|
03 May 03 - 10:12 AM (#945375) Subject: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST 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. |
|
03 May 03 - 11:06 AM (#945392) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest 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. |
|
03 May 03 - 11:39 AM (#945406) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC 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. |
|
03 May 03 - 12:58 PM (#945427) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest 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. |
|
03 May 03 - 02:14 PM (#945466) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST "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? |
|
03 May 03 - 03:22 PM (#945492) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth 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 |
|
03 May 03 - 03:47 PM (#945505) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST 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. |
|
03 May 03 - 03:57 PM (#945511) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker 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. |
|
03 May 03 - 04:01 PM (#945514) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST 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. |
|
03 May 03 - 05:03 PM (#945530) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth 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 |
|
03 May 03 - 07:31 PM (#945586) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Gareth 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 |
|
03 May 03 - 07:48 PM (#945593) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc |
|
03 May 03 - 07:54 PM (#945597) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc 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 |
|
03 May 03 - 09:27 PM (#945634) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker 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. |
|
03 May 03 - 11:30 PM (#945661) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC Nevil Shute's idea wouldn't work too well here. Most people in this country don't vote anyway. |
|
03 May 03 - 11:44 PM (#945664) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Hrothgar 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 01:27 AM (#945689) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Doug_Remley 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 01:51 AM (#945694) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Ebbie 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 06:58 AM (#945740) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Doug_Remley 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 10:16 AM (#945783) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST "...my comment stands." As living proof of why the meritocracy idea ain't the best. |
|
04 May 03 - 12:05 PM (#945817) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc Wow, what disappointing answers. Did anyone consider the idea and want to discuss it seriously? |
|
04 May 03 - 12:12 PM (#945819) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: NicoleC 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? |
|
04 May 03 - 12:32 PM (#945836) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 12:56 PM (#945847) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 12:59 PM (#945850) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 01:03 PM (#945858) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR 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 |
|
04 May 03 - 01:08 PM (#945860) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 01:10 PM (#945861) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC ...and if either you, FL, or you, DougR, were a mother, you'd know what I'm talking about ;-) |
|
04 May 03 - 01:17 PM (#945866) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Amos 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 |
|
04 May 03 - 01:46 PM (#945878) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST 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) |
|
04 May 03 - 02:55 PM (#945899) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc "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. |
|
04 May 03 - 03:01 PM (#945903) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 03:32 PM (#945907) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 03:41 PM (#945908) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 03:51 PM (#945910) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: NicoleC 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 04:17 PM (#945920) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 04:32 PM (#945927) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Amos There's no such site, DG. A |
|
04 May 03 - 05:24 PM (#945937) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC 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. |
|
04 May 03 - 05:54 PM (#945952) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Ebbie 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? |
|
04 May 03 - 06:32 PM (#945962) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker 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). |
|
04 May 03 - 08:40 PM (#946000) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest 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! |
|
04 May 03 - 09:49 PM (#946030) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Bobert 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 |
|
05 May 03 - 03:23 AM (#946106) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Wishful thinking again, Bobert. DougR |
|
05 May 03 - 08:36 AM (#946176) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker 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? |
|
05 May 03 - 12:39 PM (#946278) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest 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? |
|
05 May 03 - 04:00 PM (#946413) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy "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 |
|
05 May 03 - 05:48 PM (#946473) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR 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 |
|
05 May 03 - 06:00 PM (#946478) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Bobert 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 |
|
05 May 03 - 06:10 PM (#946489) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR 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 |
|
05 May 03 - 06:16 PM (#946495) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST 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 |
|
05 May 03 - 06:31 PM (#946505) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest US military was used to transport opium in Afghanistan first thing, Doug. Millions will die of heroin addiction now because of the Bushes. They weren't satisfied with their cocaine cartel. The Russians were at least trying to STOP the opium trade in Afghanistan, but the Bushes...subhuman. Yeah, Bobert. A lot of 'trustees' in prisons now are farmed out to do computer hack work. Send out those penis enlargment and loan consolidation e-mails. I think Doug volunteered for some of the more unpleasant work (trying to put a happy face on satanistic serial killers), so it makes you wonder just HOW long his sentence is. Must be a long one, to stoop so low. He'll never engage me in discourse because he doesn't know what he's talking about. No thinking individual can support the Bushes now. Notice how Doug just barfs up the latest Limbaugh headline from time to time. But I guess it beats having to send out emails for penis enlargements. |
|
05 May 03 - 06:40 PM (#946515) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker DougR-The draft I spoke of is described in the bill that CarolC provided a link to. That site contains a link to the full text of the bill, which entails a universal draft for all persons between 18 and 26, which can include non-military service, where nearly all aspects of the service are at the unreviewed, unrestricted discretion of the president. Take a look at the text, and then tell us what you think about it. |
|
05 May 03 - 06:45 PM (#946518) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Greg F. Doug? Think?? 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. Doug repeat or Doug parrot or Doug react,or Doug spew, OK. But Doug think? HAHAHAHAHASHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA AH UMMMM.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAHAH What I mean to say is... GUFFAWWWWWW!!!!!!! AH HAHAHAHHAAAAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA.... My gosh, you're hilarious!!!!!!!!! I just can't stop laughing. You're killin me.... |
|
05 May 03 - 06:47 PM (#946522) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Just go here and type in S.89 for the universal conscription bill coming down the pipeline. Of course, it'll take another visit from one of the CIA's bad boys first: Thomas.gov Search Engine And since I don't think they let Doug have free access to open sites at his computer, here's the interesting bit: SEC. 2. NATIONAL SERVICE OBLIGATION. (a) OBLIGATION FOR YOUNG PERSONS- It is the obligation of every citizen of the United States, and every other person residing in the United States, who is between the ages of 18 and 26 to perform a period of national service as prescribed in this Act unless exempted under the provisions of this Act. (b) FORM OF NATIONAL SERVICE- National service under this Act shall be performed either-- (1) as a member of an active or reserve component of the uniformed services; or (2) in a civilian capacity that, as determined by the President, promotes the national defense, including national or community service and homeland security. (SLAVERY! SLAVERY! SLAVERY!) |
|
06 May 03 - 01:55 AM (#946732) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Greg F.: I am delighted to bring some joy to your obviously miserable life. A few laughs, a few guffaws, who could ask for more? As to the Draft, I wouldn't be opposed to it. A bit of military service might be good for young Americans. It didn't seem to damage the ones I grew up with much, and perhaps contributed to their growing up. I don't think a Draft bill has a snowball's chance in hell of passing though. The volunteer service is too successful. Even the military doesn't want a draft. And no, I didn't read Carol C's post. Now that it was clarified what the poster was talking about I recalled the Congressman from New York proposing one, and saying on the Fox News Network (sounds of gagging)that he planned to introduce legislation re-implementing the draft. I assume it is the same one Carol posted about. DougR |
|
06 May 03 - 02:07 AM (#946736) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Giggle up a storm there, Beccy. THESE are the unwashed, dirty-haired, flea-scratchin', wild-eyed liberals who own the media. The really convenient thing about this is that you don't have to furrow your brow with thinking. When they want your opinion, they'll give it to you. Don Firth |
|
06 May 03 - 08:55 AM (#946910) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Great, now I'm a disdainful McCarthyite and DougR peddles penis enlargements. And you say WE'RE not thinking? Great attack on ideological merits. As for media being corporate owned? Well, duh! Who doesn't know that? With the exception of Fox News, can you name one major media outlet that trends conservative? Turner Broadcasting? Surely you're familiar with it's less than conservative (ha) namesake- TED TURNER?!? I'm not arguing that the media isn't corporate owned. I'm just saying that the Stephanopolouses, Rathers, Brokaws, Jenningses, Kings (as in Larry), Helen Thomases, et al. have been the major media mouthpieces for a very long time and they all trend liberal or at least left of center. I would say you have very little to complain about unless you're really distressed by the major network evening news turning into news magazines. Beccy |
|
06 May 03 - 10:42 AM (#946988) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Dem vs Rep is a false system. Once you internalize that, everything else makes sense. Ted Kennedy and GWBush on the same side of larger govt. It is all about the federal govt growing even larger. And one of the ways the Bureaucracy has brought this into the present is by allowing liberals to take over the Rep party. The EVIDENCE is that 'big govt' people are running the Rep party. Forget the Fox news network and the press releases from the politicians, look at their voting records. EVERYTHING is about federal expansion. The are taking over every aspect of your life...full speed ahead on both the Dem and Rep sides of the aisle. It is a rush to tyranny, while people debate conservative vs liberal. There is only command-and-control now. A handful issue orders, the rest follow. LOOK at the Homeland and Patriot legislation. Light goes red, ALL must do this and that. In America. Not even the Soviet Union had the guts to put that crap on paper. And in the US, BOTH parties are in on this, and the 'neo-cons' are just big-govt people from the old Soviet mold. Replacing these people with Democrats won't help. Hillary Clinton has already said the problem with the Homeland Security business is that it's not 'controlled' enough. So she would just exacerbate the problem. Wake up, folks. The Dem vs Rep 'fight' is false. It is a way of making you THINK you have some say in things. But what you actually have is a military pro-consul by the name of Ralph Eberhart who held the NORAD interceptor jets on the ground Sept 11 and was then promoted to military pro-consul (dictator) of North America, with an unelected 'president' doing photo op after photo op among the troops, just like Hussein and Kim Jung Il (dictators), and you have news shows jumping from a spot about a skiing dog to the 'debate' between the candidates. Buy guns. |
|
06 May 03 - 10:53 AM (#946995) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest And I tell people to buy guns, by the way, because the purchase itself carries the weight of a hundred votes. The ruling elite and their social engineers don't know what the hell to do when honest, law-abiding people walk into a gun shop and fill out the bushit paperwork and leave with a gun and ammo. That feeds their DEEPEST fears. A gun sold is a statement that someone just woke up to the TRUE nature of things. Govt can't protect you, so you need to protect yourself. Govt is only there to bleed you and enslave you now, but by buying a gun, you have drawn some line beyond which they can't push you. And they don't know what that line is. It's different for all. So buy guns. Make them think. |
|
06 May 03 - 11:24 AM (#947014) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc Beccy: "trend" is not a verb. Aaagh. |
|
06 May 03 - 11:35 AM (#947023) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy You ever work in advertising, pdc? It has its own definition of what is and is not acceptable. Using "trend" as a verb is a bad habit I've carried over into "housewifing" (now you can REALLY cringe.) :-) |
|
06 May 03 - 11:44 AM (#947033) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy One more thing, pdc. I think that the voting system you discussed is a terrible one. I do not think that achieving a certain level of education makes you more capable of rational decision or social betterment. I think attaining high levels of education is illustrative of an ability to focus, commit and follow through but not of much else. The system that you suggest is utterly fair reminds me of some of the laws that kept black folks from voting following their emancipation. Now- I am NOT suggesting you're a racist, but what you're suggesting is "utterly fair" is rather "Bell Curve", don't you think? While education is undoubtedly important, I think there are a multitude of other ways to better oneself. Education is a panacaea for many problems... and the Lord knows that the electorate could stand a better education (which one do I punch for Gore????) but I'd hate to live in a country where some pinhead elitist got to judge whether I was educated enough to merit uber-citizenship. Beccy |
|
06 May 03 - 01:44 PM (#947057) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Dan Rather got into trouble with his bosses at CBS by mentioning to a BBC interviewer that there were plenty of stories that he would like to cover, but the network had cautioned him to put a lid on it. When he got back to the States, his bosses gave him a wedgie for what he said durning the BBC interview. Ted Koppel got similar treatment at ABC. There have been a number of news reporters who have been jerked up that same way--and some of them have made the news because of it, along with the implication that they were somehow being un-American for saying anything critical of the Bush Administration. A couple of news services have been told to soft-pedal some of the stories they were working on or they would no longer be admitted to press conferences. I don't know what you call it, but I call it censorship. Don Firth |
|
06 May 03 - 02:28 PM (#947105) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Greg F. I do not think that... education makes you more capable of rational decision or social betterment. Lets hear it for ignorance as the basis of critical decision making and the foundation of a democratic society. That's certainly the BuShite agenda... |
|
06 May 03 - 02:49 PM (#947121) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker Beccy-I will warrant that education alone does not provide a guarantee that one is competent. However, if our education system was effective, it should ensure that everyone willing and able to learn would do so, and be effective, competent members of society. In such a case, education would be a minimum requirement, since anyone who didn't have an education would either lack the capability or dedication to better themselves, and would thus be unworthy of a vote. Unfortunately, poverty, bad teaching, and a number of other uncontrollable factors may currently prevent an otherwise competent person from achieving, so I will admit that it is not at the moment a good benchmark. |
|
06 May 03 - 03:16 PM (#947148) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: NicoleC I think that formal education doesn't necessarily inmprove one's ability to make rational choices, but it does increase the chances one might get there. The sheer number of spoiled rich kids at USC who failed to even attempt to learn anything in college besides how to chug the most beer forever soured any faith I might have in the collegiate system as a pancea. Nonetheless, I know many smart people who never had the opportunity to go to college, but that didn't stop them from educating themselves. Setting up arbitrary judgements on one's "education" based on a flawed system that costs huge amounts to allow 19 year old to get drunk at frat parties seems to be ludicrous. |
|
06 May 03 - 03:19 PM (#947152) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Thank you, Forum Lurker for clarifying for me. I always post on the fly because one kid or another needs attention. My point, to expound, is that many people make it through the educational system without coming out any more socially aware or intelligent than when they entered. One major example? How many illiterate professional athletes are there who have college degrees? I am not saying that education is unimportant. In fact, I think it's one of the most important things in the world. My question is WHO is going to determine what qualifies as being educated enough to earn that extra vote? A panel of experts??? Beccy |
|
06 May 03 - 04:04 PM (#947203) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: TIA If you doubt the effect of the Republican propaganda machine, or still believe the "biased liberal media" canard, please read this: recent or this: older |
|
06 May 03 - 04:07 PM (#947204) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Don: Ownership does not necessarily mean that the stockholders manage the news. The executives either. Stockholders are not just conservatives you know, liberals own stock too! If the stockholders are not satisfied with the executives (because they are believed to be micro-managing the news departments or for any other reason) they can replace said executives in a New York minute. I haven't read the book written by a well-known former newscaster (CBS I believe), but reviews of the book indicate that the writer's research found that the majority of network news anchors and reporters are lefties, not righties. I would think you are aware of that book, but if you are not, I'll get you the name of the author and the title. It was on the New York Times Bestseller list for ages. Just a hunch, but I suspect that the reason most Mudcatters who write to complain about the bias of the media are mostly dissatisfied because the media is not far enough to the left to suit them. Even the middle is not satisfactory to them. Just my opinion of course. DougR |
|
06 May 03 - 04:09 PM (#947211) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Bias by Bernard Goldberg That's what you're looking for, DougR. It's worth reading! Beccy I just have to add that once again, this whole argument is going to end in no one's mind being changed. To paraphrase...If you already believe, no proof is necessary. If you do not believe, no proof is sufficient. |
|
06 May 03 - 04:26 PM (#947230) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest The media has never been liberal. There have been 'liberals' reporting and commenting, sure, but the myth that the media has a 'liberal bias' was started a few years ago when people started figuring out the SPECIFICS of how the tyrannists were taking over the world and the US. To galvanize and unify U.S. moderates and conservatives afraid of losing what they had, the govt-controlled media started to disseminate the story that they (the media) were liberal and therefore could not be trusted. So today, you have 'conservative' talk show hosts proposing Stalinist concentration camps, Soviet forced labor in the form of conscription, imposition of tyrannical rule by conquest while calling it 'democratization'. And these are the so-called CONSERVATIVES proposing this stuff while they continue the 'liberal bias' sleight of hand. Amazing. Truly amazing. The power of too much comfort and TV. Think about it. The media started self-identifying itself as 'liberal-biased', then suddenly we have a rash of 'conservatives' talking about putting you in gulags. Mis-direction. |
|
06 May 03 - 04:51 PM (#947253) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Peg lemme get this straight, DougR: you claim there is a liberal media bias because of some book reviews you read, about a book (which you have NOT read, and in fact do not even know the TITLE of) in which the author (whose name you ALSO do not know) claims that the majority of news anchors are "lefties." Well, gee, that sure has me sold. What a fine, factually-based assessment you've offered. As usual. I wish *all* conservatives were as articulate and well-informed as you are, Doug! And I mean that sincerely! |
|
06 May 03 - 04:58 PM (#947256) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC I think the media's bias transcends party politics. I'd say the media's bias reflects whatever the large and powerful corporations who own it see as being in their best interest, regardless of how it fits into party politics or "Liberal" and "Conservative" ideologies. But I do think the large and powerful media moguls see it as being in their best interest to make people think the media is controlled by the "liberals". It's all about distracting people from what's really going on, and about "dividing and conquering". |
|
06 May 03 - 06:18 PM (#947313) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc To Beccy: You're right -- I shouldn't have said that "trend is not a verb;" I should have said that it isn't a verb -- yet! English is changing so fast that it's hard to keep up. A professor once wrote "A-a-a-a-g-h!" across a paper I wrote in which I used the word "operationalize." I will, however, defend education -- of any sort -- as helping to create more competent, generally better-thinking citizens. Education teaches about the history of one's country including its political base, the sciences (how the world works), and if a student is very lucky, it teaches how to think critically, which I believe is the most important gain of all. However, you are right about a lot of frat kids just learning to drink beer. My husband is a professor, who claims that in any class, 20% of the students are wasting their time, his time, and opportunities for students who could make better use of the chairs these kids are taking up. Bear in mind, however, that 80% (according to my husband) of the kids in college actually learn. |
|
06 May 03 - 07:45 PM (#947375) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc On the other hand (I can't resist this), look at the benefits of drunken frat boy education. You can become President. |
|
07 May 03 - 12:55 AM (#947535) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Geeze, pdc, is this thread REALLY about using proper English? Peg: I feel very humble that you were so impressed with my post. Very humble indeed. True, it would have been better had I researched the author and the title of the book before posting, but I assumed that Mudcatters, who are obviously very enlightened, and informed would know the book I was referring to. I appreciate Beccy pointing out the name of the author, and the title of the book. She is a Jewel! Perhaps, now knowing both, you will avail yourself of the opportunity of reading the book and reporting back where you believe Bernard Kalb to be wrong! If you have the time, of course. Wouldn't want to take you away from more important happenings of course. DougR |
|
07 May 03 - 01:16 AM (#947546) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Peg Doug; I was not impressed. I was being sarcastic. But then you know that. At least you're finally admitting you're completely ill-informed on just about everything. Hmm, what was the title of that book again? I must go read it so I know what to think about this subject!!! |
|
07 May 03 - 01:54 AM (#947566) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Oops, Peg, again you did not read my post. I did not say I was ill informed about everything! That is YOUR assessment (which I hastily add is your right). :>) DougR |
|
07 May 03 - 08:29 AM (#947755) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC Are you going to read the book too, DougR, or are you automatically exempted because you already believe everything the book says, even without actually knowing what it says? |
|
07 May 03 - 09:25 AM (#947775) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: TIA DougR - the author of the book is Bernard Goldberg. Bernard Kalb is someone else entirely. |
|
07 May 03 - 09:42 AM (#947787) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Jack the Sailor I read "Bias" last week. I will say that at least one conservative is as well informed as Doug, Bernard Goldberg. He starts the book by saing it is not about his personal feud with Dan Rather. then spends about half the book whinging about Dan Rather. He did say that research showed that most of the Washing Press Corps, voted for MacGovern over Nixon, and for Clinton over Bush. He made a bunch of other tenuous points about such things as the coverage of homelessness etc. In presenting his points he time continually shoots down his own arguments and further weakens them but lapses into illogic and self pity. Like Doug and Beccy, he does the "conservative" cause more harm than he does good. I would not recommend the book as anything but bitter, childish public airing of Goldberg's animosity toward Dan Rather. |
|
07 May 03 - 10:28 AM (#947822) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy It is bitter. I never said it was a political powerhouse- just that it's worth reading. Don't put words in my mouth JTS. Beccy |
|
07 May 03 - 03:17 PM (#948015) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth I detect a distinctly "to the right" bias in the the news media when I compare the information disseminated to the American public with what is presented in news media outside this country. The patterns are obvious to anyone who wants to take the trouble, and the internet makes it easy. Although one hears critical reports from time to time from domestic news services, these are invariably dismissed by some here as "wild-eyed liberals" while what might be called the "mainstream media" (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, FOX, and most of the newspapers and radio stations owned by the same mega-corporations) are labelled "liberally biased." Strangely enough, though, the domestic "wild-eyed liberal" media tends to reflect the news that the rest of the world's news services report. But then, one must draw the obvious conclusion that the media in the United States are the ones who get it Don Firth |
|
07 May 03 - 04:39 PM (#948081) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Yes, Carol C., after JTS's review I definitely plan to read the book! DougR |
|
08 May 03 - 06:24 AM (#948491) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Doug_Remley Apparently too long at peace, what exactly is a "Neo-Com?" |
|
08 May 03 - 09:23 AM (#948607) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Neo-con is short for neo-Conservative. This most commonly refers to many former democrat and/or liberals who *grin* saw the error of their ways during the presidency of Ronald Reagan and switched over to conservatism and/or republicanism. The term has taken on a meaning, though, that is a bit more inclusive and refers to most outspoken solid conservatives (thereby excluding those like Lincoln Chaffee, Olympia Snowe, etc...) Most of these people, in the true tradition of converts of any sort, are outspoken firebrands for their cause(s). A couple quick examples??? David Horowitz Bill Bennett Norman Podhoretz John Podhoretz Linda Chavez Does that answer your question? Beccy |
|
08 May 03 - 10:52 AM (#948663) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Short-course on neo-cons... Communism follows corporate fascism follows socialism. America has been socialized by the populist Democrats. The more radical socialists joined the Republican party (traditionally the party of conservatives) and are helping to turn the socialized country over to the wealthy (phase we are in now). The economy will collapse as a result of the massive thefts being perpetrated in the name of 'war' and 'tax cuts', and the citizens will be forced to rely totally on the govt...communism. And you will be told every step of the way that you need to give up rights while you wave plastic American flags made in a slave-labor factory in China (mis-direction). There IS no liberal/conservative mindset at the national level now. It is all command and control. Military. We are just a logistical problem to be overcome with a final solution. |
|
08 May 03 - 10:59 AM (#948670) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy DG- You forgot all the Moloch malarky... Beccy |
|
08 May 03 - 11:54 AM (#948700) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Once a year the Bushes go to Bohemian Grove in nothern California and take part in the 'Sacrifice of Care' ceremony in front of a 40-foot statue of Moloch. I don't think that's connected to Condi Rice and the other communists in the neo-con movement, but it might be. Please expand. |
|
08 May 03 - 12:07 PM (#948710) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: NicoleC Hmmm. I've never heard neo-conservative used the Beccy uses it. Typically, neo-conservatives are extreme right wingers, often leaning toward Christian fundamentalism. They support a unilateralist America based on military empire, and still pretend to be fiscally conservative, but in reality their fiscal views have abandoned any fiscal conservatism or small government. Examples: Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle. |
|
08 May 03 - 12:39 PM (#948735) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Leo Strauss New York Times piece. Some people don't subscribe, but there's the link. All the Bushit NeoCons are followers of this guy. Thinly-veiled Trotskyite. Proposes conquering the world (old communist goal), and proposes it in the name of democracy. Tyranny in the name of democracy. |
|
08 May 03 - 01:51 PM (#948764) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Casual Observer Hmmm. This is all very interesting. Bobert accuses Doug of taking the President's side no matter what. But Bobert takes the President's OPPOSITE side, no matter what. So what's the difference? In case none of the rest of you have noticed, the Emperor is NAKED. |
|
08 May 03 - 02:06 PM (#948778) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth How did Trotsky get into this? I don't know why our belovéd Dreaded Guest has to keep conjuring up far-fetched conspiracy theories replete with black helicopters and concentration camps when the real truth of the matter is no less appalling. Doug Remley, neo-cons or neo-conservatives are the Right Wing of the Right Wing. They believe that since America is now the world's only superpower, that it is America's God-given destiny to dominate the world, politically and economically if possible, or militarily if not. Any nation that shows the potential of becoming a superpower that could challenge America's current dominant position must be put down. This policy includes such things as launching preemptive wars. Students of American history will recognize this as rehashed Manifest Destiny, but on a global scale. The first stage in this world domination is control of the Middle East and its energy resources. Since most major countries in the world depend on Middle East oil, whoever controls that resource, in essence, controls the world. This puts the Iraq war into context. It's the first step in implementing the Project for a New American Century. Does this sound excessive, like one of these world-domination conspiracy theories floating around? Well, let the neo-conservatives tell you in their own words what their plans for the world are. They spell the whole thing out RIGHT HERE. Read what they have to say in some of the articles listed under Defense and National Security. Each of the links on the map will lead you to some pretty fascinating reading. But especially:—read the Statement of Principles. Then scroll to the bottom and look at the signatories to this statement. If this doesn't give you cold chills, I don't know what will. There are critics of this position who call these people "crypto-fascists," or just plain "fascists." Since this conjures up visions of Germany in the 1930s and 40s, it might seem a bit excessive. But for a stricter interpretation of the word "fascist," perhaps one should take the word of Benito Mussolini, considered the "father of fascism." Mussolini said, "Fascism* should more properly be called 'corporatism,' since it is the merger of state and corporate power." I leave it to you to work out the math. Don Firth *The word fascism comes from the Latin, referring to a fasces which is a bundle of sticks tied around an ax. This was used in Rome as a symbol of imperial authority. Mussolini is said to have adopted it as symbolizing of the unity of corporations (the sticks) with the authority of the State (the ax). |
|
08 May 03 - 04:33 PM (#948867) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Doug_Remley Thanks, Don. I was getting a little worried with the ...ah... different references. I comprehend and remember sightings from the past. |
|
08 May 03 - 05:15 PM (#948900) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy I think we can all agree that National Review is a conservative magazine (paleo-con in the terminology which we are now discussing.) Perhaps you'd be interested in reading what a conservative (other than me since you all think I'm not to be trusted) considers a neo-conservative. See the link below: Neo-Conservative definition by a paleo-conservative group. |
|
08 May 03 - 05:26 PM (#948911) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker Beccy-All the article did was claim that because polls showed that half of the people in the country would support an attack against a country "proven" to sponsor terrorism, that there are no such things as neo-conservatives. |
|
08 May 03 - 05:53 PM (#948935) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Beccy, why don't you read the links I posted just above? Let the neo-conservatives themselves tell you where they stand and what they're up to? But if your objection is to the term "neo-conservative," then call them "super-patriots" or "true American heroes" or "apple pie and ice cream" if you want. But they are still the people who are leading the country right now. Don Firth |
|
08 May 03 - 06:48 PM (#948968) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Ebbie |
|
08 May 03 - 08:20 PM (#949017) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc To Don Firth: The statement of principles of the New World Order is chilling enough as it stands. But if you read between the lines, it appears even worse. The final principle: "we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles." Check the wording: "preserving AND EXTENDING." And note how "our prosperity" is in the middle, between security and principles. I strongly believe that accurate wording would read "an international order friendly to American business interests..." |
|
08 May 03 - 10:20 PM (#949046) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Bobert Casual Observer "observes" the bobert seems to be always on the other side on any issue from Bush? Ahhhhh, and you point? Yeah, I can't find any common ground with a man whoexposes policies and values that 20 years ago would have placed him in the extreme right wing of the right wing. Like what are you noe-cons missin here? Really. What are you missin'? You worship, now make that *worship* the feet of a friggin' coward. Yeah, this man *quit* on this government who spent you tax dollars training him so he could what"? Friggin' quit, that's what! Stole you tax dollars! And he's still at stealin' you tax dollars. Man, this guy has been given a *pass* by the Republoican press, and he's been given a *pass* by some folks her at Mudcat, but he's a crook, a liar, a thief and you folks who think he's the best thing since sliced bread, well......... Get over your denial! You're *worshipping* a crook!!!! Bobert |
|
08 May 03 - 11:21 PM (#949074) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Metchosin Beccy, why you would quote anything from British Columbia's Fraser Institute as something to lend credence to your position is beyond me, unless of course you share their sentiments. Some viewpoints from the hallowed halls of the Fraser Institute over the years: One FI representative suggested that the best way to save the whales was through private ownership, involving electronic corrals to contain the whales in the same manner as cattle. And after the Exxon Valdez disaster, the FI proposed the private ownership of the oceans themselves as the only way to responsibly manage this resource, and reduce the occurrence of such incidents in the future. Walter Block was the senior economist until 1984 and remained a director in the FI until 1991. He condemned minimum wage as "immoral" and protecting people with low productivity. Such peoples, unworthy of even $1 per hour, were identified by Block (in 1983) as "uneducated, unskilled, alcoholics, unreliable workers, teenagers, native peoples, downtrodden ethnic and national peoples, the physically and mentally handicapped." He was also infamous for stating that sexual abuse or discrimination from male employers on female office staff are "part of the package deal in which the secretary agrees to all aspects of the job," and that child labour is an institution with a "long and glorious history." He has since gone on to an influential career as a University professor in the United States. Then again, our current wacko government here in BC is busy adopting wacko Fraser Institute policies with a vengeance, including recent legislation to bring back child labour.....Whoop de do..... |
|
09 May 03 - 01:35 AM (#949143) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Interesting article, Beccy. Thanks for posting it. Probably it would have been better accepted here, though, had it been printed in The Guardian. DougR |
|
09 May 03 - 02:30 AM (#949160) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: leprechaun You're right Don Firth. Dreaded Guest's got nothin' on you! Maybe the both of you could pool together and get a discount on Prozac. |
|
09 May 03 - 07:48 AM (#949224) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Umm... If you all MUST know, I consider myself a paleo-con... I posted the article, to restate myself, because I thought you might be interested in what a paleo-con thinks a neo-con is. Yeesh- ya'll really have a major collective wedgie happening here. Beccy |
|
09 May 03 - 10:00 AM (#949311) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Casual Observer Bobert, my point is that if you have a right to disagree with Bush on EVERYTHING, likewise Doug has a right to AGREE with him on everything. Between the two of you, it should even out. As for myself, I did not vote for the present administration, and as such, do not worship it. |
|
09 May 03 - 12:32 PM (#949413) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC Woaaahhhh... I'd never heard the term "paleo-con" before. I just did a Google search on it and it turned up some pretty interesting stuff. The first is a website for paleo-cons: http://www.livejournal.com/userinfo.bml?user=paleocon Here's some of the sites and articles that are endorsed on that website: The Unmaking of Conservatism "Conservatism — or at least something calling itself conservatism — is now fashionable, and those who claim the label are triumphant today. Their government has just won a war, and they can afford to gloat not only over liberals, but over an older breed of conservatives who are suspicious of big government even when (or especially when) it's winning... ...The chief common ground between the conservatives and the neocons was an anti-Communist foreign policy. All talk of deeper principles — and of repealing the welfare state — was discreetly dropped for the sake of harmony within the movement and political victory. The conservatives wanted to keep the neocons within the movement. In this they succeeded only too well. Today the neocons have not only stayed; they have taken over the movement and pushed the principled conservatives out — or cowed them into silence, which comes to the same thing. The older conservatives were wary of foreign entanglements and opposed on principle to foreign aid. But these are the very things the neocons favor most ardently; in fact, they are the very things that define neoconservatism and separate it from genuine conservatism. As the neocon Max Boot recently wrote, "Support for Israel [is] a key tenet of neoconservatism." He failed to name any other "key" tenets, because there aren't any. War against Arab and Muslim regimes — enemies of Israel — is what it's all about. Reagan's all-out support for Israel, when Jimmy Carter was toying with Palestinian rights, is what won him neocon support in 1980. A Rip Van Winkle conservative who had dozed off in 1965 would wake up in 2003 to find a movement that has almost nothing to do with the creed he professed when he last closed his eyes. It also has nothing to do with the conservative temper we find in the great writers of the past. It has everything to do with a shallow jingoism and war propaganda. It has become the sort of hot fad wise conservatives used to avoid, back when wise conservatives still defined conservatism." A Voice From the Grave The Roadmap to Serfdom |
|
09 May 03 - 01:15 PM (#949454) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Forum Lurker There are other tenets to neo-conservatism, the most vital being that America is and should be the only superpower. |
|
09 May 03 - 01:42 PM (#949487) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: CarolC I agree with you, Forum Lurker. That one's a biggie. |
|
09 May 03 - 01:48 PM (#949490) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Doug_Remley "The most vital?" I am uncertain whether the statement is neutrally explanatory or a positive addition as a feeling or thought |
|
09 May 03 - 01:59 PM (#949497) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Cheap shot, leprechaun. There's no comparison. Don Firth |
|
09 May 03 - 02:05 PM (#949501) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest Important that the US or Israel become the only superpower? The major neo-cons are followers of Leo Strauss: The child of middle-class Orthodox Jews, Strauss converted to Zionism while still in his teens... LEO STRAUSS This is why I've been asking about anti-semitism. If the US aggression in the Mid East is revealed to be Israeli expansionism, a THOUSAND Rush Limbaughs won't be able to mis-direct middle-America from that. |
|
09 May 03 - 02:18 PM (#949506) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth See what I mean, leprechaun? Don Firth |
|
09 May 03 - 03:17 PM (#949539) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker Doug-I tried to be neutral. My personal feeling is that it's jingoism of the highest order. |
|
09 May 03 - 04:47 PM (#949608) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Just to be clear about this, leprechaun, I've taken a fair amount of philosophy in school, including a couple of courses in logic. The formal study of logic equips one with a wonderful bullshit detector: the list of logical fallacies, bearing impressive sounding Latin names given them by the scholars of yesteryear who identified and codified them. I've noted that one of the favorite ones of the right wing is the argumentum ad hominem. The way this fallacy attempts to work is as follows: no matter how cogent a statement or argument is, the attempt is to attack and discredit the person making the statement or argument. Such things as slapping on a label ("Well, naturally you'd say that. You're a liberal!") or implying mental incompetence ("Didn't you take your meds today?") or any of a number of other attempts to divert attention from the argument itself. A particularly popular one these days is to accuse someone of being "un-American" or "unpatriotic" if they are, in any way, critical of the Bush Administration. To the naïve, this may seem to be a refutation, but it is not. It has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the argument, and it leaves the argument unanswered. In short, it attacks the person and ducks the issue. I have always been suspicious of conspiracy theories. When I was a teenager, my father somehow managed to get himself on some kook's mailing list. Every month or so, he would receive circulars and newsletters in the mail, warning us that the Rockefeller family was plotting to take over the world, or that the Freemasons were plotting to take over the world, or that aliens were plotting to take over the world, or the Catholics were plotting to take over the world, or the Jews were plotting to take over the world, or—just name some individual or group that you hate, for whatever reason—were plotting to take over the world. These rags included such things as warnings of deep-laid plots about how fluoridating our drinking water was a plot, hatched up by any number of plotters (they never seemed to be able to agree on exactly who it was) to soften our brains and make us docile slaves, and so on, and so on, and blah blah blah. All of these newsletters wound up in the round file along with the other junk mail, but once in a while Dad and I read through the stuff and tried to figure out just who these yo-yoes were and why they were spewing out this tripe. The best we could come up with was that they were poor, paranoid, hate-filled souls with too much time on their hands who were trying to find some meaning in their otherwise pathetic lives. In short, real sickos. So any time a conspiracy theory comes along, my skepticism (admittedly, approaching closed-mindedness regarding anything that smacks of conspiracy) comes partly as the result of my being inoculated early on. So whenever I hear of—or see evidence of—something that could be construed as a conspiracy, it has to pass a number of pretty rigid tests before I'll give it any credence. One thing that makes it pretty hard to deny that a conspiracy is in progress is when those who are allegedly involved are plainly visible and they come right out on their own web site and say that this is what they are doing—and you can see the evidence of it in the daily news. It's right there for anyone to verify for themselves. Go look! A distinct difference between me and Dreaded Guest is that I put links to my sources so that people can read them for themselves and make up their own minds. And, unlike Dreaded Guest, I don't insult and vilify those with divergent viewpoints and insist that if they don't agree with me, they are "brainwashed." Nor, for that matter, do I suggest that they need to renew their prescription to Prozac. As I said above: cheap shot. Don Firth |
|
09 May 03 - 04:56 PM (#949616) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: TIA Here's some thread convergence...I just found an article on Paleocon Pusallanimity |
|
10 May 03 - 09:06 AM (#949866) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Argh, TIA- what the hell kind of article was that???? That's not from "my" paleo-con school of thought. I'm more the Bill Buckley type (minus the yachts, cigars and propensity to smoke cigars- I mean intellectually.) That sounded creepy! Beccy |
|
10 May 03 - 11:05 AM (#949941) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST Sounds like you may have received the Dan Smoot Report at one time, Don. Conservative commentator in the 50's and 60's. He was on-target most of the time, from the old newsletters I've read...he used to mail out 'the Dan Smoot Report'. And hell yes various groups plan to take over the world. Or that's the way it used to be, in simpler times. Now they've just created a vast Organized Crime syndicate for the final push. They'll divide up the spoils later. The Rockefellers and lots of other banking families are in on it, as are the churches, the mafia...any old bureaucracy and some of the newer ones you can think of. Money pools, and it is now in the hands of a very few people indeed. Half of the new 'anti-terrorism' laws give the US govt the power to wage financial war against competitors (like cowboys in Colombia who are raising cocaine without the 'protection' of the Bush Cocaine Cartel). And 'conservatives' in America are about to wake up to find the Constitution gone because it was bad for business. Hardly a conspiracy in any of that. It's happening. And being posted, too. The revolution isn't being televised, it's being posted. |
|
10 May 03 - 02:15 PM (#950036) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Yes, the Dan Smoot Report was one of the items that cluttered up our mailbox. There are those whose little hearts are made gleeful when they think they have inside knowledge of conspiracies about which the rest of the country is blythely ignorant ("I know something you don't know, nyah na na na nyah na!!"). And for those given to such conspiracy theories, if they take certain superficialities as significant, it's easy to assume some connection between the sort of thing Dan Smoot and his confréres were peddling and what's going on today in the Bush Administration. It would be a coup for the conspiracy theorists to establish that Smoot & Co. were some kinds of prophets. But the truth is that Smoot, etc., like Rush Limbaugh and his bunch today, had their pet hates, but when it came right down to it, that's all they had. They didn't have any special knowledge, although they claimed they did (but like Bush with Saddam's WMDs, when asked to produce the proof, they changed the subject). Smoot made a good living with his newsletter and his radio commentaries (like Limbaugh's, except he didn't take call-ins) and got a lot of ego stroking from the gullible. But all he was really doing was blowing smoke out of both ends. Neo-conservatives are not liberals who have seen the light, repented of their sins, and converted to conservatism, à la "nouveau riche." They are a new brand of conservative, and they would not necessarily be approved of by the old brand—Goldwater, Buckley, etc. The neo-conservatives and their goals have no connection with "Illuminati" type conspiracies, although when pushed to the wall, neo-conservatives will admit that domination of the world is the ultimate goal—but only for the greater benefit of the world, of course. It would be hard to classify the Project for the New American Century as a conspiracy in the usual sense, because it is so overt, even having its own web site. If anybody hasn't looked at it yet, they should, by all means, do so. There are links above, or it can be looked up with google. It's easy to find Don Firth |
|
10 May 03 - 02:22 PM (#950042) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc And as I mentioned in another thread, the Project for a New American Century is (I suspect) more in the interests of big business -- transnationals, etc., than anything else. |
|
10 May 03 - 02:43 PM (#950058) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: leprechaun I know, Don. I do confess I intended it as a cheap shot. Maybe all three of us can form a co-op and get a hell of a deal on our meds. |
|
10 May 03 - 03:15 PM (#950079) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST Smoot backed up his arguments with legislation #'s and so on. Sharp guy. Limbaugh is just Clear Channel's mouthpiece. The guy registered to vote when he was 35. He doesn't have a true political conviction in his head. And even the mainstream is now pointing out how the neo-cons are 'former' liberals. They have to admit SOME of the truth or be revealed for complete liars. Snap out of it. It's all about extremism and tyranny. The far left was stymied under Clinton and jumped to the far right. Now we're in for a roller-coaster of 4 more years of GW, then 8 years of Hillary, then 8 years of Jeb. All of them extremists. And all of them will be appointed because of electronic voting. 100,000 votes disappeared in Jeb's last election ('Damn we're glad we got rid of those hanging chads'), and now the electrons can't be traced. Our current Constitution will be destroyed and written out of the history books within 25 years. A communist 'constitution' will be panned off as the thing Jefferson et al wrote, and our 'glorious leaders' will be 'elected' with 100% of the vote. |
|
10 May 03 - 06:29 PM (#950156) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth GUEST, if you look into the histories of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, Rove, etc., I think you'll find that they've been conservatives all along. It's only within the last dozen years or so that they've revealed that they're not just consevatives, they are far right conservatives--somewhat to the right of Genghis Khan. Granted, when it comes to tyranny, to the average citizen it makes little difference whether the tyrant is a communist or a fascist. I think this kind of sub rosa maneuvering you're postulating oozes right back down into the swamp of ding-a-ling conspiracy theories. If you invent bogey-men and cook up fictions instead of looking at the real world, you stand no chance of ever acting in a manner that might help counter the pig's breakfast the government is making of things. The real problem is the wimpish and gutless "Me too! Me too!" stance of the Democratic Party within recent years. What one needs to do is get involved in the Democratic Party, yell your head off, and if necessary, grab them by the nose and haul them kicking and screaming in the direction they need to go. What a lot of American voters really want is a genuine alternative, not the Tweedledum and Tweedledumber alternatives they've been offered in recent elections. Don Firth |
|
11 May 03 - 09:54 AM (#950433) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST I agree partly, Don, but is the answer to GW's explosive expansion of govt Hillary Clinton? She said Homeland Security was a good idea, but it needed to be more controlled. That means an even BIGGER bureaucracy. This is a bait and switch game, and every time we're distracted with 'conservative' or 'liberal', we're drawn a little closer to the trap. Both extremes ultimately want tyranny, so I see no hope in either party. And if Americans don't come up with a better plan, then the appointment of 'glorious leaders' is what's in store for us. At the local level, all of us can fight against electronic voting. That's fundamental. Once they pre-program your vote counting, it's all over. Turn your vote into an electron, and it's gone. The Feds are going to 'assist' communities with 'solving' their voting problems by giving money, and the locals are going to jump at it. The Feds don't give a damn right now about local elections, but once the electronic machines are in, an extra 10 or 20% can be diverted to the Senatorial and Presidential races as needed. We'll never have another naturally-elected national leader again. And look at what Organized Crime has done by buying off just two offices in the federal govt (Pres and Vice Pres). Once all the Senators are pre-determined, too, we're dead. Literally. So no electronic voting. That's my big local crusade. I suggest the same for everyone else. Even if your party is in power right now locally, don't think electronic voting will benefit you. It'll be the death of America. |
|
11 May 03 - 01:12 PM (#950514) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth I'm not convinced that things are that hopeless—yet. If I were, I would be making plans to move to another country. Maybe I missed it, but how did Hillary Clinton* get involved? I think she does have presidential ambitions, but I'm not really that sure that she would ever get nominated. I personally think that Carol Mosely Braun has a better chance, in that she doesn't carry any particular baggage (in fact, I don't think she'd be bad at all). There are a couple of other Democratic candidates who have emerged so far who have also displayed a promising amount of backbone, and one can hope. It remains to be seen. On the matter of electronic voting, I share your misgivings. Too darned easy to diddle. This is why we definitely need our votes to be committed to something physical, tangible, and permanently verifiable—like paper. Curious. You've pointed out what you feel is wrong. What are your suggestions as to how to make it right? Don Firth *Perhaps she plans to give the coming election a pass (I don't recall how long she'll be in her current office, but I think she made a promise that she would stay the course and not run for another office until her term was finished) and probably has her eye on the 2008 Presidential election. If one feels strong antipathy toward Hillary, I really wouldn't worry about it. There is an old story about a man who was condemned to the block who told the king that if he spared his life for a year, he would teach the king's horse to talk. The king laughed and said, "Aren't you just postponing the inevitable? Do you really think you can teach a horse to talk?" The condemned man answered, "Who knows? A lot can happen in a year. I might die of natural causes. Or you might die and your successor might set me free. Or—the horse might actually learn to talk!" |
|
12 May 03 - 08:54 AM (#950934) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Beccy Woah- hold on a sec... Do you really think Carol Mosely Braun has no political baggage??? Beccy |
|
12 May 03 - 01:25 PM (#951131) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth Carol Moseley Braun was accused once of misuse of campaign funds, but the accusers didn't have sufficient evidence to follow through [". . . possibly misappropriated $249,000 in campaign expenses, though no criminal charges were ever filed. . . ."]. She was also criticized for visiting the heads of state of Nigeria and Zaire, on the basis that these heads of state were dictators. As I understand it, she was in the diplomatic corps at the time, and such visits were part of her job. Also, someone accused her of sexual harassment--but not the person she was supposed to have harassed. This was in the middle of a political campaign, at a time when such accusations were a very popular method of trying to discredit an opposing candidate--once again, the accusers didn't follow through. It's one thing to accuse. But it's a whole different thing to prove an allegation. The efficacy of accusation as a tool of political assassination is that when the accusation is made, its on page one. When it's disproven, it's on page twelve. All that many people seem to remember is that the target was accused, and that seems to be enough for them to write the person off. Patently dirty politics. An accusation is not proof of guilt. And, for that matter, for a political candidate not to be accused of something means their opposition probably doesn't consider them much of a challenge. Okay, so other than unproved allegations, what baggage? Don Firth |
|
12 May 03 - 03:52 PM (#951232) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,Dreaded Guest No black will ever be appointed Pres of the US. A hispanic maybe, given demographics and lighter skin coloration. Most people still vote on cosmetics, and though votes are meaningless at the national level now, folks would rebel if the appointed Pres wasn't at least whitish. And we HAVE reached the point where votes at the national level don't matter. VNS (voters news service) folded last year after committing it's final election frauds in 2002 (their frauds helped get us to the point of the 'electronic alternative', and now their old methods are no longer needed). Through the practice of creating false expectations with exit polls on election day, and psychologically softening us up for appointees rather than electees, and then assisting in vote counting, VNS succeeded in putting all branches of govt in the hands of one party and then folded before investigations occurred to people. Could just have easily have been the Democrats seizing power, but the country seems to feel more comfortable with the phony 'conservatives' in charge. But the Dems will have their turn in a diversionary appointment...and H. Clinton will be built up by the press as the preferred choice to whatever intentional loser the Reps run in 2008. Unless the plan is changed and the 22nd Amendment is scrapped, then we'll be watching GW 'landing planes' on flightdecks as Commander in Chief when he's as old as Reagan. And there is no place to run. That's why the CIA/MI-6 folks bombed Bali. Symbolic. Trouble in Paradise. They killed the Weavers in the isolation of Idaho (message = 'you can't isolate yourself'), they murdered the Branch Davidians in Waco (message = 'you can't band together and fight us'), and they bombed paradise. The only place to run is to your city council. Demand ALL sessions take place in public, carry video cameras and pin the weasels in your lens finder every chance you get, and remind them that federal money for electronic voting machines (along with advice on how to steal re-election) WILL come back to haunt their children in the form of concentration camps. Works wonders. And forward story links to uninformed 'editorialists'. There's too much info on the internet, and it's incredible what some of the 'informed' people are unaware of. |
|
12 May 03 - 03:56 PM (#951237) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Kim C We might could have a woman President, if there was a woman stupid enough to actually WANT the job... |
|
12 May 03 - 05:36 PM (#951289) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Little Hawk Good one, Kim! :-) But don't hold your breath on that...there ARE women that stupid out there. Not many, admittedly, but... Lotta good stuff on this thread. Pity I have to practice music right now. Maybe I'll get back to it later. - LH |
|
12 May 03 - 07:17 PM (#951349) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth I think anyone who wants to be President must have a screw loose. Which, methinks, explains a lot about our "Fearless Leaders." I also think that one could nominate Mother Theresa for the job, and there would be someone out there who would manage to dig up some dirt on her. That's politics. Don Firth |
|
12 May 03 - 09:16 PM (#951424) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker Many people who want to be president are good, intelligent people. Those who actually stand a chance at getting there may be one or the other, but Lincoln was the last I can think of to be both. |
|
12 May 03 - 10:15 PM (#951450) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: TIA Nope, happened way more recently than tha FL. Jimmy Carter was intelligent and good. Overwhelmed by the job and events, but absolutely intelligent and good. |
|
15 May 03 - 12:44 PM (#953189) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth One of the darkest periods in human history occurred during the 1930s and 1940s. Starting this Sunday and concluding on Tuesday, CBS is airing a TV mini-series entitled Hitler: The Rise of Evil. Considering that a couple of institutions are issuing study guides on this mini-series, I assume that some effort was made to keep it historically accurate. For those who need a history lesson, or for those who were alive during that period (there are a few of us here) and may benefit from a reminder, I recommend they watch this. Then ask yourself:— could something like that happen here? Don Firth |
|
15 May 03 - 01:32 PM (#953212) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc Don, I believe it has happened here. |
|
15 May 03 - 02:50 PM (#953254) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: katlaughing Don, thank you for all of your links and for your very clearly stated and learned take on things. Much appreciated. As for labels, I've recently seen them referred to as the "HardRight" and I like that; it makes sense to me. |
|
15 May 03 - 03:12 PM (#953266) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc I'm posting this link on more than one thread, as I think it is extremely important, and frightening. Rumsfeld's Doctor Strangelove |
|
15 May 03 - 04:28 PM (#953314) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth The inmates are in charge of the asylum!! Don Firth |
|
15 May 03 - 04:52 PM (#953336) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc Don, I think that a good definition of "insane" is one who cannot or does not fit into the world around them. Therefore, consider that the inmates may well be the sane ones these days. But that article is scary, isn't it? Nukes in the hands of these warmongering weirdos? |
|
15 May 03 - 05:17 PM (#953356) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: katlaughing Good gawd, that's horrifying! When does it all stop? What in the world can we do, how do we galvanise the general public to wake up and take action? This was particularly chilling: He (Payne) first made his mark with an article in the summer 1980 issue of Foreign Policy (written with fellow hawk Colin Gray) called "Victory Is Possible." Among its pronouncements: "an intelligent United States offensive [nuclear] strategy, wedded to homeland defenses, should reduce U.S. casualties to approximately 20 million … a level compatible with national survival and recovery." (As Gen. Buck Turgidson, the George C. Scott character in Dr. Strangelove, put it, "I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed up, but 10-20 million tops, depending on the breaks.") And, as it points out, he is even more in that line of thinking nowadays. I'm telling you we need a revolution! |
|
15 May 03 - 07:25 PM (#953420) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Mark Clark Did anyone else post a link to Ben Tripp's piece The Other ‘F’ Word? Tripp makes a reasonable case that the U.S. Government should properly be termed a Facist one. - Mark |
|
16 May 03 - 12:47 AM (#953562) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Doug_Remley I'm at a loss. I've read all the links and just above dreaded guest stated no black will be President. I understand why Colin Powell will not run for an elected office, but I was quite impressed with him when we met under fire many years ago. I have not seen (maybe missed) his name in neo-Con literature or in opposing links. I have always sensed he was a good man, even joking about the outrageous amounts given for speaking, and I think world leaders listen to him despite the tindrum antics of our president (no, I will not capitalize the word). Have I missed something? This is an honest query. |
|
16 May 03 - 01:15 PM (#953876) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: NicoleC I can only speak for mysef, but I think Powell's reputation has been considerably tarnished under the Bush administration. No doubt he's trying to do the right thing, but he has been pretty quick to abandon his own feelings of what is right. Part of that is his time in the military, I guess. And I still think he's probably the best of the lot in the current administration, but I'd probably no longer vote for him. And although our politics differ considerably, for a long time I would have voted for him anyway because I thought he was a thoughtful man of principle. Damn few of those get elected. If he has abandoned those principles now, I am not so sure he really ever had them. If you won't stand up for what you believe when it counts -- what will you stand up for? That's not leadership. Of course, give the typically weak crop of politicians anyway, if he did run I might still vote for him as the best choice. |
|
16 May 03 - 01:55 PM (#953903) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc I hope people have read the previous link above, "Rumsfeld's Doctor Strangelove," as I think it is crucially important. Has anyone noticed that Powell often looks embarrassed? |
|
16 May 03 - 02:03 PM (#953909) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: katlaughing I read it, pdc, with a chill in my heart. Need to make sure poeple over on the Smoke and Mirrors thread know about it, too, imo. I feel the same way about Powell. He's lost a lot of credibility, in my eyes at least. The Democrats needed a LEADER, someone with a VOICE..isn't there anyone? |
|
16 May 03 - 07:24 PM (#954104) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: DougR Nicole: what leads you to believe that Powell has "abandoned his feelings?" You got a direct pipe into the Secretary of State of something? Did it ever occur to you that Powell is doing what he is doing because he believes it to be the right thing? Powell doesn't need the job. If he was not happy doing what he is doing, he could get another less stressful job in a New York minute. DougR |
|
16 May 03 - 11:30 PM (#954200) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Forum Lurker DougR-It may be that he feels the need to remain in his post. I certainly wouldn't want another jingoistic neo-con with a superiority complex in the cabinet, though I doubt I'd be willing to suffer the indignity of working for Bush, and the ignominy of having my name forever associated with his, to prevent it. |
|
16 May 03 - 11:46 PM (#954209) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: NicoleC You might read my post again, Doug. If a person repeatedly states their position on a subject (as Powell did), then doesn't act in accordance with those statements (as he is doing), then yeah, I'd say it's awfully likely he's abandoned his principles for the sake of a job. Either that or lied about them in the first place, which seems less likely to me. Powell never struck me as a liar. But you'll have to have the last word on this subject -- I'm off to Scotland in the monring :) |
|
17 May 03 - 10:38 AM (#954343) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: EBarnacle1 Just a few notes on the above. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." Paraphrase of Heinlein (from Starship Troopers): 'The draft is incapable of instilling civic responsibility. It would be easier to restore sight to a blind man than to make a draftee [with no choice in his situation] feel responsible for the needs of others.' Consider that the military in Viet Nam was primarily a draftee force when fraggings and other indications of 'civil' disobedience took place. If you wish to influence policy, get active, vote and get others to do so. |
|
16 Jul 03 - 12:18 PM (#984490) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST Ron Paul's latest statement |
|
16 Jul 03 - 12:26 PM (#984495) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST Ron Paul is the US Congressman from my district, by the way. Most conservative in Congress, and though I don't agree with all he says, he has nailed the problem facing American politics today. The Republican party has been seized by socialists. Both major parties are moving toward big federal govt. There is no balance, no restraint. |
|
16 Jul 03 - 01:31 PM (#984544) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Ebbie Bias by Bernard Goldberg was mentioned above by several. I'm reading it now, and trying to keep an open mind. So far, I don't like him, (I always have several books from the library going at the same time so I'm not very far into it yet) but I'm trying to get over it so I can hear him. (Remnds me of when I spent four years or so reading everything I could find on WWII, pre and post- war and I read a book by Hitler's doctor. The main thing I brought away from that book is that I didn't like the doctor. Mind you, I'm not equating Goldberg with him.) I tend to think that liberals (in the American usage) are brighter, more empathic, more tolerant of diversity and better informed than the knee jerks, (Ha! Is my bias showing?) so that I'm pleased when it appears that some people in the news reporting field are liberal. Goldberg's thesis is that the bias is unconscious and arrogant in the sense of assuming that everybody agrees with them. But Goldberg's mindset is a mean one. One of my least favorite lines so far is when he wrote something to the effect that the liberal newscasters think of conservatives as people "without teeth and who are dating their sisters." Not a man I would want to know. |
|
16 Jul 03 - 02:24 PM (#984588) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Don Firth I posted THIS on another thread, but I think it's also relevant here. Click and wait for a couple of seconds. Don Firth |
|
16 Jul 03 - 02:46 PM (#984604) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST I personally think we're mostly moderates. All of us. When we peel away our conditioning and brainwashing and personal and group fears, we're all reasonable. The Golden Rule. We want ours and can understand that other people want theirs. But politicians and bankers and religions balkanize us so completely that we lose sight of the fact we all have more in common than we do in difference. In the US, the Republican / Democrat paradigm is a perfect example. We're all compassionate, but we don't want to give 90% of what we worked for to the 'welfare state'. And we don't want to starve children through lack of social programs. The answer is somewhere in the middle. An answer we would probably all accept if given the choice. But the power-brokering monied elite have divided us into two political camps. So we don't agree on anything, and meanwhile the fortunes continue to be made off armaments and insurance scams and pharmaceutical scams and corporate land-grabbing disguised as environmentalism while we are distracted. Ron Paul is a medical doctor. A compassionate man. Yet he was a Libertarian (radical conservative) before he became a Republican. Became a Republican because there was no way in hell a 'third party' candidate could be elected in this district. And he has the most 'conservative' voting record in congress. He wants the Federal govt to do two things 1) deliver the mail and 2) provide a standing army to guard the borders. As the Constitution outlined. And now he's saying his party, the Republicans, need to be overthrown. That statement is a Declaration of Independence. I'm afraid now he'll be Wellstoned before long. The foreign interests which have seized the US through the Bush-backed CIA terrorist organization will NOT allow independent thinking. Small fry like myself aren't even on the radar yet, but Ron Paul is now in the crosshairs, I'd be willing to bet. DG |
|
16 Jul 03 - 05:37 PM (#984698) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Ebbie DG, that post (2:46 pm) was the most reasoned post of yours that I have seen. Keep writing like that and I'll be able to read you again. |
|
16 Jul 03 - 10:16 PM (#984830) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc The game is up, and Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz lose! The following link leads to an article that states that within hours of the 9/11 attacks, these four were planning to use the attacks to justify a war on Iraq. It takes careful reading. What they did and when they did it. |
|
16 Jul 03 - 10:18 PM (#984834) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,pdc And another article that appears to clear Tenet. Tenet not guilty |
|
16 Jul 03 - 10:47 PM (#984847) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: Bobert Well, DG, I remember Ron Paul well for his couargous stand against Bush's push for war but I'm not oo sure that we's agree on much more than that issue. There are a lot of corporate and governmental crooks out there that need to be reeled in and the states aren't up to the task. Yeah, I think that if the US government would just keep these folks on paid vations (incarceration...) then maybe I'd listen to the rest of what Ron Paul has to say.... Bobert |
|
16 Jul 03 - 11:14 PM (#984860) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST My biggest problem with Ron Paul is his ULTRA-conservatism. Running the feds out of my life and out of Texas sounds good, but then who would protect us from our home-grown cut-throats? Strict constitutionalism looks good on paper, but we ALL have our local bullies. I think Paul is right about the hijacking of the Republican party, though. Slick trick, and conservative Republicans aren't even aware of it... And the Asia Times piece refers to what Don Firth and others pointed out a while back. The PNAC (members mentioned in the Asia Times piece) released a document in 1998 outlining their blueprint for the future (Project for a New American Century). A copy went to Jeb Bush, even. This was WELL before the rigged election, so why did an obscure governor get a copy? And the PNAC talked about needing an 'event like Pearl Harbor' to get Americans behind a massive invasion of the Asian oil fields. THESE are the terrorists behind Sept 11. William Bunch, Philadelphia Daily News, Jan. 27, 2003 My biggest gripe with the PNAC report (I mean, at least these monsters TOLD us they were planning to create hell on earth), but my biggest gripe is that they titled the thing 'Project for a New AMERICAN Century'. There is nothing American about what was laid out in the report or what's happened since. But the title of the report is intended to make Americans think we will BENEFIT from the murder of civilians by US troops on the other side of the world. After all, they're going to make the 'new century' AMERICAN. What tripe. It's all being run by monied elite who have no national allegiance. They want a tyrannical world govt. DG |
|
21 Jul 03 - 07:53 PM (#987773) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST Neo Conned Ron Paul's address to the House of Reps on July 10, 2003. And then there's THIS about the 'small govt' 'conservative' Republicans doing all they can to increase govt. Raising the amount you can contribute to your IRA...Individual Retirement Account...MONEY YOU WILL NEVER SEE, PEOPLE! THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE EVERY PENNY YOU HAVE! And this is being whipped along by the neo-cons. Total-govt-control-communists posing as the opposite. DG |
|
22 Jul 03 - 10:47 PM (#988529) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST,DG Ron Paul's Speech Read into the Congressional Record Well worth reading. |
|
22 Jul 03 - 10:49 PM (#988530) Subject: RE: BS: Taking Back the US from Neo-cons From: GUEST lol. I'm repeating myself. Sorry. DG |