A civilised political discussion

[Laukev7]

quote: what i mean is theres probably going to be much more people investigating the official story than people going out of their way to be sure its right.

This may be true, but it's up to the government to prove their allegations in the first place, not to others to prove them true or wrong. As it turns out, their claims are incoherent, whereas overwhelming evidence is against them, and their motivations as well as their reactions make them very suspect

[Canadian Lover]

Vent your fustration of Bush to his face!
 president@whitehouse.gov

[Orethrius]

quote:Originally posted by Canadian Lover:
Vent your fustration of Bush to his face!
  president@whitehouse.gov

...and I want Der Schutzstaffel on my case... why?  Keep in mind that all e-mail sent to that address is vetted and form-lettered, nothing from anyone not in his "inner circle" ACTUALLY reaches him...

[Xeen]

It's official. 85% of the world wants Bush gone.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=586&e=2&u=/nm/20040908/wl_nm/campaign_world_opinion_dc

[worker201]

If they didn't poll US troops based overseas, it would probably be more like 95%.

Actually, no source for the poll was given, either on Yahoo or Reuters.  Names of countries polled were not given either, nor a sampling method.  US polls are shitty enough, but now we have jerkoffs phoning random people in Venezuela and Namibia right at dinnertime?

I believe the results of the poll, but I hate "new sources" who just hand out little factoids like they were Halloween candy, without any source materials.

[WMD]

quote: The only countries where Bush was preferred in the poll of 34,330 people that was conducted mainly in July and August were the Philippines, Nigeria and Poland.

Hmmm....Philippines, E-Mail Scam Central, and my ancestral homeland.  I am missing something?  

[Xeen]

On a related note, it seems that Chimp-In-Chief is backing out of one of the 3 scheduled debates where the candidates have to answer questions from a live audience. What a coward.

AWOL from service in 1972.
AWOL from debates in 2004.

Article

[skyman8081]

Calling Bush a coward and Chimp-in-cheif is very close to name-calling, which, ITT is not going to be tolerated.

getting back on topic, I might try cracking into "Unfit For Command" eventually.  I figure, that the Liberal/Democratic side has just been unrelenting in their attacks on President Bush, and they bore me now.  I'm going to give The Right-Wing an equal opportunity to present their point of view.

And regarding the Debate, according to the article, President Bush never agreed to any of the debates, and they are concerned that the audience might be biased in general, both candidates were under the pretense of an audience of undecided voters, chosen by the Gallup Group.

Just to put this in perspective (if a bit extreme), It would be like Kerry doing a Q&A debate, infront of an audience of Christian Fundamentalists, under the pretense of objective and undecided voters.


my example is obviously a tad extreme, but it illustrates WHY President Bush chose to not participate in it.

[ September 10, 2004: Message edited by: Agent Sauron ]

[worker201]

Personally, I would welcome the chance to deliver a considered and thoughtful answer to the other side.  With all the muckraking that is going on in this campaign, a lot of people are missing the key points.  If I were running, I would certainly take the time to speak to rightwing christians and racist hicks, because they are the ones who are the most misled by their leaders.  And any candidate who is unable to come up with intelligent rhetoric even in the face of brutal attacks does not deserve to be president.  Fast-thinking and cool-headedness are 2 requirements for the office of president.

[flap]

quote:it illustrates WHY President Bush chose to not participate in it.

Or maybe this is the reason:

http://media.ebaumsworld.com/index.php?e=sovereignty.mov

[WMD]

Oh come now, he doesn't mess up that badly ALL the time.     His debates in 2000 were much clearer.

On that note, anyone got a clip of the "Left Hand, Right Hand" thing?  My favorite.  

[solarismka]

Although we have mentioned 9/11, the war in Iraq and agree about the fascism going on in America currently.  

I have to mention the current treatment of America's allies that did not join the invasion of Iraq.  

I know that America, being a soverin nation has every right to protect its boarders but what business has it got to enforce its strong hold on Canada to force Canadians to accept biometrics in passports and other official documentation?  Why should Canada be slammed with articles of 'harboring terrorism' when basically the war on terror has nothing to do with us?

Why bring that fascism north of the boarder?  

I do blame some of our politians for this though.  Namely The Tories and current liberal party of Ontario.

If anything, if the U.S. wants to 'protect' itself.  Then it can.  But we should not cater to their fear.

I've never been 'Anti-American,'  I am however anti-Nazism and anti-bush.  I have a big problem when a country starts going after other countries in this world and I believe just because it is the "U.S. of A" does not mean that America has the right to the same fascist actions that people have condemned Germany in the past.  If anything we should learn from our mistakes and clearly recognize that this is wrong.  I'm just glad that there are people out there that have dedicated in putting out the truth and not just accepted 'the government says so.' excuse.  

 agree that kerry is not the greatest leader.  But I believe its the step in the right direction if all bush wants is total chaos.  I just want things to go back to normal, (pr 9/11.)  And stop with the racism, fascism, terrosim bullshit.

[Laukev7]

One caveat when using the 'fascism' label, however, is how one defines it. Strictly speaking, most people in the US, including the leaders, probably don't consciously follow Mussolini's original philosophy. However, the term 'fascist' has also been used to describe regimes that bear similar characteristics, such as intense nationalism and obsession for national security at the expense of civil rights, the use of the word 'fascism', in that sense, would likely apply to the US under the current Bush regime.

Of course, such a comparison is prone to criticism, both because it is associated with superficial and specific characteristics of past regimes, and because the word has been overused in debates for the powerful images that it evokes as a means to defame a political adversary. However, if one looks beyond mainstream assumptions and put all matters in context, one can find out that parallels between the Bush administration and fascist regimes are not so far-fetched.

Fascist states are commonly assumed to be dictatorships controlled by a single, ruthless leader whose rule is enforced by a pervading cult of personality. In reality, similar regimes have also been instilled in the past by elites (whether part of the government or not) who glorify puppet leaders though various means of propaganda while they work behind the scenes to further their agendas. Many of the elites in question are owners of select few corporations that work in tandem with the regime, whether directly or by affiliation.

It is worth noting that democratic institutions, separation of power, bills of rights and constitutional provisions have not prevented fascist regimes from taking over the country by legal or pseudo-legal means (Nazi Germany is a prominent example). Fascist regimes that have been instituted by an (often fraudulent) election are more difficult to recognise, and are often only identified several years later when it is too late, after having progressively expanded their powers by abolishing civil rights, often as a response to a staged attack or a perceived threat, and after having brought down the separations of power by various means.

Contrary to past European fascist regimes like Nazi Germany, there is no need for the US to expand its borders, as it is already a large nation; all it has to do is allow its corporations to exploit the natural and human ressources of third world countries. However, the PNAC's aim to turn the US into a global defacto hegemony is only slightly different, with the exception that the neocons claim that they dream of world peace through unity, as opposed to classic fascists who made their dreams of self-aggrandisement explicit.

In short, neoconservatism is simply a subversive and more subtle variant of fascism that relies slightly more on perceived threats than on patriotic fervour, and whose control is less direct, but more spread out and much more powerful.

BTW, here is Lawrence Britt's original article:

http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/britt_23_2.htm

OK, time to stop now. The effects of my medication are dissipating.

[ September 11, 2004: Message edited by: Laukev7 / BOB ]

[worker201]

Aside from a few minor grammatical errors, which I will politely ignore, that was a very nice essay.  However, the true definition of fascism does not come from the top down.  It comes from the bottom up.  If the people feel threatened by their own government, then something is terribly wrong, whether there is democracy present or not.  I personally feel that the current administration has an irrational grudge against me, just because I am not a CEO.  Additionally, the executive and legilsative branches of government have proven time and time again that they are not all that interested in the democratic opinions that normal citizens are voicing.  Ergo, fascism abounds.

[solarismka]

we could nick pick and argue what 'facism' or a 'dicatorship' is.  The fact is that we use history to look back appon and reconize a problem if the same problem is presented.

Indeed there has been an over use of words.  Even new words such as the 'war on' or 'shock and aw' or the use of 'freedom' and 'liberties' to definne their image and goal. When using words, it is about spinning the image to glorify the mass chaos that is happening now.

People use the basic system of the U.S. two party system to confuse the issue.  Like left vs right.  Republicans vs Democrats.  Or East vs West.  Islam vs Christan.  All of which, I believe is utter nonsence and takes away the criminal actions made by the bush regime.

But the fact boils down to what actions the current america has taken.  Despite the arguments, If I kill a person then that would make me a killer.  The bush regime has done the same things.  Instead of just killing one person they have killed many through 9/11, the attack of iraq and afganistan.  No matter how they justify it.  They have commited a crime where they have threatend, injured and even killed innocent civillans!

Thus you cannot just suddenly justify that crime with words like the 'war on terror.'  

It doesn't make it all of a sudden right.  In todays age, if Hitler was around, he would have faced war crimes for what he did back in that period of time.  So whay should bush be any different?  He should face the same punnishment since he has commited the same crimes.  

Of course no matter how I would like that to happen, it probably will not.

So the first step, I see is to get rid of bush.  Second, his goons.  Third get rid off ALL of the idiotic bullshit laws and restrictions that have been put in place since his comming of power.

I believe that, given a heack of a lot of time.  America can recover.  If germany could do it after hitler, then why not America after bush.  I just want the process to start so we can at least end this nightmare.