Sorry Everybody (POLITICAL)

[cantdog]

I'm with MLK.

 

[thebullet]

Cantdog said:
Kerry was heavier than Bush on the war and never repudiated the PATRIOT act police-state measures. Liberals pointed to Bush, sobbing. "Everything will be just fine if we get rid of That Man!" they said. What shit.

Yo, Cantdog, you've got me all wrong. I'm not a Democrat and I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate independent and always have been. During this election I supported ABB (anybody but Bush!). I had no choice but to support Kerry. I knew I was buying into damaged goods.

But Kerry isn't ruled by a warped philosophy. He's just another political whore. Him we could deal with. Please, please don't give me Ralph Nadar. This man has compromised himself and everything he once stood for.

I was working against the NEOCONS, Cantdog. They are the enemy. The are the anti-American Americans. My Senior Thesis in college was about the Far Right wing of the Republican Party. My Junior Thesis was about the Far Right between WWI and WWII (the America First Committee and other Nazi supporters and Jew-baitors). I've been studying these guys for a long time (at one time I was one of them), and I've always known how potentially dangerous they were to the future of our democracy. I just never thought I'd live to see the day when they and their religious zealot fellow travelers would control our government.

Joe W. said:
So, if the president we have is evil... or the government we have is evil... do you advocate the violent overthrowing of it? That would be very American.

If you think it is possible for a non-right wing conspiracy to overthrow the US Government, you are delusional.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by thebullet
If you think it is possible for a non-right wing conspiracy to overthrow the US Government, you are delusional.

So its (1) absolutely impossible for anyone that isn't right wing to overthrow the government and (2) anyone who admits to the possibility is delusional?

Why?

 

[thebullet]

So its (1) absolutely impossible for anyone that isn't right wing to overthrow the government and (2) anyone who admits to the possibility is delusional?

Hey, the right wing controls much of what goes on in this country, particularly the major media and of course the executive and legislative branches of the goverment.

The only people in this country that could have a successful coup are in fact the right wingers. I'm one of those who suspect it may already have happened.

If you think people of some political stripe other than the extreme right could achieve a successful revolution, inform me please of how it could happen - I need some leadership here.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by thebullet
Hey, the right wing controls much of what goes on in this country, particularly the major media and of course the executive and legislative branches of the goverment.

The only people in this country that could have a successful coup are in fact the right wingers. I'm one of those who suspect it may already have happened.

If you think people of some political stripe other than the extreme right could achieve a successful revolution, inform me please of how it could happen - I need some leadership here.

I'd go easy on the legislature. They're trying to distance themselves from Bush as much as possible. His career ends in a few years, theirs doesn't have to. I have a lot of respect for how difficult their political position is. Sort of stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Past that, I don't know how an overthrowing would go about, but I'm unconvinced that its impossible to do. Impossible is a strong word... it applies to very, very, very, very few things.

 

[cantdog]

If there's a violent overthrow of anything, you will not find me there. Not yet. We discussed that one ad nauseam in lefty meetings all over the damn country during Vietnam.

Congress and their "careers" do not impress me. They've systematically abdicated their constitutional role. The executive now holds a small zone of unquestioned power and can usually delay the questions until the point is moot and the deed done.

When there is a call for explicit executive authority, the congress rolls over and says yes. They are only making themselves less relevant, to the cost of the republic.

A career in an irrelevant debating society with a very minimal impact on a budget? Please. What budget? Once we've gone this far into the hole, with Congress's blessing, what difference the budget? The United States can't afford very much of anything now. Empty mandates with no funding are less and less impressive each year to state governments in their own monetary crises.

cantdog

 

[thebullet]

Joe W. said:
Past that, I don't know how an overthrowing would go about, but I'm unconvinced that its impossible to do. Impossible is a strong word... it applies to very, very, very, very few things.

Geez, Joe, every discussion isn't about how nuanced you can make a certain word. Sometimes you come accross as such a pussy. No offense.

Let's just say that unless the moderates/liberals get assistance from Ming the Merciless and his death ray, there is no fucking way they are taking over the country! Is that nuanced enough for you?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by thebullet
Geez, Joe, every discussion isn't about how nuanced you can make a certain word. Sometimes you come accross as such a pussy. No offense.

None taken. For my part, I consider dedication to extreme positions a coward's way of thinking.

Let's just say that unless the moderates/liberals get assistance from Ming the Merciless and his death ray, there is no fucking way they are taking over the country! Is that nuanced enough for you?

Maybe. Couldn't say.

Leading up to this year's presidential election (and the last one we had), it appears that there's enough ability to organize. Very narrow margins are a strong message. I think it wouldn't necessarily take all that much to overthrow something like the current government--assuming all parties genuinely believe it to be an irreparable, horrific, evil entity that is beyond hope, help, or the benifit of a doubt.

Rather, if we're to say that what exists now is so horrible, it seems cowardice to say "No, won't overthrow it" or "Can't be done". It can. It just wouldn't be necessarily easy, but then... what worth doing is?

 

[rgraham666]

I'm quite certain the term limits on Presidents is going to be gone by the next Presidential election.

 

[fifty5]

I'm quite certain the term limits on Presidents is going to be gone by the next Presidential election.

If so, that really would be a 'straw in the wind'!

Eff

 

[Amy Sweet]

Until Liberals in this country can show me they fucking mean it, by voting for a candidate who has their ideals in view, then they can ontinue to be pathetic losers.

Jesus.



And then look at Nader's platform.

Once you decide to vote for the candidate who reflects your views, you'll have a reason to whine. Kerry wasn't even against torture, for Chris's sake!



cantdog

Nader does not reflect my views.

Nobody really did.

I voted for Kerry. I actually liked Kerry personally as a candidate, although I felt he wasn't strong enough or didn't campain strong enough. But I did actually vote for Kery hoping that Kery would win- not *just* hoping that GWB wouldn't.

Hell, I even like him for being an in-tuh-lectual //elite// from Massechusettes and all that- &for being rather hippiesh -- at least a far cry more than any other national *politician* is likely to be for some time. I also liked the way that he held himself, the way he talked and the way he looked and sounded. (so sue me, I actually think that's important when you have to interact with world leaders and such)

I'm being kinda marytr-ish about it too.

Personally- I think the whole damn thing was is and has been for a long time (If not always) rigged. (Yeah, I believe in Conspiracies with a capital C) I don't think that it was ever supposed to be that close either time. (and the first time they had to pull out all the stops to make it turn out according to the grand plan) The grand plan was for GWB for two terms, for whatever the reason, and the grand plan will put a dem in the whitehouse when the grand plan decides it's time for one.

I still vote though. I'm far to oppinionated not to show up and give mine. Besides, who knows, if my vote can be one little monkey wrench in the grand plan- so much the better. (I'm never going to get my membership to the Illuminati approved now.)

 

[Amy Sweet]

I'm quite certain the term limits on Presidents is going to be gone by the next Presidential election.

That happens, you got a neighbor.

Maybe a roommate. (don't jump too quick I got no money and a houseful of screaming kids)

 

[The_Darkness]

Ahhhh....the usual left-wing, right-wing crap.

If anything is repealed before the next election, it'll be the naturalized citizen thing for president.

Kerry would have been a shitty president, but at least he can fucking spell. Bush is a boarderline acceptable president, but he's got a rotten, power hungry cabinet and he's a fuckin' clown. Never in America's history has our popularity and seriousness world-wide been so low.

For all the rest of the Americans in here who think that that doesn't matter, that we don't need the rest of the world, get a friggin' clue.

Nader as president. Right. I'd sooner elect Mr. Bill. At least then we know we're getting a puppet off the get go.

We haven't had a strong president since Reagan. Carter was okay, Kennedy was popular as all hell, and FDR was awesome.

There won't be a term limit removal. The GOP is already grooming two people for pres: Jeb Bush and Arnie. Before Arnie can get elected they have to allow non-US born citizens to be elected president.

I say fuck it. I'm still gonna run in 12 years. The most liberal republican or the most hard-assed democrat you've ever seen....

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm quite certain the term limits on Presidents is going to be gone by the next Presidential election.

I don't believe that will happen. The requirements to pass a constitutional amendment, which would revoke a previous one, have been discussed elsewhere and it would be too difficult. I don't believe they can get 2/3 of both the senators and house members behind it, and then pass it in 3/4 of the state legislatures. It might eventually happen but not in the next four years.

 

[Amy Sweet]

I don't believe that will happen. The requirements to pass a constitutional amendment, which would revoke a previous one, have been discussed elsewhere and it would be too difficult. I don't believe they can get 2/3 of both the senators and house members behind it, and then pass it in 3/4 of the state legislatures. It might eventually happen but not in the next four years.

Maybe we could just slip it into a spending bill.

Or utalize an executive order- or declair the UN and the Constitution Obsolete all in one breath.

Why should they do it the right way. They don't seem to care to much about that. Maybe they can put something into the new Patriot Act.

 

[cantdog]

Whatever. You got the government you deserved.

 

[The_Darkness]

Whatever. You got the government you deserved.

Worse, buddy. We got the government we voted into office (though that may be up for some debate)...and we're getting exactly what we were promised by the candidates.

 

[cantdog]

By which I mean, you tolerate the funding of political activity by multinationals, you tolerate the clearly manipulated vote, you tolerated the judicial coup whereby five votes outpolled dozens of millions.

You voted 48% for the war, and 51% for the war. You got it now.

Israeli-trained Kurdish militias are being used for security in the north of Iraq. This is fine with you. The DU is fine, the napalm is fine, the cluster bombs, taking the hospitals out first and the press second, razing Fallujah.

Disappearing people overseas to countries who torture? Fine, by a 98% vote. Government secret monitoring, KGB style, of your library use? Just fuckin ducky, whether you voted for either one of the rich boys.

Voter approval of surveillance without constitutional authority? 98%! Well, then. It must be okay.

If you don't recognize this as being what you voted for, don't give me that jive. You said Kerry represented your views. He supports this stuff.

Or you voted for the tainted-meat and industrial-waste-in-the-drinking-water party. They wrote that law that Kerry supported.


cantdog

 

[The_Darkness]

Yup lets hear it for the glories of representative democracy. Rest assured, individual votes were not weighed in on any of those topics, cantdog.

As for Falujah, I'd have nuked the place by now, and that's not my normal solution to anything, especially in the middle east where such an action could wipe out potentially important archeological finds.

 

[cantdog]

Yeah. Ragheads must die. Paducah isn't like Fallujah. Genuine humans only live in the former. You'd have nuked the ones in the latter.

You can write, The_, but your politics are racist. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

 

[The_Darkness]

Oh, it's not even that. What we did was we deposed a terrible leader. Our main reasons for doing so, oil or no oil, right or wrong, don't change that we got Saddam out.

Now there's a country that doesn't know how to lead itself, 60 percent of the population won't follow the elected government IF there's one "elected," 50% of the people ar on some crazy goddamn Jihad because their religion tells them if they don't die for their religion they'll go to Hell, and most of the country is vastly under educated for the level they really ought to be at for any kind of a legitimate government to work properly.

I don't have any beef with those folks over there. I have a problem with them attacking anything that they don't veiw as a legitimate authority. We are past the age of city-states. Independent Falujah, Mosul, and the 18 different districts of Baghdad just won't quite fly.

In the North, yeah there's problems. It's not covered by my news here, and I don't have decent access to internation papers since I'm not in college any more, but yeah, there's some serious fuckin' issues up there.

We shouldn't have gone over there.

It takes 10 years to train a military to a point where it can stand on its own. 10 years. That is a substantiated historical fact; it's been that way for 7,000 years of recorded human history. It's not going to change tomorrow. We won't be out of there until at the very least 2012, and that's a fact. If the freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorists, whatever you want to call them, if they stopped tomorrow, we wouldn't be out of there before 2012. If they keep fighting, the government will declare martial law which means more US troops over there, and we still won't be out before 2012.

Yup, it's not Paducah. It's a big fuckin' mess that someone has to fix, and the problem is the ones who made it aren't being allowed to do it and nobody else has the resources to try.

And they're not MY politics. They're my country's politics. I didn't elect the leaders of this country. I voted for 7 guys last month. 7. 6 of them made it to office and the other one got screwed out of the election.

 

[cantdog]

Saddam was anti-Jihadist, ace. It was one of the few countries in the region without a credible Islamist opposition.

Now, of course, it's got plenty of them. But we took out Saddam, made the place a lawless hell, so what do we expect?

You've got no beef with them, but you'd have nuked them.

...

Your problem is, they don't view occupying foreign troops as a legitimate authority.

Would you?

You aren't thinking this through very clearly. I feel sure if a foreign power stationed troops around and installed some people to take the place of your government, you'd be supporting the freedom fighters. This is so basic that it's written into the UN charter as to what constitutes legitimate use of armed force. Self defense on the one hand, struggle for liberation from an invading aggressor, on the other.


Unless, of course, in your viw, they are brown people. Brown people don't know how to govern themselves! That's hot, coming from a country where they elected George Bush and Donnie Rumsfeld.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Its not a necessary precursor to nuking people that you have to dislike or hate them.

 

[cantdog]

No, you just nuke randomly, I suppose.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

No, you can nuke decisively, strategically... hate or dislike doesn't have to be a part of that equation.