Four more years!

[thebullet]

bullet wrote:

By the way, Joe, I really do prefer you newest Avatar. Are you the one on the left?

Sweetnpetite wrote:

Joe is rarely, if ever, on the Left.

I know. That was a joke, son.

 

[Virtual_Burlesque]

.... In practical theory, I have voted republican all my life. If ANYONE has a right to tell me my vote is for or against someone other than whom it is cast for, it would be GWB. -Colly

I never said that your vote cast for whomever you wish would not be counted. Although I am not so sanguine leaving that determination in the hands of GWB.

I did say that a vote for Nader is a vote thrown away. Anybody who does not want Bush to get another four years who votes for Nader, or who decides not to vote for Kerry, is helping Bush to victory.

But I suspect you already know that, Colly.


Only a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.

Any vote not cast in a democracy is a duty shirked.

Any vote for Nader is a vote thrown away.

(Com'on, you expect people to believe in a President Nadar? If he does not win, won't GWB finish gutting the consumer protection and environmental programs as he has done for the past four years, even if a Greenie DOES win a seat in the House? And doesn’t THAT defeat the reason why they voted?)

Only a vote for Kerry is a vote for Kerry.

Only a vote for Kerry or a vote for Bush is an intelligent use of your franchise.

If you like where the last four years have taken you, feel that your country is better regulated and its place in the world more respected and secure. If you feel richer, safer, and prouder of your country in what it has accomplished. If you feel that where your leaders have lead is where you wanted us to go, then vote for the candidate who brought you here.

If not, vote for the only other candidate who might be capable of leading us toward different goals.

Argue as you might, nothing changes that.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I never said that your vote cast for whomever you wish would not be counted. Although I am not so sanguine leaving that determination in the hands of GWB.

I did say that a vote for Nader is a vote thrown away. Anybody who does not want Bush to get another four years who votes for Nader, or who decides not to vote for Kerry, is helping Bush to victory.

But I suspect you already know that, Colly.


Only a vote for Bush is a vote for Bush.

Any vote not cast in a democracy is a duty shirked.

Any vote for Nader is a vote thrown away.

(Com'on, you expect people to believe in a President Nadar? If he does not win, won't GWB finish gutting the consumer protection and environmental programs as he has done for the past four years, even if a Greenie DOES win a seat in the House? And doesn’t THAT defeat the reason why they voted?)

Only a vote for Kerry is a vote for Kerry.

Only a vote for Kerry or a vote for Bush is an intelligent use of your franchise.

If you like where the last four years have taken you, feel that your country is better regulated and its place in the world more respected and secure. If you feel richer, safer, and prouder of your country in what it has accomplished. If you feel that where your leaders have lead is where you wanted us to go, then vote for the candidate who brought you here.

If not, vote for the only other candidate who might be capable of leading us toward different goals.

Argue as you might, nothing changes that.

The fundamental flaw in your argument is that I don't think Kerry is going to make me feel safer, more secure, richer, prouder, etc. You are right back to telling me what a doofus GWB is, believe me, I am well aware of his short comings. I am also aware of Kerry's.

Intelligent use of my franchise presupposes I have a choice that is intelligent. If I am a vegetarian and you offer me the choice of Beef or Pork, isn't the intelligent choice to choose neither of the offerings? Or would you suggest the intelligent course is to choose pork, because it isn't beef afterall?

I would never decide not to vote, my upbringing teaches me that voting is an obligation as well as a right. In this election I could see where people would choose to stay home. I won't. I'll vote for someone, even if it means writing in Maynard the Milkman.

Saying my vote for Maynard is the same as a vote for Bush is a fallacy. Purely and simply. If New York comes down to just my vote, if Kerry and Bush are deadlocked and it's just my vote that will decide it, guess what? There is going to be a run off, cause my vote won't add anything to GWB's total.

You can argue till you are blue in the face. Kick, scream, accuse me of shirking my duty, what have you, but thats just the way it is. My vote won't do anything for GWB. Your only argument is that the potential of my vote won't go to your candidate and while that is true, if it dosen't go to his opponent, then it isn't a vote for his opponent.

My vote will do exactly what I expect of it, not a damned thing. But I will have exercised my right to vote, which is all that anyone can expect of me. I have an open mind, I listen, I can and have changed my mind on issues, but if you expect me to vote for someone I am not convinced is any improvement over the man there, you are going to be disappointed. I think for myself and am not some kind of sheep to be herded into Column A or Column B. If in my estimation neithr one is worthy of my vote, I will bestow it elsewhere. I fully intend to do this.

-Colly

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

bullet -- Born in '81... family is in politics, I'm familiar with the terms/organizations/names. And yeah, I dug out a pic from my hardrive for my new avataar, I kinda dig it. That's me and some chickies I met at a bar, I was a little trashed. It was all about the brunette that night.

And, for everyone's information, I am a Democrat. Card carryin' member and everything.

 

[Weird Harold]

My view is that in a popular vote, a state's borders would play fare less of a role in determining the outcome of an election than the specific views of individuals in voting for the candidate who supports their views. ...

If regional issues are a concern, again, there are farmers, ranchers, factories, businesses, large cities and small cities all across the country. Even small states don't vote as a bloc.

The problem is that more people in this country -- almost any country -- live in cities than live outside of them. That puts an inherent "urban bias" on a popular vote. Whether it's small mostly rural states, or individual rural voters, the effect is the same -- urban issues and viewpoints dominate the popular vote.

Just as an example, Colorado River Allocations are a big pointof difference between Los Angeles and Arizona, Nevada and the other states (and nations) with rights to a portion of the Colorado river.

In a popular vote who do think would get elected on the issue of Colorado River allocations? The candidate who favors making LA live within the resources they already have, or the one who favors letting LA have first dibs?

The rest of the country would split pretty evenly on a "who cares" basis over the colarado river issue. Nevada and Arizona would split over maintining the status quo and telling LA to drink seawater or sand. LA alone would out-vote Nevada and probably Arizona as well.

No, small states don't vote as a block, nor do large ones.

The problem is that on the issues you named -- "funding education, environtmental conservation, choice, gun control, etc." -- there is a distinct difference in viewpoint between urban and rural demographics on almost every one of them. IMHO, the urban viewpoint is almost universally wrong on issues that affect rural voters and rural economies -- often rabidly and loudly wrong.

Edit to add some specific numbers:

The top five most populous electorates ( not just states because Washington DC is included in the electorl college) have a total of 168 electoral votes; adding up from the least populous, it takes 31 electorates to equal the top five.

Subtracting the two electoral votes allocated for every electorate has leaves 158 electoral votes allocated by population alone. The bottom 31 only have 106 allocted for population alone; it takes another SIX states to counterbalance the top five's population votes.

So currently, the top five most populous electorates can theoretically offset 31 electorates, leaving the remaining 15 to decide the isssue.

Under a popular vote system, those same top five electorate can theoretically offset 37 electorates, leaving only nine to decide the issue.

Of course, by using the votes allocated for population for comparison purposes, the lowest electorates are over-represented because the minimum is one population vote no matter how small the population -- it might take 37 or 38 electorates to offset the top five -- but the numbers are bad enough as they stand.

Draw what conclusions you will, but I happen to think the electoral college is a better idea than giving 10% of the electorates effective control of the country -- especially since a large chunk of that 10% is the fruits and nuts of California. (55/168 or 53/ 158)

 

[Weird Harold]

This election the lines are clearly drawn. If we are to choose between mediocrity and extreme evil, I choose mediocrity every time.

TB, in your view, Kerry is mediocre and that's better than the "evil" of GWB.

In my view, GWB is mediocre and Kerry is evil incarnate. If Kerry was only mediocre instead of spineless even more clueless than GWB, I'd vote "None Of The Above" as I did in 2000. If I thought "none of the above" had a chance to win, I'd vote that way still, but I'm just as dedicated to avoiding John Kerry as president as you are to elect him.

Four more years of GWB won't be the best years the USA has ever had, but four years of John Kerry just might be the worst, IMHO.

You mentioned that Kerry (edwards actually) promised there would be no draft passed if he wins. That's very easy for hm to promise because the democrat sponsored National Service Bill isn't a "draft" and it hasn't got a chance in hell of passing -- no matter who gets elected; it's been "in committee" since it was proposed two years ago -- by a democrat -- and will stay there forever because it's an issue that almost no politician wants to touch with a ten-foot pole. Kerry doesn't want it, GWB doesn't want it, the military especially doesn't want it and the majority of voters don't want it -- what makes you think it has any chance at all?

 

[cantdog]

Precisely. Leave the Führer in there four more years.

1. He's a divider, not a uniter. His personal loyalty oaths and his staff going around arresting Gold Star Mothers, his obvious contempt for the truth and the poor will polarize the country even more.

2. Wages have fallen in the country for the first time in fifty years, there's been a large and very noticeable rise in unemployment and also a sharp decline in the proportion of middle-class jobs. There's more new homeless, and a rising international resistance to the American economic empire (the WTO and all that jive.)

3. We are now in a real quagmire in the middle east. GWB got us there but cannot possibly get us disentangled. More blood and treasure will be spilled. Meanwhile there's not even thirty thousand troops in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is gaining more ground daily. Remember Afghanistan? That's the country we had a real reason to be attacking, in case you forgot. That's where the al-Qaida started? Hello?

4. The disparity between rich and poor has skyrocketed to incredible proportions. This sort of thing pisses the poor off, and there's more poor every day.

5. Education is being neglected and crippled. A quarter of the country lacks health insurance and it's not getting any better.

6. The bozo is easy to detest and his coterie of supporters are underhanded lying sneaky antidemocratic paranoids who fear the people and surveil us all constantly. Secret police and the suspension of the right to a fair trial-- speedy and public, with legal counsel-- mean that the America we know is being discarded. And, we get to keep our guns!

7. The religious bent of the administration is extremely unsettling.


Put it all together and these drones will cause crises domestic and international on a grand scale with four more years to work in. People will be righteously pissed. They'll be angry here and all over the world. If you're Lenin, waiting for your moment to call out the cells and start the revolution, you need this kind of bumbling and corrupt leadership with a class-warfare agenda. The worse they govern the easier it always is to recruit revolutionaries.

Four more years of these dips and the country might actually do something to fix things. Take to the streets and demand a little good fucking sense for a change.

(Kerry is nearly as bad, certainly as clueless, but he'll give people hope they'll see the light at the end of the tunnel, and people will feel okay about burying their heads in the sand again.)

So yeah. The meat is tainted, the water is being freely polluted again, the monopolies are unregulated, the prices will go up because no one will stop them. With the industrial capacity of the country shipped overseas, we could never win a total war like WW II again. All our factories are in Latin America, Asia, China. What the hell do you think won that war? The Germans made better tanks but we could produce nine to one, by 1944. Couldn't do that now, and the outsourcing is gaining ground.

These people are certainly getting rich, but America is not their priority.

Kerry and people like him accomplish the same ends, but they talk a good game and throw the people a bone once in a while. Bushites are just plain rapacious. They've ruined the economy and beggared the government, antagonized the world and lied about every step of it. I like the way they operate, straightforwardly fucking us up so we all can see it. This is the kind of government we need to awaken the left and mobilize the country to act.

cantdog

 

[poohlive]

I think you make an excellent point, Cantdog. Except, your alternative is to vote for Kerry, cause he's just as useless, but at least he'll give the country hope?

That's what the election comes down to? We're fucked either way, but which one will make us feel happier while we're being fucked?
Ha, and I thought Kerry was running on a stupid campaign when he said, "Bring it on."
This is just getting lame. No wonder he's going to lose.

 

[Jagged]

My we have been reading the Democratic Party website....


The President is not a Nazi you moron. It is like me calling Kerry a communist. He is a patriot though misguided that has tried to make this country better....he hasn't but he has tried.

The Democrats I don't think even want to win this election considering their pick for office.

Get used to four more years.....and guess what complain all you want but it won't be that bad. I never thought the Clinton Presidency was anything to brag about but I never though civilization was going to end.....Clinton wrecking the country maybe....but The country survived.

 

[thebullet]

Cantdog:

Put it all together and these drones will cause crises domestic and international on a grand scale with four more years to work in.

Cantdog, you da' man. You have succinctly voiced many of my own opinions. Your logic is excellant, your facts are accurate.

 

[cantdog]

Nah, I'm not voting for Kerry. What for?

Bush will polarize. Will galvanize the left, already has! There were half a million in NYC protesting the Republican administration, from all over the country! This is the best regime for the left in my lifetime. The '60's never got this kind of numbers in protest.

People are talking about their country's politics like never before. Four more years of this and the cities will be in flames. Why vote for Kerry when you can have all this fun?




cantdog

 

[Pure]

I know the sky is falling and all that, and things look bad for the home team.

But leave aside your hopes and dreams for a moment; consider a *real* possibility.

Here is a simple question for 'two party' folks, bullet, virtual, cant:

What will you do if Bush is re-elected?

 

[Pure]

I know it's a big joke, cant, but one, possibly sarcastic, comment on yours:
//There were half a million in NYC protesting the Republican administration, from all over the country! This is the best regime for the left in my lifetime. //

I don't think so. People are afraid to say they are 'liberal.' Hardly anyone is saying "Bring the troops home." Esp. congresspersons and senators. Where is the equivalent of Sen Fullbright?

Kerry's recent 4-year plan is the most 'left' one on the table, and I don't hear lots of senators cheering about it.

So I think the liberals and left are pretty weak, notwithstanding an activist component.

 

[oggbashan]

My views are irrelevant to the debate about the US presidential election.

What I feel I must say is that failing to vote, or deliberately abstaining from making a choice to the best of your ability, is a betrayal of those who fought and died to ensure your freedom to make an unfettered choice.

Your right to vote has cost many lives.

Og

 

[Edward Teach]

I know the sky is falling and all that, and things look bad for the home team.

But leave aside your hopes and dreams for a moment; consider a *real* possibility.

Here is a simple question for 'two party' folks, bullet, virtual, cant:

What will you do if Bush is re-elected?

Regardless of whom is elected, interest rates are getting ready to skyrocket. The huge deficits are going to ensure that. The dollar has already been devalued over 20% since Bush took office and the deficit's real effect hasn't kicked in yet.

I am getting rid of all the debt I can, selling real estate and reinvesting in blue chip stocks, particularily energy and pharma. I see no other hedge aagainst the huge inflation on its way. Can you spell 70's price controls - 80's 21% prime interest rates.

I have a 15 yr old grandson that I am concerned about being drafted. I am trying to get him a medical history built now that will prevent his having to serve in the goddamn middle east three years from now.

I am working hard in my business to capture more market share, paying less attention to profit and more to sales. It is going to be difficult to survive the next four years and market share will ensure my long term survival. I will not be able to sell my company for a decent price because of the high interest rates.

I am making a list of all my friends who are going to vote for Bush because of single issues (Kerry will appoint liberal judges, etc), even though they know that this administration is a pure cluster fuck on the economy and foreign policy and then I am never going to miss a chance to tell them "I told you so." I am warning them now and I intend to follow through with it. It may help straighten out their thinking in 2008.

I may begin praying again. Hell it can't hurt.

What is everyone else going to do?

Ed

 

[Teenage Venus]

Before you vote, Americans, you may like to ponder a chapter from a bio I'm writing for an ex-COP (Covert Operator) in the 1950s to 1980's.

It also answers the question many Americans can not understand - "Why does the world hate us?"

"Chapter 4 - We Were Not Alone.

Maybe I should make something clear: ALL COPs were not as we. The original British COPs were a force dreamed up by Winston Churchill early in WWII. In his wisdom, he saw a need for specially trained personnel to operate covertly. They carried out tasks against the enemy clandestinely, in an effort to gain intelligence, and to carry out sabotage behind enemy lines. Those men were brave, and did a good job. President Truman saw the value of them, and started his own COPs. (Brits initially trained the USA version). We were a much smaller, and very unofficial Unit that few ever had any inkling of. We carried out the shit jobs no legitimate body could.

We were highly trained specialists in bomb-making, booby-trapping, gaining illegal entry, information-gathering, escape techniques, survival, communications - and the art of killing. At times, we did murder/assassinate. Each had his or her reason for being a COP. (Initially, mine was a - possibly misguided - sense of patriotism). Later, it was my ingrained hate of others abusing authority. We laid our life on the line every time we went on a jaunt. We were a law unto ourselves - and we were expendable.

Sure, we killed a few: It was our job. However, compared to some other organisations, our jaunts could be classed as 'altruistic necessities'. They could always be reasonably justified. Every jaunt was an operation with the good of the country, and the normal citizens at heart.

This 'Good of the Country, and normal citizens' justification was not, nor is so, with organisations of many other countries. In their cases, it was, and is, the interests of the few that are considered. Wholesale murder is committed by those organisations for purely Political reasons, or at the behest of Religious Leaders, or to appease their Big Business Paymasters.

When you read of my jaunts, think of me as an evil bastard if you will. However, don't feel all sanctimonious yourself. It is YOU that votes into power, and supports the REALLY evil bastards! No country is guilt-free. I have no need to break any Official Secrets Acts to give you instances. This knowledge is now available in the public domain. If we take just one country as an example - the USA - just the tip of the iceberg of atrocities committed against its own children, and adults, and those of others around, can be accessed under their 'Freedom of Information Act. Below I list just a few of their CIA exploits to have you ponder:

Almost invariably, the CIA set in motion actions in the USA or overseas in the interests of their paymasters' 'Big Business Interests'. They use any, or all of the numerous overt, and covert facilities at their disposal. It may be to test out toxic substances, chemicals, or biological substances on US soldiers, small communities, or children. It may be to overthrow a foreign Government hostile to US paymasters. It may be to assassinate a President seen as a threat to their paymasters.

Mostly, the CIA makes a cock-up of what they do. Because of CIA actions, they have overtly or secretly carried out over the years, the American Citizen is hated throughout the world.

As far back as 1942, Roosevelt created the OSS (Office of Strategic Services), and stuck a guy called Donovan in charge. The OSS members consisted of 'The Rich and Powerful'.

In 1943: Donovan recruited the Pope, with the Vatican being used as the centre for spy operations in Italy. The end of 1945 ostensibly saw the OSS abolished. Its members dispersed within other Intelligence organisations. Mostly, one organisation hadn't a clue what the others were doing.

Whilst one group was rounding up NAZI war criminals, a sister group (CIA) was helping the same criminals to escape to live as free citizens! One of those was Hitler's super spy Reinhardt Gehlen. Other NAZI war criminals were baled out of prison camps by the CIA, and paid millions of dollars to spy on Russia. Another given immunity was one of the chief 'Jew massacresses' - SS Intelligence Officer Emil Augsburg. Her mate 'Alfred Six' - another SS IO Holocaust Jew killer - got immunity too. Eichman's mate, Otto Von Bolschwing, who masterminded the holocaust, and 'The Butcher of Lyon' - Klaus Barbie - was saved by them!

That lot actually, in effect, replaced the OSS in supplying the US with intelligence on Russia during the 'Cold War'. Up to the CIA proper, coming into being, that rogue lot of NAZI murderers almost got the USA to start WWIII in 1948, by feeding the Yanks a load of 'bull' and false intelligence. They claimed Russia was about to make a pre-emptive nuclear strike against America.

Whilst this was going on, President Truman sent troops to back corrupt Greek Leaders who were murdering their own citizens. He also created the CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) and National Security Council (NSC). It is the NSC Charter which gives the CIA carte blanche to do what the fuck they like - and they have done so. That particular clause reads: " …and to perform such other functions and duties. as the National Security Council may from time to time direct. " - they immediately set up their COPs and other covert units, and their 'DIRTY TRICKS' department.

1948 saw the creation of the CIA Covert Action Wing. Euphemistically, it was called the "Office of Policy Coordination." Its secret charter reads:
"Responsibilities include propaganda, economic warfare, preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation procedures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-communist elements in threatened countries of the free world."

1948 saw the CIA in Italy - interfering in democratic elections. The CIA spent vast amounts of US citizen's tax money in buying votes, beating up opposition leaders, broadcasting propaganda, and infiltrating organizations to disrupt their work.

1949 saw the CIA create Radio Free Europe. The propaganda and shit which that radio station broadcast was so obviously false that it was not allowed to be heard in the USA, and no copies of its material could be published in the USA.

1950 - by this time the CIA had recruited most of the American News organisations (Check "Operation MOCKINGBIRD"), and journalists as spies, and propaganda pushers. Among the media assets the CIA control are: ABC, Associated Press, CBS, Copley News Service, Hearst Newspapers, NBC, Time, Newsweek, United Press International, Reuters, Scripps-Howard. In fact, the CIA's actually admit to having over two dozen media organizations.

1953 - saw the CIA overthrow the democratically elected Iranian - Mohammed Mossadegh. The CIA replaced him with a dictator, the Shah of Iran. (His secret police, "SAVAK" was at least as brutal as the German Gestapo.)

1953 also saw the CIA begin in earnestness their experiments on mind control. They started feeding LSD, and other drugs to the Americans without their knowledge. This caused many to commit suicide. The Rockefeller and Ford foundations funded much of the research. It included research in brainwashing, hypnosis, propaganda, advertising, and autosuggestion. (Operation MK-ULTRA)

1954 - saw the CIA in Guatemala, overthrowing the democratically elected Jacob Arbenz. He was replaced by a succession of dictators (all supported by the CIA) who to date have been responsible for the murder of well over 100,000 innocent Guatemalans.

In the next four years, the CIA attempted repeatedly to overthrow the government of North Vietnam. They also had a go at installing a puppet regime in South Vietnam, headed by Ngo Dinh Diem. Eventually, the CIA interference caused the infamous Vietnam War.

1956 saw the CIA Hungary cock-up. Using Radio Free Europe, they incited the Hungarian uprising against Russian rule. They promised Hungary USA backing - then chickened out - it resulted in a Soviet invasion, which killed 30,000 Hungarians, and several thousand Russians.

1957 saw the start of CIA interference in LAOS. The CIA organised six unsuccessful coups. Each time the Pathet Lao defeated them. The CIA organised an army of Asian mercenaries to attack the Pathet Lao. After the CIA's army was almost wiped out, the USA started bombing LAOS. In fact, they dumped more bombs on LAOS than they dropped during the whole of WWII. About one in three Laotians ended up as refugees, mostly living in caves.

1959 - this was the year the CIA decided to help the murderous "Papa Doc" Duvalier become dictator of Haiti. With CIA backing, he created his private police force, "Tonton Macoutes". They terrorized the population, killing at will, and accounted for well over 100,000 Haitians whilst the Duvaliers held power.

1961 - was the year of "The Bay of Pigs "- The CIA sent 1,500 Cuban exiles to invade Cuba. However, it proved another CIA cock-up. As more recently in IRAQ, the CIA expected the peasants to revolt against Castro - they never did. Again - as in Iraq when tens of thousands of southern Iraqis lost their lives - the promised American air strikes never arrived.

Ecuador - The CIA backed a coup to kick out the democratically elected President Jose Velasco. They installed the Vice President Carlos Arosemana in his place, and another CIA man filled the vacant deputy job.

In the Dominican Republic - The CIA assassinated Rafael Trujillo. They had supported the swine for years, but when Trujillo's own business grew so large it threatened that owned by the CIA paymasters, the CIA had to give him the chop.

In the Congo - now Zaire - The CIA assassinated the democratically elected Pat Lumumba to stick their own guy in. Four years of turmoil and death later, they were still trying.

1963 - sees the CIA back in the Dominican Republic - They overthrew the democratically elected Juan Bosch, and stuck in a murderous right-wing military Junta.

The same year they were back in Ecuador - A CIA-backed military coup overthrew the guy they'd stuck in a couple of years earlier -President Arosemana. The CIA decided he'd got too big for his boots. A military junta took over, First thing they did was cancel the 1964 elections. Human rights ceased to exist there.

1964 - and it was time for the CIA to have a go at Brazil - A CIA-backed military coup overthrew the democratically elected government of Joao Goulart. The junta the CIA replaced it with, reigned for the next twenty years as the most bloodthirsty one in history. CIA backed General Castelo Branco created Latin America's first death squads, who hunt down "communists" for torture, interrogation and murder. The "communists" are no more than Branco's political opponents. The CIA trained those death squads.

1965 - The CIA move farther afield, to Indonesia. They overthrew the democratically elected Sukarno with a military coup. (The CIA has been trying to eliminate Sukarno for eight years. They tried everything from attempting assassination to sexual bribery. His only crime was staying neutral in the Cold War. The CIA backed General Suharto, succeeded him. That mothafucker massacred around a million Indonesians accused of being "communist." The CIA supplied him with the names of thousand of suspects they wanted rid of.

In the Dominican Republic - the locals wanted to reinstall Juan Bosch as the country's elected leader. The CIA organised the landing of USA Marines to uphold the military regime by force.

In Greece - the CIA's forces out, Prime Minister George Papandreou as he failed to support U.S. interests in Greece.

In addition, they went back to the Congo (Zaire) - The CIA-backed military coup installed Mobutu Sese Seko as dictator. This bastard spent his time repressing the masses and milking the country of billions of dollars.

1966 - Is when the shit flies for the CIA. It becomes known that the "National Students' Association is a CIA front". Students are recruited through bribery, blackmail, and even draft deferments. The radical magazine Ramparts reveals the CIA has paid the University of Michigan $25 million dollars to hire "professors" to train South Vietnamese students in covert police methods. Ramparts also revealed that other universities, including MIT, have received similar payments.

1967 - back to Greece - A CIA-backed military coup overthrew the government two days before the elections. The favourite to win was George Papandreous, the liberal candidate. During the next six years, the "reign of the colonels" - backed by the CIA - ushered in the widespread use of torture, and murder against political opponents. When a Greek ambassador objected to President Johnson about U.S. plans for Cypress, Johnson told him: "Fuck your parliament and your constitution."

Under Operation PHEONIX - The CIA helped South Vietnamese agents identify and then murder alleged Viet Cong leaders operating in South Vietnamese villages. According to a 1971 congressional report, this operation killed about 20,000 "Viet Cong."

1968
Now, Operation CHAOS - The CIA has been illegally spying on American citizens since 1959, but with Operation CHAOS, President Johnson dramatically boosted the effort. CIA agents went undercover as student radicals to spy on, and disrupt campus organizations protesting the Vietnam War. They were searching for Russian instigators, which they never found. CHAOS was spying on over 7,000 individuals and 1,000 organizations at the time.

Meanwhile, in Bolivia - A CIA-organized military operation captured the legendary guerilla: Che Guevara. The CIA wanted to keep him alive for interrogation, but the Bolivian government executed him to prevent worldwide calls for clemency.

1969 - and it's Uruguay - The notorious CIA torturer Dan Mitrione arrived in Uruguay The country was torn with political strife. Where right-wing forces had only used torture as a last resort, Mitrione insisted torture should be a routine, and widespread practice. "The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect," was his motto. The torture techniques he taught his death squads to use rivalled that of the Gestapo. He became so feared that it backfired on him: Revolutionaries kidnapped and murdered him.

1970 saw CIA in Cambodia - They overthrew Prince Sahounek He was highly popular among Cambodians, as he kept them out of the Vietnam War. The CIA puppet Lon Nol replaced him. He immediately threw his Cambodian troops into the battle. That unpopular action resulted in the dreaded Khmer Rouge, taking power. In 1975 alone, they massacre millions of their own Cambodians.

1971 - it was Bolivia - and after five of CIA interference, which created political turmoil, a CIA-backed military coup overthrew President Juan Torres. In the next two years, dictator Hugo Banzer will have over 2,000 political opponents arrested without trial, then tortured, raped and executed.

Haiti - "Papa Doc" Duvalier dies, leaving his 19-year old son "Baby Doc" Duvalier the dictator of Haiti. His son continues his bloody reign with full knowledge of the CIA.

1972 - with Congress voting to cut off CIA funds for its covert Cambodian war, we have the Watergate Break-in - President Nixon sent burglars to wiretap the Democratic offices at Watergate. The team members all had CIA histories; They worked CREEP (Committee to Re-elect the President). That lot of COPs did dirty crap to disrupt the Democratic campaigns. Another job was laundering Nixon's unlawful Republican campaign contributions. CREEP was organized and funded by the Mullen Company - one of the many CIA fronts.

1973 - on to Chile - The CIA overthrew, then assassinated Salvador Allende. He was Latin America's first democratically elected socialist leader. ITT offerd the CIA $1 million for a coup. The CIA replaced Allende with Augusto Pinochet, who tortured and murdered thousands of Chileans, concentrating on labour leaders and members of the political left.

1974 - After 'Watergate' surfacing, President Nixon fired the CIA Director Richard Helms for failing to do a good cover up on the Watergate scandal. The Pulitzer prize winner Seymour Hersh published a story about Operation CHAOS, (surveillance and infiltration of anti-war and civil rights groups in the USA The story sparks national outrage. With CHAOS exposed,
CHAOS exposed - Congress held hearings on the illegal spying by James Jesus Angleton, (CIA's chief of counterintelligence). He was guilty of organising mail-opening campaigns and secret surveillance of war protesters. He got kicked out.

Perhaps the biggest laugh of 1974 was when The House of Representatives cleared the CIA of any complicity in Nixon's Watergate break-in!!!

1975 - on to Australia - The CIA interfered to get rid of the democratically elected government of Prime Minister Edward Whitlam. The CIA did that by giving an ultimatum to its Governor-General, John Kerr. (Kerr was a CIA collaborator). The CIA instructed him to exercise his constitutional right to dissolve the Whitlam government. (The Governor-General is really just a ceremonial position appointed by the Queen; whereas the Prime Minister is democratically elected). When Kerr used an obscure, archaic law to do this, the Aussie population was dumfounded.

At the same time in Angola - having been whipped in Vietnam, Henry Kissinger started a CIA-backed war in Angola. The CIA backed the brutal leader of UNITAS - Jonas Savimbi. Congress actually cut off funds to Angola in 1976, but the CIA continued support by fiddling the books to run the war. They did so for ten years - until funding was legalized again in 1984. This 'Kissinger-CIA' fruitless war killed over 300,000 Angolans!

At this time, John Marks and Victor Marchetti published a book on the CIA and its crimes: "The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence. (Marchetti was an executive assistant to the Deputy Director of Intelligence). He'd spent 14 years in the CIA. Marks, was a State Department intelligence official.

Another guy - Philip Agee - published a diary of his time in the CIA: "Inside the Company" - among other things it covers his covert operations in Latin America; giving details of crimes he took part in..

Eventually, under pressure from the public, Congress investigated a few CIA crimes. Frank Church headed the investigation - "The Church Committee". Otis Pike headed the House investigation. (The CIA ensured Church and Pike were defeated in the following elections.) Their investigations lead to several reforms to increase the CIA's accountability to Congress, including creation of a standing Senate committee on intelligence.

They were a waste of time. The CIA soon showed that Congress had sod all control over them, and the CIA could ignore Congress at will. (The IRAN/CONTRA cock-up soon proved that.

To limit the damage done by the 'Church Committee', President Ford created the "Rockefeller Commission". Its purpose was to whitewash CIA history, and introduce much more lenient CIA reforms. (The commission consisted of Vice President Nelson Rockefeller - A senior CIA guy! - and five of the eight members were from the Council on Foreign Relations, (A CIA-controlled organization).

1979 - saw the fall of the CIA puppet - the Shah of Iran. The Muslim fundamentalists were pissed off at the long-time CIA's backing of the Shah and SAVAK - his murderous secret police. They took revenge by taking 52 Americans hostage in the U.S. embassy in Tehran.

In Afghanistan - CIA interference caused the Soviets to move in there. The CIA immediately started supplying arms to anybody willing to fight the Soviets - AL QUEDA included. The Soviets left Afghanistan, and we know the result: civil war. And the fanatical Muslim extremists had state-of-the-art weaponry provided by the CIA. One of those - Sheik Abdel Rahman, instigated the NY World Trade Centre bombing.

In El Salvador - the CIA-backed oppressive right-wing government got kicked out. However, the CIA forced the new government to include many of the ousted officials in key positions. The old lot soon took over again, and returned to repression and mass murder.

On to Nicaragua - the CIA-backed dictator - Anastasias Samoza II, got ousted. The Marxist Sandinistas took over government, and were popular because of their anti-poverty reform. However, Samoza's murderous and hated personal army - the 'National Guard' became the CONTRAS. The CIA backed them in a guerrilla war against the Sandinista government right through 1980s.

1980 - back in El Salvador - Archbishop of San Salvador, Oscar Romero, begged President Carter - as one Christian to another Christian, to stop the CIA helping government to slaughter his people. Carter told him in effect to 'get knotted'. (Shortly afterwards, Archbishop Romero got shot through the heart whilst saying Mass!!!) That caused civil war - the peasants in the hills fighting against the military. The CIA and USA Armed Forces provided the government with massive military and intelligence support.. CIA-trained death squads roamed the countryside, committing atrocities. (As they did later -El Mazote1982 - where they massacred around 1000 men, women, and children.) In the following ten years, these CIA-trained death squads massacred an estimated 63,000 Salvadorans.

1981 - saw the CIA Iran/Contra scandal - The CIA sold arms to Iran illegally, at high prices, to pay to arm the Contras fighting the Sandinista government in Nicaragua. President Reagan vowed "The Sandinistas will be pressured until they say 'uncle.'" The CIA provided the "Freedom Fighter's Manual" to the terrorist Contras. It includes instructions on extortion, bribery, economic sabotage, propaganda, blackmail, interrogation, torture, political assassination, and plain murder. (Islam extremists use it against the USA now.

1983 - generous to a fault - the CIA then provided the Honduran military officers with the "Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual" That instructs how to torture people. Honduras' notorious "Battalion 316" then used the techniques on thousands of leftist dissidents, murdering up to 200 of them.

1984 - under the Boland Amendments, CIA aid to the Contras reduced, then last one cut off. That didn't mean shit to the CIA: they merely handed the operation to Colonel Oliver North, who illegally continued supplying the Contras through the CIA's secret, self-financing network. That included military aid funded by illegal Iranian arms sales, and "humanitarian aid" donated by Adolph Coors and William Simon.

1986 - saw Nicaragua shoot down a C-123 transport plane carrying military supplies to the Contras. (The only survivor, Eugene Hasenfus, was a CIA employee, as were both dead pilots.) The plane belonged to CIA-controlled 'Southern Air Transport'. (So much for President Reagan's claims that "The CIA is not illegally arming the Contras".

Congress held hearings on the Iran/Contra Scandal - and several key figures, including Oliver North, lied under oath to protect the intelligence community. The few reforms put in place by Congress following the scandal were in name only - to appease the public.

In Haiti - the CIA puppet "Baby Doc" Duvalier was in trouble. The USA flew him to the South of France to retire in comfort on his murderous, ill-gotten gains. The CIA then rigged the new elections in an attempt to get right-wing military ruler. The CIA tried to strengthen the military bid by creating the 'National Intelligence Service' (SIN), which suppressed popular revolt through torture and assassination. That murder, torture, and violence dragged on for the next four years.

1989 - Shit hit the fan in Panama - The U.S. invaded Panama to kick out the dictator they stuck in there - General Manuel Noriega. Noriega was on the CIA's payroll from 1966. He'd been transporting drugs with the CIA's full knowledge since 1972. However, he'd stopped 'playing ball' so Washington decided he had to go.

1990 - back to Haiti - a leftist priest - Jean-Bertrand Aristide captured 68 percent of the vote. The CIA were stunned, so arranged a military coup. The CIA-backed military dictators brutalized the country. Thousands of Haitian refugees escaped by sea. Many drowned in un-seaworthy boats. As the remaining population called for Aristide to be returned to power, the CIA set in motion a disinformation campaign. Among other lies disseminated was one declaring him mentally unstable.

1991 - saw the fall of the Soviet Union. This took the CIA by surprise. Their primary task had been keeping tabs on events in the 'Cold War'. Unfortunately - for them - they'd been too busy throwing money and resources around interfering, and controlling other governments around the world. They failed to predict the most important event. With the Soviet Union no longer a threat, the CIA no longer had a reason for existence: It had come into existence to combat Russian communism. It made no difference to the CIA, they soon found another reason to be funded Economic Espionage:

1992 - from here on the USA government use the CIA primarily for economic espionage - stealing technological secrets off competing foreign companies and giving them to American ones. With the CIA's given preference for dirty tricks - over and above information gathering - you can judge for yourselves the serious criminal behaviours this has resulted in.

1993 - back to Haiti - The shit flying in Haiti against the CIA-installed Raoul Cedras was so bad that President Clinton was forced to remove the Haitian military dictator. He went under threat of USA invasion. The USA incumbents - far from arresting the Haiti's military leaders for crimes against humanity - ensured their safety in rich retirement. Aristide was returned to power by the USA, but only after agreeing to look after the ruling classes: At the expense of the normal citizens.

When President Clinton commented on the 50th anniversary of the CIA, he stated: "By necessity, the American people will never know the full story of your courage." The man was WRONG - Americans, and the world are becoming more aware of this 'courage' daily. The CIA has no truck with defenders of democracy, human rights, or free speech. Their paymasters require the CIA to put down any popular, legitimate government. (The people must be subdued, if big business is to continue thriving.) Overthrowing democratically elected governments, and sticking in murderous dictators has been the CIA trademark for years. The truth is coming out as the power of the Internet spreads.

… Some Americans really believe that America is good and charitable - and cannot understand why most of the world hates the USA.

However, don't get smug if you are NOT a Yank: Your OWN country's COPs are doing as much as they can for their rich and powerful too. Wherever you are, it is a case of "He who pays the Piper calls the tune."

My conscience is clear, because my activities were always in opposition to those that sought to keep the ordinary citizen subdued."

 

[Teenage Venus]

Kerry - Bush, some choice!

The one thing Kerry can do is give the rest of the world chance to give him a chance.

Everyone hates us - but most want to be our friends.

Right now America stinks and is hated throughout the world. Under another four years of Bush, the hatred will burst into REAL flame. (Because you will have confirmed their belief that ordinary Americans AGREE with him.)

I think world opinion is that ANYONE will be better than Bush - even Kerry.

Under Bush we have NO chance of getting our Country's respect back - he's totally blown it for us.

Kerry may be no better, but it may buy us a little time befor we are under constant attack, as Northern Ireland was, or Isreal is.

All we've had so far are a couple of bits of terrorist action. (CIA call them 'freedom-fighters when they organise it.)'

Vote for Bush - but not before you've re-located to the mountains.

Vote for Kerry, and hope a miracle happens.
Don't vote - and you are worse than either of them.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Four more years of GWB won't be the best years the USA has ever had, but four years of John Kerry just might be the worst, IMHO.

I have a lot of respect for your opinions, Harold. I'm interested to know why you feel the way you do about Kerry. Is it a character issue or one of policies?

---dr.M.

 

[cantdog]

My we have been reading the Democratic Party website....


The President is not a Nazi you moron. It is like me calling Kerry a communist. He is a patriot though misguided that has tried to make this country better....he hasn't but he has tried.

The Democrats I don't think even want to win this election considering their pick for office.

Get used to four more years.....and guess what complain all you want but it won't be that bad. I never thought the Clinton Presidency was anything to brag about but I never though civilization was going to end.....Clinton wrecking the country maybe....but The country survived.

Never saw their website.

No. He says he's a republican. Republics vest most real power in their representative chambers. So much for that.

He has Ashcroft and the secret police.

These guys are scapegoating certain ethnic groups. (The interviews with the attendees at the convention: "I think we can be sure to win because of the integrity of our Leaders." "I think this administration will finally do something about the illegal alien problem." They are already targeting South Asians and muslims, now they'll add latinos.)

His armies go invade country after country with a program of world dominance.

Certain corporations have been selected to delegate government functions to.

Militarism is very strong.

The world is said to resent us because we're Americans.

We have to defend the fatherland. Surely we can sacrifice for the security of the fatherland.

We do not have a rule of laws, nor yet a rule of man, but a rule of One Man. The policy of our Leader is always just and right. To approach him you must first swear an oath of allegiance-- to him personally.

His ability to cast any person in detention indefinitely is such a comfort. Like a warm blanket of safety over our shoulders in these troubled times.

But okay, dude, they ain't Nazis. I've been a moron. He's a patriot. All Nazis are nationalists, too. Sorry, no, I now see the error into which I'd fallen.

cantdog

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Never saw their website.

No. He says he's a republican. Republics vest most real power in their representative chambers. So much for that.

He has Ashcroft and the secret police.

These guys are scapegoating certain ethnic groups. (The interviews with the attendees at the convention: "I think we can be sure to win because of the integrity of our Leaders." "I think this administration will finally do something about the illegal alien problem." They are already targeting South Asians and muslims, now they'll add latinos.)

His armies go invade country after country with a program of world dominance.

Certain corporations have been selected to delegate government functions to.

Militarism is very strong.

The world is said to resent us because we're Americans.

We have to defend the fatherland. Surely we can sacrifice for the security of the fatherland.

We do not have a rule of laws, nor yet a rule of man, but a rule of One Man. The policy of our Leader is always just and right. To approach him you must first swear an oath of allegiance-- to him personally.

His ability to cast any person in detention indefinitely is such a comfort. Like a warm blanket of safety over our shoulders in these troubled times.

But okay, dude, they ain't Nazis. I've been a moron. He's a patriot. All Nazis are nationalists, too. Sorry, no, I now see the error into which I'd fallen.

cantdog

That, was scary. Really scary. thanks for that perspective.

-Colly

 

[cantdog]

Believe me, Colleen, I'm frightened. I know the analogy is not exact, but it is absolutely too close for me to be at all comfortable with.

Liberty is not free. We may have to do some unpleasant things to purchase ours back.

cantdog

 

[Weird Harold]

I have a lot of respect for your opinions, Harold. I'm interested to know why you feel the way you do about Kerry. Is it a character issue or one of policies?

Both.

Or more precisely, it's a matter of no character and no polices.

The very few glimpses he's allowed about firm policy positions on any issue are diametrically opposed to anything that I think will work in the real world.

Of course, tht's not counting the many times he's made a statement that he'd never do something that any reasonable person can see that no competent politician would be able to force through congress and would do something that couldn't be stopped any president -- those are just blue sky and green grass promises.

 

[cantdog]

I know it's a big joke, cant, but one, possibly sarcastic, comment on yours:
//There were half a million in NYC protesting the Republican administration, from all over the country! This is the best regime for the left in my lifetime. //

I don't think so. People are afraid to say they are 'liberal.' Hardly anyone is saying "Bring the troops home." Esp. congresspersons and senators. Where is the equivalent of Sen Fullbright?

Kerry's recent 4-year plan is the most 'left' one on the table, and I don't hear lots of senators cheering about it.

So I think the liberals and left are pretty weak, notwithstanding an activist component.

Well, there are a few. The Black Caucus opposed the invasion of Haiti for regime change, Kucinich and a few others have a troops-home agenda, but it seems mechanical: just pull them, as fast as you can, hell or high water.
Fulbright argued from the high ground that the war in its conception and in its execution was immoral. In detail.

So it seems different. My point is, if you are indeed a revolutionary, looking to reverse the trends to autocracy and plutocracy which we now suffer under, it is the very times when the people are the most obviously disenfranchised that are the most auspicious.

For an ordinary person who would prefer not to resort to revolution: If it looks like absolutely no one is even in the same chapter as you are in Washington, let alone on the same page, you know you have to act outside the system.

If you're prospering just the same, you stop voting and ignore them, at that point; but if you're losing your job and becoming homeless despite working two McJobs and having your teenager clean houses for people, and you don't know what will happen if someone gets really sick, you can't afford a dentist for the seven-year-old, and so forth, then someone calling for direct action might find you a good listener.

If you're retired and can actually remember representative government, the kids are grown and gone, you are the one calling for direct action. If you're so young as not to have kids to care for and have an idealistic bent, you're right there with the retiree.

The worse they act, and the more they hurt the populace with bad policy, the more they are going to need all the secret police they can get, because there will for sure be opposition, revolutionary or not.

(The secret police already are turning people away from Bush's stump speeches because they might have once worked for a democratic candidate, so they obviously do not mind working against non-revolutionary opposition.)

Within-the-system opposition, if it looks like there is some hope of that, outside-the-system, if not: that's the rule.

And I say, Bush will cause more outside-the-system opposition if he weasels another election out of that system. The rest of the world will have the suspicion that the American people generally approve of the way he's going with the country, and their resistance to us will harden. He will but definitely make things lots worse, here and abroad.

Today's opposition has a larger task than the Vietnam opposition did. We didn't question the framework much, the cold war idea, not most of us. Despite all the rhetorical flights of fancy from Agnew, the genuine reds were not very numerous. Today the framework is empire-building and militarism, millenial expectations. Today's left is really sweating the framework more than the soft left of the sixties and seventies.

cantdog

 

[GingerV]

My God. It's a bunch of people sitting around, explaining their opinions, all without calling each other names. Bless you. I'm just gonna curl up here and read awhile, if I may....

G

 

[Pure]

democrats (small 'd') just happen to be literate and nice people.