, just sitting it out. I'm in Illinois, so it's a given the state is going to Obama and my vote for a libertarian candidate is somewhat of an empty gesture that will take time out of my busy day of preparing the winter beds, finishing the roof on the new chicken coop, and planting these beautiful new trees. 

My personal guess is that in the next 24 hours there will be no big disturbances that allow Bush and his cronies to stay in office. They are done, or perhaps whomever has really been pulling their strings for the past 8 years is done with them.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

stanb999 said:


> I think you need to read my post about the possible out comes and refer to Item 4


Oh, I agree with your number 4, my response was mostly to the posts before yours (and even a follow up to my previous posts).


----------



## mdharris68 (Sep 28, 2006)

As i tried to read this thread in it's entirety, I had to quit as it somewhat strayed from the main question. But I would say, IMO, that we are living in martial law right now. You only have to read through the long list of Executive Orders since Clinton's time in office to date to be convinced. The government has placed themselves in a position to strip us of everything we own, know, and produce for the benefit of whom they choose. If this isn't martial law, then someone please give me a name for it.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Martial law prior to the elections is improbable without some sort of event to give them _causus belli_. However, it's not outside the realm of probability that some sort of event could occur in the next 24 hours that might grant them that. I doubt it, but it's happened before in other countries. I see nothing in the American character that would preclude a coup d'etat, tyrannical overlords, or a socialist takeover in the space of a single night. We're as ripe for it as ever a people were.
> 
> Both candidates we've been given a choice between are equally bad, both in their rhetoric and their voting records. I don't have very high hopes for the next 4 years, but I just bought a bunch of apple trees so that'll occupy my mind for the next few days as I get those planted. I'm considering not voting at all this year, just sitting it out. I'm in Illinois, so it's a given the state is going to Obama and my vote for a libertarian candidate is somewhat of an empty gesture that will take time out of my busy day of preparing the winter beds, finishing the roof on the new chicken coop, and planting these beautiful new trees.
> 
> My personal guess is that in the next 24 hours there will be no big disturbances that allow Bush and his cronies to stay in office. They are done, or perhaps whomever has really been pulling their strings for the past 8 years is done with them.



by ignoring the polling places you are essentially having a personal revolution and casting a vote for what you feel is right.

Forgetting to vote or being too lazy/busy to vote is an insult to our democratic process. Having an objection and standing by it is your civic right and duty. A choice not to vote on purpose because you find no worthy cadidates is using your voice just like our forefathers intended.

People jump the gun and assume that one is a slacker if they do not go to the polls, that may not always be the case.

Good for you Ernie, I know that for you it must have been a painful, well thought out choice.

edited to ad: we should print you a shirt that says "exercising my right not to vote since 2008"


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

Ernie said:


> *I'm considering not voting at all this year, just sitting it out. I'm in Illinois, so it's a given the state is going to Obama and my vote for a libertarian candidate is somewhat of an empty gesture *that will take time out of my busy day of preparing the winter beds, finishing the roof on the new chicken coop, and planting these beautiful new trees. .



why vote Libertarian when you know it's putting Obama in office?, I wanted Paul or Barr but wouldn't vote for them knowing that I'd be voting for Obame. I hope not to many million think like you. JMO


----------



## radicalmom (Oct 9, 2008)

election morning, here we are. after all these years of worrying about it, and we will all get up and vote either with our voices in coffee shops or our physical votes on machinery. (my theory...... is this..... the big boys do not want a woman to be president. therefore i imagine that "allowing" mccain to win would not be in the picture.)


----------



## fordy (Sep 13, 2003)

JGex said:


> Well it's nice to see the Rumor Mill is alive and kicking.
> 
> Who starts this stuff?



..................Without Tinfoil , Rumor mills can't exist ! And , all tinfoil is recycled from Half baked ideas . , fordy


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

How can voting 3rd party put someone else in office? You're assuming they would vote for your candidate if they hadn't.


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

bowdonkey said:


> How can voting 3rd party put someone else in office? You're assuming they would vote for your candidate if they hadn't.


NO, i'm assuming that if a person don't like OBAMA and they aren't going to vote libertarian because Barr is not going to get in anyway,Guess what, that leaves McCain who isn't my candidate, but i'm voting for him, also i'm not going to pass up voting and then ***** for the next 4 yrs about decessions the winner makes, if i vote, i figure that gives me the right to complain, if i don't,then shame on me, better to vote while we still have the right.


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> why vote Libertarian when you know it's putting Obama in office?,


Some Nostrodamus expert said that Nostrodamus predicted that McCain will win.


.


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

bowdonkey said:


> How can voting 3rd party put someone else in office? You're assuming they would vote for your candidate if they hadn't.


Thank you for stating something so obvious that so few people seem to comprehend. At least now I know that someone out there "gets it".

Kayleigh


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

stranger said:


> why vote Libertarian when you know it's putting Obama in office?, I wanted Paul or Barr but wouldn't vote for them knowing that I'd be voting for Obame. I hope not to many million think like you. JMO


Ah, the myth of the wasted vote. I suspect both McCain and Obama would do some pretty bad things in office, and in the future I want to be able to tell my children, whatever the outcome, that I voted differently. I did not chose the lesser of two evils. I did not give in and vote for someone who stood against my principles simply because I felt the other candidate was worse. I cast my vote on the side of the lost cause. Knowing full well that either my vote would be nullified by the crooked system of the electoral college, I cast it based on my own principles and values. 

I can live with that. I wish a million more DID think like me.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Ernie said:


> Ah, the myth of the wasted vote. I suspect both McCain and Obama would do some pretty bad things in office, and in the future I want to be able to tell my children, whatever the outcome, that I voted differently. I did not chose the lesser of two evils. I did not give in and vote for someone who stood against my principles simply because I felt the other candidate was worse. I cast my vote on the side of the lost cause. Knowing full well that either my vote would be nullified by the crooked system of the electoral college, I cast it based on my own principles and values.
> 
> I can live with that. I wish a million more DID think like me.


I am with you... we aren't voting for those two.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

stranger said:


> i'm not going to pass up voting and then ***** for the next 4 yrs about decessions the winner makes, if i vote, i figure that gives me the right to complain, if i don't,then shame on me, better to vote while we still have the right.



Voting for someone you do not choose freely but are cornered into just for the theoretically popular excuse to complain is worse than making a conscious choice to opt out. 

I suspect the whole "don't complain if you don't vote" theory was created by people who choose from the two main parties and blame non voters for the nations problems. We have every right to complain until we are blue in the face. We also have every right to choose not to vote. We have every right to think as we please and not get mindlessly herded into booth blue or booth red just because he isn't as bad as the next guy.

Give me a break............


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

That would be a hoot if Obama won and then had his win nullified because they could prove he wasn't a citizen. Can you imagine the look on his face? I guess we'd be stuck with Biden. Just when you thought things couldn't get worse.


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

bowdonkey said:


> That would be a hoot if Obama won and then had his win nullified because they could prove he wasn't a citizen. Can you imagine the look on his face? I guess we'd be stuck with Biden. Just when you thought things couldn't get worse.


Yeah, those sure would be some fun shenanigans.

Except for the part where it would destroy our country.

Kayleigh


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

hintonlady said:


> I suspect the whole "don't complain if you don't vote" theory was created by people who choose from the two main parties and blame non voters for the nations problems. We have every right to complain until we are blue in the face.
> 
> Give me a break............


 here's your break, if you don't vote, you're satisfied the way things are, what do you have to complain about. stay home and hide because your candidate isn't going to get in. if you don't like either candidate, you should still make a choice of the lessor of 2 evils. you want weak defence and high taxes, vote Dem. you want low taxes and a strong defence, vote Gop.JMO


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

stranger said:


> here's your break, if you don't vote, you're satisfied the way things are, what do you have to complain about. stay home and hide because your candidate isn't going to get in. if you don't like either candidate, you should still make a choice of the lessor of 2 evils. you want weak defence and high taxes, vote Dem. you want low taxes and a strong defence, vote Gop.JMO


If you want freedom vote Liberterian... The lesser of two evils is still evil. 

Read my tag line... lol


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

i thought i would give a little shout out to the liberaterians. i voted liberaterian for treasurer and auditor general.


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

stanb999 said:


> *If you want freedom vote Liberterian... **The lesser of two evils is still evil. *
> 
> Read my tag line... lol


 I agree, but to stand by and let someone take over that you think is bad for the country is foolish..


----------



## Beaners (Feb 23, 2005)

stranger said:


> I agree, but to stand by and let someone take over that you think is bad for the country is foolish..


I think both McCain and Obama are bad for the country.

Kayleigh


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

******* said:


> Yeah, those sure would be some fun shenanigans.
> 
> Except for the part where it would destroy our country.
> 
> Kayleigh


Killjoy


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

******* said:


> I think both McCain and Obama are bad for the country.
> 
> Kayleigh


Ron Paul got a couple of write-in's here.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

stranger said:


> I agree, but to stand by and let someone take over that you think is bad for the country is foolish..


You should stand up and vote for what you believe and let the chips fall where they may.

I will be just as happy to see Obama or McCain. Well let me say it this way, Just as unhappy.


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

If it were just chips that might fall, that would be alright, it's the country that I'm worried about falling, then maybe who ever is elected might just be there for the rest of the ride down.


----------



## hintonlady (Apr 22, 2007)

stranger said:


> here's your break, if you don't vote, you're satisfied the way things are, what do you have to complain about. stay home and hide because your candidate isn't going to get in. if you don't like either candidate, you should still make a choice of the lessor of 2 evils. you want weak defence and high taxes, vote Dem. you want low taxes and a strong defence, vote Gop.JMO



I just felt like your stance was sort of black and white, much like the election situation. There are so many reasons and philosohpies for choosing to or not to vote.

I'm merely pointing out that purposely NOT voting is a means to "voice" ones oipinion and is completely different than the average Joe Complainer at the corner bar who couldn't be bothered with even registering and moaning everytime he doesn't like something in the news.

He does have the right to do that but I wouldn't respect him or bother having a political conversation with him. I would certainly feel differently about someone who opts out for ethical reasons.


----------



## ovsfarm (Jan 14, 2003)

I voted 3rd party and I did not consider it a wasted vote. What if a couple of days after today the big two are found to have been disqualified due to party involvement in massive election fraud? But more realistically, I hope my vote sends a clear message that I AM TIRED OF ALL THIS NONSENCE. I am sick and tired of the behavior of the D/R candidates and parties. And if they can't manage to do the job at hand in a way that will improve this country and make it stronger, then they need to move over because I am looking for someone else who will. 

Although I seriously doubt the candidate I voted for will win, I was able to vote FOR someone, not use my vote as a strategic block to try to keep someone out of office. Until I decided to go 3rd party, I had almost decided not to vote this year--voting for the lesser of 2 evils is still voting for evil. I am just glad that there were alternatives and that I found one of them worthy of my support.


----------



## stanb999 (Jan 30, 2005)

stranger said:


> If it were just chips that might fall, that would be alright, it's the country that I'm worried about falling, then maybe who ever is elected might just be there for the rest of the ride down.


So what your saying is?

It's better that we continue to police the world and join the NWO...

Or it's worse that we become a socialist state and not the above?


I figure it's best if we vote for a candidate that doesn't support either of those philosophies. I prefer to follow that old dusty document.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

MELOC said:


> i thought i would give a little shout out to the liberaterians. i voted liberaterian for treasurer and auditor general.


Hey, I voted libertarian for auditor and senator district 21.


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

stanb999 said:


> So what your saying is?
> 
> It's better that we continue to police the world and join the NWO...
> 
> ...


Preach it Brother Stan!


----------



## Aintlifegrand (Jun 3, 2005)

seedspreader said:


> Ron Paul got a couple of write-in's here.


He was on the ballot here. He was "The Louisiana Taxpayers Party" candidate...


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

seedspreader said:


> Hey, I voted libertarian for auditor and senator district 21.


Heh. There was a green party candidate for county CORONER. That cracked me up.


----------



## MELOC (Sep 26, 2005)

say no to formaldehyde...vote green for county coroner!


----------



## uyk7 (Dec 1, 2002)

> if you don't like either candidate, you should still make a choice of the lessor of 2 evils.


I would guess that Satan likes people to vote the lesser of two evils. Than way he gets his person elected.



.


----------



## ailsaek (Feb 7, 2007)

Ernie said:


> Heh. There was a green party candidate for county CORONER. That cracked me up.


Reduce, re-use, recycle?


----------



## poorboy (Apr 15, 2006)

ladybug said:


> Some folks I know have said that the National Guard has been talking about the possibility of needing martial law to keep the peace during elections(A Just in Case scenario). I'm just concerned about it because I have 4 small children and don't really know what to expect having never seen "martial law" enacted. One of the guys is in the National Guard and said they have been preparing just in case.


Ever watch the movie "Southern Comfort", see what happened to the National guard when they went up aginst a buncha inbred looseyanner swamprats..:stirpot:
Loved the ending where the swamp rat tole the guardsman" don't like nobodys f--king wit us":icecream:


----------



## stranger (Feb 24, 2008)

poorboy said:


> Ever watch the movie "Southern Comfort", see what happened to the National guard when they went up aginst a buncha inbred looseyanner swamprats..:stirpot:
> Loved the ending where the swamp rat tole the guardsman" don't like nobodys f--king wit us":icecream:


 loved that movie, Powers Booth and Keith Carradine 


also the guard didn't do much in First Blood


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Re: The Guard.


Southern Comfort, First Blood... MOVIES.

Fact: Most NG is battle hardened from time in urban combat in Iraq.

movies are fun... but they are still movies.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

In 2001 I wrote a novel (my sixth) covering the second civil war in America after a famine struck. For this novel I did lots of research covering civilian revolutionary groups versus professional military. Aside from the fact that many civilians are military trained and have some experience, in almost every nation and in every revolution, an even moderately armed civilian force eventually trumps professional military.

I think the bottom line comes down to this: people will fight far harder and endure more difficult circumstances in order to remain free than they will in order to oppress.


----------



## Sonshine (Jul 27, 2007)

Ernie said:


> In 2001 I wrote a novel (my sixth) covering the second civil war in America after a famine struck. For this novel I did lots of research covering civilian revolutionary groups versus professional military. Aside from the fact that many civilians are military trained and have some experience, in almost every nation and in every revolution, an even moderately armed civilian force eventually trumps professional military.
> 
> I think the bottom line comes down to this: people will fight far harder and endure more difficult circumstances in order to remain free than they will in order to oppress.


Besides, many in the military are not happy with what they are seeing. Since the oath calls for protecting America from enemies, both foreign and domestic, I wonder how many would fight against civilians in a revolution, or would they join in?


----------



## seedspreader (Oct 18, 2004)

Ernie said:


> In 2001 I wrote a novel (my sixth) covering the second civil war in America after a famine struck. For this novel I did lots of research covering civilian revolutionary groups versus professional military. Aside from the fact that many civilians are military trained and have some experience, in almost every nation and in every revolution, an even moderately armed civilian force eventually trumps professional military.
> 
> I think the bottom line comes down to this: people will fight far harder and endure more difficult circumstances in order to remain free than they will in order to oppress.


Well, I guess that's the great thing about America (so far) is that we can disagree.

Do you have a list (off the top of your head) of any of those modern revolutions that your speaking of?

Please keep in mind that we aren't talking about conflicts like Russia's Afghanistan, etc. but actual revolutions of countrymen that aren't united behind some ethnicity or religious ideology, but a vast, dispassionate, unconnected, "diverse" culture, like America.

Sorry, I just don't see American's united against the National Guard. We'll have half the country cheering on the national guard, 20% talking about how evil it is on a forum and another 10% hollywood and elitists protesting/moving to another country. 15% will figure it's what "those people" had coming to them.

America will be much like Germany in that respect.

Welcome to secular plurality.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Sonshine said:


> Besides, many in the military are not happy with what they are seeing. Since the oath calls for protecting America from enemies, both foreign and domestic, I wonder how many would fight against civilians in a revolution, or would they join in?


Thank you.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

Cuba is a good example. The communist revolution in China that brought Mao to power is another. Chechnya looked like it'd be another similar story but it unraveled there at the end. Those are both in this century so I consider them "modern". Then you have a series of conflicts in which militia fight a more proper military, such as the French and Norwegian resistance movements. Those were militarily speaking very successful. 

You do need a unifying theme though, and America currently lacks that. In my novel, the unifying theme was famine. A fictional corn virus wiped out 90% of the corn crop for six years running and our economy was such that we couldn't afford to import as much food as we needed. The government (in its infinite wisdom) passed legislation to collect and then redistribute food to the areas of highest population. Immediately a number of states (mostly rural states where they grow food) withdrew from the union and the governors of those states ordered their national guard units to the border to try and stop the Federal army. No one who could grow food was going to allow the government to come take it from them and starve their own children to feed children in the large urban cities.

There is no vast, dispassionate, unconnected, diverse culture like America, Seedspreader, so I can't give you a better example. As a nation we have no unified culture, background, or goals. We're a series of minority groups all living in the same geographic area and paying taxes to the same government which we pretty much universally despise. That's going to be our downfall.

In the Old Testament, God kept the Hebrews wandering in the desert until they had come together as one tribe and were ready to fight for and dwell in the Holy Land. It took a generation for the old ones who had picked up Egyptian ways and fallen away from the covenant to die off. Then the new generation who had been forged together as wanderers in the desert were ready to unite under Joshua as a people. I'm listening to the radio and wondering if it's our time to go wander in the desert for awhile. I think we're going to be the first nation in history that I'm aware of to voluntarily vote away a democracy. To decide, as a people, that we'd rather be socialists, thank you very much.


----------



## Narshalla (Sep 11, 2008)

Ernie said:


> (snip)I think we're going to be the first nation in history that I'm aware of to voluntarily vote away a democracy. To decide, as a people, that we'd rather be socialists, thank you very much.


No, Rome already pulled this one. Germany, too, before WWII, and again today. England, France, Denmark and several other European countries are voting themselves away, too, towards "social equality" . . . . . Whatever the heck _that_ is.


----------



## Ernie (Jul 22, 2007)

I stand corrected. Maybe that's just the order of things.


----------



## bowdonkey (Oct 6, 2007)

We may as well Ernie, we did away with the Republic. I to like the dusty document better.


----------

