Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Call for "Day of Outrage," nationwide "noncooperation" if Kerry Loses (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Call for "Day of Outrage," nationwide "noncooperation" if Kerry Loses
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Nov. 1 issue of Time has an article which says on page 34:
quote:
No matter how Nov. 2 unfolds, it is clear that a certain portion of the public is not prepared to go quietly. Particularly on the left, there is an assumption that the only way Bush can win is by cheating, so the calls have gone out for a Day of Outrage on Nov. 3 for No Stolen Elections events around the country. Groups like BeyondVoting.org have called for "widespread noncooperation if Bush is elected...."
The article goes on to mention some individuals who think there may be "a mass boycott to shut down the economy," and are stocking their pantries in preparation.

Is this what the left thinks it means to be an American? To plan outright treasonous rebellion if you lose the election? If anything like this happens, then Democrats are forever going to be branded as the treason party--willing to go so far as to engage in treasonous rebellion, and risk starting a real civil war.

Considering that Kerry, as I see him, is a demonstrated anti-American traitor many times over throughout his lifetime, it would not surprise me to see his supporters engage in treason. How far down this road are Democrats willing to go if they keep on losing elections, as they have been in recent years? Will they choose to threaten American Democracy itself, rather than accept the sustained public rebuke for their leftist extremism, and turn back toward the moderate middle, where most Americans are?

[ November 01, 2004, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Adam Masterman
Member
Member # 1142

 - posted      Profile for Adam Masterman   Email Adam Masterman   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Calm down. You used the word treason 4 times, yet nothing in the blip you provided suggests treason (want to know what that word REALLY means? http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/t103.htm ) . Non-cooperation is perfectly legal in the private sector (hello, boycotts?), and any lawbreaking that results from this will be handled according to the statutes involved. "outright treasonous rebellion"??? Maybe you should lie down for a while.
Adam

Posts: 4823 | Registered: Jul 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course, what you also assume is that a majority of Democrats are interested in such a boycott.

I consider myself a Democrat, and this is the first I've heard of a planned boycott! (BTW, thanks for letting me know, since obviously the party isn't doing it's job. [Wink] [Big Grin] )

This sounds like something from one of the more fringe groups on the left. Don't expect the entire party to follow suite.

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Mass pandemonium! People will be drowning their freedom fries with ketchup! [Big Grin]
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ATW
Member
Member # 1690

 - posted      Profile for ATW   Email ATW   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Particularly on the left, there is an assumption that the only way Bush can win is by cheating"


I'm finding this very common among Kerry supporters outside this forum:

1) I think "X".
2) "X" is very important to me.
3) I'm a typical person so the typical person thinks "X" and its very important to them.
4) Repeat on other issues until you run out of letters in the alphabet.
5) Therefore Bush cannot win.

Don't laugh. I've seen multiple people come out with laundry lists like this on other forums deadly serious that they just proved conclusively that Bush cannot win. And more often than not, the peanut gallery telling them they're 100% right.

=====

You haven't had fun until you've discussed the military vote with a group of Kerry supporters who've lost contact with reality.

I've had numerous such Kerry people tell me Kerry is going to get in excess of 90% of the military vote.

I point out that Bush has been polling in the 80% range among the military.

I'm told they have to say that because their officers are listening but when they get in the privacy of the voting booth that its Kerry all the way.

I ask what makes them think the miliary voters are for Kerry.

Because of the war! Dead soldiers. Fighting for oil. Killing innocent Iraqi civilians. Of course the soldiers hate the war, hate their commanders, hate Rumsfeld, hate Bush. Not going to vote for someone they hate, are they?

(Sigh.) It'd be funny if this same conversation hadn't happened repeatedly with different casts of characters.

Posts: 575 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Swami
Member
Member # 2129

 - posted      Profile for Swami   Email Swami   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, LoverOfJoy, and in the same sarcastic vein, some Right-Reactionaries will call for a boycott of the Heinz ketchup brand for their freedom fries. Then some other Right-Reactionaries will probe to find out what generic ketchups are actually rebranded Heinz, to be included in the boycott. Then the Left-Radicals will counter by urging "year's supply" purchases of Heinz, and this will all be in the top presented news stories by the MSM...
Posts: 55 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It isn't as if the Democrats haven't been laying the groundwork for post-election pan-chad-demonium; but can one believe that it was only these little sheards of cardboard that defeated the Democrats in the last election? This time it will be ESCape buttons [Razz] !

VOTE MONARCHIST! VOTE FOR ME!

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
musket
Member
Member # 552

 - posted      Profile for musket         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, your paranoia is showing.

And alas for you Bushies, as been discussed here before, Heinz will remain the best ketchup regardless of whether your man loses.

Posts: 1524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Gaoics79
Member
Member # 969

 - posted      Profile for Gaoics79   Email Gaoics79   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't think this represents mainstream Democrat opinion. It sounds like standard extreme left thinking. It goes beyond mere disagreement. It is a way of thinking that asserts the premise that the correctness of your opinions are so obvious, so self-evident, that everyone must, a priori agree with you. Everyone who says they disagree is

A. A dupe of a few ruling elites. They totally agree with extreme left sentiment, but have been deceieved by those in power, and therefore don't understand what they're doing. If you can only get them to understand this deception, then they'd definitely agree with you. (I have seen Michael Moore make this kind of argument; it's the "everyone thinks my way, but just doesn't know it, because they have been duped by those in power not to recognize their best interests")

B. A ruling elite who knows full well that the extreme left is right about everything, but chooses to willfully pursue their own selfish ends despite themselves. In other words, they are evil.

This is why you can no more argue with such individual than you could argue with a religious fundamentalist; the very premise of their beliefs is that they are right. What naturally follows from this kind of thinking is a total ends justify the means attitude; they will lie, cheat, and do anything to achieve their ends. Everything either serves their ideology, or does not exist. Case in point: freedom of speech. The leftist fanatics who write my student newspaper believe that Fox News should be banned in Canada because it supports president Bush, who is so obviously and completely evil. The idea that it is possible to support President Bush in good faith and not be either an ignorant dupe or a total monster is completely beyond these nuts. Freedom of speech is a fundamental right to them, so long as the person talking agrees with them 100% [Smile]

[ November 01, 2004, 04:08 PM: Message edited by: jasonr ]

Posts: 7629 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In all fairness to Heinz Ketchup, Teresa and John had nothing to do with it. Teresa is the Heinz heir because she married the actual Heinz heir, who later was killed in a plane crash. He was a Republican senator, by the way. It was a couple of years after that when Kerry came along and saw a target of opportunity and harvested Teresa (despite the fact that he was still legally married to his first wife at the time).
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"It was a couple of years after that when Kerry came along and saw a target of opportunity and harvested Teresa (despite the fact that he was still legally married to his first wife at the time)."

Yes. Because we all know that rich people never marry for love.

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Shane Roe
Member
Member # 1542

 - posted      Profile for Shane Roe   Email Shane Roe   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ATW:
I've had numerous such Kerry people tell me Kerry is going to get in excess of 90% of the military vote.

I point out that Bush has been polling in the 80% range among the military.


Well, ATW, that's assuming the military votes aren't disenfranchised--as the governor of Pennsylvania was attempting to do before he was hit with an uproar so loud you could hear it over here in Utah. I've never seen so many people so eager to cheat, lie and disenfranchise in order to keep the military vote out of it. Perhaps the "day of outrage" should happen if Kerry wins for all the dead people and cartoon characters who voted for Kerry.

Shane

Posts: 565 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Treason?

No, treason is outing a CIA operative.

A day of protesting is about as American as it gets. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't have to.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WillBest
Member
Member # 1833

 - posted      Profile for WillBest   Email WillBest       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This you might enjoy

http://www.ucomics.com/boondocks/2004/10/31/

Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WarrsawPact
Member
Member # 1275

 - posted      Profile for WarrsawPact   Email WarrsawPact   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wanna undermine the already near-broken faith in our democratic system? GREAT!

But don't count your chickens before they hatch; it looks bad for Bush right now.

Posts: 7500 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
witless chum
Member
Member # 1643

 - posted      Profile for witless chum   Email witless chum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The Democrats were called the party of treason once, but they deserved it, what with the war they levied.

If the Blue States secede, fire on Fort Sumter and start whipping Federal Armies, then you have my permission to reapply the label.

Dan

Posts: 642 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ben5
Member
Member # 1488

 - posted      Profile for ben5     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ATW-I'm not sure about this, but I think there might be a law against polling active duty military.
Posts: 138 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
talon
Member
Member # 1068

 - posted      Profile for talon     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
so what, really, is the problem with a day of protest, if it REALLY is non-violent, non-destructive disobedience? I didn't know about this plan until about five minutes ago, but i see nothing wrong with using your actions to make a public statement, especially for a single day.
Posts: 158 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its not treason, but it is stupid and pointless.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Its neither stupid, nor pointless. Its the sort of thing we have the first amendment for.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
WillBest
Member
Member # 1833

 - posted      Profile for WillBest   Email WillBest       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Non-violent protest is fine and should be encouraged. It is protected by the first amendment.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lewkowski
Member
Member # 2028

 - posted      Profile for Lewkowski   Email Lewkowski       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just becuase its protected it doesn't mean its not stupid and pointless.
Posts: 890 | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
How is it either, lewkowski? Or do you think its stupid and pointless to voice political dissent?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Lew apparently thinks it's stupid and pointless if it doesn't support Little GWB.
Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
javelin
Member
Member # 1284

 - posted      Profile for javelin   Email javelin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What would they be protesting? That the majority of America, under the current system, want Bush to be president? Who are they going to convince? What's the point? Why is it a smart thing? Is my assumption off?
Posts: 8614 | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OhPuhLeez
Member
Member # 1597

 - posted      Profile for OhPuhLeez   Email OhPuhLeez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
That the majority of America, under the current system, want Bush to be president?
This is SO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!

Remember the last election? Clearly not.

Posts: 1258 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Does anyone think it's ironic that people are calling a political protest "stupid" and "pointless" or asking "who are they going to convince" while posting on a little internet BB that maybe 200 people read on a daily basis? [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
1) Kerry had been Legally, (under civil law) divorced from his first wife years before he met Teresa.

2) It is illegal to poll active millitary personsell.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pseudoCode
Member
Member # 771

 - posted      Profile for pseudoCode     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

I've never seen so many people so eager to cheat, lie and disenfranchise in order to keep the military vote out of it

Speaking as a veteran, this statement makes me think of the society of "Starship Troopers" by Heinlein. In a nutshell, the logic goes that the only people who should have the right to vote and hold public office are those who understand the ramifications of the decisions they make (i.e. sending troops into combat). It disgusts me that the elitist snobs try to discount the votes of the very people who defend thier freedom to be elitist snobs.
Posts: 314 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
pseudoCode
Member
Member # 771

 - posted      Profile for pseudoCode     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
First let's see what would happen if the Kerry base does engage in a campaign of this nature. Here's how it would go down in my area:

  • In the city of Albany, you'd see a whole bunch of college students refusing to go to thier jobs at pizza joints and bookstores. Big whoop.
  • Same college students would probably refuse to go to class. Again, big whoop.
  • The foaming-at-the-mouth liberal activists would be out in the street protesting .... again.. not different from most weeks.
  • Just about 1/4 of the people would go about thier day normally, since they actually have families to feed, businesses to run and things to do.

In a nutshell, I say go ahead and be non-cooperative. Most of those people who would engage in something like this probably don't really contribute to society anyway, and the loss of thier productivity will be not much more than an inconvenience. That is, unless they become actively disruptive, in which case, things could get ugly, as many have simply had enough of the whining, crying and name-calling coming from the left.

Posts: 314 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Most of those people who would engage in something like this probably don't really contribute to society anyway, and the loss of thier productivity will be not much more than an inconvenience."

Hm. While I don't think a protest of this sort is likely to happen, I think you have a somewhat unrealistic image of the "Kerry base."

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just as a fact check here... the republicans have been equally active in not getting out overseas ballots as democrats have been. If you want to complain about people not letting the military vote, you have to look at BOTH parties this time around. Apparently, republican leadership feels losing military votes is worth losing overseas-civilian votes.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sunil Carspecken
Member
Member # 1453

 - posted      Profile for Sunil Carspecken     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know, there was a prophet on the internet last spring who claimed to be from the future and said the US was going to have a civil war in 2005. It got me thinking is it actually possible(?) because if a civil war does happen '05 would be the year (or the end of '04). Do people feel so strongly about Bush/Kerry?

Let's think about this scenario. The election is super close and the lawyers get busy on both sides. There are all kinds of stories about cheating so both sides think the other side is playing dirty. Massive protests/demonstrations on both sides turn to violence against each other... people get further pissed off. Nahh. I can't really see a civil war happening. I mean even though some people thought Bush won the last election illegitimately they didn't take up arms or anything, they just grumbled.

Posts: 333 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Jesse, I believe that Kerry was only legally separated from his first wife when he started wooing Teresa. Legal separation is not divorce; it only means separate maintenance. Those who are separated are still legally married. At some point Teresa said divorce would not be enough; John had to get an annulment of his previous marriage, inwhich the Catholic Church declares that the first marriage was never valid. It has been stated in the media that Kerry was dating other women, including Morgan Fairchild, while he was still legally separated but not divorced.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most men DO date while they are legally seperated, since it can take years for a divorce to finalize. My parents were legally seperated 3 years before they were legally divorced.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The "noncooperation" and threat of a boycott sufficient to "bring the economy to a halt" was not necessarily limited to one day; these were something additional to the "Day of Outrage."

A refusal to be sporting and accept the outcome of a valid election would be a fundamental renunciation of democracy, a breaking of the contract all Americans have had with each other since the creation of our Republic. The only possible next step, aside from repenting and stepping back from the brink, would be toward open rebellion against the government.

Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"A refusal to be sporting and accept the outcome of a valid election would be a fundamental renunciation of democracy"

I think the question is over weather the election is going to be valid.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Ron Lambert
Member
Member # 682

 - posted      Profile for Ron Lambert   Email Ron Lambert   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everard, it takes only two or three months to get a divorce even in those states that do not grant instant divorce. In a state like Michigan which has no-fault divorce, no grounds even have to be stated. All you have to do is say you want a divorce, and file for it, and that is it. I repeat, legal separation is not divorce, and it is immoral in the eyes of virtually all churches, and unwise in general for those who are only separated to date; that would provide a grounds for presumption of adultery, which could have serious consequences in a suit for divorce, especially if there is a custody battle for children involved.
Posts: 2645 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ron, it takes a long time for a divorce to be finalized, in most cases. It CAN happen quickly... but usually doesn't. You are correct that legal seperation is not divorce, but I disagree that it is "unwise" to date during a seperation. I think its important, otherwise the divorce will get even nastier then it probably already is, for both parties to start moving on.

As I said, my parents were legally seperated for 3 years. Of course, that was in MA, and we have the lowest divorce rate in the country, so perhaps we've got built in delays. However, from what I've heard from friends in other states who's parents are divorced, three years is fairly standard.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ben5
Member
Member # 1488

 - posted      Profile for ben5     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What does it matter if kerry started dating before he was legally divorced? This is not an "issue" its gossip!
Posts: 138 | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1