Ammo For Sale

« « We’re winning | Home | NRA InSights: now on the internet » »

But it was the progressives who told me Bush would want to suspend elections

NC Gov:

I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won’t hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover

Ok, Sparky, look here. I’ll ignore the whole subverting the nature of the republic aspect of your stupid statement and address the reality: Congress is pretty much why the country is in the economic shitter. Letting them run loose and even more unaccountable is like trusting the pyromaniac 8 year-old up the street to watch your collection of gas cans and fireworks.

16 Responses to “But it was the progressives who told me Bush would want to suspend elections”

  1. wizardpc Says:

    Suspension of elections is as bright a line as you’ll ever get.

  2. workinwifdakids Says:

    In other countries, this is what happens right before they start pushing people against a wall and shooting them.

    The problem with the State killing us is, we have all the guns. I hope she doesn’t get what she’s asking for.

  3. comatus Says:

    Well, she does want to cancel House elections only, and the majority in the House is (R), so she has that going for her. I wonder if anyone has told her yet.

  4. bob r Says:

    I’m all in favor of suspending the elections. House *and* senate. No election, no one in office. No one in office, no new laws.

    Of course, no old laws repealed either but they don’t do much of that anyway.

  5. MAJ Mike Says:

    The Lib-Cong should be reminded that there is a rifle behind every blade of grass. Additionally, many of us have……skills.

  6. chris Says:

    Rope, tree – some assembly required.

  7. HL Says:

    Plesae do not call them progressives. That just encourages them to continue hi-jacking the language.

  8. Jack Says:

    It does show that voting is not completely useless. They still fear the ballot box enough to want to ban it.

    But as Lyle at Joe Huffman said that they’re being this open about it is a very bad sign.

  9. Kristopher Says:

    She is a dem. She fears the 2012 elections for good reason.

    Comitus: She knows that we will get more than a mere majority in one house in a few years.

  10. dustydog Says:

    In 2012, we’ll have a Republican president, Republican House and Republican Senate. And we’ll still get tax hikes, increased spending, rule-by-waiver, punishment of independence.

  11. Sigivald Says:

    HL: “Progressive” is pretty much old hat at this point – and the term as applied to a political position has always stood for the same jackassery, so I’ll give them a pass there.

    It’s not like “Liberal”, which once actually meant a significantly different thing than it does now.

  12. HL Says:


    I realize that. But they chose the name because they think “who could be against progress?” If they chose the name “Party for Progressively Larger Government” then I’d be fine with it. “Progressive” in no way indicates a philosophy. At least the words “conservative” and “liberal” indicate a strategy in regards to the application of something, namely governement.

    If we have to call them “Progressive” then I demand Conservatives be called “Prosperitives”, because who could be against Prosperity? Well, aside from Liberals.

  13. Karl Says:

    As a former 8 year old pyromanic, I can attest to this analogy.

  14. Lyle Says:

    The left has a well established habit of accusing us of wanting to do what they want to do.

    I use “Progressive” (capital “P”) to distinguish them from communists who openly advocate a People’s Revolution, in much the same way I’d use “progressive” to describe death by cancer as opposed to a sudden death in a car crash or something. Progressives believe in progressive steps toward communism, so it works. The function of the Republican Party, it turns out, whether they ever understood it or not, has been to make Progressivism work by keeping it slow enough that we’ve never gotten alarmed and put a stop to it.

  15. Jack Says:

    And guess who, recently, vetoed a Voter ID bill

    “North Carolinians who are eligible to vote have a constitutionally guaranteed right to cast their ballots, and no one should put up obstacles to citizens exercising that right.

    Unless the economy is in a recession. Then you can ban the whole thing.

  16. fucema Says:

    +1 dustydog
    It’s really a one party system. They provide a distraction by dividing us down a party line. We should really be debating issues and pushing for major reforms. Instead so much of the country is busy fretting over the letter D or R, or other ‘fringe’ issues.

    Right now I distrust both parties equally.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges