And even if things remain stalled in Florida due to more legal challenges and appeals, it's now clear that if the situation is not resolved before January, the electoral college will meet without Florida, and thus Gore will win by default, since he is ahead in electoral votes if you don't count Florida.

The only way Gore can lose at this point is if the Republicans somehow manage against all odds to get their victory certified in Florida. With the media, the courts, and the ruling establishment controlled by the Democrats, this is not going to happen.

I am glad at least Democrats don't have Congress & Senate, too. At least we will have gridlock, which is better than total control by the left. Last time the Democrats were in control we had the biggest tax increase in US history and a wave of gun control laws. Gore will not have that level of control.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Su-27:
I am considering fleeing to another country, maybe australia (nah, I like it here).

---

Don't do it. Not until after Christmass. New York is maybe the most beautiful city in the world during the X-mass holidays...

"I'm proud to follow in the footsteps of previous Presidents, like Jeff Davis!"

I have heard that if Gore wins as a result of this thievery, there will be no Republican office holder at the Inauguration. And this may well extend to other things as well. Gore may not get one iota of cooperation from the House or Senate, which are both in Republican hands. They may both ignore him his entire presidency, owing to the FACT that his occupation of the office is illegal.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd

Also, to my knowledge Florida law allows for hand recounts, but sets such a hard deadline that, considering Florida's population, it can't be finished in time.

And I find it odd that some Republicans are charging bias when they have the Florida Secretary of State, who happens to be a co-chair of the Bush campaign, being the one to certify the results. Nah, no conflict of interest there.

Either one of these candidates will do whatever they can get away with to win. In the end it hardly matters. Whoever wins will have so little political leverage because of their obvious lack of support that they will be able to acomplish little during their term. Four years later and it will be doubtful that the winner of this fiasco will even be able to secure their party nomination for a re-election bid.

Miami Dade County annouced today they will not count ballots manually, reverting to the Nov 7-8 machine count. Some one showed them the law book that said if they count ballots by hand they have to count ALL of them, not just the "problem" ballots they were going to count. They determined the cannot count all ballots by Sunday night, so they won't try.

Miami-Dade may well have changed their minds today after seeing a near riot erupt outside the counting building in response to their attempt to steal the election.

A circuit judge has ruled that Palm Beach County may count "dimpled" chad ballots, which is a big chance to steal ballots for the Gore team. The dimples may well have been caused by the machine counting earlier, but they will count it anyway! Look, if some one didn't feel strongly enough about a candidate to push the stylus in, it shouldn't count. That has been the law in Florida for years, including Palm Beach County.

Jussii, the recounts are ONLY in three Democratic counties, which have two, three, and three canvas board members who are Democrats, out of three, three, and three. That means every vote called into question will be ruled on by Democrats. They have been BLATANT in their theft of votes, placing Bush ballots in the count piles for Gore, taping over open space on the ballot for Gore and mishandling ballots to allow chad to fall free. These ballots were designed for machine count, not manual count, and handling them roughly makes chad loosen and fall.

OK, non-Americans, you wondered a few weeks ago about Americans and the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. This is exactly the kind of situation that can result in the sudden, massive resort to firearms if the rule of law is not quickly re-established. If the Democrats succeed in stealing the election, the one thing that will restore the Constitution is the fact the most Democrats are unarmed. An armed America will not long tolerate an illigitimate government.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skoonj:

If the Democrats succeed in stealing the election, the one thing that will restore the Constitution is the fact the most Democrats are unarmed. An armed America will not long tolerate an illigitimate government.

Skoonj

---

Sorry, I usually try to be polite but I think this is by far the biggest bunch of crap I have ever read on this forum.

BTW, what you've said proves that gun laws can't be strict enough.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd

Just as with 1930s Germany, allowing the Weird Left to gain complete control in the U.S. would soon prove to be an international problem.

It's really nice that Germans had guns in the 1920s and 1930s. But they would have had to USE THEM against the National Socialists in order to have salvaged their situation.

It may be that the courts and legislatures will see that this situation in the US will become lawful and a legitimate president is elected. That is my hope. People have asked Americans for years why there is a militia movement here, with armed and organized Americans training to preserve the Constitution. The Constitution has been under attack for years, and this is only the most recent, but most public and obvious, example. If Gore won legitimately there would be no problem at all. It would be accepted. But if, as it appears, he succeeds through the theft of an election, we are on the verge of a bloody period in America.

Americans are far more tolerant as a people than we are given credit for. But once we reach the limit of our tolerance, we are a terror to behold. I would personally prefer to stay out of it, but unfortunately this seems to center on Florida, where I reside. I may well be forced into something I would not have contemplated three weeks ago.

If what is happening here was happening anywhere else in the world, there would be blood in the streets now. There would be riots and gunfire already. But we are a lawful people, and the bloodshed has not started. That is no guarantee that it won't. Our patience is not inexhaustable.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skoonj:
This is exactly the kind of situation that can result in the sudden, massive resort to firearms if the rule of law is not quickly re-established. If the Democrats succeed in stealing the election, the one thing that will restore the Constitution is the fact the most Democrats are unarmed. An armed America will not long tolerate an illigitimate government.

---

Yeah right. I'll tell you what we won't tolerate is a bunch of armed nutballs trying to take over by force. A couple of points:

1)You think people are going to rise up and fight for Bush? A man who is utterly uninspiring? I mean if he can't easily swing a state in which his brother is governor maybe that should tell you about what little support he has. He didn't even win the popular vote in the US. On the other hand, if Gore gives a speech against your revolt, you might have a chance since anyone who listened will be asleep. I don't see anyone raising weapons for either of these yokels.

2)You would actually consider raising arms against US soldiers who would doubtless be sent in to put down any uprising?

3)The days of armed civilians taking back the government by force in the US are long since passed. Civilians would last about thirty seconds against a professional army. The best you could do is hide away, mutter angrily to yourself and make bombs that will kill innocents and not change anything.

This whole stupid thing is going to be decided by the US Supreme Court anyway. If you don't like their decision I suggest you mobilize your forces to amend the constitution to better suit your taste. That is actually doable and would actually change things.

------------------
-Blackclaw

I always hear people talk abourt this so called "well regulated militia". Now here's what I think about that. I have nothing against guns, but I feel there should be very severe restrictions as to who is allowed to have a gun and who's not. There are too many f***ed up and stupid people out there.
I also think that while an armed population might have been able to effectively defend itself from government agencies two centuries ago, that is no longer true nowadays. I don't know how many folks (civilians) in the States would be willing to take their gun and fight it out if the **** really hit the fan, but I assume they can't make up more than maybe 0.5 percent of the population - spread out over the entire United States. Now if the government really intended to turn America into the Union of American Socialist Republics there'd be nothing an armed militia could do about it. They would simply wipe the floor with you guys.
But of course such a thing will never happen, even without guns. America doesn't need a militia to preserve the rights of its citizens because the American population is deeply democratic (as in democracy, not Democrats ) by nature. Freedom has come to be accepted by the average American as the most natural thing in the world and that is why noone can honestly hope to take it away from them.
One other thing. If the government were to take away your freedom and turn the States into a communist state (or whatever form of state you detest most ) it would clearly need the support of the US armed forces. Now, do you guys not trust your armed forces or what ?? I don't think they'd ever allow that to happen.

Pewww, okay that's all from the Kraut for now.

PS: I apologize for being a little rude in my original post. Such topics do get me kinda excited, though.

2nd PS: Blackclaw, damned you beat me to it by just a few minutes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Skoonj:
Our patience is not inexhaustable.

---

LOL! Skoonj don't get me wrong I'm rabidly against gun control too but get real. Revolts just don't happen in rich countries. People have to be really suffering before you can a proper rebellion.

In any case, I don't think the US population, even with a lot of people owning assault rifles, would have a chance against the US military. Modern, well-trained militaries are nearly impossible to beat with rebels nowadays. Lightly armed rebels can inflict some losses but not much else, and they take horrible losses in the process. Even incompetent, poorly equipped armies tend to squash any rebellion they come up against (Chechnya, Kashmir, Turkey, etc.), even when the rebels are much better armed than the US populace.

First, as I pointed out, it isn't who wins. It's who wins according to the Constitution and the law. Gore? Fine. Bush? Fine.

But if one of them usurps the Constitution in doing it, though, and all bets are off. Signs are mixed today. It could go either way. But if it goes to Gore, and if it is through fraud, there will be little tolerance from the American people.

The US military stop unrest here? Are you joking? Who would call them out? Would they, who have been disenfranchised by Gore's gang, fire on American citizens? I think not. If anything, they would stay out of it.

By the way, a couple of you speak as if I am one who will be in the insurrection. I don't know that I will be. In fact it is unlikely that there will be one, unless the election is stolen. If it is, there likely will be an insurrection, and I can't blame them.

"Rich" country or not, people rebel over principal. There have been thousands who have organized for years in militias on the basis of DEFENDING the Constitution, not opposing it. This time, amazingly, the Democrats have given them their issue, the Constitution, and also guaranteed that the US military would stay out of it. No professional army to fight.

I'm still hopeful that the Constitution will be upheld and that no election will be stolen. I could be wrong. I hope not.

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blackclaw:
[The US] won't tolerate ... a bunch of armed nutballs trying to take over by force.

---

What a joke.

(Disclaimer: I voted for Bush, so keep your accusations about my political views to yourself.)

This had to have done far more damage to Republicans than the "confusing" ballot issue did to the Democrats. But the media's not talking about it (big surprise).

"Even incompetent, poorly equipped armies tend to squash any rebellion they come up against (Chechnya, Kashmir, Turkey, etc.), even when the rebels are much better armed than the US populace."

I would definitely not charachterize the Russian, Indian and Turkish armies as 'incompetent' or 'poorly-equipped'

Russia:
Incompetent: maybe in 94-96 but not now ... especially the more elite units used when the combat gets really close and personal
Poorly Equipped: the best weapons for close quarters urban terrain combat in the world ... the RPO-A infantry rocket flame thrower (come on everyone knows about the shmel ... the infantry-mans artillery/ napalm air strike), the AGS-17 automatic grenade launcher, the ZSU-23-4 (for when those rebels just *GOT* to have their heads put down)
India
Incompetent: I'd say their level of competence is about average judging from their performance against Pakistan in the wars fought
Equipped: they're pretty well decked out with fairly modern weapons (and acquiring more all the time)
Turkey
Incompetent: a fairly pro army ... come on its a NATO member
Ill-equipped: hahahahah most definitely not: US arms flow into Turkey to make sure those Kurds are good and suppressed.

I agree that this talk of an armed insurrection in the US is utter rubbish. Even if there was one, I also agree that US militias would be trounced in days ... if you want to oppose a modern army effectively you can't just grab your crappy old surplus M14 (or your spanking new M16A2 for that matter), a few cases of ammo, some surplus store fatigues, and go hide in a bush until the IFV's come and you can snipe (badly) at troops ... you need MANPADS, fire support weapons, anti-tank rocket launchers .......

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vympel:
India
Incompetent: I'd say their level of competence is about average judging from their performance against Pakistan in the wars fought
Equipped: they're pretty well decked out with fairly modern weapons (and acquiring more all the time)

---

Well, at least their air force is largely obsolete. Mostly they're using old MiGs, and of the few more recent aircraft apparently only Mirage 2000s come equipped with such basic equipment as flare dispensers. They lack a modern attack helicopters with good counter-measures, armor and night fighting equipment, alsi. In the recent Kashmir fighting this all meant that there was little air support for the ground troops, it was mostly inaccurate, and they had to be extemely careful about even rather old MANPADS threat and still took losses.

India does have MiG-29, the Su-30MKIs will be a radical step towards moderinitiy... the upgrade of 200 of her MiG-21's to MiG-21-93 standard (performed by MiG) will improve its effectiveness as well ... attack helicopters definitely lack night-fighting capability (Mi-35 Hinds I think) a cheap way to make them many times more effective would be to upgrade them to Mi-35M standard (FLIR, the Mi-28 Havoc rotor and transmission, AT-9 Ataka missiles, higher take-off weight etc)

Except they would either be full of "Peace Keepers" right now, facing a slew of sanctions, or being bombed by you!

They also have Su-30s, Mig-29s and Harriers, and will probably aquire Su-33s or Mig-29Ks if/when they get their new carrier.

"They lack a modern attack helicopters with good counter-measures, armor and night fighting equipment, alsi."

quote:

---

Jussii, the recounts are ONLY in three Democratic counties, which have two, three, and three canvas board members who are Democrats, out of three, three, and three. That means every vote called into question will be ruled on by Democrats. They have been BLATANT in their theft of votes, placing Bush ballots in the count piles for Gore, taping over open space on the ballot for Gore and mishandling ballots to allow chad to fall free. These ballots were designed for machine count, not manual count, and handling them roughly makes chad loosen and fall.

---

I think this is for me...

I haven't able to find out what exactly are the duties of a canvassing board, but it doesn't actually count the votes, does it?

The actual recount is being done in teams of four, right? Two counters from each party, two supervisors from each party. Each vote has to be unanimously agreed on, or other supervisors be used. The whole process is subject to objections, and any votes disputed this way are separated.

So how do the Dems achieve all that you accuse them of?
Do you have any cites?

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Whistler:
And I don't think India and Turkey are incompetent... Russia yes (look at that whole submarine business)

---

You of all men, should know better than to make such simplistic deductions.

(and believe me, you don't want to be a army recruit there)

But isn't turkey one of the countries that ordered the E-767 Awacs? Non of my books are that recent so I can't brush up on my library.. but I thought I read that in AFM.

Listen to this:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/FRUIT_111600.html

and this:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/CUT_111700.html

and I think you'll really like this:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today/RUSH_on_CNBC.html

Skoonj

------------------
Excelsior, Fathead!
--Jean Shepherd