BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons

Subject: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 03 - 10:12 AM

Hope Don Firth doesn't mind my starting a new thread using the link he provided in this thread:

Don's post

to this article:

How To Take Back America

which appears on a site which looks to me like a Democratic Party activism site.

The article is quite astute about the problems the US and the rest of the world faces, now that the Neo-cons have successfully taken over the Republican Party, and by so doing, conquered the nation for the neo-cons.

The author rightly points out that this takeover by the neo-cons is due to the flaw in the US constitution which mandates the authoritarian 'winner take all' electoral college structure, rather than the much more democratic power sharing proportional representation structure most modern democracies now have.

The author suggests the only way to launch a counter-revolution is for all progressives to flood the Democratic Party to take back the reins of power, which is pretty predictable, and we know won't happen anyway. I have an even better idea. Progressives everywhere, including Democrats, should flood the Republican Party and take it over. This will yield much better results, much sooner. And no, I'm not being facetious about that. I'm being perfectly serious.

Progressives can take over the Republican Party just as easily as they could the Democratic Party at this point. So I think we should go where we get the best bang for the buck. Republicans have more money, more clout, and much better access to the media. We should definitely register as Republicans, become Republican Party activists, and start running on the Republican Party tickets. Because if we do that, in 10 years, where will the neo-cons have to go? If we can't beat them at their game, we should join them. Those of us whom the neo-cons have labelled as flakes (the same way we labelled them in the past, as the article points out) should join the Republican ranks, and move that party hard to the left, and we should do it now, so that our influence in the party can be seriously felt in time for the 2004 and 2008 elections.

"Take Back the Party of Lincoln" should be the rallying cry.

In the meantime however, I do think we need to work on getting a constitutional amendment passed that changes our electoral system from the stupid electoral college, which doesn't work for shit, to a proprotional representation system.

If I can get on board for ANYTHING political nowadays, it will be to work on the three agenda items I feel are the most critical to the survival of a democratic state: 1) Repeal of the Patriot Act; 2) a constitutional amendment for proportional representation, and; 3) retaking control of the FCC for the people.

If those three things aren't on the party agenda, then I don't go to the party.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 03 May 03 - 11:06 AM

Conservatives are for smaller govt, liberals for more governmental control. Right? Hillary Clinton said a while back the increase in govt created by the 'need' for Homeland Security has been uncontrolled, and the answer to the exploding growth in govt is MORE govt to control it.

The Neo-Cons are not conservative. They have federalized the churches, federalized education by tying federal school money to national testing, federalized local police. The Republicans have INCREASED govt. The current Republicans are to the left of Marxists when it comes to governmental intrusion in lives, and Democrats like Hillary Clinton now want people to think they (the Democrats) are the solution to what the Republicans have done.

There is no difference at the national level between Dems and Reps. It is a phony paradigm designed to keep you powerless. Put ten years worth of work into switching the country back to 'Democrat', and what have you got? MORE govt in your life.

I'm afraid America is far beyond traditional 'fixes'. The Pentagon ratcheted up it's military dictatorship on Sept 11 (they began in 1963 by blowing off Kennedy's head), and today the man who held the NORAD jets on the ground 9-11 is in charge of NORTHCOM...look it up if you don't know what it is. Ralph Eberhart has the power of life and death over you. Spend ten years pointing out the phony 'differences' between the two major parties and insisting on an accounting for Sept 11. That would be a better use of time.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 03 - 11:39 AM

Eberhart's vision for the future

I just had a bit of a realization. It occurs to me that for most of US history, our goal has been democracy and freedom. And it is those principles that we have fought for and defended. I think somewhere along the line, the focus of the US shifted away from democracy and freedom. Now the principle the US is focusing on, its real goal, is power. And it is that principle that we are fighting for and defending, even at the expense of democracy and freedom.

With that in mind, I don't think it would matter which party was in control. I think the only thing that will shift this focus back to what is good for humanity rather than what is good for power, will be when the majority of people in the US see what is happening and they decide that it's not what they want for their country.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 03 May 03 - 12:58 PM

Posse Comitatus

Eberhart and GWBush were the two men with the power to hold the NORAD interceptor jets on the ground Sept 11. 75 minutes those planes had to intercept 4 hijacked airliners, yet they didn't. Bin Laden didn't hold the jets on the ground. It was either GWBush or Eberhart.

And a month after he got promoted by Bush to become head of the new North American military dictatorship, Eberhart started pushing for a review of Posse Comitatus. It is against the law for military to take part in police actions on US soil, but Eberhart wants that changed. Look at the Patriot Act and Patriot Act 2...police have the power to break in and kidnap and steal. Eberhart wants the military to be able to do that too.

Our political system no longer exists. There are no Dems and Reps. There are only the enslaved and the ruling elite. And the great deception of the ruling elite is in making the enslaved think they are PART of the elite.

The military dictatorship in the US has to go. The only way to destroy it is to acknowledge its existence. Screw Bush and Gore and Nader and Perot and the rest. They are distractions. Eberhart is your true ruler, and he cannot wait to come kicking his way through your front door.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 03 - 02:14 PM

"It is against the law for military to take part in police actions on US soil"

True. But it didn't stop them at Wounded Knee or Waco.

You and I are in agreement about the problems we in the US face, for the most part, Dreaded Guest. I just don't see your logic for the solutions. It seems the only idea you've got on how to beat the bad guys is to buy a lot of guns. And then what?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 03 - 03:22 PM

One thing that would help with the "winner-take-all" aspects of our electoral system would be to institute something called "preferential voting." Preferential voting has the major advantage of allowing people to vote for the candidate that they really want without fear of taking a vote away from an acceptable major party candidate—one who is preferable to the other major party candidate.

The way it works is that you rank the candidates on the ballot. Using the past election as an example, Charlie, a Green, could vote for Nader as his #1 choice, and Gore as his #2 choice. Then, if it becomes obvious that Nader is not going to amass enough votes, Charlie's vote automatically transfers to Gore. That way, Charlie can freely vote for whomever he really wants with less fear that someone completely unacceptable will get into office. Charlie might not think Gore is all that hot, but, no matter how you slice it, he's better than the other guy (see last election)! At least Gore's concerned with the environment (wrote a book on it), he would have handled the aftermath of 9/11 at least as well as Bush did (and probably better), and he wouldn't have led us into trying to take over the world (because he doesn't have Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Rove, and that bunch telling him what to do and how to do it).

It would be good if this were nationwide, but that would probably take a Constitutional Amendment, which would make it pretty hard to do, and, of course, it would undoubtedly meet a lot of opposition from vested interests (the two major parties).   I think that individual states could adopt this, and that might make it easier, but it would take longer—if ever.

In the meantime, trying to take over the Republican Party has some interesting aspects, but I think you'd find it a lot easier to move in, grab a waffling Democratic Party by the nose, and leading them in the right direction. Pound heavily on getting them to take a position instead of just say "Me, too! Me, too! Back to espousing domestic programs, fixing unemployment, stopping rampant corporate corruption, doing something about affordable health care, preserving Social Security and the social safety net—all of the traditional Democratic Party causes that they seem to have forgotten about. Restoration of civil liberties should be a major theme. In fact, it wouldn't hurt to point out loudly that those who call themselves "conservatives" are the real radicals, trashing the Constitution and leading the United States away from its traditional valuing of peace, justice, freedom, and equality, and turning it into a crypt-fascist society led by puppets of mega-corporations hell-bent on eroding our civil liberties and whose eventual goal is world conquest, by political and economic means if possible, or military means if necessary (it's all there, written in the neo-Conservatives' own words, in the Project for a New American Century. If you haven't read it, look it up and do so).

Give the voters a real choice.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 03 - 03:47 PM

Don, I'm opposed to preferential voting, because it is still 'winner take all' rather than power sharing, like proportional representation. We need more than a single brand in two flavors. We need a multiplicity of parties in American politics--not just to stand in elections, but to actually represent us and our diverse interests, in ruling the nation.

There are just plain too many flaws in the winner take all systems, and if we get a constitutional amendment to change to proportional representation, I think it at least gives different parties opportunities to lead a coalition, which is much more democratic than majoritarian rule.

As to how easy it would be to pass a constitutional amendment, well, we've passed a number of them before. I don't see why this one would be such a problem. There certainly isn't the societal resistance to this idea as there was, say, the constitutional amendments that allowed women and blacks the vote. Hell, everybody hates both parties, and I think it would be fairly easy to get a constitutional amendment passed to change the electoral system to proportional representation, just on that fact alone. I think most everyone feels there is something seriously wrong with the system at this point.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 May 03 - 03:57 PM

The problem with proportional representation is that it frequently necessitates a coalition government. Take a look at the Israeli Knesset to see the problems that can result.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 03 May 03 - 04:01 PM

No system is perfect, I agree. I'm not saying there wouldn't be any problems with proportional representation, and it isn't just Israel and the Likud party that comes to mind. The stranglehold on power of the Thatcher government isn't really any different than the stranglehold on power of the Blair government at the end of the day either.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Don Firth
Date: 03 May 03 - 05:03 PM

Proportional representation doesn't necessarily work out all that well. There are plenty of examples out there.

With preferential voting, although it is still "winner-take-all," at least a third or fourth or fifth party has an honest chance. People who want to vote for one but feel their vote might be wasted and the guy they really don't want could get in, can go ahead and vote for whomever they want without that fear. And the majority party candidates would have to take those potential votes (that the polls tell them are targeted for minority parties) into consideration and adjust their platforms to appeal to those voters also—just in case.

Just a point: under our system, "winner-take-all" is usually not winner-take-all. I haven't run an actual check on it, but I think that, historically, it frequently happens that when the Executive Branch is of one party, the Legislative Branch is of the other. Not so right now, but frequently. The checks and balances that the Founding Fathers programmed in.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Gareth
Date: 03 May 03 - 07:31 PM

Well, speaking as a Welshman, the results in the D'Hont system of proportional representation, whot we have just suffered, do not make for any cohesive governance.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 03 May 03 - 07:48 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 03 May 03 - 07:54 PM

Many years ago, author Nevil Shute wrote a novel called "In the Wet," which I always thought offered a novel voting strategy. It worked as follows (roughly):

Each person got a basic vote.
People could qualify for a second vote through achieving a certain level of education.
A third vote could be earned through community service.

Etc. etc., I don't remember the details of how the rest of the votes were earned. There were seven votes in all, and I remember that the seventh was given to a person as an honor for having done something heroic or extraordinary.

It always struck me that this was utterly fair -- those who tried hard to better themselves and their country had more say in it than those who did nothing. It was a sort of voting meritocracy.

What does anyone think of that idea?

pdc

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 03 May 03 - 09:27 PM

A true meritocracy shouldn't give anyone a vote just for being. I like the basic idea of Heinlein's meritocracy in Starship Troopers, but I feel that other services than military service should grant a franchise, such as education.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: CarolC
Date: 03 May 03 - 11:30 PM

Nevil Shute's idea wouldn't work too well here. Most people in this country don't vote anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Hrothgar
Date: 03 May 03 - 11:44 PM

In some ways, Nevil Shute was a fruit loop. His ideas aout politics were not all that practical.

From my observation (living in a state and country where preferential voting is the norm), preferential voting is better than proportional. We still wound up with this toerag John Howard, but we had the opportunity for protest votes for the Greens, Australian Democrats, etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Doug_Remley
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:27 AM

I like the idea of some sort of Meritocracy. I don't think any person should be denied the chance to vote yet I feel my vote is demeaned when equated the same value as a overweight .... person in a crappy trailer whose life revolves around daytime talk shows waiting for a welfare check.

More so, I believe there should be drastic spending limits on political campaigns to allow more voices to be heard.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:51 AM

Good God, Doug Remley. I do hope you are not in any position of politcal power. That "overweight person in a crappy trailer whose life revolves around talk shows waiting for a welfare check" may, for all you know, be a disabled housebound person who cannot afford vital foods or decent housing on that small welfare check.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Doug_Remley
Date: 04 May 03 - 06:58 AM

Actually, Ebbie, I AM a person living in a crappy little cottage, disabled and pretty much housebound living on a small disabilitty pension for "service" in combat. One does not learn good nutrition from soap operas. I raised my daughter from diapers and she always had a hot breakfast which was vastly less expensive than sweetened cerals. There's a heck of a lot more to it, but my comment stands.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 04 May 03 - 10:16 AM

"...my comment stands."

As living proof of why the meritocracy idea ain't the best.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 04 May 03 - 12:05 PM

Wow, what disappointing answers. Did anyone consider the idea and want to discuss it seriously?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 May 03 - 12:12 PM

Meritocracies have their attractive points, mostly because all of us have some idea about which idiots shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Problem is, we don't all agree which ones are the idiots, and it doesn't take long for someone to decide YOU should be allowed to vote. For a long time, the US had a meritocracy, that was based around the merit of being white and having a penis. Women couldn't vote because everyone knew their poor little brains couldn't handle politics. Blacks couldn't vote because everyone knew they were inferior. Even our founding fathers struggled with the idea of whether or not land ownership should be a requirement to vote or hold office.

Should people who join cults not be allowed to vote? What about crazy liberals/socialists/libertarians/reactionaries/etc.? If you are poor, does that mean you're stupid? What about rich folks who inherited their wealth instead of earning it? do you get another vote because you can afford education -- doesn't that disenfranchise those who don't have the money to spend $25,000 a year on college?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 May 03 - 12:32 PM

A true meritocracy does not consider the vote a right, which is then denied to certain classes of people. It is a privilege to be earned, through some service to the community. For example, Heinlein's meritocracy gave the franchise to anyone who completed a term of military service, as they had demonstrated the willingness to sacrifice for their country. In order to work, equal opportunity must be provided to all.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 03 - 12:56 PM

I was serious with my response to the meritocracy idea. It's been a big problem in this country and it's a problem that seems to be getting worse. It's very difficult to get the majority of people in this country to vote at all.

If we were to consider such an idea, personally, I think mothers should get to cast the most votes. We're the ones who provide the government with the cannon fodder they're so fond of putting in harm's way. I think we should be the ones who decide which military adventures are worthy of our children's lives and which ones aren't.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 May 03 - 12:59 PM

CarolC-But what makes mothers any more capable of making decisions? Many mothers are victims of poor decision making; teenage motherhood is on the rise, and getting pregnant at 16 is hardly a statement of competence and wisdom.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: DougR
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:03 PM

Hmmm. Carol C, I'd like to see a mommy make a baby without the help of a daddy. So why should mommy's opinion be given more weight than daddy's? :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:08 PM

It's not the getting pregnant part that gives mothers the kind of perspective I'm talking about. It's the process and the experience of bearing and raising a human being that does that. Sure, not all mothers are good mothers. But if a woman bears and raises a child, she has a lot more invested in the life of that child than do the US government and large and powerful special interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:10 PM

...and if either you, FL, or you, DougR, were a mother, you'd know what I'm talking about ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:17 PM

Doug's question is politically meaningful, but in real human terms it is unreal. Any couple knows, when they raise children, that the mother's opinion will tell in the final analysis.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 04 May 03 - 01:46 PM

I would be opposed to privleging the military, as what we have now is a good demonstration of the problems with using military society as the only meritocracy system of value.

Some ideas I have:

Community service which helps other Americans, not just defends them. It could include military service, but military service wouldn't be valued any more, or any less, than other form of community service.

In addition to community service, I would add these areas of merit service:

Teaching
Medical service (ie, cancer societies, etc)
Public Safety (paramedics, etc)
Government service
Social work
Family services (adoption, early childhood, parenting classes, youth services, etc. not covered by the above)

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,pdc
Date: 04 May 03 - 02:55 PM

"A true meritocracy does not consider the vote a right, which is then denied to certain classes of people. It is a privilege to be earned"

Exactly. Everyone would have a basic vote. Further voting privileges would then be earned, thus a combination of democracy and meritocracy. I think it would answer history: first only the upper classes and white males were privileged, then democracy gave equal votes to all people even though all people are not equal, in terms of intelligence, endeavor, ethics, and living up to the standards set by a constitution.

Under this type of voting, those who don't vote would make very little difference -- when a vote is a privilege, I believe it would be exercised more.

That said, this type of meritocracy would also be open to abuse, as are all systems.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 May 03 - 03:01 PM

pdc-No, in a meritocracy there are no basic votes. There are only earned votes. There is no reason why someone should have a say in society simply because they happen to be 18. Even if the society considers all persons to have an equal stake in government regardless of effort or investment, a demonstration of competency should still be a minumum requirement.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 03 - 03:32 PM

a demonstration of competency should still be a minumum requirement.

...which of course leads to the need to define "competency". If it means having the integrity and intelligence, and being well informed enough to not be susceptible to having your vote bought, even the most well-educated and intelligent people are not immune to that one, and I think that is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) problem with the way our system works right now.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 04 May 03 - 03:41 PM

Well, guest, you're about to get your 'community service' crapola. Go to www.thomas.gov and type in S.89 That is the universal conscription act. After the Organized Crime Syndicate currently controlling the US govt launches another Sept 11, you'll have an 8-year wide block of Americans performing 'other duties' all over the place. Digging ditches, etc. And if you complain, you're with the terrorists and get curbside execution.

Community service is for criminals. Period. If you WANT to do it for bonus points (an extra worthless vote in this time when electronic voting has finally killed the power of the voter), that's different. Work your ass off for a year so you get 2 votes only so the pre-programmed counting can eliminate them.

The first step in taking back the US govt is to destroy all electronic voiting machines. 100,000 votes 'disappeared' for a while in Jeb Bush's 're-election' last time around. And everyone said they were thankful they finally got rid of the hanging chads. What chumps. Had an election stolen and then thanked the thieves. Votes mean nothing in America now. Destroy the electronic voting machines, return to a traceable paper trail, THEN talk about cosmetic changes.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: NicoleC
Date: 04 May 03 - 03:51 PM

FL,

Unfortunately, the "priviledge" problem still exists. People fight to not only maintain their priviledge, but prevent others from getting it. Those who have the priviledge of voting can then enact laws to prevent others from getting the vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 May 03 - 04:17 PM

NicoleC-True, but a sufficiently rigid constitutional protection of the franchise might protect against such subversion. It probably couldn't do a worse job than our present near-plutocracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Amos
Date: 04 May 03 - 04:32 PM

There's no such site, DG.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: CarolC
Date: 04 May 03 - 05:24 PM

I found information on the bill Dreaded Guest is referring to on the Home School Legal Defense Association site. They don't say why they're tracking that particular piece of legislation:

S. 89—Universal National Service Act of 2003

I met some of the people from this organization when I was taken to court for homeschooling my son. I didn't find them to be wackoids or anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 May 03 - 05:54 PM

S. 89 language permits:
Deferments for education only through high school graduation, or until the age of 20.

Exceptions are made for those with 1) extreme hardship, or 2) physical or mental disability.

Conscientious objectors are defined and directed by the Military Selective Service Act (50 U.S.C. 456(j)).

(Doesn't Israel require a two-year commmitment to the military from everyone?)

Just off the top of my head, I don't see any real problem with this kind of requirement- I have worked with a great many VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) people of all ages, and many of my friends spent a term or two in the Peace Corps. Wouldn't this be more than somewhat like that?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 04 May 03 - 06:32 PM

Ebbie-I believe that it is two years for women, four for men, and that certain conscientious objectors (in practice, the Ultra-Orthodox Jews) are exempted. The problem with the requirement is that it gives the president the power to decide the occupation of every person in the nation between 18 and 26 for two years of their life. Given that there is absolutely no need for such authority, and it seems incredibly unconstitutional except in a period of national emergency such as a declared war, this is highly problematic. Further, almost all provisions of this bill are placed under the President's control, allowing him to draft any person, for any purpose, without warning, should he choose to do so. He is also empowered to provide no compensation whatsoever, should he so desire. The bill makes women subject to the draft, and allows conscientious objectors to be placed in any position within the military "that does not require any combatant training component," which can still place them under fire or make them indirectly responsible for the killing of enemy combatants or noncombatants (a fire controller for artillery may not be considered to include combatant training).

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 04 May 03 - 08:40 PM

Damn, people. The Clinton/Bush-headed Crime Syndicate bombs the WTC, never presents proof of responsibility while invading two sovereign nations as the beginning of a 'perpetual war', then they have a mandatory national service act waiting to go. Slavery. What part of tyranny don't you understand? Now your votes are just electrons if you live in a densely-populated area, and those electrons are counted according to PRE-PROGRAMMED formulae.

And Senate Bill 89 is just the 'traditional' type of conscription which you won't question too much because, well geez...Ossama Bin Hussein DID nuke Houston...but the conscription act passed after that will be mandatory service for all people of 'militia' age. That's up to 59 years old. What the hell is wrong with you folks? Screw conscription. If you want to be slave-labor, move the hell to China.

Thomas

Bookmark the above site. Every time you hear a bill referred to, read it for yourself. Senate Bill 89:

"To provide for the common defense by requiring that all young persons in the United States, including women, perform a period of military service or a period of civilian service in furtherance of the national defense and homeland security, and for other purposes."

OTHER PURPOSES! OTHER PURPOSES! RED LIGHT! ALARM! WAKE UP!

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Bobert
Date: 04 May 03 - 09:49 PM

Bastile Day comes to mind...

There will certainly come a day when the greedy people will loose support of the rednecks. There won't be enough NASCAR, Budweiser or Counrty music to keep these folks from their gates. Heck, the "liberals" won't have to do a danged thing except watch when redneck America figgures out just how Boss Hog is screwin' them.

Like all greedy people in history, history has a way of evening the playing field.

Nothin's new here. Just a new cast of "privledged" thugs...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: DougR
Date: 05 May 03 - 03:23 AM

Wishful thinking again, Bobert.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Forum Lurker
Date: 05 May 03 - 08:36 AM

So, DougR, what do YOU think of our new universal, non-wartime draft? Nice and constitutional? Helps preserve the rights of the individual? Good for American principles?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest
Date: 05 May 03 - 12:39 PM

Doug...

Afghanistan is soon going to be fenced in with checkpoints. The US is 'at war', but our borders are open. Instead of American troops being used to defend OUR borders (as the Constitution stipulates), the Bush family used the US military to get the poppies growing again in Afghanistan, and now they're going to regulate the opium with an impregnible checkpoint system.

Do you think that is right? The US military has been reduced by the Bushes to a gang of murdering, dope peddling thugs. Clinton only rose in the organization because he did such a good job protecting Bush # 1's CIA cocaine-drop airfield in Mena, Arkansas...thereby proving he was a loyal lieutenant in the Bush Cocaine Cartel...so I guess what I'm asking is (politics aside), how could you justify a draft? The 'war' is phony. The troops are being used to murder for oil and drugs. Do you support this? Like I said, it's a non-political issue, because both Clinton and the Bushes are involved in the drugs. So if you support the draft, that would mean you're not a Republican after all. It would mean you're just a flunky of the elites passing yourself off as a Republican. I've suspected as much for a while, because none of GWBush's actions are justifiable. He would have been history by now if we still had the office of the Independent Prosecutor in operation. So why do you defend a murdering coke dealer? What's in it for you? Are you being forced by the legal authorities to post 'pro-Bush' stuff as part of a plea-bargain? Homeland Security community service? Something like that? Your views are so out-dated they are laughable. We all know it. Bush is a domestic and international monster, and you're sharp enough to know that. So why do you 'support' the guy? Really...I'm curious. if you are a 'conservative', Bush has abanoned the conservative position on every single issue. Why would you continue to support him? I think you're being somehow forced to...either it's your job to draw out 'dissidents' on forums as part of a penal pay-off, or you're drawing a pay-check to do this stuff. I bet you're in prison, right? Where they can monitor you closely. You're in a Bush-owned Wackenhut prison, and you're going to get time off for good behavior by posting the way you do. Is that it? You and a dozen other guys are handed your 'talking points' each day, and you don't know how to back up your arguments because, well, it's not in the script. What crime did you commit, if you don't mind me asking?

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Beccy
Date: 05 May 03 - 04:00 PM

"Republicans have...much better access to the media."

HAHAHAHAHASHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AH

UMMMM....

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH
What I mean to say is...

GUFFAWWWWWW!!!!!!! AH HAHAHAHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA....

My gosh, you're hilarious!!!!!!!!! I just can't stop laughing. Keep it coming.

Beccy

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: DougR
Date: 05 May 03 - 05:48 PM

Forum Lurker: I can't comment on the draft you speak of, because I know nothing about it.

Beccy: yep, that's a ripper alright!

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: Bobert
Date: 05 May 03 - 06:00 PM

Its not so funny from over here, Beccy. We know! Maybe you haven't noticed because you don't find anything wrong with the hiring of every danged retired General by the media long before the invasion. Ahhh, how many ministers, teaching the ways of Jesus, were hired? Hmmmmm? How many professors, other than those with pro-military opinions? Hmmmmmmm? How many community activists who teach peace? Hmmmm? No, just one hawkish idiot after another. Might of fact, the US had been feds a steady diet of hawkish neo-con bull for a long time now. No, you wouldn't know because you're right in the middle of that camp. But, don't think for one minute, those of us looking in, aren't totally aware of what has and continues to go down with the corporate owned media.

Yo, D.G.. When I first started posting here, I asked Dougie the same question? I figured that he was on the pay-roll but you may be on to something. He might be incarcerated and being made to do it but he does seem to take Bush's position on any issue. Doesn't matter which one. Hmmmmmm?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: DougR
Date: 05 May 03 - 06:10 PM

Bobert: DG's posts are so off the wall I stopped reading them. I mean, you're pretty far out, but DG! He's off the map in my opinion.

Why in the world would the cable news shows or network news shows for that matter, hire preachers? The purpose of the Generals was to explain to us laymen what the heck is going on in military terms. They weren't there to promote the war! Sometimes I worry about you, Bobert!

As to taking back the "US form Neo-cons," all you have to do is garner enough votes on election day. That's all! You're not going to do that, though, because most of you are going to continue to vote for candidates that don't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning (but you will feel good about your vote!)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons
From: GUEST
Date: 05 May 03 - 06:16 PM

Click here Beccy. Your laughter echoes the laughter and disdain of people who held conservative views just like yours in other eras.

thread.cfm?threadid=59401&messages=7#946486