People forget that there have been frequent episodes of violence in America that can be analyzed as Republicans vs. Democratics, from the Civil War to the gunfight at the OK Corral (Earps were Republicans; Clantons were Democrats).

People forget that there have been frequent episodes of violence in America that can be analyzed as Republicans vs. Democrats, from the Civil War to the gunfight at the OK Corral (Earps were Republicans; Clantons were Democrats).

Go Earps!

Yeah, who usually wins? And who is the Republican Doc Holliday in the present situation? Condi?

"Mr. Assad, yore a daisy if you do!"

---------------------------------------------

If Bush Wins, We Will Make This Country Ungovernable By Christmas

Newt switched parties? That'll teach me not to sleep.

I dunno, Ace, this sounds to me like one of those way-too-convenient Ron Suskind quotes. Did the consultant twirl his long black mustache as he said it?

Whoever wins will have a hard time governing such a massively divided electorate. But Bush has 4 years of practice doing it, so presumably he'll do better at it than what's his name.

Democrats seem to think they're the only ones who can play down and nasty. Guess that means they're in for a surprise, if that's how the tables turn.

The real pisser, of course, is that as far as the Democrats are concerned, in doing their best to make the country ungovernable they'll just be fulfilling their moral mandate.

And one is left to wonder, will these idiots be unpleasantly surprised or calculatingly delighted when conservative America puts on the ol' hard hat and hits back?

Assholes.

Outraged, but lately, not in the least shocked. Recently Orson Scott Card wrote an essay on this called the Death of Shame, I highly recommend it.

Hiya Cameron! Guess who was at your blog today? LOL

I hardly think they can do more than they already are. They already riot in the streets, engage in violence, and make threats against public officials. They're not going to be able to do anything in the House or Senate that they haven't already done either.

"I dunno, Ace, this sounds to me like one of those way-too-convenient Ron Suskind quotes. Did the consultant twirl his long black mustache as he said it?"

I don't think so. There really is that feeling on the left, and I don't think it's unbelievable that a lefty would say that as a threat.

Whew! Scooped Brian B. by about a microsecond.

Not likely Condi. She has proven to be a weak NSC Advisor, snookered by the neocons and unable to get the internal Bush Administration national security squabbles under control.

Rumors are she heads back to academia if Dubya wins.

As for the election, I hope it is less close than 2000, but close enough for the Dems to unleash their legions of shysters, put the country through another subversion of democracy - and see the people recoil at them as crybabies and spoilsports up to their old tricks. And have the people realize that Dems don't believe in Democracy, only in the lawyers.

"But if Kerry wins, we'll make this country ungovernable by Groundhog Day!"

I'm thinking that this is what the recent terrorist video is about ('the streets will run red with blood' or some such).

I think we already knew the uber-liberals are in bed with the terrorists, tho.

" Recently Orson Scott Card wrote an essay on this called the Death of Shame, I highly recommend it."

Yes, it was good ... but more importantly, when are they gonna make "Ender's Game" into a movie?

Isn't that was the Dems said and did back in 1860? Give him a southron accent, and Kerry would make a great Jefferson Davis-- pompous, arrogant and clueless.

Besides, does anyone really expect civilized behavior from the party which over the last 200 years has supported slavery, succession, segregation, subversion and fellow-traveling?

But wasn't that comment supposed to be "off the record"?

Uh, Raoul? I'm a Republican and I support secession, as do many other Republicans. It is fundamental to freedom that groups of people have the right to opt-out. I also believe in states rights and that Lincoln destroyed Constitutional Federalism.

Just to comment on a topic you touched on, I live in Ohio and have no land line, only a cell phone. I originally did because I was basically paying a monthly fee to allow telemarketers to call me, and I didn't need it because I have a cable modem. I am also going to vote for Bush. But no one else I know uses a cell phone exclusively. I really don't think there are that many of us out there, so if Democrats are relying on cell phone-only uses to boost their numbers, I think they're going to be mistaken. I could be wrong, but if there were a significant number of us, I would think that I would at least know a couple of people.

OK, so when everyone votes, and Bush wins, I'm going to let out the hugest f*cking primal scream - you're gonna hear it back in NYC. And then I'm going to run around west hollywood hootin and hollerin makin fun of all the kerry-lovers.

-Mr. Furious

But wasn't that comment supposed to be "off the record"?

But I think off the record just means "not for attribution."

Smack - We never had a Constitutional Federation of States, free to go their way in all matters. Lincoln did the right thing. Only an inconsequential fringe believes otherwise.

I still have to disagree, Ace. No matter how furious the liberals get, they will never ever give up the most cherished piece of their self-image, which is that the only reason they keep losing elections is that they're just too thoughtful and nice to get down in the gutter with conservatives. I wouldn't have been the least bit surprised to hear this consultant threaten a bunch of actions that, looked at objectively, would add up to making the country ungovernable. But I still have a hard time believing he'd explicitly avow that as a goal-- as opposed to, say, blaming the Republicans for making the country ungovernable if they have the effrontery to resist.

I'm one of those who uses a cell phone exclusively. Somewhat for the convenience, but mainly because it's much cheaper than the local provider with their BS fee charges. Actually I've been off the land line since 2002.

Smack

Cedarford

We never had a Constitutional Federation of States

Yes, we did.

free to go their way in all matters.

I didn't say that. The national government was granted a few limited powers in the Constitution. The states and the people retained the rest of their rights and powers. Most of those rights and powers have since been illegally taken by the central government.

Only an inconsequential fringe believes otherwise.

But a Constitutionally accurate fringe, nonetheless.

This is a very good time for people to forget the notion that God gives our country special protection or that there is any other kind of eternal order that supports our continued existence as a quasi-semi-federal kinda-republic. God and the cosmic order, put together, haven't kept us from drifting into the bureaucratic, centralized mess we're in, so there's no reason for us to think either of them will suffice to keep us from pulling the trigger of the gun we've lazily put to our heads.

The two sides have daggers drawn on each other because there is so much at stake: control of an annual budget of $2,300,000,000,000. Clue-stick: One cannot pile that much money in one place and reasonably expect that it will not lead to a civil war or a putsch in the end. But there's more at stake: control of annual, new regulation amounting to some 100,000 pages per year. One cannot empower men to issue that much law every year and reasonably expect them not to fight over which of them will control what it says.

To return to the narrow point: God will not protect you. He's let a thousand nations perish and he's let us drift into the sorry constitutional order we have now. You will get your sh*t together and vote, not just next week, but relentlessly, for a federal order and limited, ennumerated powers, or you will see the arrival of Julius in your lifetime.

To return to the narrow point: God will not protect you. He's let a thousand nations perish and he's let us drift into the sorry constitutional order we have now. You will get your sh*t together and vote, not just next week, but relentlessly, for a federal order and limited, ennumerated powers, or you will see the arrival of Julius in your lifetime.

Or, even worse, a Caligula or a Nero.

It usually starts with Julius.

Democrats have a lot to lose, moreover, in making the country truly ungovernable. If it were to come right down to it, the Right has the armed services, the National Guard, the police, the better-armed part of the populace, and the larger part of the upper and upper-middle classes. The left has the bureaucracy, the professors, the judges, the journalists, and the AARP. The division is roughly along the lines of the Machiavellian distinction between "power" and "greatness."

Ace--Off the record means you can't use it in your writing. It's for your information, maybe you get an idea of questions to ask other people. Not for attribution is called just that, or "background". You can use the quote but not attribute it--unless it's to "senior White House official" or "military sources say"...

Smack: Right on regarding Lincoln. Before Lincoln it was "These United States ARE", after Lincoln it became "The United States IS": Plural became singular. Looking at a red state/blue state map it's clear to me that the states need more autonomy or there will eventually be a second civil war. Hell, the US has been in a civil cold war since the 60's. The left has heated it up consierably this campaign though. No matter, as the conservatives and us libertarians are... um... well armed. For some reason the vision of a bunch of lefty moonbats and wellfare moms trying to organize a resistance army just makes me giggle like a girl.

Cedarford, Smack et al are right - you don't know much about history if you can't track the evolution of Constitutional law. (Of course, being clueless is nothing new for you.)

That said, I'll actually give you credit for something. (Someone get me some hemlock!) For all his faults in how he got it done and the liberties taken with our liberties since, Lincoln was right. A nation cannot long endure that connot ensure its own survival. The Constitution cannot be construed to permit cecession or it is effectively meaningless. Opinions to the contrary are revisionism, which I despise.

Smack, I try to be a strict constructionist, but this point was settled by a war. And that one's been over for 140 years, buddy. The Constitution is what SCOTUS says it is, and you'll never get enough of them (and us) to agree with you to make it so - so "Constitutionally correct" is pretty much delusional. Besides, the only way to prove your point is for a state to actually cecede and get away with it, which ain't gonna happen either. Give it up.