Seating the duly-elected president in office
July 19, 2002 10:34 PM Subscribe
Seating the duly-elected president in office "President-elect Gore would have to be elected to the house of representatives in 2002, along with enough democrats to give them a majority. they then elect him speaker of the house, at that point, all that's left is the simple matter of a double-assassination, and voila! President Al Gore." It's that easy. Yikes.
I rarely wish death on anyone, but this guy is really making us look bad as a nation who didn't even elect him in the first place.
As someone who despises the fact that Mr. Bush is sitting in the oval office, the idea of Tecumseh's curse or something else like it has always held a *special* spot in my meart/mind.
posted by RubiX^3 at 10:48 PM on July 19, 2002
As someone who despises the fact that Mr. Bush is sitting in the oval office, the idea of Tecumseh's curse or something else like it has always held a *special* spot in my meart/mind.
posted by RubiX^3 at 10:48 PM on July 19, 2002
Personally, I don't really care anymore. I think Bush has a better personality and seems to be more straight forward than Al Gore.
posted by ericdano at 10:51 PM on July 19, 2002
posted by ericdano at 10:51 PM on July 19, 2002
So we're posting anonymous messages from other sites advocating the assasination of the president to the front page now?
Anyone have any haiku before the axe falls? I'd write one, but I'm still reeling from both the desperation and stupidity of this post...
Nothing to see here, etc.
posted by evanizer at 10:51 PM on July 19, 2002
Anyone have any haiku before the axe falls? I'd write one, but I'm still reeling from both the desperation and stupidity of this post...
Nothing to see here, etc.
posted by evanizer at 10:51 PM on July 19, 2002
You beautiful & handsome bunch of cavier sucking winners. My how brave you are to oppose the braindead & spoon-fed neo conservative's info. Get it on. Bush stole the election, the qualified candidate lost, and there is not a single thing gwb can do about making it appear legitimate. House of Representatives??? You people must have some great courage and brains. Luck to you all... PRESIDENT BUSH BITES PREISDENT BUSH BITES PRESIDENT BUSH BITES, I LOVE THE SOUND OF IT DON'T YOU?????
[in conclusion don't fuck with a tomato with attitude.]
What more needs to be said? Don't fuck with a tomato with attitude? Kids these days sure are clever.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:57 PM on July 19, 2002
[in conclusion don't fuck with a tomato with attitude.]
What more needs to be said? Don't fuck with a tomato with attitude? Kids these days sure are clever.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:57 PM on July 19, 2002
So you read Kausfiles, eh? He's off on some "the far left is potentially violent" kick. Not exactly a scientific sampling there. In any case, I thought the far left favored Nader.
posted by raysmj at 11:10 PM on July 19, 2002
posted by raysmj at 11:10 PM on July 19, 2002
That's kausfiles, by the way. The post in question was the first of Thursday's entries.
posted by raysmj at 11:14 PM on July 19, 2002
posted by raysmj at 11:14 PM on July 19, 2002
but this guy is really making us look bad as a nation
Look bad? Try the second coming of McCarthy.
posted by fleener at 11:34 PM on July 19, 2002
Look bad? Try the second coming of McCarthy.
posted by fleener at 11:34 PM on July 19, 2002
O yawn...
I think this post had something to do with the behavior of our democracy in a dire eventuality. It ain't PHP code, y'all, it doesn't dump error messages to a debugging mailing list when it crashes. It's a governing system designed by a bunch o hella-ancient wig-wearing mofos and subject to all manner of human error/interpretation.
Personally, I think it's fairly interesting how it all works. One of the most interesting things about this post is that it illustrates how even when a party controls the Executive Branch, their grip on power is still fragile.
These mechanics are much more interesting than some unsolicited and FUTILE opinionating on our current administration. If you're trying to prove that America is great because it toelrates controversy, rail on... Preface your posts with the string "still not over it" or just "snot" so I can screen you.
See you / screen you in the morning.
posted by scarabic at 12:12 AM on July 20, 2002
I think this post had something to do with the behavior of our democracy in a dire eventuality. It ain't PHP code, y'all, it doesn't dump error messages to a debugging mailing list when it crashes. It's a governing system designed by a bunch o hella-ancient wig-wearing mofos and subject to all manner of human error/interpretation.
Personally, I think it's fairly interesting how it all works. One of the most interesting things about this post is that it illustrates how even when a party controls the Executive Branch, their grip on power is still fragile.
These mechanics are much more interesting than some unsolicited and FUTILE opinionating on our current administration. If you're trying to prove that America is great because it toelrates controversy, rail on... Preface your posts with the string "still not over it" or just "snot" so I can screen you.
See you / screen you in the morning.
posted by scarabic at 12:12 AM on July 20, 2002
I think Bush has a better personality and seems to be more straight forward than Al Gore.
ROFLMAO. But this post is very *yawn*
posted by owillis at 12:33 AM on July 20, 2002
ROFLMAO. But this post is very *yawn*
posted by owillis at 12:33 AM on July 20, 2002
Y'all do realize that the post was a whole fun one year ago? And as thinking-left blogger Atrios points out, the poster ended up having to answer to the Secret Service {though he offers no proof}; all of which was duly discussed on FreeRepublic {who have MeFi beat by a mile when it comes to knee-jerk political insults} back when this was actually timely.
Is it really surprising that if you go looking for a posting on the web that threatens the president, you're quite likely to find one? Small needle, but very, very, big haystack. Very big. And there are these big automated needle-sorting devices which invalidate the cliche.
Context: weeks ago, in Italy, an economist was murdered, shot while riding home on his bicycle. He had been drawing up plans for the government to reduce sclerotic labor rules that virtually lock in lifetime job security. A predecessor had done the same thing a few years ago; he was also murdered. Kaus blogged the NYT story (which was some weeks after the event; see economist Postrel's remarks referencing a column she wrote about the earlier murder), and a debate began among bloggers, kick-started by this blog of the Kaus comment by Glenn Reynolds (who is understandably personally concerned, as a politically-involved academic), who later received some angry e-mail for the implication. (I'll leave the discovery of other commentary to someone willing to troll through Daypop or Google.)
There was an indignant post on a certain left-leaning group blog (call-out: you know why I'm not being more specific) that argued that most leftists were pacifists, so it was wrong to suggest that leftists might resort to political violence. While I certainly have full respect for pacifists -- at least enlightened ones -- this argument fails: though all pacifists may well be leftists, it does not follow that all leftists are therefore pacifists; and historically, there have been many, many examples where violence has come from the political left, even if the majority of leftists rejected violence. Most recently, we've had the Trotskyite terror cell November 17 {self-link}, whose 27 murderous years in Greece may have come to an end.
In any event, Kaus has been trying to make this point for a couple of weeks now, and he finally found a weak example, certainly no more serious than Craig Kilborn's stupid joke. It's especially ridiculous when you have all those anti-globo riots to point to: minor-league by comparison with assassination, but it's definitely violence, deliberately orchestrated for political effect.
posted by dhartung at 1:05 AM on July 20, 2002
Is it really surprising that if you go looking for a posting on the web that threatens the president, you're quite likely to find one? Small needle, but very, very, big haystack. Very big. And there are these big automated needle-sorting devices which invalidate the cliche.
Context: weeks ago, in Italy, an economist was murdered, shot while riding home on his bicycle. He had been drawing up plans for the government to reduce sclerotic labor rules that virtually lock in lifetime job security. A predecessor had done the same thing a few years ago; he was also murdered. Kaus blogged the NYT story (which was some weeks after the event; see economist Postrel's remarks referencing a column she wrote about the earlier murder), and a debate began among bloggers, kick-started by this blog of the Kaus comment by Glenn Reynolds (who is understandably personally concerned, as a politically-involved academic), who later received some angry e-mail for the implication. (I'll leave the discovery of other commentary to someone willing to troll through Daypop or Google.)
There was an indignant post on a certain left-leaning group blog (call-out: you know why I'm not being more specific) that argued that most leftists were pacifists, so it was wrong to suggest that leftists might resort to political violence. While I certainly have full respect for pacifists -- at least enlightened ones -- this argument fails: though all pacifists may well be leftists, it does not follow that all leftists are therefore pacifists; and historically, there have been many, many examples where violence has come from the political left, even if the majority of leftists rejected violence. Most recently, we've had the Trotskyite terror cell November 17 {self-link}, whose 27 murderous years in Greece may have come to an end.
In any event, Kaus has been trying to make this point for a couple of weeks now, and he finally found a weak example, certainly no more serious than Craig Kilborn's stupid joke. It's especially ridiculous when you have all those anti-globo riots to point to: minor-league by comparison with assassination, but it's definitely violence, deliberately orchestrated for political effect.
posted by dhartung at 1:05 AM on July 20, 2002
...it illustrates how even when a party controls the Executive Branch, their grip on power is still fragile.
Scarabic is absolutely right here. If Bush and Ashcroft had wanted to re-establish America as some kind of oppressive, right-wing theocracy, they had their once-in-a-generation chance right after 9-11. The nation was more or less poised at that point to allow the president to do whatever the hell he wanted.
Bush demonstrated that whatever he was, he was not an evil opportunist. Yes, he acted politically in many respects. But he and his administration made no attempts to overthrow the bi-partisan structure, he did not ram through anti-abortion legislation as riders to defense bills, he did not clamp down on dissidents, order mass arrests, or call for the mandatory Christianization of America.
If he had actually wanted to do any of these things, that was his moment. Instead, he and Ashcroft remained servants of the system throughout the crisis, and have bowed to the principle of checks and balances.
By contrast, you might look at Franklin D. Roosevelt, who during the Great Depression tried to overthrow the independent Supreme Court with his "packing" scheme, among other attempts to aggrandize power in the executive branch.
Compared to wartime presidents like Roosevelt and Lincoln, who were quick to discard civil liberties at the first sign of crisis, Bush is a pussycat.
As far as Ashcroft is concerned, he is religiously and philosophically no different from 80 percent of the men who have governed this country for the majority of its history -- and somehow we've survived.
posted by Faze at 5:38 AM on July 20, 2002
Scarabic is absolutely right here. If Bush and Ashcroft had wanted to re-establish America as some kind of oppressive, right-wing theocracy, they had their once-in-a-generation chance right after 9-11. The nation was more or less poised at that point to allow the president to do whatever the hell he wanted.
Bush demonstrated that whatever he was, he was not an evil opportunist. Yes, he acted politically in many respects. But he and his administration made no attempts to overthrow the bi-partisan structure, he did not ram through anti-abortion legislation as riders to defense bills, he did not clamp down on dissidents, order mass arrests, or call for the mandatory Christianization of America.
If he had actually wanted to do any of these things, that was his moment. Instead, he and Ashcroft remained servants of the system throughout the crisis, and have bowed to the principle of checks and balances.
By contrast, you might look at Franklin D. Roosevelt, who during the Great Depression tried to overthrow the independent Supreme Court with his "packing" scheme, among other attempts to aggrandize power in the executive branch.
Compared to wartime presidents like Roosevelt and Lincoln, who were quick to discard civil liberties at the first sign of crisis, Bush is a pussycat.
As far as Ashcroft is concerned, he is religiously and philosophically no different from 80 percent of the men who have governed this country for the majority of its history -- and somehow we've survived.
posted by Faze at 5:38 AM on July 20, 2002
Anyone have any haiku before the axe falls? I'd write one, but I'm still reeling from both the desperation and stupidity of this post...
Nothing to see here, etc.
i think dhartung articulated the 'etc.' in evanizer's comment, interesting context - thanks. i'm still surprised by the hostility on metafilter, and disappointed that no one has a haiku.
posted by priyanga at 5:39 AM on July 20, 2002
Nothing to see here, etc.
i think dhartung articulated the 'etc.' in evanizer's comment, interesting context - thanks. i'm still surprised by the hostility on metafilter, and disappointed that no one has a haiku.
posted by priyanga at 5:39 AM on July 20, 2002
Some are more hostile than others.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 AM on July 20, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 AM on July 20, 2002
Thanks for the backstory, dhartung. I don't think it's likely that the Secret Service investigated that post, because it's still online.
posted by rcade at 6:20 AM on July 20, 2002
posted by rcade at 6:20 AM on July 20, 2002
Glenn Reynold, Tennessee professor, should be obviously concerned about his life because an economist is murdered in Italy? Oh boy.
posted by raysmj at 8:11 AM on July 20, 2002
posted by raysmj at 8:11 AM on July 20, 2002
Reynolds, rather. Whatever. How many people even know who he is, or see him as a threat? Is he developing, say, some sort of anti-labor plan with the Tennessee government? No, wait. It's already an anti-union state. He's safe. He and his ego, both.
posted by raysmj at 8:13 AM on July 20, 2002
posted by raysmj at 8:13 AM on July 20, 2002
Speaking of left-wing violence, this article at the Journal of Homeland Security makes the new, modern terrorists out to be even more worrisome than old-fashioned left-wing terrorists.
On the question of political violence, I'm not so concerned about political demonstrations that go sour as I am about the emergence of a death squad mentality which condones political assassination and political murders. All it takes is a few rumors and a few highly visible people to start a climate of fear and intimidation for everyone. How seriously should you take violent speech on the Internet? Nobody really knows yet.
posted by sheauga at 8:51 AM on July 20, 2002
On the question of political violence, I'm not so concerned about political demonstrations that go sour as I am about the emergence of a death squad mentality which condones political assassination and political murders. All it takes is a few rumors and a few highly visible people to start a climate of fear and intimidation for everyone. How seriously should you take violent speech on the Internet? Nobody really knows yet.
posted by sheauga at 8:51 AM on July 20, 2002
The only way Al Gore has any chance of becoming our next president is if Bill Clinton is his running mate. That's Bill, not Hillary. Why can't this happen?
posted by Ben Grimm at 8:53 AM on July 20, 2002
posted by Ben Grimm at 8:53 AM on July 20, 2002
Actually I'm less than certain that Bush/Ashcroft are "pussycats" unwilling to push a right-wing theocracy on the American people; however they are sentient enough to realize that they were simply not in a position to do it after losing their majority position in the Senate -- a position which was only nominal in the first place.
Now if only America could get rid of Senator Disney (the very corrupt Fritz Hollings) it will have rid itself of yet another corporate a**-kisser, and weakened the Administration's "pro-corporate fark the people" agenda. How ironic, Hollings is a democrat...
posted by clevershark at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2002
Now if only America could get rid of Senator Disney (the very corrupt Fritz Hollings) it will have rid itself of yet another corporate a**-kisser, and weakened the Administration's "pro-corporate fark the people" agenda. How ironic, Hollings is a democrat...
posted by clevershark at 10:07 AM on July 20, 2002
To: Federal Agent Reading This Thead
From: Quam
Re: Employment
Greetings. Undoubtedly, you stumbled upon this thread during the course of your employment. I know this is off-topic, but if you know of a current, or future, employment opportunity in the Austin, Texas area, please contact me. I am confident I could be a valuable asset to your organization.
Thank you in advance for your time and help.
posted by quam at 2:11 PM on July 20, 2002
From: Quam
Re: Employment
Greetings. Undoubtedly, you stumbled upon this thread during the course of your employment. I know this is off-topic, but if you know of a current, or future, employment opportunity in the Austin, Texas area, please contact me. I am confident I could be a valuable asset to your organization.
Thank you in advance for your time and help.
posted by quam at 2:11 PM on July 20, 2002
this whole thread seems suspicious. i'm tempted to report the lot of you. what's that worth these days? if you're looking for the jackpot, it's up to $27 million.
posted by priyanga at 3:28 PM on July 20, 2002
posted by priyanga at 3:28 PM on July 20, 2002
« Older NASA finds gravitational 'space freeway' that runs... | Get a job. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by PrinceValium at 10:38 PM on July 19, 2002