No Quarter (political rant)

[Lucifer_Carroll]

I admit to being down the left slide. My politics border those of the green party. I am so far beyond feminism it isn't a joke any more. I am a heavy environmentalist. Pro-choice, pro-freedom, pro-equality, etc...

So to begin with, my view of the neo-cons in power was less than appreciative. But policies aside, politics aside, none should give these traitors quarter.

The multiple counts of treason, the illegal war, the attacks on the constitution and the american way of life, committing torture (including the rape of 8-year old boys in front of their mothers to try and elicit confessions), indefinitely jailing minors in foreign countries and torturing them for agreeing with neo-con policies (can't make heads or tails of that arrest myself. We employ some dumbass FBI agents), gutting our intelligence agencies to fill it with incompetent yes-men and firing elite counter-terrorism agents.

Ignore those. Those aren't the reasons for true no quarter.

The thing is this: We no longer live in a republic. We officially live in a corrupt autocracy. We have now officially had 2 elections illegally bypassed. The 2000 election by illegal SC decision. And now, impartial investigaters have turned up massive fraud in Florida and bribery in Ohio in order to skew results in favor of Bush as well as attempts to cover it up. There were also improper dealings in Southern California.

The skeptics are officially right. Diebold was corrupt. The exit polls were correct. Our electoral process was broken. This is a level of treason far beyond the mere outing of our own spies. This is fundamentally anti-American.

So I cry "no quarter"

...ineffectually of course, because no one gives a good golram. That was in the past and besides which our media is owned, our congress is filled with the traitors, and our people are obsessed with the next American Idol.

They deserve no quarter, but they will get all the quarter they can grab, because frankly they don't need us anymore. They can vote themselves all the power in the world.

THAT is why I cry No Quarter.

http://www.blackboxvoting.org/

Back to your porn, people, the autocrat wills it so.

 

[Guest]

I hear you, sis.

 

[shiresa]

agreement from the right

I am on my phone so please excuse any typos.

I have to agree this country is done for. Every day they pass new uninforceable laws and every weak law just make the others weaker. Prohibition failed with less crime in it's entire time than our drug laws get us in one day. Seat belt are a great idea but making someone who doesn't wear one a criminal? Tort law is at the point where i tripped and fell the other day not looking where I was walking and the owners of the business I was at feared a lawsuit. We have a government that when given a reasonable plan to have people who make over $90k a year pick up a bit more of the tax burden of keeping our elderly the political party that is supposed to promote the cause of all impoverished but for some reason consists of 30% more wealthy people refuses to support it. We live in a country where it is almost impossible and often dangerous to get through the day without committing at least one crime (ever try to stay under the speed limit on the freeway?). Violent crime is up so dramatically among youth that a chart of the last 50 years would show 30 years before it got off the bottom line.

I could go on and on. My point is that we as a country are past the point of no return. Corruption is so rampant in every aspect of our life that thinking about it could drive you mad. What's to be done about it? Sit aside and watch it burn... Anyone have some marshmallows?

 

[Liar]

So I cry "no quarter"

Man, I love a good rant.

But one bit of clarification: What this "quarter" you rant of?

#L

 

[logophile]

The thing is this: We no longer live in a republic. We officially live in a corrupt autocracy. We have now officially had 2 elections illegally bypassed. The 2000 election by illegal SC decision. And now, impartial investigaters have turned up massive fraud in Florida and bribery in Ohio in order to skew results in favor of Bush as well as attempts to cover it up. There were also improper dealings in Southern California.

This has been the most frightening thing for me since the last election. I've said over and over (only be called foolish, a conspiracy theorist, and a over-emotional woman [accent heavy on the last word]) that now that their party has stole two elections in a row, they don't ever have to give the government back. The first theft was messy and drew a lot of attention, but by the second they had t cleaned up pretty good and the country seemed to buy it.

I feel hopeless and powerless when I look at our country. And he's only served an eighth of this term.

 

[Op_Cit]

The funny thing about this is during the 2000 election results wrestling, the news people spoke about the Nixon/Kennedy election corruption as a fact of history (i.e. that Kennedy won only because of the corrupt Illinois election system). Back in the sixties that notion of election corruption was poo-pooed.

And then there's all that New York corruption dating back to the 19th century that's actually in the history books.

You really want a wake up? Read a book called "Votescam" that documents an extensive investigation into election corruption (and those on the Left will never guess who the D.A. was that refused to prosecute).

Whether you're using paper or not it will be corrupted. Way back in Athens, election helpers wrote out names on ostrica (pottery shards) for those who didn't know how to write, often pre-etching them for handing out. Do you really think they never "stuffed the ballot box"?

But it is the nature of the system: How can a fundamentally corrupt/unethical system (democracy/voting) possibly not be corrupted?

The great thinkers of that golden age of philosophy quickly rejected any form of democracy as bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

 

[SummerMorning]

The great thinkers of that golden age of philosophy quickly rejected any form of democracy as bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

No, that was Plato. Aristotle did not share his opinion - in his opinion it was bad, but the alternatives were bad, badder and badbadder.

 

[cantdog]

Thanks SummerMorning. Quite right. Even Plato admitted that the Philosopher King was a most unlikely figure. Power has myriad temptations.

In the meantime, to state that elections are corrupted all the time-- is that a statement of support for the idea? Don't bother uncovering the fraud, because elections are corrupted all the time? Because if so, I don't buy it as a logical argument.

 

[rgraham666]

And yet the greatest thinker of that time, Socrates, participated in and pushed for democracy for his whole life. And finally laid down his life for it.

So how could democracy be that bad.

If the people at large believe in and participate in democracy, it will work. If they don't, it doesn't.

Barely 50% of eligible voters bother to vote, and too few of those make any attempt to base their vote on anything other than TV ads and news.

No wonder it's not working.

 

[Op_Cit]

No, that was Plato. Aristotle did not share his opinion - in his opinion it was bad, but the alternatives were bad, badder and badbadder.

Actually, I was thinking of Socrates, Xenophon, and their other contemporaries (OK, Plato included). I have doubts about Plato, but I know I don't consider Aristotle as a great thinker. Aristotle pretty much worshipped the State.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Man, I love a good rant.

But one bit of clarification: What this "quarter" you rant of?

#L

No Quarter is a militay term.

In the time before total war, opposing sides would often cese fighting for a specfied amount of time, so that wounded could be collected and evacuated.

In time, No quarter came to mean that the fight was one to the finish, no prisoners taken, no surrender accepted, a fight to the biter end, so to speak. A sold red flag was usually displayed by the side that was declaring no quarter. The Mexicans, Under Santa Anna, called for no quarter at the Alamo. to signify it, they had a ban playing De guillo, also knwn as the cut throat song. It meant no quarter asked, none given.

In today's less stylized world, where warare is total No quarter has really cesed to be a military term.

It is used now, particularly in the context LUC used here, to say I am not giving up.

 

[amicus]

Thanks for the definition Colly, but I would offer to disagree with the intent the usage has in this context.

I see the left wing liberals as rabid, frothing at the mouth and willing to use any tactic, 'No Quarter' included, in their all out, no holds barred attack on not just the President, but the entire free market, free society system.

Consider the ALF and ELF and PETA groups who use violence and fraud to carry out their programs.

Consider Dan Rather, Ward Churchill, Michael Moore, Howard Dean, Edward Kennedy as examples of 'true believers' in a cause who will use any means to justify the ends they desire.

No, I think a fair warning should be issued that Luc has laid down the gauntlet and declared an all out, no quarter, no holds barred assault on western society. It would not surprise me a bit to hear that a left wing suicide bomber walked into a soccer stadium and blew himself up.

These are dangerous people, as zealous as any Islamic radicalist and should be viewed as such.

...damn, I held off a whole day posting on this thread...sighs...the Devil made me do it....


amicus...

 

[Liar]

Thanks for the definition Colly, but I would offer to disagree with the intent the usage has in this context.

Uh, seems you two said the same thing. Except you are on different ends on the scale when it comes to level-headness and paranoia.

Anyway's thanks to both for the clarification.

cheers!
#L

 

[gauchecritic]

Actually, although it does generally refer to combat, it means simply: mercy or clemency.

To cease attacking when the opponent is unable to defend themselves is 'giving quarter'.

 

[Guest]

I see the left wing liberals as rabid, frothing at the mouth and willing to use any tactic, 'No Quarter' included, in their all out, no holds barred attack on not just the President, but the entire free market, free society system.

I've learned in life not to spit into the wind, conjole two year olds, answer an ad "liberal roommate wanted" (No one is that liberal) or try to change the mind of those on either edge of the political spectrum.

But occassionally, I like to beat my head against the wall.

I've seen some "all out, no holds barred" tactics too in the last five years.

In 2000, a war hero and Republican, one of their own, John McLain "may be a bit touched in the head don't you know, from his P.O.W. time" went the whispering campaign when he ran against GWB for the nomination.

In the run up to the war, a majority of the nation were under the impression Iraq was connected to 9/11. The President never disavowed that misbelief until after the war began.

CNN: "President Bush said in September 2003 that "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with the September 11 [attacks]."

Yet, Republicans still assert a connection even after the 9/11 commsion found no connection. (recent CNN newstory)


Max Cleland, a war hero who left three limbs in Vietnam. He lost relection when Republican challenger Saxby Chambliss ran a deceptive TV ad against him. It opened with pictures of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, then attacked Cleland for voting against President Bush's Homeland Security bill. It didn't mention that Cleland supported a Democratic bill that wasn't radically different.

When Paul O'Neill, a Bush cabinet member reported in his book that the Iraq invasion had been on the agenda long before 9/11, the prevously valuable Rebublican had his character attacked.

When Richad Clarke supported the story, Republicans again responded with character assasination.

Swift Boats for Veterans brought forth critics who were on the record of previously of praising Kerry's actions in Vietnam. Supposedly unconnected with the rest of the campaign, instead strong ties reportedly existed between the group and prominent republicans.

When diplomat Richard Wilson did not report what the administration wanted to hear concerning Uranium sales in Niger, his CIA wife was outed by a "High Administration Official", nullifying an agent involved in locating WMD's, and causing unknown damage to her network, and people who may have met with her overseas.

When a Republican Senator recently held up the Bolton nomination, Republican groups were running ads questioning his loyality the very next day in his district. Apparently the US Senate is to be a rubber stamp for the Presidents wishes--Senators may not think, yet alone act, on their own.

When Republican Hegel questioned progress in Iraq, VP Cheney responded "Since 9/11, we've had people like Chuck Hagel and other politicians and we've had people in the press corps and commentators who've said we can't do Afghanistan." Criticism of Iraq where many believe we never belonged, is immediately shifted as criticism of Afghanistan where most of us believe we belong in order to find Bin Laden.

Remember him?

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."
- G.W. Bush, 9/13/01

"I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"
- G.W. Bush, 9/17/01, UPI

------------------------------------------------------------
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)

I could go on, and on...but I'm getting really sad.

 

[amicus]

Well, Ted E Bare....thas quite a litany of the Left. Truth often takes a backseat in love and war, someone said once upon a time.

I have heard each issue you highlighted debated time and time again from the left and from the right.

I do not support any political party nor have I ever voted for one thus I do not engage in rhetoric in general about either.

I am totally opposite of the thread starters stated political positions as they reflect, in general a 'statist' agenda in all aspects.

I, like many others, want the government to protect my 'self evident' and 'unalienable rights', with a police and court system and a military to defend the sovreignty of the nation. Other than that, I have to be convinced that the 'promote the general welfare' clause supports government interference in any area of social or business interests.

I am not certain there has ever been a time when the left and the right in the political spectrum of this country has ever reached agreement or compromise outside the halls of Congress.

And while I have neither a perfect nor a complete knowledge of all things, I do my best to present a rational and honest presentation of my thoughts.

However I have in almost a half century, seldom observed the vitriolic expression of pure hatred put forth by the left against the current President.

As I have stated several times before, I sense a vicious desperation in the left wing that has disintegrated to a minority party without a common political platform and is reduced to just being against everything.

amicus....

 

[cantdog]

Ted, he's a troll. Just ignore the asshole.

 

[Guest]

Ted, he's a troll. Just ignore the asshole.

I know I can never change him. I just couldn't let the assertion of "all out, no holds barred" go by without comment. The irony was too great.

I'm done beating my head against the wall. As I said, I do it occassionally, and my audience is not the amicus' of the world, but the moderates who are looking to the right with increasing skepticism.

 

[sweetnpetite]

sometimes people do change their minds-

they just don't usually admit it in the heat of battle.

 

[Pure]

These times,

That's a good rant, Luc.

You make the elections key, over the civil rights and 'due process' issues. Hmmm.

Probably there've been a lot of dubious elections, it's just that Americans believe their system is sacred and 'a cut above.' OTHERS elections are fairly transparent, as when 'Baby Doc' took over Haiti. So we have our own 'Baby Doc.'
Soviet elections were always mocked. We have two parties that agree on the imperial Iraq adventure.

I think there is a grain of truth in Amicus However I have in almost a half century, seldom observed the vitriolic expression of pure hatred put forth by the left against the current President. Yet his agenda does not see the true history of (current) hatred, going back to the Rush Limbaugh phenomenon. In the bigger picture, the Republicans decided to go after the South and to say (and sometimes do) what the social conservatives, rednecks, and racists wanted. Hate the pres., was brought to present height re Clinton.

Likewise
I sense a vicious desperation in the left wing that has disintegrated to a minority party without a common political platform and is reduced to just being against everything.

The 'everything' being things you mention, Luc, like violations of due process, torture, 'rendition' and so on. Oh, and the imperial plan for the mideast, as Ami lately articulated it: Using 'arms' and intervention to topple the least friendly dictatorships (Syria, Iran) and shore up the friendly ones like Pakistan. Yes, Ami, the opposition probably is a minority; it is a small subgroup of the Democratic party, and a few 'civil rights' Republicans.



Truth be told American always had a BIT of a taste for this meddling, as in the war in the Philippines around 1900. Then there was Reagan in Grenada, a sort of poor, cheap copy of Thatchers Falklands romp (and consolidation of power). But R was smart enough, generally NOT to be sending troops to fix the world.

I'm not sure I'm most upset about election stealing: I'm with Colly in saying that the right probably had the majority. The irregularities and the electoral system in the US highlighted the differences in the last election, but the 'red states' would have been pretty damn numerous. The 'get out the evangelical vote' and 'he's one of us [Christian right]' DID work, though with many irregularities and disqualification of Black voters to 'sew up' the results.

It's the outright betrayals of the Bill of Rights in the name of the constitution that most upset me, like indefinite detention of a US citizen with charges or trial. Padilla. A few Republicans can see the civil rights picture and are uneasy, but more as as dishonest as Amicus (alleged 'independent') in claiming that somehow the courts are going to be cleaned and purified, as Tom De Lay (himself a corrupt, lying ass) has called for.

They will be so 'clean' that trials will become unnecessary, since Rush and Amicus have pretty clear ideas who's treasonous, and traitors deserve no quarter, to use your phrase. Words have been turned on their heads: 'activist' judges to be purged are pro Bill of Rights, as for instance regarding privacy and trials. "Conservative" and "strict construction" judges, like Thomas will eliminate this approach in the name of 'national security.'

I will mention another item that's most disquieting. Since Eisenhower's observations, the 'military industrial complex' has reigned. 1984 style, the US is dependent on military spending and war 'consumption'. Pork barrel (see De Lay) politics is everywhere, *esp in the red states*, again underlining the corruption of the Republican party and the fringe like Ami who say/think we're moving to 'small government' by cutting welfare and education spending. I assume they know the necessity of big military, and all the 'get the gov off people's backs'--Reaganish talk--is known to be hypocrisy. The 'red states' (Bush voting) would collapse under 'minimum government' and reduction of imperial military spending.

Erosion of civil rights and eagerness for war. Jingoistic talk of new empire. The native land purged of parasites (illegals) and traitors (M. Moore, according to Ami, Coulter, etc.). The 'streamlining' of the judicial process to ensure the 'right' outcomes,-- an alternate system of tribunals and prisons outside the courts' reach. Ridding oneself of inconvenient judges and backward doctrines about individual rights (over the 'homeland's' protection). Does that remind anyone of some other advanced, even democratic, countries, around the 1930s?

 

[gauchecritic]

No ambush

Soviet elections were always mocked.

Common knowledge right?

Does intimate evidence count? Several nominees on all (or most ballot papers) and one man (person) one vote. Where is the mock election?