xtisme, since you failed to denounce pissing on the toilet seat, you are complicit in Bush’s toilet-related crimes.
The right wing apologists are pissing anywhere and everywhere, and all you care about is Bush seizing dictatorial power. People like you make me sick.
rjung has been (trying) to make me ‘complicit’ for years now…so I’m getting used to the abuse. One deviates from the standard board line at the peril of being labled a rabid Bushite…
-XT
It’s high time this nation did something to reign in the waffle cartel!
Prices this summer are outrageous, $7.95 for a stale waffle, some whipped cream, and maybe 6 frozen strawberries.
Nah, your continued silence on the president’s tacky debate techniques, combined with your slamming rjung for using the same strategy doesn’t make you complicit in any crimes, it just makes me doubt the sincerity of your ethical stand here. Of course, you’re under no compulsion to address the issue, ever. This wouldn’t be America if you were, just as it wouldn’t be America if I wasn’t allowed to bring it up occasionally. You don’t mind my bringing it up, do you?
You really don’t get it, do you?
Here’s what happened.
Rjung came in and pissed on the toilet seat.
I said pissing on the toilet seat was disgusting.
You came in and said that George Bush regularly pisses on the toilet seat.
I said I don’t care what George Bush does, pissing on the toilet seat is disgusting.
You then whined that I only complained when rjung pisses on the toilet seat, never when George Bush pisses on the toilet seat.
I replied that when George Bush comes in and pisses on the toilet seat, I’ll call what he did disgusting too.
You dedoubled your huff that I never denounced George Bush for pissing on toilet seats, and if that’s the standard I set then how dare I complain about Rjung pissing on toilet seats.
I thought about what I could say in return that wouldn’t get me banned.
Then I posted this little parable. Now. Surely even you can’t be so thick as to realize that by calling pissing on the toilet seat disgusting, I think it’s disgusting even when George Bush does it. So agreeing explicitly that when George Bush pissed on the toilet seat was disgusting seemed pretty damn stupid since I’d already denounced toilet-seat pissing, I didn’t need to include that it’s disgusting with a fox, in a box, on a train, in the rain, here or there, or anywhere.
But I guess I was wrong.
What kind of absolute rubish is that? Read the banner on the top of this page-- you know, the little thingy about fighting ignorance. This isn’t supposed to be some message board dedicated partisan hacks, and I didn’t think you wer the type who wanted to turn it into one. Tell me you’re not serious.
Yes, you were, and you worked hard to give the impression that it was only minor rightwing nuts who were, to use your vernacular ‘peeing on the toilet seats’. Of course, that’s not true. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld McClellan, Snow, they all do it. It’s common practice. It’s nice to see you finally start to acknowledge that. I was beginning to think that the administration’s ‘pee stains’ were invisible to you. Surely you can now agree that what rjung did in this thread is no worse than what our elected leaders do on a regular basis?
-Tut tut rjung, poorly played ::shakes head sadly::
Or shall we crucify him?
Just looking for a level playing field John. I’ll admit that this is a crazy thread to go looking for such a thing, but geeze, asking ‘what if Busch refuses to step down?’ outside of GQ is like turning on a magnet for wild partisan excess. Not surprisingly, it showed up.
Large? How large? You’re making the enormous leap from the fact that many people didn’t vote to the preposterous assumption that many of those people wouldn’t care if there were a coup turning the US into a virtual dicatatorship. Tell us just how many people wouldn’t care and how you determined that? It’s a complete non sequitur to claim that not voting = not caring about a coup.
Why on earth would you want to make a “level playing field” between what goes on outside this board and what goes on inside it?
First off, the obvious: no way in Hell will this actually happen.
But if President “Smith” (to avoid current partisanship) decided he wanted to get more than eight years, the last thing he’d do is refuse to vacate the premises. If Smith waited that long, he’d have missed his moment. A new President would have been elected and would be a legal authority to rally around.
No, the way to go would be take the legal route. Start a movement in the second term to enact a new amendment repealing the 22nd amendment. And you’ll note neither Reagan, Clinton, nor Bush took any steps in this direction.
However suppose Smith is worried about the possibility of losing the election. The thing to do is not wait for the results to come in. Smith would cancel the election entirely probably citing some national emergency that would require the polls to shut down “temporarily”.
But realistically, Smith would never get away with it. Presidential elections were held on schedule in 1864 and the Civil War would be hard to top for national emergency status. The only way I could see it happening would be a real major catastrophe like a nuclear war or alien invasion - something too big for Smith to fake.
And I don’t think it would be the Secret Service that would be dragging Smith out kicking and screaming. It’s not their jurisdiction. A federal court would issue Smith an order to vacate and it would probably be US Marshals that would enforce it if it came to that.
This type of answer is all the OP is looking for. The rest of you can settle down.
No, I’m just on more Percocet than Rush Limbaugh. Sorry.
Regards,
Shodan
And you better believe I previewed this one.
If this were true, wouldn’t this thread be about what we’d do if President John Kerry refused to step down after losing the 2008 election?
Sorry for the aside, but this may be the funniest post I’ve seen on here in a long time.
Little Nemo, as has been pointed out by numerous other posters, the President doesn’t have the authority to cancel the elections. Not even a real, actual alien invasion or nuclear attack would enable the President to cancel the elections. He just can’t do it.
As for who would escort the President from office, I’m guessing it would be the Secret Service, not the US Marshals. Regardless of who has jurisdiction to do such things, the Secret Service is charged with protecting current and former Presidents. I’m guessing as a matter of comity, the US Marshals would defer to the Secret Service on the best method for getting the former President out of there without hurting him.
I read that post five times already, and still can’t make heads or tails out of it.
Presidents have done several things which they did not have legal authority to do. Legal authority is a lot more flexible than you think. Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson, Reagan, Bush - they all did things which violated the law. As long as the majority of people go along with it, they’re covered.
Well, yeah. As has been said repeatedly, if everyone agrees to go along with it, then the President can call off the election, stay in power, or pee all over the White House toilet seat. But there’s almost no chance that Congress, the courts, the federal executive branch, the State Legislatures, the State executives, the current candidates for office, the military, the state militias, and the populace will go along with a President calling off elections.
rjung, are you talking about my post? What don’t you understand?
No, I meant Lord Ashtar’s post. You just jumped ahead of me there. 
You suggested that this board contains a “fairly representative slice of the populace as a whole”. If that were true, since the majority of this board preferred Kerry to Bush, then Kerry would’ve run away with the 2004 election.
What’s so hard about that?
We’ll just have to disagree on how small or enormous that leap is. By any measure, it’s the merest of nudges compared to the leap proposed by the OP in the first place. I stand by my prediction (requiring as it does a ridiculously improbable chain of events as prerequisite) and if you want to argue it further, give me a shout in post-coup January 2009.