NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally, I think it is obvious that we have a corrupt, immoral governmental group that sites on thrones, although they are "elected" (by the electoral college which is more and more made up of political cronies).

So why don't we rise up to take back control and get this government on the right track?

I have a feeling it has to do with what US society has become. Grazing cows do not tend to try and replace the head farmer. Same with Americans. We are sleeping or at least have our eyes closed.

I my opinion it is time to get it together and demand to put candidates in that govern, not politicize. That look for the good of the US, not the corporations and unions that lobby them.

Thought on this?

Laziness i think is the main cause, now if the american government was to threatening banning fast food youd have them all up in arms

It doesn't quite require a revolution...yet.

The answer is easy. It isn't about laziness, well it sort of is, but more about self-interest. The majority of voters don't have any fiscal interest in how the government runs because they don't pay taxes. As long as the government is selected on the basis of who gives me more, the decline will continue.

Thought on this?Too many people would cheer on a fascist government, so long as a semblance of democracy were maintained. If the US openly became a fascist dictatorship through a coup, there would be uprisings. A gradual corrupt change wouldn't get much notice, since "the main media isn't covering it" or "it's all some lie of the liberal press" or "they were wrong about the Koran being flushed too".

It doesn't quite require a revolution...yet.

Why wait?

The answer is easy. It isn't about laziness, well it sort of is, but more about self-interest. The majority of voters don't have any fiscal interest in how the government runs because they don't pay taxes. As long as the government is selected on the basis of who gives me more, the decline will continue.
"The majority of voters ... don't pay taxes?" Huh? WTF, over??? :confused:

Ignorance is blizzzzzzzzzzz.

I'd say 95% are in denial about whats happening and as such don't see the need to rise up.

So, you could say that they did a good job of setting up an educational system that doesn't promote the realization of your intellectual potential, but instead smothers it.

Too many people would cheer on a fascist government, so long as a semblance of democracy were maintained. If the US openly became a fascist dictatorship through a coup, there would be uprisings. A gradual corrupt change wouldn't get much notice, since "the main media isn't covering it" or "it's all some lie of the liberal press" or "they were wrong about the Koran being flushed too".
Frogs in hot water. We end up just as cooked.

Saw the movie The Pianist this weekend and it reminds me what direction the US and Europe are heading into. Straight to the slaughter while convincing themselves it ain't so.

Too many people would cheer on a fascist government, so long as a semblance of democracy were maintained. If the US openly became a fascist dictatorship through a coup, there would be uprisings. A gradual corrupt change wouldn't get much notice, since "the main media isn't covering it" or "it's all some lie of the liberal press" or "they were wrong about the Koran being flushed too".

Right, which is kind of my point. Aren't we more or less looking at a fascist dictatorship now anyway? I mean, I know Clinton had some scandal, but everyday there is something else with the Bush Administration. He's insane, Karl Rove is dangerous, Cheney is a madman (who saw him drop the Purple Heart at that Ceremony last week)...most of Congress is up to no good.

Why not take it back? Enter a vote of no confidence in the current government and demand a full change in every Federal Seat?

It isn't bad enough yet to warrent revolution, and by the time it is there really won't be much we can do about it, thanks to all the anti-gun people. I mean I am not advocating violence as a first resort but really have you ever heard of a revolution that didn't include some kind of violence?



I am probably going to get in trouble for this right?

Ignorance is blizzzzzzzzzzz.

I'd say 95% are in denial about whats happening and as such don't see the need to rise up.

So, you could say that they did a good job of setting up an educational system that doesn't promote the realization of your intellectual potential, but instead smothers it.

True enough. When you remove competition from schools, no one excels. "But golly, they all feel good," your local guidance counselor will tell you. Right, because when you are unemployed because you don't know how to "fight" to get a job you'll still feel good.

Confederacy of Dunces? Maybe Republic of Electrified Sheep would be more accurate. Give 'em their "Survivor", WWF, and NFL and they'll be controlled...

Man, am I fired up this morning!

Right, which is kind of my point. Aren't we more or less looking at a fascist dictatorship now anyway? I mean, I know Clinton had some scandal, but everyday there is something else with the Bush Administration. He's insane, Karl Rove is dangerous, Cheney is a madman (who saw him drop the Purple Heart at that Ceremony last week)...most of Congress is up to no good.

Why not take it back? Enter a vote of no confidence in the current government and demand a full change in every Federal Seat?The sad thing is, Fascists have a very similar platform to Conservatives when it comes to values... If the people were convinced that they'd still be part of the decision-making process, I don't doubt there would be massive popular support for such a government. :(

It isn't bad enough yet to warrent revolution, and by the time it is there really won't be much we can do about it, thanks to all the anti-gun people. I mean I am not advocating violence as a first resort but really have you ever heard of a revolution that didn't include some kind of violence?

I am probably going to get in trouble for this right?

It reminds me of conversations I hear on Democratic Underground. A lot of really pissed off anti-Gun liberals who suddenly decide that they need firearms for their "revolution".

What's funny is that most of them say, "well, we'll have to take classes and get legal licenses..."

Well, yes, if you plan to use your firearms for legal purposes. But just taking a few classes isn't going to make anyone into a viable revolutionary. And the licenses are there only so that the government can collect the weapons in times of strife.

It isn't bad enough yet to warrent revolution, and by the time it is there really won't be much we can do about it, thanks to all the anti-gun people. I mean I am not advocating violence as a first resort but really have you ever heard of a revolution that didn't include some kind of violence?



I am probably going to get in trouble for this right?

Your in trouble. I don't think we need a violent revolution, as they don't last in this day and age. I was thinking a more indirect way, like trying to influence the people to get out and vote anything but Democrat and Republican (and Socialist...that won't work).

But a social to government coup, not a violent overthrow. We don't want to change the set-up, just the players and how they keep playing.

I mean I am not advocating violence as a first resort but really have you ever heard of a revolution that didn't include some kind of violence?Didn't include? Not really, but the Indians managed to become independent through a peaceful movement by Ghandi. Recently, Georgia (the country :p) and the Ukraine overthrew their corrupt leaders peacefully.

Your in trouble. I don't think we need a violent revolution, as they don't last in this day and age. I was thinking a more indirect way, like trying to influence the people to get out and vote anything but Democrat and Republican (and Socialist...that won't work).

But a social to government coup, not a violent overthrow. We don't want to change the set-up, just the players and how they keep playing.
ah. but that isn't a true revolution now is it, that is more like rearranging your living room....

It doesn't quite require a revolution...yet.

I agree, wait and train and wait and train, 'till the time is right (and help the timing being right)

IMO, uprisings fall under the heading "be careful what you wish for."

People who yearn for an uprising are a) deeply frustrated and alarmed by the status quo (I agree!!) and b) have confidence that their side will prevail (I'm not so sure). An uprising would be a desperate action taken by people who feel they have no other choice. It would be a gamble, and the whole point of gambling is that you can't predict the outcome. The American Revolution worked out well, but the French, Bolshevik and a hundred other revolutions didn't, and never forget that this country today is split nearly 50/50 between people who desperately want to get off the track we're on and people who desperately want to go down this track faster and farther. Which side do you think would end up fueling an uprising? I'm not willing to roll those dice.

Besides, there are plenty of actions that can be taken that are not as extreme as a mass uprising. We have not yet begun to fight, quite literally.

It reminds me of conversations I hear on Democratic Underground. A lot of really pissed off anti-Gun liberals who suddenly decide that they need firearms for their "revolution".

What's funny is that most of them say, "well, we'll have to take classes and get legal licenses..."

Well, yes, if you plan to use your firearms for legal purposes. But just taking a few classes isn't going to make anyone into a viable revolutionary. And the licenses are there only so that the government can collect the weapons in times of strife.

Good last point Sierra...

Kinda like your Shopper Card at the grocery store that isn't to give you discounts, it's to find out what you buy so they can send annoying ads and leaflets to your house.

Didn't include? Not really, but the Indians managed to become independent through a peaceful movement by Ghandi. Recently, Georgia (the country :p) and the Ukraine overthrew their corrupt leaders peacefully.
hey I am not in favor of ovethrowing anyone, like I said I don't really think it is all that bad yet.

I am just saying if it ever does get really really bad what are we going to do about it?

nothing.

It reminds me of conversations I hear on Democratic Underground. A lot of really pissed off anti-Gun liberals who suddenly decide that they need firearms for their "revolution".

What's funny is that most of them say, "well, we'll have to take classes and get legal licenses..."

Well, yes, if you plan to use your firearms for legal purposes. But just taking a few classes isn't going to make anyone into a viable revolutionary. And the licenses are there only so that the government can collect the weapons in times of strife.

In the French revolution, the people just took the arms, they were too much to be stopped, and when the army arrived they already had weapons, in America you could easily find a gunstore right? (think of the New Orleans looting)

when we are truly sick of the current government we will rise up and vote the bastards out.

its the american way.

when we are truly sick of the current government we will rise up and vote the bastards out.

its the american way.

I believe the bastards were never voted in...

Didn't really stop them, did it?

hey I am not in favor of ovethrowing anyone, like I said I don't really think it is all that bad yet.

I am just saying if it ever does get really really bad what are we going to do about it?

nothing.I was merely answering the question of whether it can be done peacefully. I personally agree with you that nothing is likely to happen in America. ;)

Oh, and I'd call that the Dictators Way.

In the French revolution, the people just took the arms, they were too much to be stopped, and when the army arrived they already had weapons, in America you could easily find a gunstore right? (think of the New Orleans looting)

Most "armed" people during the French Revolution were not armed with firearms.

While many Americans are armed with firearms, if you look at the distribution of firearms (by law), the distribution closely followes the distribution of red counties. Most blue counties and cities on the map are areas of extreme gun control, and few people there legally own firearms. There are also few gun stores, if any, in those areas. Legal gun stores do not exist where laws are hostile to the sale of firearms.

Although there are Democrats who as a matter of habit own firearms, they represent a small minority of their party.

Just because you pick up a gun while looting doesn't mean you'll be effective with it. I've done the demonstration many times before - let a newbie shoot a pistol (15 shots) at a human silhouette only 25 yards away.

Most people never hit it at all, unless they have some idea of how it works. And some people need to be stopped, because their inadequate knowledge of how the pistol works is an extreme safety hazard.

I was merely answering the question of whether it can be done peacefully. I personally agree with you that nothing is likely to happen in America. ;)
okay

I didn't want to come off as some military extremist or something. I was just posting to see where it would go. as soon as I hit submit reply, I could almost feel 'big brother' looking over my shoulder. trying to cover my back. you know.

I believe the bastards were never voted in...

Didn't really stop them, did it?
yes they were. every last one of them.

Isn't it obvious?
The apathy and lack of effort in changing the govt has increased along with obesity rates. Add to this lowest common-denominator television programming dumbing down the populace.
Americans are too fat to get out of their chairs and take to the streets. If they ever did, they'll be too dumb to know what to do once there.
It's a huge conspiracy between fast food conglomerates, Fox and ultra-high super secret CIA organisations controlled by those damn pesky shape-changing lizards from beyond.
I blame Ronald McDonald myself. That creepy leery grin he has as he watches you wolf down yet 'nother fat-ladened, hormone-pumped, revolutionary-stopping lump of dead flesh and stale bun.

Right, which is kind of my point. Aren't we more or less looking at a fascist dictatorship now anyway? I mean, I know Clinton had some scandal, but everyday there is something else with the Bush Administration. He's insane, Karl Rove is dangerous, Cheney is a madman (who saw him drop the Purple Heart at that Ceremony last week)...most of Congress is up to no good.

Why not take it back? Enter a vote of no confidence in the current government and demand a full change in every Federal Seat?

rofl

i can go to sleep tonight knowing i've read some left-wing sensationalism.

1)Bush isn't a fascist

2)Bush isn't evil

3)The wars/occupations of IRaq and Afghanistan are justified by the freedom sought after and hopefully gained for all those oppressed afghanis and iraqis. you sit there bitching and moaning about a lack of freedom in the US (lmao) but when we go to the middle east to help REALLY oppressed people become free(r), it's not a worthy cause. lol

4)Bush DID get the majority vote

5)The Republicans own most of the guns. If you want to knock off a Republican leader, you'd better reverse your negative attitude toward guns.

OR, here's a novel concept:

You stick to your ideas of right and wrong, and i'll stick to mine, and in election years, we'll make our voices heard by VOTING. That's how mountains are moved in a democratic republic such as ours.

yes they were. every last one of them.

Ah, you are confusing the fictatious USA with the actual USA. Happens a lot.

okay

I didn't want to come off as some military extremist or something. I was just posting to see where it would go. as soon as I hit submit reply, I could almost feel 'big brother' looking over my shoulder. trying to cover my back. you know.Most extremists don't start their sentences with "I mean I'm not advocating the use of violence..." ;)

Ah, you are confusing the fictatious USA with the actual USA. Happens a lot.
*hands foecker a tinfoil hat and backs away slowly*

uhhuh. ok. whatever you say.

"The majority of voters ... don't pay taxes?" Huh? WTF, over??? :confused:

In 1995, by income strata, the top 20% of income earners paid 77% of the taxes, the second 20% paid 16%, the middle 20% paid 8%, the next to lowest 20% paid 1%, and the bottom 20% paid -2%.

US Income Tax Burden (http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm)
So the top 40% paid 93% of the income taxes in 1995. And it remains much the same to this day. So, most people in the bottom 40% get back the taxes that have been deducted from their paychecks, plus the bottom people get extra---they get refunds even if they did not work and have taxes deducted.

If we all paid monthly tax bills, just like rent or utilities, then people would scream, pick up their guns, and run to D.C. But since it is "painlessly" deducted out of each check, only us right-wing wackos and libertarian-minded people complain. :(

rofl

i can go to sleep tonight knowing i've read some left-wing sensationalism.

1)Bush isn't a fascist

2)Bush isn't evil

3)The wars/occupations of IRaq and Afghanistan are justified by the freedom sought after and hopefully gained for all those oppressed afghanis and iraqis. you sit there bitching and moaning about a lack of freedom in the US (lmao) but when we go to the middle east to help REALLY oppressed people become free(r), it's not a worthy cause. lol

4)Bush DID get the majority vote

5)The Republicans own most of the guns. If you want to knock off a Republican leader, you'd better reverse your negative attitude toward guns.

True, the guy is just stupid.

As for 'freedom sought after', I'm certain the women of Iraq would laugh in your face for that. A google search will quickly tell you why. :) I believe Afghan women would join in the laughter for good reason.

Bush did indeed get a majority vote after the fraud, prior to that... yeah. But lets not have reality interfere with wishful thinking. :)

hey I am not in favor of ovethrowing anyone, like I said I don't really think it is all that bad yet.

I am just saying if it ever does get really really bad what are we going to do about it?

nothing.
Be careful, Smunkeeville. I'll bet there were Jews in Germany saying that in the 1930s. Don't let yourself be so fatalistic that you don't even keep your escape options open. (I mean the generic "you" as in "people.")

I don't think we're quite at the let's elect Hitler phase yet, but I do believe it's possible for a narrow majority of Americans to get there, and I do believe we're seeing early symptoms of that trend in government and in society now.

Fortunately, extremists are poor planners, and the fiscal irresponsibility of the radical right wing weakens them. You can only launch a master plan for world domination on credit, if your lenders go along with it -- and I don't think Europe will, and I'm pretty damned certain China won't (fund their competition, that is). In fact, I'll go as far as to say I believe China is trying to set us up for a fiscal crisis, and the radical right are too caught up in their own story to see it.

Unfortunately, this probably means that, unless non-radical-right voters do take back the government, then there may be no way to stop the increasing corruption of the government, radicalization of society, and eventual (mid- to long-term) break down of the system. Thus, no way to save ourselves, unless we are ready to emigrate. As I believe the descendants of immigrants may as well keep up the tradition, I don't have a problem with this -- especially if it means I get to watch my enemies fail from a distance.

I guess I'm taking the attitude of Russian peasants who would retreat before invading forces and wait for the winter to kill them all -- a very effective strategy for them -- but I kind of resent being made to think like a peasant. Oh, well, it all depends on the next few rounds of elections -- so get out there and VOTE, DAMMIT!!! :D

Most extremists don't start their sentences with "I mean I'm not advocating the use of violence..." ;)
oh..... :eek: maybe I should just stop posting then,
crap someone is at my door....... :eek:

*hands foecker a tinfoil hat and backs away slowly*

uhhuh. ok. whatever you say.

hahahahaha

Sweet dreams, babe.

I mean I am not advocating violence as a first resort but really have you ever heard of a revolution that didn't include some kind of violence?



I am probably going to get in trouble for this right?

Read up on some history on Ghandi. He successfully conducted a non-violent revolution.

The reason most people don't "rise up" as you so eloquently put it, is that most people are reasonably happy with their lives.

It isn't bad enough yet to warrent revolution, and by the time it is there really won't be much we can do about it, thanks to all the anti-gun people. I mean I am not advocating violence as a first resort but really have you ever heard of a revolution that didn't include some kind of violence?

I am probably going to get in trouble for this right?
No, as a matter of fact, there are going to be a number of us who agree with you. The 2nd Amerndment to the US Constitution is the right which guarantees all the others. :)

Read up on some history on Ghandi. He successfully conducted a non-violent revolution.
Special circumstances which do not apply to the US population, or perhaps even to Europe.

True, the guy is just stupid.

As for 'freedom sought after', I'm certain the women of Iraq would laugh in your face for that. A google search will quickly tell you why. :) I believe Afghan women would join in the laughter for good reason.

Bush did indeed get a majority vote after the fraud, prior to that... yeah. But lets not have reality interfere with wishful thinking. :)

Evidently the court didn't think it was a fraud. And the Democrats went with it, so they must not have been too upset. And against Kerry - he was trounced fair and square.

Not only that, but a lot of Republican Congressmen and Senators were elected.

If you believe it's fraud, and you think it's so easy to prove it, why don't you just call up Howard Dean or Harry Reid, and tell them the good news that you can just broadcast on national TV (all stations are friendly to Democrats except Fox), and Bush and his friends will be out of office, and a Democrat majority will be in the House and Senate.

No? Well, I didn't think so.

Your in trouble. I don't think we need a violent revolution, as they don't last in this day and age. I was thinking a more indirect way, like trying to influence the people to get out and vote anything but Democrat and Republican (and Socialist...that won't work).

But a social to government coup, not a violent overthrow. We don't want to change the set-up, just the players and how they keep playing.

well dem or rep won't be getting my vote, but socialists probably will.

*hands foecker a tinfoil hat and backs away slowly*

uhhuh. ok. whatever you say.
He happens to have a vaild point. And, no, I do not wear or want a "tinfoil hat!" :p

In 1995, by income strata, the top 20% of income earners paid 77% of the taxes, the second 20% paid 16%, the middle 20% paid 8%, the next to lowest 20% paid 1%, and the bottom 20% paid -2%.

US Income Tax Burden (http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/#Head-1.htm)
So the top 40% paid 93% of the income taxes in 1995. And it remains much the same to this day. So, most people in the bottom 40% get back the taxes that have been deducted from their paychecks, plus the bottom people get extra---they get refunds even if they did not work and have taxes deducted.

If we all paid monthly tax bills, just like rent or utilities, then people would scream, pick up their guns, and run to D.C. But since it is "painlessly" deducted out of each check, only us right-wing wackos and libertarian-minded people complain. :(
That's a pretty far stretch from your original statement that "the majority" of US citizens don't pay taxes! :(

Read up on some history on Ghandi. He successfully conducted a non-violent revolution.
Ghandi was a great man. His movement was non-violent only to the extent that he and his people didn't hit back. There was plenty of violence against them. Same with Dr. King and the US civil rights movement. It takes a lot of dedication to take those kinds of hits. Americans nowadays deride such people and brag about planning to kill their enemies. Not promising, imo.

But you never know till you try...

Ghandi was a great man. His movement was non-violent only to the extent that he and his people didn't hit back. There was plenty of violence against them. Same with Dr. King and the US civil rights movement. It takes a lot of dedication to take those kinds of hits. Americans nowadays deride such people and brag about planning to kill their enemies. Not promising, imo.

But you never know till you try...

Can you name just one of America's current enemies who has, is, and will be following his philosophy of non-violent struggle?

No? I didn't think so.

Special circumstances which do not apply to the US population, or perhaps even to Europe.


Quit arguing just to argue, Eutrusca. The question was has anyone HEARD of a revolution without violence. I responded with the Ghandi example. I never said it could be done here, or added any other commentary.

Ghandi DID successfully mount a non-violent revolution. RIGHT?

And, in my opinion, so did Diebold in 2004 (i'm with you, Foecker)

Evidently the court didn't think it was a fraud. And the Democrats went with it, so they must not have been too upset. And against Kerry - he was trounced fair and square.

Not only that, but a lot of Republican Congressmen and Senators were elected.

If you believe it's fraud, and you think it's so easy to prove it, why don't you just call up Howard Dean or Harry Reid, and tell them the good news that you can just broadcast on national TV (all stations are friendly to Democrats except Fox), and Bush and his friends will be out of office, and a Democrat majority will be in the House and Senate.

No? Well, I didn't think so.

Its simple, the whole system is corrupt. What we have is a one party dictatorship that is posing as if it were actually two parties, when it is obvious from their conduct that the top of those 'two parties' are actually trying to realize the same agenda. Add to that a lack of media coverage of the cold facts, and what you'll get is a population who swears the propaganda, distributed by the same media who is ignoring its original duty, is fact.

Did you get that? No? Well, I didn't think so.

Can you name just one of America's current enemies who has, is, and will be following his philosophy of non-violent struggle?

No? I didn't think so.

I guess we can then agree on the fact that Bush&co are enemies of the US who do and will not follow that non-violent philosophy.

:rolleyes:

"The majority of voters ... don't pay taxes?" Huh? WTF, over??? :confused:
Okay, they pay payroll taxes. The top half of wage earners pay almost all the income tax, though. Did I catch you in a medicated moment where you're unable to make a coherent question?

Its simple, the whole system is corrupt. What we have is a one party dictatorship that is posing as if it were actually two parties, when it is obvious from their conduct that the top of those 'two parties' are actually trying to realize the same agenda. Add to that a lack of media coverage of the cold facts, and what you'll get is a population who swears the propaganda, distributed by the same media who is ignoring its original duty, is fact.

Did you get that? No? Well, I didn't think so.

Your dictatorship theory requires a rather cerebral leader to organize it all, don't you think?

Given the dearth of intelligent politicians (you pick - either the Senators at the Supreme Court nomination hearings, or the last two Presidential elections - in either case, all of them come across as dull-witted at best), who would you say is running this grand one-party conspiracy?

Or, as I believe, is this not a one-party conspiracy, but what you get, even in a republic, when democracy is in play?

ah. but that isn't a true revolution now is it, that is more like rearranging your living room....

Point taken. But the living room does need rearranging. The system of government is good in theory...just not in the way it is currently practiced.

Point taken. But the living room does need rearranging. The system of government is good in theory...just not in the way it is currently practiced.
exactly.

That's a pretty far stretch from your original statement that "the majority" of US citizens don't pay taxes! :(
It was my point and I said 'voters'. I still claim we're on the brink of being governed by the people that consume government resources, rather than produce the revenue that the government needs to run.

Given the dearth of intelligent politicians (you pick - either the Senators at the Supreme Court nomination hearings, or the last two Presidential elections - in either case, all of them come across as dull-witted at best), who would you say is running this grand one-party conspiracy?Someone smart enough not to let anyone know he's running things :p

yes they were. every last one of them.

Except Bush. He was conceded prior to the count in Ohio in the last election (where many districts in Ohio claimed Kerry the victor, but the controlled media said Bush was leading, so Kerry conceded early). He never won in 2000 either. His brother put people in the electoral college to claim the state. He made a public statement about it.

True enough. When you remove competition from schools, no one excels. "But golly, they all feel good," your local guidance counselor will tell you. Right, because when you are unemployed because you don't know how to "fight" to get a job you'll still feel good.

Confederacy of Dunces? Maybe Republic of Electrified Sheep would be more accurate. Give 'em their "Survivor", WWF, and NFL and they'll be controlled...

Man, am I fired up this morning!

It's called the WWE these days.

Personally, I think it is obvious that we have a corrupt, immoral governmental group that sites on thrones, although they are "elected" (by the electoral college which is more and more made up of political cronies).

So why don't we rise up to take back control and get this government on the right track?

I have a feeling it has to do with what US society has become. Grazing cows do not tend to try and replace the head farmer. Same with Americans. We are sleeping or at least have our eyes closed.

I my opinion it is time to get it together and demand to put candidates in that govern, not politicize. That look for the good of the US, not the corporations and unions that lobby them.

Thought on this?

Two reasons. Revolutionaries be they violent or non-violent don't have two important things. Money and organization. Simply put, there IS no real reform machine Americans know about. All we have are small intrest groups trying to change the government. Refomers need to become successful business owners nationwide and organize themselves appropriately.

It doesn't quite require a revolution...yet.

I believe this as well. Third parties are so focused in D.C. that they haven't even tried to capture as many local districts as they can in a state. This country isn't ready for a revolution or reform movement yet.

rofl

i can go to sleep tonight knowing i've read some left-wing sensationalism.

1)Bush isn't a fascist
fas·cist(n) A reactionary or dictatorial person.

That covers Bush

2)Bush isn't evil

I never said he was evil. He's not smart enough to be evil. Evil is someone who knowingly does harm. He thinks he's doing good.

3)The wars/occupations of IRaq and Afghanistan are justified by the freedom sought after and hopefully gained for all those oppressed afghanis and iraqis. you sit there bitching and moaning about a lack of freedom in the US (lmao) but when we go to the middle east to help REALLY oppressed people become free(r), it's not a worthy cause. lol

Right...those Afghanis and Iraqis where just screaming "US PLEASE COME SAVE US!" A friend of mine who returned from Iraq last week stated that we are more hated there than before the war began. All they want is us out. Thank goodness we are telling people how to be free by attacking, killing and stealing. Great example. Funny, but didn't we go to Iraq the first time because they busted into Kuwait, tried to control them and impose their own ideals of good goverment?

When did we start assisting in revolutions for other countries? We sure didn't bother to help democracy in Bosnia, The Soviet Union, China, Cuba, or any other nation that has seen people crying out for help and democracy. Why Iraq and Afghanistan? They didn't ask for help.

4)Bush DID get the majority vote

Kerry conceded the election with 4 states uncounted. Whether he won by a majority in 2004 is unknown. As for 2000, his brother was governor of the paramount state. Add to that his being given 4 states votes by Ralph Nader and you have an "untrue" majority win.[/QUOTE]

5)The Republicans own most of the guns. If you want to knock off a Republican leader, you'd better reverse your negative attitude toward guns.

For the record, I've never stated my position on guns. In addition, I never stated we should "knock off" anyone.

OR, here's a novel concept:

You stick to your ideas of right and wrong, and i'll stick to mine, and in election years, we'll make our voices heard by VOTING. That's how mountains are moved in a democratic republic such as ours.

Mountains moved by voting? I liked a candidate last elelction that they refused to give media time to because he talked about peace versus constant struggle in the world theatre. The voting process is tainted by two party politics. And neither party speaks to the needs of people.

I've always thought a big part of the reason that armed revolution would have such a tiny chance of success in a place like the US is that, if it came to that, the government would very likely be willing to deploy the military against the rebellious population.

And since much of the US armed forces is so indoctrinated and full of zeal, I doubt that many of the personnel would bat an eyelid at following those orders. Of course, there would always be some who'd join the rebels, and then you'd have a civil war on your hands, where the loyalists would probably end up on top, eventually. Still, it'd screw the country up pretty royally.

fas·cist(n) A reactionary or dictatorial person.

That covers Bush


Hardly a dictator. If he was a dictator, then there wouldn't be anything from stopping him from doing anything he wanted.

First of all, there wouldn't have been any criticism of him on TV. Ever. So where did this criticism about the Iraq War, and the Katrina response come from? Out of thin air?

Special circumstances which do not apply to the US population, or perhaps even to Europe.

Why not? Why can't we have a peaceful demonstration? Say, going to the visiting chamber of congress and having a sing along while refusing to stop until they all resign?

Evidently the court didn't think it was a fraud. And the Democrats went with it, so they must not have been too upset. And against Kerry - he was trounced fair and square.

Not only that, but a lot of Republican Congressmen and Senators were elected.

If you believe it's fraud, and you think it's so easy to prove it, why don't you just call up Howard Dean or Harry Reid, and tell them the good news that you can just broadcast on national TV (all stations are friendly to Democrats except Fox), and Bush and his friends will be out of office, and a Democrat majority will be in the House and Senate.

No? Well, I didn't think so.

National media is pretty divided. If it was only Fox being friendly to GWB, American Broadcasting Company wouldn't carry one Rush Limbaugh.

Why Iraq and Afghanistan? They didn't ask for help.
I have a funny anectdote for this. When my school represented Afghanistan at The Hague Model United Nations conference in early 2001, we decided to ask for help against the Taliban. (The proposal got rejected...:p)

It's called the WWE these days.

Many pardons... :)

National media is pretty divided. If it was only Fox being friendly to GWB, American Broadcasting Company wouldn't carry one Rush Limbaugh.

I find it telling that of the broadcast networks, CBS is the most unabashedly liberal, by claim. It also has the lowest ratings by far.

Maybe people don't want to watch liberal news.

Unlike CBS, you have to pay to get the Fox News Channel - it's a cable news channel. CBS is free.

Hardly a dictator. If he was a dictator, then there wouldn't be anything from stopping him from doing anything he wanted.

First of all, there wouldn't have been any criticism of him on TV. Ever. So where did this criticism about the Iraq War, and the Katrina response come from? Out of thin air?

Anything he wanted...like attacking other countries before the doctrine of war was presented to congress?

The criticism on TV is allowed only because his attacks are currently focused on the magazine and newspaper industry with NPR lining up as the next victim. Charges against them? Reporting government activities as reported by private sources. So what did the Bush Administration do? Take them to court and force them to reveal their source or go to jail. So a publisher went to jail. Sounds kinda dictatorish to me.

He can't control all the media at once...it is a a work in progress...stay tuned...

I find it telling that of the broadcast networks, CBS is the most unabashedly liberal, by claim. It also has the lowest ratings by far.

Maybe people don't want to watch liberal news.

Unlike CBS, you have to pay to get the Fox News Channel - it's a cable news channel. CBS is free.

Umm...I get Fox news for free in my area. I have no idea why you don't, but that's a different issue.

I've always thought a big part of the reason that armed revolution would have such a tiny chance of success in a place like the US is that, if it came to that, the government would very likely be willing to deploy the military against the rebellious population.

And since much of the US armed forces is so indoctrinated and full of zeal, I doubt that many of the personnel would bat an eyelid at following those orders. Of course, there would always be some who'd join the rebels, and then you'd have a civil war on your hands, where the loyalists would probably end up on top, eventually. Still, it'd screw the country up pretty royally.

Yeah, US soldiers love turkey shooting their own people. Its part of basic training.

Seargent: Privant Dan, kill your mother's silouette or you run 5 laps!

Private Dan: YES SIR! WITH EXTREME PLEASURE, SIR!

True, the guy is just stupid.

As for 'freedom sought after', I'm certain the women of Iraq would laugh in your face for that. A google search will quickly tell you why. :) I believe Afghan women would join in the laughter for good reason.

Bush did indeed get a majority vote after the fraud, prior to that... yeah. But lets not have reality interfere with wishful thinking. :)

why would the women of iraq and afghanistan laugh at freedom? do they really enjoy being forced to wear full-length black in that blazing heat?

there are probably Sunnis who aren't too thrilled with the concept of not being totally favored by the iraqi government as they were under Saddam... but I would bet that the vast majority of Shi'a and Kurds, who do make up about 80% of Iraq's inhabitants, will/would be much happier with the freedom to vote in a regime that won't totally suppress/oppress them.

as for Bush/Gore 2000, as i've pointed out many times, the extended/fraudulent re-count efforts by the mostly-democrat vote-counters flew in the face of Florida election law, which mandated a set amount of time for counting votes before the vote count had to be turned in. The Florida Supreme Court turned into an activist court by overruling the Florida legislature and allowing the abomination to continue.

Anything he wanted...like attacking other countries before the doctrine of war was presented to congress?

The criticism on TV is allowed only because his attacks are currently focused on the magazine and newspaper industry with NPR lining up as the next victim. Charges against them? Reporting government activities as reported by private sources. So what did the Bush Administration do? Take them to court and force them to reveal their source or go to jail. So a publisher went to jail. Sounds kinda dictatorish to me.

He can't control all the media at once...it is a a work in progress...stay tuned...

Oh, like Clinton attacking Serbia without UN permission. And shooting missiles at Sudan and blowing things up without asking Congress at all.

At least Bush had authorization under the War Powers Act.

The reporters that went to jail were going to squeal on Karl Rove if they were forced to testify. So why would Bush want them to testify? No, the courts are working as designed - making people testify to illegal activity.

Or would you rather that Judith Miller kept her mouth shut and protected Karl Rove?

He happens to have a vaild point. And, no, I do not wear or want a "tinfoil hat!" :p

You know you want it...

http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b383/DrkHelmet/Forum%20Pictures/tinfoil-hat.jpg

We need a totally secular, color-blind, libertarian government as tiny and de-centralized as possible, with maximum economic, social, and political freedoms for all.

why would the women of iraq and afghanistan laugh at freedom? do they really enjoy being forced to wear full-length black in that blazing heat?As far as I've heard, that wasn't a problem in Iraq.

Umm...I get Fox news for free in my area. I have no idea why you don't, but that's a different issue.

Your local broadcaster is a Fox affiliate, but that means they only broadcast bits and pieces of Fox news here and there.

The Fox News Channel is a cable/satellite channel - 24 hours a day.

If you don't pay for cable or satellite, you don't get the national, 24-hour version. It's not a broadcast network.

You are making a little bit of a leap there. You assume that just because there is a large problem the solution must be better. Fighting the U.S. millitary really aint so bright, and even if you could do it without bloodshed, setting up a different stable government would take a long time. Quite honestly, it took us until about 1860 to set one up and we had been trying since the 1770s, so I advise some patience. Besides, Bush's poll numbers just came in with a 39-40% approval rating, it won't be very long until the votes catch up. Waiting two years is much better than a revolution, and don't even suggest assasination - I've always said that the only reason they keep Cheney around is that nobody in their right mind would shoot Bush with him first in the line of succession.

...we have a corrupt, immoral government...

So why don't we rise up to take back control and get this government on the right track?


While the current régime (Bush and gang - including many members of Congress) are doing reprehensible things, peoples often get the government they want and deserve. Most Americans want a roof over their heads, food on the table, and a decent job that makes all that possible. Many are willing to sacrifice their morality to make that a reality - even if it means cheap agricultural labor (migrant workers), cheap products (child labor in developing countries, cheap oil (no comment), etc. In all these things, Americans are not exceptional; they are like most peoples.
If anyone thinks that a revolution is the answer, let him know that Americans tried that once before (1861-1865). The result was carnage on an unprecedented scale, the impoverishment of a large portion of the country, a lasting animosity, and a severely retarded political and economic system. The north won, but who really won were the war profiteers, the robber barons, and politicians who discovered that they could use the US military to carry out whatever policies they decided upon - including the gross extermination of many native Americans.

A new revolution (Civil War) against the Bush régime would result in a reactionary government that would deprive most Americans of their civil rights, would destroy the centers of culture and industry, and the winners would be the very people who are the winners of the Iraq war (multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts, etc.).

The answer is to throw the bums out in the next election, and to indict the lot of them for gross mismanagement, treason, war crimes, etc. and to make sure that each of them (Bush, et al.) shares a cell with former guards from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. , preferably ones named Bubba! ;)

That's a pretty far stretch from your original statement that "the majority" of US citizens don't pay taxes! :(

Not my original statement. :)

I just thought I would jump in with some stats... :D

On the OT, we won't rise up until they cut off the satellite tv and the sale of beer... :mp5:

While the current régime (Bush and gang - including many members of Congress) are doing reprehensible things, peoples often get the government they want and deserve. Most Americans want a roof over their heads, food on the table, and a decent job that makes all that possible. Many are willing to sacrifice their morality to make that a reality - even if it means cheap agricultural labor (migrant workers), cheap products (child labor in developing countries, cheap oil (no comment), etc. In all these things, Americans are not exceptional; they are like most peoples.
If anyone thinks that a revolution is the answer, let him know that Americans tried that once before (1861-1865). The result was carnage on an unprecedented scale, the impoverishment of a large portion of the country, a lasting animosity, and a severely retarded political and economic system. The north won, but who really won were the war profiteers, the robber barons, and politicians who discovered that they could use the US military to carry out whatever policies they decided upon - including the gross extermination of many native Americans.

A new revolution (Civil War) against the Bush régime would result in a reactionary government that would deprive most Americans of their civil rights, would destroy the centers of culture and industry, and the winners would be the very people who are the winners of the Iraq war (multi-billion dollar no-bid contracts, etc.).

The answer is to throw the bums out in the next election, and to indict the lot of them for gross mismanagement, treason, war crimes, etc. and to make sure that each of them (Bush, et al.) shares a cell with former guards from Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, etc. , preferably ones named Bubba! ;)

If we were really there for oil... we'd just steal it for ourselves and our gas prices would be cut in half.

but.... that hasn't happened. hmmm.

so since we're not there for oil, why are we fighting in iraq?

could it be.. that we're there to free most iraqis? Wasn that, perhaps, the reason we took out Saddam?

And is it possible that with the wicked insurgents still trying to keep their grip on totalitarian-like rule over the majority Shi'a and Kurds... that we ramain there to protect the rights of peaceful iraqis to prosper under what we hope will be a stable democracy in which people enjoy true suffrage instead of one-option oppression?

because that's the way i see it. we're not there for oil. if we are, it sure as hell is puzzling how that has not translated into lower gas prices, because if we OWNED Iraqi oil fields, we could flood the current supply and prices would tumble.

fas·cist(n) A reactionary or dictatorial person.

That covers Bush

Actually the whole definition is

NOUN:

1. often Fascist An advocate or adherent of fascism.
2. A reactionary or dictatorial person.

ADJECTIVE:

1. often Fascist Of, advocating, or practicing fascism.
2. Fascist Of or relating to the regime of the Fascisti.

Now on to the topic at hand. Why are Americans so innactive when it comes to political change. The answer is quite simple really. The status quo benefits us alot. Even though gas prices go up and a war goes on we live in a good deal of comfort. Now how many citizens of countries if they were presented with the prosperity we have in the US would want to change? The answer is not many.

National media is pretty divided. If it was only Fox being friendly to GWB, American Broadcasting Company wouldn't carry one Rush Limbaugh.

Whatever their politics, I believe that media wants to make money, and Rush is a money-maker. :p

Your local broadcaster is a Fox affiliate, but that means they only broadcast bits and pieces of Fox news here and there.

The Fox News Channel is a cable/satellite channel - 24 hours a day.

If you don't pay for cable or satellite, you don't get the national, 24-hour version. It's not a broadcast network.

Oh...I see what you meant. I was saying it was a part of my satellite package that i don't pay extra for. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's good to see the Fox news though, as it is so hard hitting and accurate. Like when the pronounced the Pope dead 4 days in advance.

Oh...I see what you meant. I was saying it was a part of my satellite package that i don't pay extra for. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's good to see the Fox news though, as it is so hard hitting and accurate. Like when the pronounced the Pope dead 4 days in advance.
Tomarrows news...TODAY.

Anything he wanted...like attacking other countries before the doctrine of war was presented to congress?

The criticism on TV is allowed only because his attacks are currently focused on the magazine and newspaper industry with NPR lining up as the next victim. Charges against them? Reporting government activities as reported by private sources. So what did the Bush Administration do? Take them to court and force them to reveal their source or go to jail. So a publisher went to jail. Sounds kinda dictatorish to me.

He can't control all the media at once...it is a a work in progress...stay tuned...

If I were a dictator, I would hum a happy tune, while sending out the hit squads to make enemies disappear.

A few big media people gone, the rest would fall in line.

And disappear some major liberal blabbermouths...they would get the message quickly.

And the jail for reporters was caused by the liberal media raising a stink, thinking that they had caught the White House committing a crime, but when they had to reveal their sources to back up the allegations, they didn't want to, so---the Plame kerfuffle goes poof!

I think a lot of people approach the US Government with the wrong mindset. People seem to expect wonderful things from their Government just because they're the government. Power doesn't work like that: it doesn't matter whether you run some multinational or if you run the government: we're still all humans with human needs and human desires and... well, human mistakes.

The government will always be corrupt; there is no way to safeguard against that and even fewer ways to see it coming. If our civilization happens to gather some degree of intelligence over the next few generations, the rest of us will begin to realize this and will endeavor to put the real power where it belongs: in individuals. If you stop looking to others to lead and grow the balls to control your own life, you might get somewhere. If you vote Democrat and whine because the Government is getting bigger, or if you vote Republican and whine because it's becoming more oppressive, then don't come crying to me.

Seriously, I will never understand the menatility that says: "Our current system is too corrupt. What we need to do is make it about ten times larger and give it ten times more money. That'll stop the real problems."

Oh...I see what you meant. I was saying it was a part of my satellite package that i don't pay extra for. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

It's good to see the Fox news though, as it is so hard hitting and accurate. Like when the pronounced the Pope dead 4 days in advance.

Yes, and CBS thought the faked memos were so real.

Content aside, you have to wonder why so many people listen to Rush (and Hannity, and others), and watch Fox. And Air America can barely get off the ground in major blue cities, and has to steal money from children to get started.

Why did CBS's ratings fall so far? Why, when it was liberal and free of charge?

Maybe we knew what the lying editors and reporters who faked the memo knew. That CBS was not a news organization at all - it was just a shill for the Democratic Party.

If we were really there for oil... we'd just steal it for ourselves and our gas prices would be cut in half.

but.... that hasn't happened. hmmm.

so since we're not there for oil, why are we fighting in iraq?

could it be.. that we're there to free most iraqis? Wasn that, perhaps, the reason we took out Saddam?

And is it possible that with the wicked insurgents still trying to keep their grip on totalitarian-like rule over the majority Shi'a and Kurds... that we ramain there to protect the rights of peaceful iraqis to prosper under what we hope will be a stable democracy in which people enjoy true suffrage instead of one-option oppression?

because that's the way i see it. we're not there for oil. if we are, it sure as hell is puzzling how that has not translated into lower gas prices, because if we OWNED Iraqi oil fields, we could flood the current supply and prices would tumble.

Or could it be that corporations that control oil prices, like Exxon, are profitting like mad by our control of the oil and stock holders (Like the Bush Brothers, Rove, Cheney) are also profitting like mad. Exxon made a $30 Billion (US) profit in the last quarter alone and was given a post-Katrina grant by the Bush administration of $300 billion (US) to research where more oil might be located. Nothing fishy there.

Are the Iraqi people free living in constant fear that one side or the other might decide to shoot them down at random?

Whatever their politics, I believe that media wants to make money, and Rush is a money-maker. :p

I will grant you that. My point was more that there are a great deal larger number of conservative news outlets than just Fox News.

And Rush is a drug addict...(sorry had to through that in there cause I hate the Hypocrite Limbaugh).

I will grant you that. My point was more that there are a great deal larger number of conservative news outlets than just Fox News.

And Rush is a drug addict...(sorry had to through that in there cause I hate the Hypocrite Limbaugh).

And Clinton was a philanderer. The network administration aside - Limbaugh still has listeners, just as Clinton still has admirers.

The number has increased because that's what people are watching and listening to. They don't want to hear Dan Rather and his liberal spin on how Kerry could still pull out the election after everyone, including the election officials, have called it.

I think a lot of people approach the US Government with the wrong mindset. People seem to expect wonderful things from their Government just because they're the government. Power doesn't work like that: it doesn't matter whether you run some multinational or if you run the government: we're still all humans with human needs and human desires and... well, human mistakes.

The government will always be corrupt; there is no way to safeguard against that and even fewer ways to see it coming. If our civilization happens to gather some degree of intelligence over the next few generations, the rest of us will begin to realize this and will endeavor to put the real power where it belongs: in individuals. If you stop looking to others to lead and grow the balls to control your own life, you might get somewhere. If you vote Democrat and whine because the Government is getting bigger, or if you vote Republican and whine because it's becoming more oppressive, then don't come crying to me.

Seriously, I will never understand the menatility that says: "Our current system is too corrupt. What we need to do is make it about ten times larger and give it ten times more money. That'll stop the real problems."


QFT

Maybe we knew what the lying editors and reporters who faked the memo knew. That CBS was not a news organization at all - it was just a shill for the Democratic Party.
Except that CBS is owned by Viacom, an enormous entertainment multinational. Somehow I don't think they're Democrats.

Yes, and CBS thought the faked memos were so real.

Content aside, you have to wonder why so many people listen to Rush (and Hannity, and others), and watch Fox. And Air America can barely get off the ground in major blue cities, and has to steal money from children to get started.

Why did CBS's ratings fall so far? Why, when it was liberal and free of charge?

Maybe we knew what the lying editors and reporters who faked the memo knew. That CBS was not a news organization at all - it was just a shill for the Democratic Party.

For the record, all those involved resigned before the validity of the memos was made public (also for the record, I don't watch CBS). When it came to light that those memos may have in fact been true, the news of anything about them dissappeared, save on radio (and even on radio shortly thereafter).

Why did CBS's ratings fall? Because there face was gone when Dan Rather left. Same reason why ABC's news ratings have fallen. Without Peter Jennings, Hugh Downs, and Barbara Walters, they haven't that familiar face people are accustomed to.

I personally say the media is just as corrupt as the politicians. Let's start a new party and new media outlets with both sides of the story.

Except that CBS is owned by Viacom, an enormous entertainment multinational. Somehow I don't think they're Democrats.

That's the only reason Dan got pushed out. If CBS were owned by itself, he would still be there running the news.

That's the only reason Dan got pushed out. If CBS were owned by itself, he would still be there running the news.
Then they're not a "shill" for the Democratic Party, now are they?

I've had about enough of this "Liberal Media" BS. CBS is owned by Viacom, ABC is owned by Disney, we all know who runs Fox [and he ain't no Dem], and NBC is owned by General Electric--who, by the way, happens to be the largest defense contractor in the world. Not just the States; the world. Wouldn't think they're tremendously liberal either.

And Clinton was a philanderer. The network administration aside - Limbaugh still has listeners, just as Clinton still has admirers.

The number has increased because that's what people are watching and listening to. They don't want to hear Dan Rather and his liberal spin on how Kerry could still pull out the election after everyone, including the election officials, have called it.

I'll say, yes Clinton was a philanderer (technically, so are you (just kidding)). Clinton has admirers because he is still working. He also managed to pull the US out of the red budget-wise. We are now headed for a recession bigger than that of the Bush I era, with a deficit 3 times the size of our former surplus. I say philander if it makes the country money.

Rush, however, is well liked by people that don't mind flash and pomp without anything to back it up. Sure I could sit here and say all this stuff about conservative media with no proof...but that would make me just like him. Also, his followers tend to forgive when he directly contradicts things he has said in the past (like "The Conservatives have control of the media, and that's the way it should be" (9/16/2005)..."The Liberals have every media outlet except for my show, and I won't give it up" (10/6/2005)...). I think he should have a voice, everyone should have that opportunity or a representative voice in the media.

QFT
And this means....?

And this means....?

Quoted for truth.

Quoted for truth.
Oh.. heh, thanks.

Oh.. heh, thanks.

lol I thought that was a universal thing like lmao of rofl. I guess its not as known as I thought it was.

I'll say, yes Clinton was a philanderer (technically, so are you (just kidding)). Clinton has admirers because he is still working. He also managed to pull the US out of the red budget-wise. We are now headed for a recession bigger than that of the Bush I era, with a deficit 3 times the size of our former surplus. I say philander if it makes the country money.

Rush, however, is well liked by people that don't mind flash and pomp without anything to back it up. Sure I could sit here and say all this stuff about conservative media with no proof...but that would make me just like him. Also, his followers tend to forgive when he directly contradicts things he has said in the past (like "The Conservatives have control of the media, and that's the way it should be" (9/16/2005)..."The Liberals have every media outlet except for my show, and I won't give it up" (10/6/2005)...). I think he should have a voice, everyone should have that opportunity or a representative voice in the media.


Clinton's hand was forced on budgetary issues during his administration by the Republicans in the House. He just took credit for it. You need to go back and look at his original fiscal policy.

Of course, he was a good Republican, and took one for the party when he took credit for "ending welfare as we know it". Originally a Republican slogan.

Michael Moore still thinks Clinton is the best Republican President since Ronald Reagan. He had a whole TV show about it.

It's not a matter of who "deserves" to be on the air. It's who and how many will tune in.

If more people tune in to Fox News than CBS, guess where the advertisers are going to spend their money? Guess which network will get bigger, and which will lay people off?

Ever wonder why the New York Times has had to lay off people recently? Because they were caught in so many lies. Maybe they would get further if they fired Paul Krugman, who seems to get caught in something every other week (I think the NYT ombudsman has a column just for retracting what Krugman says is fact).

The only argument I have to that is...advertisers will spend there money everywhere!!! They always do. It's less of a concern now to be selective, so you'll see the same ads during any news program, depending on time of day.

The only argument I have to that is...advertisers will spend there money everywhere!!! They always do. It's less of a concern now to be selective, so you'll see the same ads during any news program, depending on time of day.

If you think Bush is unpopular, you should see CBS Evening News' ratings.

Those ratings are not compiled by the Bush Administration.

And yet CBS does rather well in the ratings - once their news programs are off the air.

People must, therefore, think that CBS is more full of s--t than Fox. Even though the Fox haters are more vocal, the CBS haters are far more numerous - and have voted by changing the channel.

If you think Bush is unpopular, you should see CBS Evening News' ratings.

Those ratings are not compiled by the Bush Administration.

And yet CBS does rather well in the ratings - once their news programs are off the air.

People must, therefore, think that CBS is more full of s--t than Fox. Even though the Fox haters are more vocal, the CBS haters are far more numerous - and have voted by changing the channel.

Umm...it's goos that Bush's popularity poles aren't compiled by his administration. Whow would trust that pole?

CBS will not go off the air. There is not even a fear of that. They are still profitable and making money. Same as Fox. Fox haters are generally not complaining about the fact that they are in the back pocket of republicans, more the gross inaccuracies of what they do report.

Umm...it's goos that Bush's popularity poles aren't compiled by his administration. Whow would trust that pole?

CBS will not go off the air. There is not even a fear of that. They are still profitable and making money. Same as Fox. Fox haters are generally not complaining about the fact that they are in the back pocket of republicans, more the gross inaccuracies of what they do report.

No, CBS won't go off the air anytime soon. But being in last place doesn't help them in their attempt to change public opinion.

While many Americans are armed with firearms, if you look at the distribution of firearms (by law), the distribution closely followes the distribution of red counties. Most blue counties and cities on the map are areas of extreme gun control, and few people there legally own firearms. There are also few gun stores, if any, in those areas. Legal gun stores do not exist where laws are hostile to the sale of firearms.
This is yet another reason why gun control in America is just so stupid. Did liberals never think that a tyrannical government could actually have many of the armed civilians on its side?

Well done guys. :rolleyes:

This is yet another reason why gun control in America is just so stupid. Did liberals never think that a tyrannical government could actually have many of the armed civilians on its side?

Well done guys. :rolleyes:
That might have something to do with how much liberals tend to hate guns. When every liberal municipality in the nation [theorietically] disallows a lot of guns and/or makes it impossible to get them, then it stands to reason that all the guns will show up in the red states. Ever try to get a handgun in Berkeley? That's why the gun toting lunatics are all [apparently] on the Red side of the fence.

Except that CBS is owned by Viacom, an enormous entertainment multinational. Somehow I don't think they're Democrats.

And why couldn't a large corporation be headed by Democrats? :confused:

Are there no rich Democrats? :confused:

In fact, the richest members of congress are all Democrats. The richest man in congress is a Democrat. And they did not all steal the money, did they??? :confused:

I guess the answer is that because big corporations are all evil, no Democrat would be involved with running them, because only Republicans can be evil. Democrats have had the evil chip removed from their android brains...

Gotta get some tinfoil, quick!

He happens to have a vaild point. And, no, I do not wear or want a "tinfoil hat!" :p
and just what point of his do you agree with?

I do agree that our government sucks and we need to elect better representatives but a revolution would just hurt us. I mean look at The Congo of Africa and a bunch of other countries, they have a revolution like every other day and those countries still suck.

No, CBS won't go off the air anytime soon. But being in last place doesn't help them in their attempt to change public opinion.

Just something I noticed about Fox News (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/18/fox_news_in_ratings_free_fall.php)

Personally, I think it is obvious that we have a corrupt, immoral governmental group that sites on thrones, although they are "elected" (by the electoral college which is more and more made up of political cronies).

So why don't we rise up to take back control and get this government on the right track?

I have a feeling it has to do with what US society has become. Grazing cows do not tend to try and replace the head farmer. Same with Americans. We are sleeping or at least have our eyes closed.

I my opinion it is time to get it together and demand to put candidates in that govern, not politicize. That look for the good of the US, not the corporations and unions that lobby them.

Thought on this?

Balipo for President!

Helping to build a stronger America

:)

Just something I noticed about Fox News (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/18/fox_news_in_ratings_free_fall.php)


Not defending FNC's bias but Neilson seems to disagree w/ the linked report:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43120

"FNC averaged 1.57 million viewers in primetime, up 18 percent from the same period last year, while CNN fell 21 percent to 637,000 viewers from the same time period," Variety stated.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002220590_foxblocker26.html?syndication=rss

For the first three months of this year, Fox has averaged 1.62 million viewers in prime-time, compared with CNN's 805,000, according to Nielsen Media Research.

Balipo for President!

Helping to build a stronger America

:)
Hey I would vote for him !!

It could be people won't rise up because if they do, they'll be branded as terrorists, threats to national security, and spirited away to be held without charge, trial, or bail for an indefinite period of time.

As a non-American, I'd say that it's because the nation is divided between a younger liberal generation and a conservative older generation. You'll just have to wait until more young people can vote xD

As a non-American, I'd say that it's because the nation is divided between a younger liberal generation and a conservative older generation. You'll just have to wait until more young people can vote xD

And by then they'll be conservative. :)

And why couldn't a large corporation be headed by Democrats? :confused:

Are there no rich Democrats? :confused:

In fact, the richest members of congress are all Democrats. The richest man in congress is a Democrat. And they did not all steal the money, did they??? :confused:

I guess the answer is that because big corporations are all evil, no Democrat would be involved with running them, because only Republicans can be evil. Democrats have had the evil chip removed from their android brains...

Gotta get some tinfoil, quick!
Umm... mainly because the Democrats, and the Left in general have always been cautious about big business, and Viacom certainly fits the bill. You sure do have an interesting knack for reaching ridiculous conclusions based on relatively little antecedant data. I'm beginning to think the prevalance of the 'confused' smiley is probably slightly more apt than you could have ever hoped.

Just something I noticed about Fox News (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/18/fox_news_in_ratings_free_fall.php)
You shoulda posted more of that blog. The responses to the guy's comment abou the nielson ratings were about as funny as they were wrong.

Not defending FNC's bias but Neilson seems to disagree w/ the linked report:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43120

"FNC averaged 1.57 million viewers in primetime, up 18 percent from the same period last year, while CNN fell 21 percent to 637,000 viewers from the same time period," Variety stated.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002220590_foxblocker26.html?syndication=rss

For the first three months of this year, Fox has averaged 1.62 million viewers in prime-time, compared with CNN's 805,000, according to Nielsen Media Research.
people watch cable news channels in prime time? who knew? is that their highest viewership time slot?

Personally, I think it is obvious that we have a corrupt, immoral governmental group that sites on thrones, although they are "elected" (by the electoral college which is more and more made up of political cronies).

So why don't we rise up to take back control and get this government on the right track?

I have a feeling it has to do with what US society has become. Grazing cows do not tend to try and replace the head farmer. Same with Americans. We are sleeping or at least have our eyes closed.

I my opinion it is time to get it together and demand to put candidates in that govern, not politicize. That look for the good of the US, not the corporations and unions that lobby them.

Thought on this?

If we don't like whoever's in power, we have things called elections in which we can remove these people. If the majority decides to vote them back in, however, the rest of us have little choice but to live with it. Such is the nature of elective government.

As a non-American, I'd say that it's because the nation is divided between a younger liberal generation and a conservative older generation. You'll just have to wait until more young people can vote xD
What makes you think the younger generation is any more liberal?

Umm... mainly because the Democrats, and the Left in general have always been cautious about big business, and Viacom certainly fits the bill. You sure do have an interesting knack for reaching ridiculous conclusions based on relatively little antecedant data. I'm beginning to think the prevalance of the 'confused' smiley is probably slightly more apt than you could have ever hoped.

George Soros, very poor liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros) worth only about $7 billion :confused:

Warren Buffett, very poor and pro-tax increases (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_nugent/nugent200403230856.asp) only the second-richest man in the world :confused:

We won't mention anyone who married his billion and ran for president on top of the Democratic ticket... ;)

I am still confused about the presupposition that anyone who has or makes large amounts of money must be conservative. :confused: :confused: :confused: :headbang:

George Soros, very poor liberal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Soros) worth only about $7 billion :confused:

Warren Buffett, very poor and pro-tax increases (http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_nugent/nugent200403230856.asp) only the second-richest man in the world :confused:

We won't mention anyone who married his billion and ran for president on top of the Democratic ticket... ;)

I am still confused about the presupposition that anyone who has or makes large amounts of money must be conservative. :confused: :confused: :confused: :headbang:
Sweet Jesus Fucking Christ.

Please, go back and read my posts. I would like to see where I claimed that there are no rich Democrats. My observations, when analyzed properly, indicate that large, multinational corporations are generally more sympathetic to Republican ideas, and that media concerns aren't likely to be much different. How this makes every Democrat a poor man in your mind I fear I'll never know.

Incidentally, you sure did drop the ball on the single biggest argument you could have used to shut me up: Viacom's owner served in the Carter administration. Now that I've stolen your thunder, you can go ahead and skulk out the door now. Just try to use less than a dozen smileys when you do.

If you learn one thing from this thread, let it be this:

Bush won legally in the last election. Kerry didn't. There was no conspiracy.

Please, before you debate anything else, accept this fact.

I've just stop reading this thread entirely. One thing has become clear, revolutionaries don't need leaders. They need basic information.

Wow. I'm not sure any of you are revolutionary material. Just "get their ass shot up" material.

If you learn one thing from this thread, let it be this:

Bush won legally in the last election. Kerry didn't. There was no conspiracy.

Please, before you debate anything else, accept this fact.
He wouldn't have won in 2004 if he hadn't won illegally in 2000. And I guess you don't want me to get into the hacking of the main computers where the Diebold vote machines were compiled or the counties in Ohio with about 2000 people but 6000 voted for Bush. And amazingly, the majority of vote counting related mishaps were in Bush's favor. I guess it's just useless to present facts to some conservatives.

Your dictatorship theory requires a rather cerebral leader to organize it all, don't you think?

Given the dearth of intelligent politicians (you pick - either the Senators at the Supreme Court nomination hearings, or the last two Presidential elections - in either case, all of them come across as dull-witted at best), who would you say is running this grand one-party conspiracy?

Or, as I believe, is this not a one-party conspiracy, but what you get, even in a republic, when democracy is in play?

At the end of every empire you have a small group of families who over time have managed to accumulate enough power to manipulate the whole. This group rarely is 'best friends' or anything of the sort, but they do look out after each others' main interest, which is to stay on top at all costs. This clearly sums up the current state of affairs in the US; experiecing the end of its golden age and delivered to the whims of a small elite. A nice give away of this is the fact that a men like B. Jr was turned into 'president.'

As I said in another thread, the democratic experiment failed. To call the US a 'republican or liberal democracy' is like calling Cuba 'communist.'

why would the women of iraq and afghanistan laugh at freedom? do they really enjoy being forced to wear full-length black in that blazing heat?

there are probably Sunnis who aren't too thrilled with the concept of not being totally favored by the iraqi government as they were under Saddam... but I would bet that the vast majority of Shi'a and Kurds, who do make up about 80% of Iraq's inhabitants, will/would be much happier with the freedom to vote in a regime that won't totally suppress/oppress them.

as for Bush/Gore 2000, as i've pointed out many times, the extended/fraudulent re-count efforts by the mostly-democrat vote-counters flew in the face of Florida election law, which mandated a set amount of time for counting votes before the vote count had to be turned in. The Florida Supreme Court turned into an activist court by overruling the Florida legislature and allowing the abomination to continue.

The 'freedom' that the proganda machine claims the US brought to Iarq, and its hard to say that without choking from laughing so hard, is in fact nothing but the replacement of one dictatorial regime for another. Freedom my ass!!

From the looks of it the new dictatorial and USA approved regime has the Iraqi women loose big time when compared to the rights they enjoyed under the previous dicator. But, of course, don't count on the media to pay too much attention to that, if any.

"Previously, women, although politically oppressed, had their minimal rights, could marry [whom they wanted], not get killed for the honor of men, not [be] forced to wear [a] Hijab, and many things that will follow if the Shiite push enough for an Islamic constitution," Kamguian writes. "Islamists push for Islamisation, killing, genocide, etc., [and] then they say we are preserving Iraq's Islamic identity. For many decades people were living their lives without an active role of religion in it, at least in the most important areas of their public lives."

Yanar Mohammed (http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english/2005/MitchellProthero-Constitution210805.htm)

Yanar Mohammed (http://www.equalityiniraq.com/english/2005/YanarMohammed-Constitution081005.htm)

Oh, and please don't say "Its what the Iraqi want!" BS! Its what the new tyrants want, and its OBVIOUS that the US is backing them just as they backed Saddam in the 70ies! Again, one US approved dictatorship is being replaced with yet another.

The majority of voters don't have any fiscal interest in how the government runs because they don't pay taxes.
Can you prove that?

At the end of every empire you have a small group of families who over time have managed to accumulate enough power to manipulate the whole. This group rarely is 'best friends' or anything of the sort, but they do look out after each others' main interest, which is to stay on top at all costs. This clearly sums up the current state of affairs in the US; experiecing the end of its golden age and delivered to the whims of a small elite. A nice give away of this is the fact that a men like B. Jr was turned into 'president.'

As I said in another thread, the democratic experiment failed. To call the US a 'republican or liberal democracy' is like calling Cuba 'communist.'

You're forgetting that the "rich" are also accompanied by a rather large middle class. As an example, consider the average price of a home in the county where I live. Over 600,000 dollars - and a lot of people own homes. A lot of people have 401K plans and other investments - but none of them are considered (or consider themselves) rich like Bush and his friends.

One of the biggest demographic changes in the US in the last 20 years has been the gross involvement of the middle class in investment. It's what has been driving the economy. And those people are voting Republican, because Democrats want to take that away.

Take it away from the middle class - not the rich.

Now do you see why the suburban areas have been going from pink to red, and why only the major urban areas are left as islands of blue?

For some reason, I can't quote messages to reply to today, but I just want to get caught up with a couple of remarks:

1. This thread has gone terribly off topic.

2. Arguments about liberal vs conservative media are off topic but can be on topic if we steer them towards the free press as an instrument of political action. Anyone here a journalist or publisher? Has anyone seen "Good Night and Good Luck" yet?

3. Arguments over Iraq and Afghanistan are off topic because those issues are merely ancillary to reasons why Balipo and others (including me) think the current admin is corrupt. If we want to get into warring over the war again, there are threads for that.

4. Arguments over every detail of every thing that Clinton ever did wrong in his life are not only off topic, they are also so frigging old, I'm sick of the stench of them. He's not the president anymore. We're in the second term of not-Clinton-as-the-president. He'll never be president again, and if that wife of his ever gets to be president, I'll faint from surprise. So quit using Clinton as a counter to every complaint against Bush. Clinton = over. Wrap your brains around it already, goddammit.

4. Re non-violent political action. For some reason, the people here who have dismissed this notion a) seem to think that someone is advocating Ghandi's approach as US government policy, when in fact, it is being suggested as a method of action for private US citizens to affect US government domestically; please try to keep up on that; b) seem to think that non-violence is bad because the opposition doesn't participate, when in fact, that is the whole point of a non-violent movement (and why there are so few of them); and c) seem to think that if our enemies are stupid and violent the only appropriate response is for us to be just as stupid and violent; this is stupid, violent thinking and I won't waste time dealing with it.

Read up on some history on Ghandi. He successfully conducted a non-violent revolution.

Yep and then was assassinated by an extremist Hindu. There's gratitude for ya! :(

Except Bush. He was conceded prior to the count in Ohio in the last election (where many districts in Ohio claimed Kerry the victor, but the controlled media said Bush was leading, so Kerry conceded early). He never won in 2000 either. His brother put people in the electoral college to claim the state. He made a public statement about it.

Very nice conspiracy.

2000: Deadline needed to be met and every recount said that Bush won the election. Even the Media payed for recount said that Bush won the election. The Supreme Court also said that it was unconstitutional because of the many standards that were being used in different counties.

2004: Bush won the election fair and square as he won 2000 fair and square.

To bad the people on the left don't understand this and if they continue to say that Bush stole the elections, they'll never win another major election again.

fas·cist(n) A reactionary or dictatorial person.

That covers Bush

*yawns*

And yet another conspiracy that has been debunked many times before. I wish those on the left get new material. This is getting pretty old.

If Bush was a dictator then this forum wouldn't be allowed to exist. Any talk bad mouthing bush would be squashed. I haven't seen that happen yet. So I guess that debunks this absurd conspiracy theory.

Just something I noticed about Fox News (http://www.newshounds.us/2005/05/18/fox_news_in_ratings_free_fall.php)

I needed a laugh thanks :D

Yeah, US soldiers love turkey shooting their own people. Its part of basic training.

Seargent: Privant Dan, kill your mother's silouette or you run 5 laps!

Private Dan: YES SIR! WITH EXTREME PLEASURE, SIR!

Egh, it's not just US soldiers, it's soldiers in general. Some join the armed forces because they want to defend their country and its people and some join for distinctly less noble reasons. ie. Shooting stuff and it usually doesn't matter who or what for these people.

That coupled with the jingoistic zealotry that many US military personnel seem to have makes for a pretty dangerous individual. Though granted, most of the US military types I've met have been sailors (US warships disgorge their personnel for shore leave here pretty regularly) and a handful of marines. The few marines I've met are really frightening if they're examples of the rest of barrel. They were nuts.

If we were really there for oil... we'd just steal it for ourselves and our gas prices would be cut in half.

but.... that hasn't happened. hmmm.

so since we're not there for oil, why are we fighting in iraq?

could it be.. that we're there to free most iraqis? Wasn that, perhaps, the reason we took out Saddam?

And is it possible that with the wicked insurgents still trying to keep their grip on totalitarian-like rule over the majority Shi'a and Kurds... that we ramain there to protect the rights of peaceful iraqis to prosper under what we hope will be a stable democracy in which people enjoy true suffrage instead of one-option oppression?

because that's the way i see it. we're not there for oil. if we are, it sure as hell is puzzling how that has not translated into lower gas prices, because if we OWNED Iraqi oil fields, we could flood the current supply and prices would tumble.
Yeah... thats exactly what Oil Companies would want, isn't it?

"Although apparently suppressed in the U.S. media, one of the answers to the Iraq enigma is simple yet shocking. The upcoming war in Iraq war is mostly about how the CIA, the Federal Reserve and the Bush/Cheney administration view hydrocarbons at the geo-strategic level, and the unspoken but overarching macroeconomic threats to the U.S. dollar from the euro. The Real Reasons for this upcoming war is this administration's goal of preventing further OPEC momentum towards the euro as an oil transaction currency standard, and to secure control of Iraq's oil before the onset of Peak Oil (predicted to occur around 2010). However, in order to pre-empt OPEC, they need to gain geo-strategic control of Iraq along with its 2nd largest proven oil reserves. This essay will discuss the macroeconomics of the `petrodollar' and the unpublicized but real threat to U.S. economic hegemony from the euro as an alternative oil transaction currency. The following is how an individual very well versed in the nuances of macroeconomics alluded to the unspoken truth about this upcoming war with Iraq:

"The Federal Reserve's greatest nightmare is that OPEC will switch its international transactions from a dollar standard to a euro standard. Iraq actually made this switch in Nov. 2000 (when the euro was worth around 82 cents), and has actually made off like a bandit considering the dollar's steady depreciation against the euro. (Note: the dollar declined 17% against the euro in 2002.)

"The real reason the Bush administration wants a puppet government in Iraq -- or more importantly, the reason why the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate wants a puppet government in Iraq -- is so that it will revert back to a dollar standard and stay that way." (While also hoping to veto any wider OPEC momentum towards the euro, especially from Iran -- the 2nd largest OPEC producer who is actively discussing a switch to euros for its oil exports)."

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html#p2

Laziness i think is the main cause, now if the american government was to threatening banning fast food youd have them all up in arms
Ah, but where I'm from in the US that's what they're doing!

Americans on the whole don't have the decency or moral courage to do something like that.

Americans on the whole don't have the decency or moral courage to do something like that.

Actually, we never had a reason to do it on a national level but on the local level it has happened once.

An armed revolt took out a massive corrupt government in the state of Tennessee in the '40s!

You're forgetting that the "rich" are also accompanied by a rather large middle class. As an example, consider the average price of a home in the county where I live. Over 600,000 dollars - and a lot of people own homes. A lot of people have 401K plans and other investments - but none of them are considered (or consider themselves) rich like Bush and his friends.

One of the biggest demographic changes in the US in the last 20 years has been the gross involvement of the middle class in investment. It's what has been driving the economy. And those people are voting Republican, because Democrats want to take that away.

Take it away from the middle class - not the rich.

Now do you see why the suburban areas have been going from pink to red, and why only the major urban areas are left as islands of blue?

The power of this small elite goes way beyond the monetary factor. More importantly, their power lies in having access to and having people in the right places. Think "having your friends and allies on the Electoral College", or the recent appointment of Miers. You could say 'that’s democracy at work,' but, and I will now ignore the fact that the outcome of the last two elections was a product of fraud, in a functional democracy the politicians are representatives of the people. How many people do you know who feel 'represented'? I personally know none.

Regardless of whether or not there is a red or blue administration, the agenda that is actually realized benefits always the same small group who are manipulating the whole via the usual propaganda. In other words, what we are dealing with here are corrupt individuals who knowingly betray the trust of those who they supposedly represent, by actually working for another team, i.e. we are dealing with criminals.

The blame for all this lies, of course, with the voters who time after time fall for the petty propaganda, simply because they lack the courage to look the truth in the eyes. The truth being that the US political system has been hijacked, and from the looks of it this will not change anytime soon, if ever.

Very nice conspiracy.

2000: Deadline needed to be met and every recount said that Bush won the election. Even the Media payed for recount said that Bush won the election. The Supreme Court also said that it was unconstitutional because of the many standards that were being used in different counties.

2004: Bush won the election fair and square as he won 2000 fair and square.

To bad the people on the left don't understand this and if they continue to say that Bush stole the elections, they'll never win another major election again.


Recount? There was nothing to count, friend. No paper trail at all... Just a string of 1's and 0's and a backroom "you can't watch" confirmation.

"Well, we looked again and, yep, we got it just right. A few minor descrepancies here and there, but not enough to make a difference. Trust us. No you can't see. It's proprietary and there is no paper trial. Turn on fox news and shut up.

If you have to speak, repeat after me: '2004: Bush won the election fair and square. To bad the people on the left...' "

I think this came up already, but it isn't necessarily a question of "the people versus the elite." The US is genuinely culturally divided, just as it was culturally divided back in the Reagan era and the Vietnam war.

Recount? There was nothing to count, friend. No paper trail at all... Just a string of 1's and 0's and a backroom "you can't watch" confirmation.

Not every district uses electronic voting. I used an Absentee ballot. That sure isn't electronic voting. :rolleyes:

If you have to speak, repeat after me: '2004: Bush won the election fair and square. To bad the people on the left...' "

*sighs*

And here is a prime example as to why the Dems can't seem to win a major election anymore. Sad really. It used to be a good party. :(

Very nice conspiracy.

2000: Deadline needed to be met and every recount said that Bush won the election. Even the Media payed for recount said that Bush won the election. The Supreme Court also said that it was unconstitutional because of the many standards that were being used in different counties.

2004: Bush won the election fair and square as he won 2000 fair and square.

To bad the people on the left don't understand this and if they continue to say that Bush stole the elections, they'll never win another major election again.

2000: Bush stole the election with his Republican lackeys and of course his brother.

2004: This he one fair but I'm positive that he must have brainwashed America to get it done. :(

2004: This he one fair but I'm positive that he must have brainwashed America to get it done. :(

I see you're wearing your tinfoil hat today.

2000: Bush stole the election with his Republican lackeys and of course his brother.

2004: This he one fair but I'm positive that he must have brainwashed America to get it done. :(

I know everyone in this thread hates me and thinks I'm some insane lib...but since the conservatives like to stick their fingers in their ears and hum so as not to hear anything pertinent I will continue.

2004: The year Bush won after being elected via machines (used in 68% of all polling districts) made by a company that provided the republican party with 30% of the contributions they received. Those machines will be in place in EVERY POLLING DISTRICT by the time of the next election due to a proclaimation of the Republican congress.

I know everyone in this thread hates me and thinks I'm some insane lib...but since the conservatives like to stick their fingers in their ears and hum so as not to hear anything pertinent I will continue.

2004: The year Bush won after being elected via machines (used in 68% of all polling districts) made by a company that provided the republican party with 30% of the contributions they received. Those machines will be in place in EVERY POLLING DISTRICT by the time of the next election due to a proclaimation of the Republican congress.

It would have been rather hard to keep the software changes necessary for that a secret.

Programmers are not all Republicans. You're saying that all of the programmers at these companies are die hard Republicans who are in on it? All of the software testers? All of the QA people? How many people do you suppose that would be? And how many could keep their mouths shut?

And since the code is reviewed by people who are party to having machines installed (both major parties show an interest in this), how could it be a secret?

You can't say the people were just ordered to write the software that way. Some of the programmers are bound to be Democrats, or at the very least not Republicans - and some Republicans would object.

If Kerry the Boob had not been nominated, I'm sure the election would have been different. And then the Republicans would be wearing the tinfoil hats.

I know everyone in this thread hates me and thinks I'm some insane lib...but since the conservatives like to stick their fingers in their ears and hum so as not to hear anything pertinent I will continue.

2004: The year Bush won after being elected via machines (used in 68% of all polling districts) made by a company that provided the republican party with 30% of the contributions they received. Those machines will be in place in EVERY POLLING DISTRICT by the time of the next election due to a proclaimation of the Republican congress.

I KNEW something was wrong! :eek:

Republicans will need all the help they can get in 2008 for the Democrats will have regrouped and give America a better choice then Kerry.

2000: Bush stole the election with his Republican lackeys and of course his brother.

Incorrect but its no use trying to convince anyone because that is what the left has been feeding their base. It hasn't worked in changing a thing though because no one is buying the rhetoric.

2004: This he one fair but I'm positive that he must have brainwashed America to get it done. :(

:rolleyes:

It would have been rather hard to keep the software changes necessary for that a secret.

Programmers are not all Republicans. You're saying that all of the programmers at these companies are die hard Republicans who are in on it? All of the software testers? All of the QA people? How many people do you suppose that would be? And how many could keep their mouths shut?

And since the code is reviewed by people who are party to having machines installed (both major parties show an interest in this), how could it be a secret?

You can't say the people were just ordered to write the software that way. Some of the programmers are bound to be Democrats, or at the very least not Republicans - and some Republicans would object.

If Kerry the Boob had not been nominated, I'm sure the election would have been different. And then the Republicans would be wearing the tinfoil hats.

Now you are making it sound ridiculous by showing up with a very weak argument. There is, as I'm certain you are aware of, no need to change the software for them all, a few would suffice. Say in the swing states. So there is no need for a small legion of accomplishes.

Interestingly, the exit polls were way off in the swing states, just as they were on target in the blue-states. Just a mere coincidence of course. :rolleyes:

I KNEW something was wrong! :eek:

Republicans will need all the help they can get in 2008 for the Democrats will have regrouped and give America a better choice then Kerry.

Not with Howard Dean at the helm and what he has been saying about Republicans. Howard Dean is alienating the Conservative Democrats as well as Independents. Two groups the dems need to win elections. If he loses them, the Dems won't have a chance next year or in 2008.

Interestingly, the exit polls were way off in the swing states, just as they were on target in the blue-states. Just a mere coincidence of course. :rolleyes:

Interesting that Fox News tossed out the exit polls because they were suspect and they turned out to be right.

Here's a tip. Don't trust exit polls.

Not with Howard Dean at the helm and what he has been saying about Republicans. Howard Dean is alienating the Conservative Democrats as well as Independents. Two groups the dems need to win elections. If he loses them, the Dems won't have a chance next year or in 2008.

I wouldn't vote for Howard Dean anyway. If the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate him in '08 then I'll stay home that November.

I wouldn't vote for Howard Dean anyway. If the Democrats are foolish enough to nominate him in '08 then I'll stay home that November.

I wasn't talking him running for President. He is the DNC Chair but isn't acting like it because he is alienating those on the right inside the democratic party as well as the inpendents.

It would have been rather hard to keep the software changes necessary for that a secret.

Programmers are not all Republicans. You're saying that all of the programmers at these companies are die hard Republicans who are in on it? All of the software testers? All of the QA people? How many people do you suppose that would be? And how many could keep their mouths shut?

And since the code is reviewed by people who are party to having machines installed (both major parties show an interest in this), how could it be a secret?

You can't say the people were just ordered to write the software that way. Some of the programmers are bound to be Democrats, or at the very least not Republicans - and some Republicans would object.

If Kerry the Boob had not been nominated, I'm sure the election would have been different. And then the Republicans would be wearing the tinfoil hats.


Is it hard to imagine that one programmer making one piece of software works for a company that makes these machines...and that perhaps he's republican?

Not really hard to imagine. I've worked for a company where we made one type of software and there was one programmer, me, and the owner. And we made large scale web apps for Higher Education Grad schools and Helath Sciences Schools. These programs are easily more complicated that voting machine apparatus.

I don't know that Kerry would have been better than Bush (then again I think my dog would've been better than bush...she feels sorry when she does the wrong thing). I think he ran a bit dirty too, what with getting Dennis Kucenich out before he even started.

They all suck, is my major point, and why I started this thread.

I wasn't talking him running for President. He is the DNC Chair but isn't acting like it because he is alienating those on the right inside the democratic party as well as the inpendents.

In that case there is plenty of time for the rest of the party to bring him in line and get him to stop annoying people with his personal rheteric.

Interesting that Fox News tossed out the exit polls because they were suspect and they turned out to be right.

Here's a tip. Don't trust exit polls.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_U.S._presidential_election_controversy_and_irregularities

Enjoy.

In that case there is plenty of time for the rest of the party to bring him in line and get him to stop annoying people with his personal rheteric.

If they pull that off then it'll prove that there is a God because it'll take a miracle for that to happen :D

*snip*

Do you really want to try and play that game? Shall we go through the news agencies and see just how the Democrats tried to keep Republicans from voting? Shall we see how many Republican Headquarters were broken into with stuff stolen?

Do you really want to try and play that game? Shall we go through the news agencies and see just how the Democrats tried to keep Republicans from voting? Shall we see how many Republican Headquarters were broken into with stuff stolen?

Shall we get into the Bush campaign interns that went to sign up people as Democrat under the guise of being Kerry interns and later took these voter registration cards and threw them in the trash?

Shall we get into the Bush campaign interns that went to sign up people as Democrat under the guise of being Kerry interns and later took these voter registration cards and threw them in the trash?

Shall we bring up that a dem was giving away drugs? Or how about falsifing registration ballots that caused more registered voters than there are people in a certain county?

We can keep this up all day you know. It won't solve anything.

Shall we get into the Bush campaign interns that went to sign up people as Democrat under the guise of being Kerry interns and later took these voter registration cards and threw them in the trash?

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of this stuff and would like to read on it.

Shall we bring up that a dem was giving away drugs? Or how about falsifing registration ballots that caused more registered voters than there are people in a certain county?

We can keep this up all day you know. It won't solve anything.

People on both sides did stupid things. Unfortunetly people don't really care that much or there would be a widespread call for change. A uniform way of voting would be a good start. (good luck on THAT happening!)

Do you really want to try and play that game? Shall we go through the news agencies and see just how the Democrats tried to keep Republicans from voting? Shall we see how many Republican Headquarters were broken into with stuff stolen?

Can you prove that it were the democrats, or affiliates of the democrats who did the breaking and entry? Ever considered the possibility, not saying that this is the case, that it was the republicans themselves who staged those events? As for the democrats trying to keep republicans from voting, I have no trouble believing that. As I stated in another thread, I'm certain the top of both parties work for the same team. Can't have only one appear as the bad guy, can we? Much more strategic to paint both black.

Do you have a source for this? I've never heard of this stuff and would like to read on it.

http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041019/NEWS09/410190343

Mary Poppins. Jeffrey Dahmer. Janet Jackson. Chad Staton.

Defiance County elections officials were confident the first three hadn't moved to their small community. But the fourth one lived there, and - in exchange for crack cocaine - tried to falsely submit the first three names and more than 100 others onto the county's voter registration rolls, police said.

Now Mr. Staton, 22, of Defiance, faces a felony charge of false registration in a case that has quickly gained national attention as part of a hotly contested presidential battle that's attracted a flurry of new voter registrations across the country - and a flurry of complaints of voter registration fraud.

Defiance County Sheriff David Westrick said that Mr. Staton was working on behalf of a Toledo woman, Georgianne Pitts, to register new voters. She, in turn, was working on behalf of the NAACP National Voter Fund, which was formed by the NAACP in 2000 to register new voters.

Sheriff Westrick said that Pitts, 41, of Toledo, admitted she gave Mr. Staton crack cocaine in lieu of cash for supplying her with completed voter registration forms. The sheriff declined to say how much crack cocaine Pitts supplied Mr. Staton, or to say whether Pitts knew that the forms Mr. Staton gave her were falsified.

People on both sides did stupid things. Unfortunetly people don't really care that much or there would be a widespread call for change. A uniform way of voting would be a good start. (good luck on THAT happening!)

I agree with you 100%.

Can you prove that it were the democrats, or affiliates of the democrats who did the breaking and entry? Ever considered the possibility, not saying that this is the case, that it was the republicans themselves who staged those events?

Thought about it and rejected it because in retaliation, the republicans did the same to DNC Headquarters. Tit for tat. Still not right either which way. I condemned both actions and shook my head. Its always the lunitics in the party that make the party look bad.

As for the democrats trying to keep republicans from voting, I have no trouble believing that. As I stated in another thread, I'm certain the top of both parties work for the same team. Can't have only one appear as the bad guy, can we? Much more strategic to paint both black.

As far as I know, I haven't heard of Republicans slashing tires on vans taking people to the polls.

Right, which is kind of my point. Aren't we more or less looking at a fascist dictatorship now anyway? I mean, I know Clinton had some scandal, but everyday there is something else with the Bush Administration. He's insane, Karl Rove is dangerous, Cheney is a madman (who saw him drop the Purple Heart at that Ceremony last week)...most of Congress is up to no good.

Why not take it back? Enter a vote of no confidence in the current government and demand a full change in every Federal Seat?

how about voting for a 3rd party candidate....i know i am...repubs and democrats are both wolves in sheeps clothing to me.
they are equally vile alernatives and do not represent or care 1 wit about me or my life.

yea i know i am "throwing away my vote"

but i refuse to ever vote for either 2 parties ever again,so if enough people throw away there votes,maybe they wont be wasted after all!

or bring on the revolution..woohoo