Surprise: U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack - GoFuckYourself.com

directfiesta · 07-11-2004, 09:49 AM

I don't know why this doesn't surprise me...
Maybe the risks of attack will rise in rapport to the polls showing Bush going down....

Quote:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network may attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

The magazine cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the election if an attack occurred on the day before or the day of the election.

The department was asked to review a letter to Ridge from DeForest Soaries, who is the chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, the magazine said.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to the states to the replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries pointed out that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Soaries wants Ridge to ask Congress to pass legislation giving the government such power, Newsweek reported in its latest issue that hits the newsstands on Monday.

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Or will election in America be similar to the one in Baghdad: one candidate only ...

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...tion_terror_dc

The Bootyologist · 07-11-2004, 09:50 AM

Third time I've read essentially the smae story. When will this trickle out to mainstream media? It's scary as all hell

David! · 07-11-2004, 09:52 AM

I don't think it would be wise to go ahead with elections if we suffer a major attack like it's being talked about.
And considering they plan on taking out 1 or both candidates

MasterBlogger · 07-11-2004, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
I don't know why this doesn't surprise me...
Maybe the risks of attack will rise in rapport to the polls showing Bush going down....

Your statement has historical roots - unfortunately.

Elli · 07-11-2004, 10:04 AM

hahhahahhahahha

omg they can't pull this one off, can they?

How do you stay in power longer than you should? You declare a State of Emergency. That's how Hitler made himself King Dictator or whatever the hell he made himself.

So they wait until they "win" the war and they sway the people back to their side, THEN they let them vote. How diabolically evil. You can't write a story this good.

Try reading this in a new light:
"Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election." "

Secure may not mean to make the election safe, it may mean WINNING the election..

Roger · 07-11-2004, 10:16 AM

Funny how much power Al-Qaeda have all of a sudden. Now they can actually delay US elections.

Paul Waters · 07-11-2004, 10:20 AM

Can we say that Osama Bin Laden is Bush's number one fan, and he will go to any steps necessary to ensure that Bush is re-elected?

See today's post I made about Doonesbury.

Elli · 07-11-2004, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Waters
Can we say that Osama Bin Laden is Bush's number one fan, and he will go to any steps necessary to ensure that Bush is re-elected?

See today's post I made about Doonesbury.

Nice

crockett · 07-11-2004, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Roger
Funny how much power Al-Qaeda have all of a sudden. Now they can actually delay US elections.

well I can't say if this is a good thing or bad... I mean think about it what if early on election day a few car bombs go off around the country at voting booths. That would defiantly stop people from going to vote could affect the out come.. It dosen't have to be a major attack like on 9-11.

However I don't want Bush in office another day, but the race is so close right now the election could come down to a few hundred votes just like the last one.

directfiesta · 07-11-2004, 10:34 AM

But let's see the positive side:

Democracy now exists in ... IRAQ

Just need IRAQ to invade ( liberate ) the US and were are back to square one....

directfiesta · 07-11-2004, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by crockett

However I don't want Bush in office another day, but the race is so close right now the election could come down to a few hundred votes just like the last one.

Last one was not about votes ...

ParasiteTV · 07-11-2004, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PussyMan
I don't think it would be wise to go ahead with elections if we suffer a major attack like it's being talked about.
And considering they plan on taking out 1 or both candidates

take em both out.

anarchy in the us.

that should get rid of all the shite genes that infest that counrty.

vote natural selection!

warlock5 · 07-11-2004, 10:55 AM

The funny thing is rush limbough and/or other right wingers were speculating that bill clinton would pull something off so he could serve 3 terms. Now they are claiming that clinton doesn't want kerry to win so that hillary can be president.

Elli · 07-11-2004, 12:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
But let's see the positive side:

Democracy now exists in ... IRAQ

Just need IRAQ to invade ( liberate ) the US and were are back to square one....

Did they vote on their current leader? I thought he was selected by the American govt?

Rochard · 07-11-2004, 12:28 PM

The United States Government has emergency plans to cover everything. I'm sure this is a step taken every four years, only now it's getting more press because it's more of a reality.

Some time ago it was released that Bush asked for plans to invade Iraq long before it was even seriously considered. What wasn't released to the general public is that the US has plans to invade every country, including Mexico and Canada, in the "event of an emergency".

I'm not sure about you guys, but I know that I have plans to cover all bases in the adult industry. What would happen if credit card billing was become illegal in the US, or if porn sites were to suddenly become illegal in the US? Thus, you make plans for such events and take certain actions to protect yourself in the even of an emergency. This is no different.

If car bombs was to go off in Washington DC on the morning of election day I don't think it would change much. Perhaps the voter turnout would be a bit smaller. Doesn't matter - you vote for one idiot or another.

volante · 07-11-2004, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Did they vote on their current leader? I thought he was selected by the American govt?

But he was selected by a democratically elected George Dubya, so it MUST be fair...

theDUDE78 · 07-11-2004, 01:49 PM

considering the last attack closed off numerous institutions [buildings, offices, airports, roads, schools k-XX, tv, radio, etc] i dont see how an election could happen if it WASNT postponed. might as well go a step further and say bush is planning an attack to delay the election and attempt to gain backlash votes.

/puts on tinfoil hat

Scootermuze · 07-11-2004, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RocHard

...............
If car bombs was to go off in Washington DC on the morning of election day I don't think it would change much. Perhaps the voter turnout would be a bit smaller. Doesn't matter - you vote for one idiot or another.

It would give Bush & Co. a reason to pull some sort of election postponing due to terrorist activity in the U.S. ..

And I can see that very thing 'conveniently' happening..

bjjb · 07-11-2004, 02:25 PM

Since federal elections are mandated by the US constitution, wouldnt it take a constitutional ammendment to "legally" change the dates of elections? Guess in war times it doesnt matter. All constitutional freedoms go right out the window in the search for the "good" of the people.

theDUDE78 · 07-11-2004, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bjjb
Since federal elections are mandated by the US constitution, wouldnt it take a constitutional ammendment to "legally" change the dates of elections? Guess in war times it doesnt matter. All constitutional freedoms go right out the window in the search for the "good" of the people.

nope, i believe its ok. weather is one example that has previously been a threat.

theking · 07-11-2004, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by directfiesta
I don't know why this doesn't surprise me...

It does not surprise me either...as they would be derelict in their duty if there was not a contingency plan.

genomega · 07-11-2004, 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by warlock5
The funny thing is rush limbough and/or other right wingers were speculating that bill clinton would pull something off so he could serve 3 terms. Now they are claiming that clinton doesn't want kerry to win so that hillary can be president.

Clinton got rid of Dean no problem. If Hillary wants to run in 2008 then Kerry has to loose.

Special this week tinfoil hats 5.95 plus shipping.

Jason Fromm · 07-12-2004, 05:01 AM

There used to be a provision in our legislation that stated in times
of war elections can be postponed. That was removed a long time ago, but that does not mean it can not be brought back. News likes this needs to be mainstreamed to the public and then I doubt that it would pass; but who knows.

theking · 07-12-2004, 05:10 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jason Fromm
There used to be a provision in our legislation that stated in times
of war elections can be postponed. That was removed a long time ago, but that does not mean it can not be brought back. News likes this needs to be mainstreamed to the public and then I doubt that it would pass; but who knows.

It is being reported in mainstream media...print and TV.

Elli · 07-12-2004, 10:05 AM

Every time he tries something, I think, "No, they would never let him do that." But then they do, and he does.

¹²³ · 07-12-2004, 10:26 AM

07-11-2004, 09:52 AM	#3
David! By the wrath of Agamemnon Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Miami Posts: 6,501	I don't think it would be wise to go ahead with elections if we suffer a major attack like it's being talked about. And considering they plan on taking out 1 or both candidates __________________ .

07-11-2004, 10:04 AM	#5
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	hahhahahhahahha omg they can't pull this one off, can they? How do you stay in power longer than you should? You declare a State of Emergency. That's how Hitler made himself King Dictator or whatever the hell he made himself. So they wait until they "win" the war and they sway the people back to their side, THEN they let them vote. How diabolically evil. You can't write a story this good. Try reading this in a new light: "Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election." " Secure may not mean to make the election safe, it may mean WINNING the election.. __________________ email: [email protected] Last edited by Elli; 07-11-2004 at 10:06 AM..

07-11-2004, 10:20 AM	#7
Paul Waters Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 4,402	Can we say that Osama Bin Laden is Bush's number one fan, and he will go to any steps necessary to ensure that Bush is re-elected? See today's post I made about Doonesbury. __________________ Paul

07-11-2004, 10:34 AM	#10
directfiesta Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Montreal, Quebec Posts: 29,676	But let's see the positive side: Democracy now exists in ... IRAQ Just need IRAQ to invade ( liberate ) the US and were are back to square one.... __________________ I know that Asspimple is stoopid ... As he says, it is a FACT ! But I can't figure out how he can breathe or type , at the same time ....

07-11-2004, 12:28 PM	#15
Rochard Jägermeister Test Pilot Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: NORCAL Posts: 74,014	The United States Government has emergency plans to cover everything. I'm sure this is a step taken every four years, only now it's getting more press because it's more of a reality. Some time ago it was released that Bush asked for plans to invade Iraq long before it was even seriously considered. What wasn't released to the general public is that the US has plans to invade every country, including Mexico and Canada, in the "event of an emergency". I'm not sure about you guys, but I know that I have plans to cover all bases in the adult industry. What would happen if credit card billing was become illegal in the US, or if porn sites were to suddenly become illegal in the US? Thus, you make plans for such events and take certain actions to protect yourself in the even of an emergency. This is no different. If car bombs was to go off in Washington DC on the morning of election day I don't think it would change much. Perhaps the voter turnout would be a bit smaller. Doesn't matter - you vote for one idiot or another. __________________ “The choice is no longer between right or left. The choice is between normal and crazy.” - Sarah Huckabee Sanders YNOT MAIL \| THE BEST ADULT MAILING SOLUTION

07-11-2004, 09:50 AM	#2
The Bootyologist So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: m00dville Posts: 2,912	Third time I've read essentially the smae story. When will this trickle out to mainstream media? It's scary as all hell

07-11-2004, 10:16 AM	#6
Roger Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: MetroCity Posts: 3,181	Funny how much power Al-Qaeda have all of a sudden. Now they can actually delay US elections.

07-11-2004, 10:55 AM	#13
warlock5 Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Uranus Posts: 2,808	The funny thing is rush limbough and/or other right wingers were speculating that bill clinton would pull something off so he could serve 3 terms. Now they are claiming that clinton doesn't want kerry to win so that hillary can be president.

07-11-2004, 01:49 PM	#17
theDUDE78 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: chicago Posts: 44	considering the last attack closed off numerous institutions [buildings, offices, airports, roads, schools k-XX, tv, radio, etc] i dont see how an election could happen if it WASNT postponed. might as well go a step further and say bush is planning an attack to delay the election and attempt to gain backlash votes. /puts on tinfoil hat __________________ just another dude

07-11-2004, 02:25 PM	#19
bjjb Have laptop will travel Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: 145201426 Posts: 13,074	Since federal elections are mandated by the US constitution, wouldnt it take a constitutional ammendment to "legally" change the dates of elections? Guess in war times it doesnt matter. All constitutional freedoms go right out the window in the search for the "good" of the people.

07-12-2004, 05:01 AM	#23
Jason Fromm Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 369	There used to be a provision in our legislation that stated in times of war elections can be postponed. That was removed a long time ago, but that does not mean it can not be brought back. News likes this needs to be mainstreamed to the public and then I doubt that it would pass; but who knows. __________________ Jason Fromm ICQ 240845568 [email protected]

07-12-2004, 10:05 AM	#25
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	Every time he tries something, I think, "No, they would never let him do that." But then they do, and he does. __________________ email: [email protected]

07-12-2004, 10:26 AM	#26
¹²³ So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 33