Skip to comments.RED Christmas: What to expect if Obama loses (VANITY)
Posted on 05/12/2012 8:32:05 AM PDT by Junior_G
The latest Rasmussen polls suggest that Obama's extensive record of accomplishment might not be enough to earn him another 4 years in the White House. Unfortunately, a defeat in November would still leave him with 2 1/2 months to do as much damage as possible before he leaves office
I'd like to throw a question out to my fellow FReepers:
What is Obama likely to do with his remaining power in order to "fundamentally transform" the United States? Will he be held back in any way by concerns over how the country views him afterward? Whereas Bill Clinton was obsessed with his legacy, I think Obama is more obsessed with achieving his leftist goals by any means necessary--legacy be damned.
A few ideas:
1) More Unreciprocated Concessions to Russia - This will surprise no one since our Quisling-in-Chief already telegraphed an upcoming betrayal in his "hot mic" moment with Medvedev. - MODERATELY LIKELY
2) Packing the Supreme Court - Some trial balloons have been floated around this one lately, but I think that's too audacious even for Obama. - UNLIKELY
3) Worst Pardons Ever - Leftist cretins shouting "Free Mumia!" are likely to get their wish from an embittered, racist President spending his final few days in office. Expect some of the worst people in the world to receive their Get out of Jail Free card in January 2013 - HIGHLY LIKELY
Maybe you want to pack a gun to get to work; most folks don’t. Remember, you can win a fight and still get hurt.
Would you live in such a city? One in open revolt? Send your kids to school there?
Oh, stop. You're dramatizing fear and paranoia over the likelihood of a tiny minority of Americans rioting if Obama loses. On top of that, you've got the gall to try and convince the majority, who are on the right side of history, to cower in fear along with you.
You've obviously been living behind enemy lines so long, that you've completely forgotten the concept of fighting back, or exercising your God given right to defend yourself.
Thankfully, most conservatives have stiffer spines than yours, and will do what's necessary to protect the lives and property of themselves and their loved ones, should a few left-wing criminals dare to hurt them.
Perhaps you can wave a white flag and attempt to reason with those animals if and when they come for you. Good luck.
“Maybe you want to pack a gun to get to work...”
Muir Redwoods, from your FR name, I have to assume you are a Californian. If true, your statement may be correct.
However, for the still free states, like Texas, Florida, and many, many others, there are literally millions of concealed carry permit holders who do in fact carry one or more guns, on their daily work commutes. Other than short lived riots following Super Bowls/NBA/World Series championships, I don’t recall any recent rioting due to racial unrest. Not saying it could not or will not happen.
First, check your ness, you’re way out of control
Second, I never said I wouldnt fight, it’s simply true that life in a civil society is to be preferred. Careful reading is a valuable life skill. Check into it.
Third, I remember NYC before Giuliani became mayor. It only took a small number of savages to make the city virtually unlivable. Vietnam is a pretty good example of what a small persistent threat can do n
I am certain that you and your hunting buddies will be happy to go into a city in open riot and stroll the neighborhoods the cops don’t want to go to and take care of business. Maybe that’s because you dont really appreciate the threat facing us.
I don’t think it’s that far fetched. Liberals love dictators, which is counter intuitive.
In the Roman Republic they understood that a Dictator was needed from time to time. But... They voted the person Dictator for 1 year.
Oh, I'm a more careful reader than most, and fully duplicated your first post, which is why I replied to you in the first place.
There's no mistaking what you said. You cautioned others to be careful about how they might respond to marauding rioters. You advocated a muted, or semi withdrawn response to the threat of real bodily harm.
I was likewise unambiguous in my response to that suggestion. I disagree with it completely. In the scenario that was being set forth, the only correct response is to answer the threatening force with an equal or greater level of force. Do less, and you'll probably not survive the attack.
I remember NYC before Giuliani became mayor. It only took a small number of savages to make the city virtually unlivable.
And why was that? I'll tell you why. It's because the majority did not exercise their God given right to self defense, and allowed an uncivilized minority to make them shrink back in terror. They bought into the mindset of being disarmed and defenseless, and allowed those whom they'd conveyed their right of self defense to, to convince them that destroying their attackers was outside their personal jurisdiction.
This is Basic Warfare 101. If you've got any confusions on it, I just hope you're far out of range when order in your area breaks down.
Interesting. Sadly, the American people have unwittingly done the same thing, albeit for four years (or more).
You didn’t read my response if you think I said I wouldnt fight. I simply observed that it’s going to get rough if the Kenyan loses. I did mention the perfectly rational preference for a vigil society.
Your puffing bravado does point out the old truism about how much courage there is behind a keyboard.
“vigil” s/b “civil”
Where did I say that you wouldn't fight? I said that you advocated a muted or semi withdrawn response to the theorized hostiles. That was your advice.
I'm telling you, that, should you find yourself in that situation, you'd better give the marauders everything you've got, if you intend to live through the ordeal. A measured, or muted response will only get you killed.
That's reality, my friend. Not theory.
Where did I advocate a muted response? You are delusional
I just went back through the thread, and see that you weren't the one who advocated that. Somehow, I confused you with that poster, as I was debating you both on similar points, at the same time.
Here is one your first posts on the thread that caught my eye. Personally, I think it's over the top, and a tad alarmist:
You will have more need of a firearm and ammunition if he loses than if he wins. The civil unrest that will follow an Obama defeat will last a lot longer than 2-1/2 months and will make most cities uninhabitable for non-black citizens. The unrest will be confabulated to indicate that his loss was racially motivated. Take cover.
You went on to say in a later post:
If only 1% of the urban black population takes up arms or otherwise seeks to create chaos, our cities would be unlivable.
Although you're not advocating a 'muted response', you do appear to be fear mongering to some of the most well armed, situationally aware, and courageous people around. Those who are prepared to defend themselves and their loved ones don't talk that way. I suggest you rectify that as soon as possible, if you honestly believe the world is going to melt down if Obama loses.
You are incorrect. The President has no power to grant pardons to people convicted under State law.
Executive orders can be modified and rescinded by later presidents.
In the 2010 lame duck session, we got gays in the military, food “reform”, and START II, all things that strengthen the government and/pr weaken America.
And they waited until the lame duck session because they knew their losses would have been higher if they had broached any of these subjects with the electorate during the campaign.
expect LOST (the Law of the Sea Treaty) which will cede American sovereignty and mineral rights and royalties to an unelected UN bureaucracy;
expect the ICC (International Criminal Court) which will put American foreign policy under UN control (or risk arrest, trial, and imprisonment for Americans who fail to get the UN’s approval or obey its edicts
expect the Small Arms Treaty, which will gut the 2nd Amendment
expect more Agenda 21 nonsense, which Obama is currently implementing via EOs.
READ “Screwed” by Dick Morris to see what other cr@p is coming our way whether or not Obama wins.
Like I said, you’re delusional
Heh.. I knew you were nothing but a blowhard name-caller all along.
You admit to making an identity error, a delusion by definition, and I’m a name caller for noting it. You call me names to make your point.
Really, you’re okay. I’m sure of it.
It's not delusional to confuse two ongoing arguments, and frankly, you began hurling ad hominems at me early in the conversation. Calling you a blowhard when you ran out of arguments, was merely stating the obvious.
First of all to make an identity error is to be deluded. That makes you delusional. That’s not name calling, that’s simply calling it like it is. Second, I haven’t run out of arguments, they simply seem wasted on someone who’s reduced to name calling. Discussing things with you entails a boredom factor I find unappetizing. Have a great day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.