Cancellation of U.S. election now possible!

reply to post by cosmicpixie


The President does not have the power to do anything that is against the Constitution. I know Google searches say he can, but there are many that say he can't as well. The trick is not to believe those. The President is kept in check by the other two branches of the government.

Declaring martial law, and declaring no elections, are two completely different things. People twist words, take words out of context, to make it look like Bush is a dictator. This happened with Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush again. I know people love to blame The President for all America's problems (and I am not saying he isn't responsible) but he does not control America. There is more corruption that controls the government, that is the problem. The President is the one in the spot light, and he will take the fall for it. If he is not apart of that corruption, and tries to fix it; my money says he ends up dead.

Originally posted by Night Watchman
Why would more now see that you are right? You aren't.

[shrug] Cool. I hope I'm not. I will not bank on it. But others here and elsewhere are now suggesting the same possibilities I suggested that were unsure before, or - like you - flat out said it was impossible. As to why that is...

Heh. The fact that it looks like an easily attainable goal given the current sad state of affairs might just have something to do with it, eh?

Your prediction was no more accurate than the prediction that there would be joint terrorist attacks in the US and UK today.

You keep telling yourself that. And, like I said, I hope you're right. [sigh] And why you chose to compare my predictions to a prediction based in no logic or grasp of human power-hungry nature is beyond me.

There is absolutely ZERO chance that the election will be postponed. None.

And why is that? If the economy disintegrates, people begin to riot, Martial Law is declared...what is to stop Bush from suspending elections? It will easily be within his power. No question there. So do tell me why you conclude what you do. I bet you will ignore this request.

But you like to treat conspiracy theory as if it were fact so it would be difficult to rationally discuss this with you.

You know... You are twisting what I said rather as someone with an interest in keeping sheeple sheeple. I merely pointed out that other predictions I had made DID come to fruition. And said SPECIFICALLY that my prediction of a suspension of elections had not been vindicated YET. So... How is this "treat[ing] conspiracy theory as if it were fact?" Bet you'll ignore this question, too.

Just in the interest of separating fact from conspiracy theory, your claim that 9/11 was a false flag operation in NOT FACT. It's your opinion. Nothing more.

No. It is my Holmesian deduction, sir. If it was NOT a false flag, many astronomically unlikely things had to occur and explanations are scrambled for that often make no sense.

IF one presumes a false flag, inside job, EVERYTHING makes sense, and needs no convoluted explanations.

Occam himself would have a clue on THAT score, sir.

But that is for another thread.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Amaterasu]

Sorcha Faal, yah.

In related news: Snuffleupagus trashes Wall Street, thousands flee in terror, elections suspended....

There is not one document that gives the president the power to stop a presidential election. He can declare a state of emergency for the country but again cant stop ans election it just puts him in direct control of the military.

Originally posted by Amaterasu


And why is that? If the economy disintegrates, people begin to riot, Martial Law is declared...what is to stop Bush from suspending elections? It will easily be within his power. No question there. So do tell me why you conclude what you do. I bet you will ignore this request.

This is the most telling of your points. You suggest that if people are rioting in the streets then the President can suspend elections. First of all that is untrue, second of all, most people understand that there will not be rioting in the streets between now and the election. Do you have any idea how far from this point things would have to get in order for that to happen?

That's the point, I guess. You live in a world in which anarchy is but a moment away. We simply aren't remotely near that point now. Not even close. There is a looming financial crisis. This is true but what would lead a rational person to believe that there will be rioting in the streets of the US over the next 30 days?

Could you point to incidents that have happened recently where there has been great civil unrest? Can you point to events that lead you to believe that the country will fall apart so quickly?

Anyone can predict gloom and doom. Don't pat yourself on the back for that as it requires no particular level of intellect or education. Especially since the prediction isn't remotely close to coming true.

You know... You are twisting what I said rather as someone with an interest in keeping sheeple sheeple.

I've long ago decided that anyone using the term, "sheeple," is not capable of critical thinking. It is indicative of someone who has been brainwashed and is uninterested in intelligent discourse.

No. It is my Holmesian deduction, sir.

Not fact so please refrain from stating this (totally unsubstantiated) point of view as if it were fact.

IF one presumes a false flag, inside job, EVERYTHING makes sense, and needs no convoluted explanations.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point. Since you admit you are presuming the outcome then clearly you have no interest in doing anything other than finding data that you can twist to fit your presumed findings.

[edit on 23-9-2008 by Night Watchman]

Originally posted by Night Watchman
That's the point, I guess. You live in a world in which anarchy is but a moment away. We simply aren't remotely near that point now. Not even close. There is a looming financial crisis. This is true but what would lead a rational person to believe that there will be rioting in the streets of the US over the next 30 days?

Imagine this with me... The economy begins to collapse, it begins to snowball - within a week, the food distribution network has collapsed as well, when buyers have no more money or credit, transportation cannot pay for the fuel, and so on.

Another week goes by and the stores have been sold out or, heh, looted by panicked people (who have had military, national guard, police, whatever, sent against them in...Martial Law), and now people are HUNGRY.

Another week, and the people are rioting for food and anything else they can get their hands on.

Less than one month, dude, from where we are today, to full Martial Law.

Could you point to incidents that have happened recently where there has been great civil unrest? Can you point to events that lead you to believe that the country will fall apart so quickly?

Overall, we have been quite placid, leaning on the assurances of our (unelected) leaders. But events such as the Rodney King incident should show you how near the surface the riotous behavior is when things seem out of control.

Anyone can predict gloom and doom. Don't pat yourself on the back for that as it requires no particular level of intellect or education. Especially since the prediction isn't remotely close to coming true.

See above. You just keep telling yourself that.

You know... You are twisting what I said rather as someone with an interest in keeping sheeple sheeple.

I've long ago decided that anyone using the term, "sheeple," is not capable of critical thinking. It is indicative of someone who has been brainwashed and is uninterested in intelligent discourse.

Decide away. This does not change the fact that many of us ARE capable and will leave you in the dust for underestimating us. The word "sheeple" has a very specific meaning and connotation that I could have used 20 or more words describing, but for the sake of brevity and clarity, I chose the single, and appropriate, term.

The use of the term is not an indication of "brainwashing." However, the turning around of that term ("sheeple" includes an element of brainwashing) is very...shilly of you.

I can suggest a line of reasoning for why one who uses the term "sheeple" CANNOT be "brainwashed" (but "sheeple" can be). Given that those who use the term come from all walks of life, all sorts of businesses, all economic levels (except maybe the Elite), all religious outlooks, and so on, there is no one group who would benefit from the efforts to "brainwash" those who recognize a problem afoot in our government.

On the other hand, MANY benefit from a sheeple mentatity. So efforts to "brainwash" are lucrative, both in terms of money and (especially) power.

No. It is my Holmesian deduction, sir.

Not fact so please refrain from stating this (totally unsubstantiated) point of view as if it were fact.

You are a shill. I have no doubts now. It IS a FACT that I have DEDUCED what I claim to have deduced. What substantiation do you need beyond my words, sir? I roll my eyes!

IF one presumes a false flag, inside job, EVERYTHING makes sense, and needs no convoluted explanations.

Exactly. Thanks for making my point. Since you admit you are presuming the outcome then clearly you have no interest in doing anything other than finding data that you can twist to fit your presumed findings.

Another thread, dude. Another thread. I have proven nothing of yours and refuse your shilly bait.

EDIT to add a link for those out there that are not shilling and really want something to think about relative to suspending the elections:

www.opednews.com...



[edit on 9/23/2008 by Amaterasu]

Decide away. This does not change the fact that many of us ARE capable and will leave you in the dust for underestimating us.

What does this mean exactly? How do you propose to leave me in the dust exactly? Can you be more precise?

And, just so you know, some of us prefer to use actual words when communicating. Neither "sheeple," nor "shilly," are words.

Your mileage may vary.

President bush has re-written so many laws, ignored so many laws and frankly ignored the will of the people.

yes, there may not be anything written that says he can, but judging by the last 8 years that doesnt mean anything to these criminals..

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Decide away. This does not change the fact that many of us ARE capable and will leave you in the dust for underestimating us.

What does this mean exactly? How do you propose to leave me in the dust exactly? Can you be more precise?

And, just so you know, some of us prefer to use actual words when communicating. Neither "sheeple," nor "shilly," are words.

Your mileage may vary.

Any word, coined or standard, which is understood by the reader/listener, IS a word. Your grasp of the principles of a living language may vary.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Amaterasu]

Any word, coined or standard, which is understood by the reader/listener, IS a word. Your grasp of the principles of a living language may vary.

Funny thing about the English language. It's pretty precise. A word either is or isn't but it may be different in your world.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. What do you mean when you say you and others will leave me in the dust? How so? Please don't be afraid to answer. I'll be gentle in my response.

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
President bush has re-written so many laws, ignored so many laws and frankly ignored the will of the people.

yes, there may not be anything written that says he can, but judging by the last 8 years that doesnt mean anything to these criminals..

I was going to say the exact thing! Except that I would add all those secret presidential mandates, orders, whatever. Maybe one of THEM says the "Prez" is the Dictator.

Sheesh.

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Any word, coined or standard, which is understood by the reader/listener, IS a word. Your grasp of the principles of a living language may vary.

Funny thing about the English language. It's pretty precise. A word either is or isn't but it may be different in your world.

Mmm. And so Kleenex (as in tissue) isn't a word, Internet isn't a word... Wait, wait. What date do we select after which all new words aren't words?

Anyway, you didn't answer my question. What do you mean when you say you and others will leave me in the dust? How so? Please don't be afraid to answer. I'll be gentle in my response.

You can have that as a little mental bone to contemplate. I will not take your bait.

[edit on 9/23/2008 by Amaterasu]

You can have that as a little mental bone to contemplate. I will not take your bait.

Of course you won't. You wouldn't dare. At least you have that much sense.

So, listen, you feel strongly that the election will be canceled or postponed, right? How strongly do you believe that prediction of yours? I am absolutely certain it will not happen.

How about a wager? Let's see you back up the prediction.

What do you say?

Originally posted by clay2 baraka
Sorcha Faal?

Is it me or is Sorcha's writing getting better? This one had me for a minute. First time. . . wow

lol i thought the same thing lol

but, just cuz hes wrong 99% of the time

doesnt mean that he isnt right 1% of the time

what if this was that 1%?

nah...im thinking 2 much

Originally posted by Night Watchman

You can have that as a little mental bone to contemplate. I will not take your bait.

Of course you won't. You wouldn't dare. At least you have that much sense.

So, listen, you feel strongly that the election will be canceled or postponed, right? How strongly do you believe that prediction of yours? I am absolutely certain it will not happen.

How about a wager? Let's see you back up the prediction.

What do you say?

Against the T&C. Anyway, I am 100% sure of nothing in this Universe. I give it 85% that the US will be fully usurped by the NeocoNazis before the elections.

As to what you're sure of... Heh. We can all be sure of whatever we choose to be sure of. I guess if they believe they can fiddle the elections to get McCainPuppet in, they may let 'em roll. But Bush wants to be dictator. He said so himself. So...

We shall see what we shall see.

Anyway, I am 100% sure of nothing in this Universe. I give it 85% that the US will be fully usurped by the NeocoNazis before the elections.

Gee, you seemed to be so certain before you were called on it.

Oh well.

Good luck with your paranoia. What a terrible way to live. I don't envy you.

Originally posted by hILB3rT
...Where's Thomas Jefferson when ya need him.

Don't you hear that sound? Like a router spinning at 100,000 rpm? It's Jefferson turning over in his grave.

And BTW, that article does NOT have Sorcha Faal listed as the author in the byline. This would be the first article I've ever seen him/her/they put out without the name attached.

Originally posted by Night Watchman

Anyway, I am 100% sure of nothing in this Universe. I give it 85% that the US will be fully usurped by the NeocoNazis before the elections.

Gee, you seemed to be so certain before you were called on it.

Oh well.

Good luck with your paranoia. What a terrible way to live. I don't envy you.

And I don't envy you with your head seemingly in sand. Or is it an inability to connect dots...? Good luck with your blindness, then.

Just a bit of food for thought from one of my favorite documents: The US Constitution

Article II, Section 3

He shall from time to time give to the Congress information of the state of the union, and recommend to their consideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in case of disagreement between them, with respect to the time of adjournment, he may adjourn them to such time as he shall think proper; he shall receive ambassadors and other public ministers; he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.

Bold added for attention.

Want an example? Trying to prevent ecconomic meltown while Congress drags their feet over the proposed Bailout Bill that he is currently trying very hard to ramrod through Congress. Does not mean his bill is the right way to go as I am opposed to the absolute power transfer without oversight to a cabnet member but what is a small detail like that to getting what you want?

As for elections, Congress decides on what day the Electorial College votes, which is the only vote that really counts in the election process. The popular vote can be 100% Obama and 0% McCain and the EC may decide to vote for Ron Paul...guess who is sworn in as president on Jan 20, 2009?

Many people do not like the Electorial College for that reason, but it was put in by the framers to protect the people should they be mesmerised by a Svengali. (which was actually before Svengali's time but it is a good expression so I will leave it)



[edit on 23-9-2008 by Ahabstar]