Edward's Wife: "No riots if we win" (Will there be riots?)

Whats the line she is saying? Is it that there will be not riots because republicans aren't rioters like democrats or that there simply won't be any riots if they win? I'm not so sure it should be taken as 'republicans are such decent people, us democrats are mean rioters'. I think she is just saying that there won't be riots because the country is civil. She is saying that, and some people have been saying that they will riot, that a vote for them is not a vote for civil disorder, that there will not be chaos and anarchy in the streets, or that it won't be the end of the world. And people certainly have been acting like it will be.

Originally posted by jsobecky

This is the mark and work of a subversive. And people want to vote this person into office so that he can govern you? This is how liitle he respects you - that he wants you to riot, to get injured or possibly killed, and to divide this country of ours.

Truly pathetic.

:shk:

Okay, we've got to make a deal...you've got to u2u me before you post anymore ... that way I have a chance to take a valium before I read your always deeply accurate posts on Kerry.

(He really is the antichrist.)

Originally posted by MKULTRA

Lately I've seen reports of anti-Bush "rioters" being fired upon by Police using "pepperballs". A week or so ago a female Bush protester was hit in the eye and killed by a "less than lethal" beanbag. Is there a pattern forming?

MK

...and where did you see this info? I must have missed it. Perhaps you can provide a source? The situation your talking seems to be the one of the Boston Redsoxs fan and the riots that recently took place. You can read about it here and here.

Originally posted by Valhall
I think this is an admission that the Democrats know they are extremely poor losers and can't maintain civility in the face of failure.

She's just letting all us Republicans know that she knows we are much better behaved...

also, she's trying to scare the old people by letting them know that the crazy democrats will probably burn their houses down if they lose.
[edit on 10-25-2004 by Valhall]

Haha OMG. This coming from someone who is a member of the Republican party. A party whose voters include those from the KKK and other idiotic White Supermicst groups full of 30 something yr old and above white males (who are still pissed blacks got the right to vote in the 60's) who complain about the white man losing rights in the country when, the last time I checked, all our presidents have been white, white men run most of the forturne 500 companies and other lobbist groups that have influence over D.C. politics. You want to talk about a group of whiners, look w/in your own party my friend.

Trueseeker, who did you say is whining? Need a hanky?

I've got two words for you, TS - Robert Byrd.

There might very well be riots either way.

To say that the Rep. or Dem. are "better behaved" is rediculous in the extreme. I think that civil unrest could do us a good bit of good.

The American people have never failed until recently to get violent because of the horrid nature of the Federal Government.

I think it's almost time to take to the streets, but we should be focused on non-violence. We need to take non-violent protest to curb the Federal Government and the political powers it takes upon itself.

There is no connection between our current government and the Constitution, and Kerry or Bush will not make a change in that department.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Trueseeker, who did you say is whining? Need a hanky?

I've got two words for you, TS - Robert Byrd.

For the record yes the DNC has it's share of white racists and I'm sure there are more than than we expect as the theme of the day is conform in public, hate in private. Still fact of the matter is the GOP has more white bigots in than the DNC.

And to be fair yes the DNC is obviously going to have the majority of blacks who are racists against whites since most blacks vote democratic. However, IMO add the number of racist blacks in the dem party and multiply it by 2 and it still won't equal the number of racist whites in the GOP.

[edit on 11/1/2004 by truseeker]

Originally posted by smokenmirrors

right wing nazi republicans have more black powder, firearms, bombs, grenades and such. a civil war would be no contest. the lefty liberals would be marching back and forth with posters and signs, complaining about the unfairness of it all, holding demonstrations and sit'ins, protecting snail darters and such from certain annhilation, while the right wingers would be feverishly planting IED's about, all the while raining volley after volley upon the huddled protesting masses of whiners.

Sorry, but being labeled "liberal" doesn't mean one doesn't belive in the 2nd Amendment. Like anything, there are extremes on both sides, so just because some granola eating crunchy hippy might not want to pick up a gun and fight, doesn't mean there aren't VERY armed "liberals".

taken to the extreme...i think anyone who riots should be shot on sight (not killed, simply shot in the leg or arm) for pure stupidity and engaging in behaviour detrimental to our society. neither candidate is going to "steal" the election. people will vote, the electoral system will do it's thing, and a president will be decided. that's it. if my guy doesn't win, that'll suck, but i'm not about to risk society just because i'm unhappy.

Guys, it's not about parties and the more someone puts someone else down just for claiming support for another party, the more they strengthen that other persons own views and you represent your own party as an ignorant person shouting partisan rhetoric.

Democrat, okay, you'll get my respect.
Republican, you'll get my respect.
Some one who refuses to be labelled and has honest, non-biased or politically motivated opinons about what's going on in this country..You'll get every ounce of respect I have and a deep admiration for raising above such a dividing system that does more harm than good.

I think this two party system is what has caused such deep emotions in us American citizens this year. People usually associate themselves with a certain party because they agree with their stance on one or more key issues. But it has turned into more of a blind faith, with Republicans praising George W. for his deplorable actions and Democrats using every single thing they can and exagerrating it to drive their point home.

Now, as someone who has no blind faith to any party and someone who won't claim a party as their own, what do the self-proclaimed Democrats and Republicans think of the following idea (won't happen, but it's good to hope):

-A democratic republic in which each district, state and then the whole country is allowed people to vote for someone solely on their stand on issues and debate performances and not their partisan affiliation.

Each district has fellow residents run for President (or senator, rep. Governor, etc..). All nominees participate in issue exposes where they get 5-10 minutes to briefly explain their stance on the issues, then they have a debate, answering questions from audience members, then district residence vote. The winner of the district goes to state where the process occurs again. After state, then there is regional, then national elections will end up with a few candidates.

Now, this won't ever happen, but such a system would unite the country, because there would be no "sides" in congress, senate, etc. There wouldn't be "republican administration" or a democratic one, it would just be an American President who was elected for who he was and what he believed in, not by whether or not a couple states could get more partisan voters out on election day.

The thing is, next time you catch yourself putting another person down because of which party they affilate themsef with, just ask yourself why you associate yourself with a party. You don't believe in everything that they support, but mayve more than the other side, so in effect your party isn't accurately representing your heart-felt beliefs.

That said, I deem it okay to put down somebody who supprts W.

(Just kidding)

Guys, it's not about parties and the more someone puts someone else down just for claiming support for another party, the more they strengthen that other persons own views and you represent your own party as an ignorant person shouting partisan rhetoric.

Democrat, okay, you'll get my respect.
Republican, you'll get my respect.
Some one who refuses to be labelled and has honest, non-biased or politically motivated opinons about what's going on in this country..You'll get every ounce of respect I have and a deep admiration for raising above such a dividing system that does more harm than good.

I think this two party system is what has caused such deep emotions in us American citizens this year. People usually associate themselves with a certain party because they agree with their stance on one or more key issues. But it has turned into more of a blind faith, with Republicans praising George W. for his deplorable actions and Democrats using every single thing they can and exagerrating it to drive their point home.

Now, as someone who has no blind faith to any party and someone who won't claim a party as their own, what do the self-proclaimed Democrats and Republicans think of the following idea (won't happen, but it's good to hope):

-A democratic republic in which each district, state and then the whole country is allowed people to vote for someone solely on their stand on issues and debate performances and not their partisan affiliation.

Each district has fellow residents run for President (or senator, rep. Governor, etc..). All nominees participate in issue exposes where they get 5-10 minutes to briefly explain their stance on the issues, then they have a debate, answering questions from audience members, then district residence vote. The winner of the district goes to state where the process occurs again. After state, then there is regional, then national elections will end up with a few candidates.

Now, this won't ever happen, but such a system would unite the country, because there would be no "sides" in congress, senate, etc. There wouldn't be "republican administration" or a democratic one, it would just be an American President who was elected for who he was and what he believed in, not by whether or not a couple states could get more partisan voters out on election day.

The thing is, next time you catch yourself putting another person down because of which party they affilate themsef with, just ask yourself why you associate yourself with a party. You don't believe in everything that they support, but mayve more than the other side, so in effect your party isn't accurately representing your heart-felt beliefs.

That said, I deem it okay to put down somebody who supprts W.

(Just kidding)