The End of America?

[phatlip12]

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this. All I ask is that you watch/read and keep it in the back of your mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

http://www.alternet.org/rights/68399/

[skyz]

I'm sure I'm going to get flamed for this. All I ask is that you watch/read and keep it in the back of your mind...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

http://www.alternet.org/rights/68399/

why flamed?

and why would you care if you were

i know who naomi wolf is - she is a rhodes scholar

i will comment maybe tomorrow

[rabidbadger]

How odd, I just heard her interviewed on the radio this morning... I will watch the vid sometime in the next day or so.

[crumbles]

With everyone voting for more government control, this seriously surprises you?

Well, don't worry, at least our forefathers allowed citizens to stand up against the government with arms in case something like this happened. Oh, shit, you voted against that too... well fuck...

If you're worried now, just wait until Hillary becomes president.

[ryudo]

It's just a matter of time when we see images like this.


.....again..... and all in the US at once.
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/323/75680286wb1.jpg


US gov led by people like Bush and HELLary...basically believe.

"War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength"


And last I finish up this post with lyrics froma GNR song.



"What we've got here is failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach...
So, you get what we had here last week,
which is the way he wants it!
Well, he gets it!
N' I don't like it any more than you men." *


Look at your young men fighting
Look at your women crying
Look at your young men dying
The way they've always done before


Look at the hate we're breeding
Look at the fear we're feeding
Look at the lives we're leading
The way we've always done before


My hands are tied
The billions shift from side to side
And the wars go on with brainwashed pride
For the love of God and our human rights
And all these things are swept aside
By bloody hands time can't deny
And are washed away by your genocide
And history hides the lies of our civil wars


D'you wear a black armband
When they shot the man
Who said "Peace could last forever"
And in my first memories
They shot Kennedy
I went numb when I learned to see
So I never fell for Vietnam
We got the wall of D.C. to remind us all
That you can't trust freedom
When it's not in your hands
When everybody's fightin'
For their promised land


And
I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war


Look at the shoes your filling
Look at the blood we're spilling
Look at the world we're killing
The way we've always done before
Look in the doubt we've wallowed
Look at the leaders we've followed
Look at the lies we've swallowed
And I don't want to hear no more


My hands are tied
For all I've seen has changed my mind
But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of God or human rights
'Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars


"We practice selective annihilation of mayors
And government officials
For example to create a vacuum
Then we fill that vacuum
As popular war advances
Peace is closer" **


I don't need your civil war
It feeds the rich while it buries the poor
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
And I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
I don't need your civil war
Your power hungry sellin' soldiers
In a human grocery store
Ain't that fresh
I don't need your civil war
I don't need one more war


I don't need one more war
Whaz so civil 'bout war anyway

[phatlip12]

With everyone voting for more government control, this seriously surprises you?

Well, don't worry, at least our forefathers allowed citizens to stand up against the government with arms in case something like this happened. Oh, shit, you voted against that too... well fuck...

If you're worried now, just wait until Hillary becomes president.

Pst...hey Crumbles. George Bush is a republican.

I voted against that? Have you bugged the polls? The fact of the matter is I support the 2nd amendment. My father has a rifle in the very house I live in. My argument against the second amendment is there is a line that has to be drawn. An assault riffle and rocket launcher can be considered arms but that doesn't mean everyone should have a rocket launcher in their home. What I oppose is conceal and carry permits.

I'm not worried about Hillary. I'm worried about Rudy.

*For the record, Hillary isn't the candidate Im interested in voting for.

[berrex]

I'm not worried about Hillary. I'm worried about Rudy.
Rudy worries me, too. Not only is his campaign nothing but, "[noun], [verb], 9/11," but he also has an aberrant take on freedom and authority:
"We look upon authority too often and focus over and over again, for 30 or 40 or 50 years, as if there is something wrong with authority. We see only the oppressive side of authority. Maybe it comes out of our history and our background. What we don't see is that freedom is not a concept in which people can do anything they want, be anything they can be. Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do."
Source: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E2D9173CF933A15750C0A9629582 60

Yikes.

[crumbles]

Pst...hey Crumbles. George Bush is a republican. Thanks for the history lesson. I'm referring to all the young Dem's on this board who keep voting. Democrats want more government. Aside from all of that, I have mentioned numerous times on this board my expressive disapproval with Bush not being very conservative.

What I oppose is conceal and carry permits.Exactly. You are against people defending themselves.

[rabidbadger]

bummer, by the time I have time to watch the video and reply to the ot with anything thoughtful this thread will devolve into a 2nd amendment, Hillary bashing right/left bumblefug.

I heard a second interview with her today, and the premise of her book has nothing to do with right and left, it's a historical look at the facts of how nations have allowed themselves to be taken over by facism, and parallels with what is happening here in the USA right now under the neo-cons. (note, neo-cons aren't republicans, but they feed off of them).

[phatlip12]

Thanks for the history lesson. I'm referring to all the young Dem's on this board who keep voting. Democrats want more government. Aside from all of that, I have mentioned numerous times on this board my expressive disapproval with Bush not being very conservative.

Exactly. You are against people defending themselves.

History huh? He's not out of office yet. ;)


With everyone voting for more government control, this seriously surprises you?

Yes, us democrats and our universal health care ideals are the ones to blame for the restrictions of our essential liberties. Now, I'm not trying to say all of these problems lie on the republicans shoulders- both parties hold responsibility. However, to try to turn it around and place the blame on the democrats is simply asinine.

The thing you need to realize is theres a difference between restricting civil liberties and pushing the country towards a fascists society and what us "young democrats" want. In fact, I'm willing to say that every single one of us "young democrats" oppose the things described in this video/article. Again, wanting something such as universal health care is different then wanting the death of habeas corpus.

Exactly. You are against people defending themselves.

Is that so? I had no idea carrying a gun around 24/7 was the only way I could protect myself.

[phatlip12]

bummer, by the time I have time to watch the video and reply to the ot with anything thoughtful this thread will devolve into a 2nd amendment, Hillary bashing right/left bumblefug.

I heard a second interview with her today, and the premise of her book has nothing to do with right and left, it's a historical look at the facts of how nations have allowed themselves to be taken over by facism, and parallels with what is happening here in the USA right now under the neo-cons. (note, neo-cons aren't republicans, but they feed off of them).

What I got out of the video/article is the importance of knowing your history as it has a way of repeating it's self. If we are aware of our history we can reflect on it and learn from our mistakes to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[rabidbadger]

Next time we are both on j.tv we should bring this up, see what happens...

[rabidbadger]

Oh, here are her ten points in a nutshell if you don't wanna listen to the whole video.

Fascist America, in 10 easy steps
(http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2064157,00.html)

[rabidbadger]

With everyone voting for more government control, this seriously surprises you?

How does this have anything to do with the subject at hand, unless you consider the Patriot Act, Homeland Security, Blackwater, domestic spying, etc, etc, etc, NOT government control?

Well, don't worry, at least our forefathers allowed citizens to stand up against the government with arms in case something like this happened. Oh, shit, you voted against that too... well fuck...

No they didn't they allowed for a well regulated militia. You packing a pistol in your pants is not a well regulated milita. We used to have such a milita, calledd the national guard, regulated by each of our united states. But the necons stole that. How does that fit republicans "states rights" meme?

If you're worried now, just wait until Hillary becomes president.

from the article I linked to:

History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after (a) crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani - because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.

[rabidbadger]

All I ask is that you watch/read and keep it in the back of your mind...

Actually, we should put it in the Front of our minds, instead of black friday sales, Britney Meltdowns, and missing blondes in exotic locales. Priorities People! It is happening, and it IS happening NOW.

[skyz]

With everyone voting for more government control, this seriously surprises you?


everyone voting for government control

do you mean everyone voting for those (congressmen and senators ) many of whom are voting for more government control

i don't remember being asked to vote for these issues on my own

did i miss something ?

in 1999 i saw gwb on tv for the first time running for prez - my immediate intuitive reaction was good thing you going to be finally old enough to vote - i knew he was trouble without even thinking it out and giving reasons

so my first ever vote was counted recounted or discounted (miami-dade fl) i will never know

i was not pleased

then came the butterfly ballot the hanging chads and the florida supreme court and that witch katherine harris all under governor jeb bush

tens of thousands of eligible voters disenfranchised in florida

and then the supreme court speaks up

i knew that things were ****ed up big time

there is no way you will ever convince me that gwb was legitimately elected

there was WRONGNESS written all over that election i knew it to my core

[crumbles]

History huh? He's not out of office yet. ;)Yes. History. Go look up the word.

Yes, us democrats and our universal health care ideals are the ones to blame for the restrictions of our essential liberties. Now, I'm not trying to say all of these problems lie on the republicans shoulders- both parties hold responsibility. However, to try to turn it around and place the blame on the democrats is simply asinine.No, it's not. Democrats want larger government. I love how when you tell Democrats what they are or want they think they are being insulted. If you don't like it, quit being a Democrat.

Is that so? I had no idea carrying a gun around 24/7 was the only way I could protect myself.It's not. I support your freedom of choice. You don't.

No they didn't they allowed for a well regulated militia.Right, every single one of the bill of rights deals with individual citizens... oh, except the 2nd one...

...Sorry, but I refuse to read anything you post. The way you outline everything makes me want to kill myself.

[rabidbadger]

Crumbles, if you want to discuss things other than the original topic, please start your own thread. We are trying to talk about Naomi Wolfs ideas here. If you don't want to talk about that, then don't talk here. Thanks.

[skyz]

Sorry, but I refuse to read anything you post. The way you outline everything makes me want to kill myself.

how fascinating :rolleyes: strangely i feel no strong emotions toward anything you post

maybe someone else can address my question

was the general public in a position to vote on 'more government control' or did this power lie with those we elected to do the voting for us ?

[crumbles]

Crumbles, if you want to discuss things other than the original topic, please start your own thread. We are trying to talk about Naomi Wolfs ideas here. If you don't want to talk about that, then don't talk here. Thanks.Then don't quote me and post your opinion in this thread. Thanks.

[rabidbadger]

ANNYYY WAYY

We should take her 10 topics one at a time, maybe. Have a real discussion:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

[phatlip12]

Yes. History. Go look up the word.

Okey dokie. First search result in google:
"the aggregate of past events"

George Bush is STILL our president buddy.


No, it's not. Democrats want larger government. I love how when you tell Democrats what they are or want they think they are being insulted. If you don't like it, quit being a Democrat.

No Crumbles, you tried turning things around in placing all the blame on the democrats and you failed. Did I claim that the democratic party is against larger government? No.

Democrats wanting larger government has nothing to do with whats being discussed in this thread. In all honestly, both parties hold the blame in this but the Republican party does more so then the democratic. A majority of democrats opposed the Patriot Act in addition to the Military Commissions act. Your logic is whacked.



It's not. I support your freedom of choice. You don't.

WTF are you talking about? What does me opposing something have to do with not "supporting your freedom of choice". I support your freedom of choice. You have every right to choose in what you believe in. That doesn't mean I have to agree though.





Right, every single one of the bill of rights deals with individual citizens... oh, except the 2nd one...

You really need to read my posts more carefully. I said I support the second amendment. I have a gun in my house. I oppose conceal and carry permits...not the second amendment.

[crumbles]

Okey dokie. First search result in google:
"the aggregate of past events"

George Bush is STILL our president buddy.
Damn, you're a total bad ass. If you had only read the sentence right under it:

the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future; "all of human history"

7 years ago until this exact second... now this second... now this second... are all part of history.

No Crumbles, you tried turning things around in placing all the blame on the democrats and you failed. Did I claim that the democratic party is against larger government? No.

Democrats wanting larger government has nothing to do with whats being discussed in this thread.I didn't fail at anything. The fact that you don't see what I'm talking about, and that you'll keep on voting democrat, will make it clear that America will be ****ed eventually.

WTF are you talking about? What does me opposing something have to do with not "supporting your freedom of choice". I support your freedom of choice. You have every right to choose in what you believe in. That doesn't mean I have to agree though.Sure, I agree with you. As long as you NEVER attempt at any point in time in your life to try and take that right away from me (such as voting for a democratic president who feels that I don't deserve that freedom) then you're right. You can disagree with it and still not hinder my freedom of choice.

You really need to read my posts more carefully. I said I support the second amendment. I have a gun in my house. I oppose conceal and carry permits...not the second amendment.You need to read that amendment again then.

[skyz]

ANNYYY WAYY

We should take her 10 topics one at a time, maybe. Have a real discussion:

1. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy

After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a "war footing"; we were in a "global war" against a "global caliphate" intending to "wipe out civilisation". There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda notes, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space - the globe itself is the battlefield. "This time," Fein says, "there will be no defined end."

do you mind if we address the usurpation of news media and how this relates to the internet

as she mentioned in her talk a number of facts that might have never come to light came out through the internet specifically bloggers

i think this is extremely significant

our army for democracy may easily prevail through the net imho

is it possible for fascist interests to control the net or is the net and people posting content more powerful ?

[rabidbadger]

well, between the recent conglomeration of media, combined with the move against net neutrality, I say the "powers" that be will try to stifle us, too.

[rabidbadger]

Damn, you're a total bad ass. If you had only read the sentence right under it:

the continuum of events occurring in succession leading from the past to the present and even into the future; "all of human history"

7 years ago until this exact second... now this second... now this second... are all part of history.

I didn't fail at anything. The fact that you don't see what I'm talking about, and that you'll keep on voting democrat, will make it clear that America will be ****ed eventually.

Sure, I agree with you. As long as you NEVER attempt at any point in time in your life to try and take that right away from me (such as voting for a democratic president who feels that I don't deserve that freedom) then you're right. You can disagree with it and still not hinder my freedom of choice.

You need to read that amendment again then.


Dude, you are so avoiding the topic at hand. start your own Crumbles is God thread and post your uninformed drivel there. Meanwhile the rest of us will discuss the topic at hand here.

[skyz]

I say the "powers" that be will try to stifle us, too.

yes they will try but will they be able to succeed

imho this is the critical point

can they move fast enough and completely enough to outwit billions of internet consumers armed with both technology growing exponentially and the global cultural input/insight

this is no longer a country by country effort

that is never before in history global minds of all types networking on the surface and under it

[rabidbadger]

Here I did it for you... See ya there. (http://www.revision3.com/forum/showthread.php?p=240265#post240265)

[rabidbadger]

yes they will try but will they be able to succeed

imho this is the critical point

can they move fast enough and completely enough to outwit billions of internet consumers armed with both technology growing exponentially and the global cultural input/insight

this is no longer a country by country effort

that is never before in history global minds of all types networking on the surface and under it



That was my point. They are closing in on that with regulation. And spying. If I can't fly to see my mom in florida because I contributed to this thread, then that will stop me from contributing in the future... Naomi says this exact thing in the ten steps article I posted. Intimidation.

[skyz]

That was my point. They are closing in on that with regulation. And spying. If I can't fly to see my mom in florida because I contributed to this thread, then that will stop me from contributing in the future... Naomi says this exact thing in the ten steps article I posted. Intimidation.

i understand that

but i have my doubts whether they have the wits and the man power for wholesale intimidation

and then there are those who if intimidated will just got underground and continue

for every spy how many hackers are spying on the spys ?


we are talking about controlling billions of people some very savvy and some very courageous

i have my doubts whether it can be done

i hope that it cannot be done

i think the odds are good if not great that it cannot be done

[rabidbadger]

I don't know. If the telecoms and ISPs are in on it, ( and they have to be, by law) then I think they can quell any dissent they want..

we are jumping the gun here, though. that is number eight and nine:

8. Control the press

Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s - all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.

9. Dissent equals treason

Cast dissent as "treason" and criticism as "espionage'. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of "spy" and "traitor". When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times' leaking of classified information "disgraceful", while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the "treason" drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.

[comhcinc]

interest little vid.
*note: i had the video playing while i was watching football, so i might not have caught everything*

i think it's something that always needs to be kept in mind but i don't believe the us is heading down that road for one reason.

in almost every example of a democracy becoming a dictarorship, the country in question has been in deep economic trouble. we are talking high unemployment rates (higher than this country has ever had, even during the 1930s) and money being so devauled that food is almost impossible to buy. i know the dollar is doing poor but it's not even as bad as it has been(example when adjusted for inflation, gas prices are no worst than they were in the 1970s)

i think people. for the most part, need to be in very bad shape before they allow the wholesale sell off of rights.

[skyz]

ms. wolf mentioned the tasering incident at the university of florida and i remember a thread here about it and a number of people were saying the student was behaving badly and deserved the treatment

now this i found disturbing because it is one thing to have our rights eroded but an entirely different matter and the really dangerous part/heart of the matter when people in their hearts and minds are influenced (not intimidated which indicates an inner dis accord) to agree with the controlling entities

the young man in question was passionate was vehement but had good reason to be (pointing out that the election was a fraud - highly likely or at least highly possible)

his 'form' was not the most gracious but his 'content' was as pertinent and on target as could be and kerry never took control and said 'please allow me to answer this individuals question' neither at the time or later

that bothered me it still bothers me

i still want the answer but the incident obscured the interest in the question

and this is exactly what ms. wolf was expressing

people begin to take the erosion of rights as being right

that is the truly scary horrifying issue

[skyz]

I don't know. If the telecoms and ISPs are in on it, ( and they have to be, by law) then I think they can quell any dissent they want..

we are jumping the gun here, though. that is number eight and nine:

twice on the abc news site on an a political issue i posted 'gwb should be tried for treason but could get off on an insanity plea because he truly is a sociopath'

both posts were delted and there were other posts by other posters with much more vulgar rude and crude language that were not deleted

[rabidbadger]

well, that is just sad.

[rabidbadger]

Wow, so much of what Jefferson wrote in the declaration of independence about the reasons for leaving the King of England is amazing close to what our own King George is up to:

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

[rabidbadger]

I'll annotate that with links over the course of the next few days. Lots to sift through.

[skyz]

King George is up to:

after george washington won the revolution people wanted to make him king george

after what he had accomplished it must have been a mind trip that even then at the morning moment of glory for the usa 'like they totally missed the
point

on a kind of metaphysical note we may be able to draw a great deal from this jeffersonian ideal

and i think that people will rebel against control of the net

and the two together might be able to 'make it better''

whoever is our next president is going to have to face a really tough reality

naomi has her information well organized and presents it well

[ariastar]

Hence part of why I'm leaving. The state of this country in general is such that I feel more danger staying here than going to Canada, and then maybe somewhere else. The government should fear the people, not the other way around.

[ryudo]

The government should fear the people, not the other way around.


V
__________________________________________________ _________
__________________________________________________ _________
__________________________________________________ _________


This country will be at war with itself within the century.

How we are being manipulated just like the quote from Nineteen Eighty Four.
"War is peace
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength"

I still believe in my first post as eratic as it was.

And last time I was in a debate topic at one point the patriot act was mentioned and someone said.

"The Patriot Act.....
I read that under the original title ... 1984"

[comhcinc]

maybe it's just me, but i don't fear the government.

[bigstupid]

Somebody said here that George Bush is a Republican. I disagree with this statement. He might represent the party as President of the United States of America, but he does not possess the ideals or notions of a republican and neither do almost all of the nominees for 2008.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Representative Republic.

The role of government is clearly defined in the Constitution of the United States of America. Specifically, over the last 100 years sentiments and political intrigues have been systematically dismantling our country and our way of life.

Things don't have to be at a zero point for the people to give up their rights, they haven't been doing it that way. Instead, they have been taken slowly and willingly. We are fools and fools deserve their fate, but even a fool can become wise.

Democrat or Republican... those in power make those choices matter not.

We have to get someone in office that can't be bought and can't be swayed by power brokers.

We need someone who follows the actual laws of the land, rather than the laws of the back door deals and media mobs.

It wouldn't surprise me if many of you know just the guy I'm talking about.

He's not perfect, but he believes in the perfect intent of the founding document.

[rabidbadger]

dude, you rock!

Unfortunately I can't back him for reasons that he does not state, though I agree with the reasons he does state.

[tokenuser]

I have never fully understood the US Governmental system.

Australia has just had a federal election and a change in government, so we now have a Labour Prime Minister (Kevin Rudd). He is truly the leader of the party - he is not elected seperately (although he does need to win his "seat" in parliament like everyone else there).

How does it work? Our lower house (house of reps) get elected. Each district votes for their local member. The political party with the majority of seats won then forms the government, and their leader becomes the Prime Minister - gets the big house, the cars, the pomp and ceremony, etc.

So, the personality of the party leader does come into it, but you are voting for the party and not the person.

I am not a Labour supporter (though my parents are), but this time round I think they got it right - a focus on the environment (Australia will be signing the Kyoto protocol within weeks) was a big issue due to massive water problems (lack there of), unfortunately the flip side is that while there is going to be a focus on domestic issues the Australian economy is going to tank under Labour. The Liberals had tight fiscal policy (and a budget that was in the black) and that has really helped out.

[crumbles]

Somebody said here that George Bush is a Republican. I disagree with this statement. He might represent the party as President of the United States of America, but he does not possess the ideals or notions of a republican and neither do almost all of the nominees for 2008.I think this is what makes me laugh the most. Bush is so far from a conservative it's not even funny. Almost the entire republican party is at odds with Bush right now for acting so much like a Democrat. The part that's so funny to me, is all the Democrats hate him too! So what does that tell ya. Ironic.

[phatlip12]

I think this is what makes me laugh the most. Bush is so far from a conservative it's not even funny. Almost the entire republican party is at odds with Bush right now for acting so much like a Democrat. The part that's so funny to me, is all the Democrats hate him too! So what does that tell ya. Ironic.

That he's a nutcase that should be impeached. :)

:P

[ryudo]

Bush is simply a retarded shaved nazi chimp.