• silverwhisper said on Oct 12, 2007....

  b/c of course, terrorists as everyone knows are a much greater threat to this country than the erstwhile USSR...
  
  [rolls eyes]
  
  ed

• kelly said on Oct 12, 2007....

  We are living with an extremely abusive, authoritarian administration. We not only need to get rid of Bush, we need to get rid of all his cronies, before they metastasize.

• buckrogers said on Oct 13, 2007....

  This country has never been a democracy; it is somewhere between a plutocracy and oligarchy.  The voting booth is an incidental that has very little effect of how the country is run.  
   
  It is obvious that both Bush and Cheney are war criminals and should be prosecuted and have caused a great deal of harm to our country's reputation.  It is a disgrace to see two draft-dodgers willfully send the children of other families in harms way and not their own.     

• bloc said on Oct 13, 2007....

  I think the voting booth has little effect because of general apathy. I don't think it has to be that way.
  
  I'm sure they will avoid many european countries after they are out of office since many of those countries will try them as war criminals for legalizing torture.
  

• lfbno7 said on Oct 14, 2007....

  Sometimes the voting booth is entirely irrelevant.  Remember the guy who owns the vote-counter machines guaranteeing Ohio to Bush before the election.  They can change the results to whatever they want.
  
  There was a song by Dylan in his early years where he sings about the murder of Hattie Carroll and keeps saying "now's not the time for your tears", and then at the end says that the rich white man who killed her for the fun of it got off with a slap on the wrist, and Dylan said "bury the rag deep in your face, for now's the time for your tears".
  
  That is relevant to this situation.  The problem is that we did not react to that clear evidence of vote-counting fraud, just as the judge in the Hattie Carroll trial did not react to her murder.  We are not reacting to injustice.  The guy who said that should have been tried for something.  He should have been punished.  Instead he was just winked at.  He had completely negated our representative democracy by making it clear that no matter who we voted for, he was going to reflect Bush as the winner of Ohio, and we did absolutely nothing to him.
  

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2007....

  yes, you are right. I was assuming a voting system with integrity. 

• stopmediabias said on Oct 14, 2007....

  What is the end result?  I'm assuming all of you guys have a mental picture of exactly what the Bush administration is "up to." So tell me what they would like to see this country become?  There is all these conspiracy theories about the out of control war-mongers who spy on people, torture people, lie to people, etc etc etc, exactly for what?  The Nazis wanted to take over the world, radical Muslims want to make everyone radical Muslims, so what do President Bush and Cheney want?

• lfbno7 said on Oct 14, 2007....

  To enrich their elite constituency, which includes oil barons, pharmaceutical barons, and the rest of the robber barons that Teddy Roosevelt kicked in the ass in his day.  To constantly increase the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the mere working people.  They are succeeding fantastically on all counts.  And it's not just the Bush administration with this agenda.  The Democrats have a similar agenda, only a little tiny bit less coldhearted.  The Democrats don't mind giving some kids some health insurance, as long as it doesn't interfere too much with the big picture described above.  Basically, Republicans worship selfishness as their god, and Democrats do the same except they feel a little guilty about it and want to throw the people a crumb and thereby see themselves as the good guys.  Everything's relative.
  
  The Nazi Germans didn't merely want to take over the world.  They also wanted to kill every Jew, correctly seeing that the Jews would never fall in line with their agenda, and enslave every black and other minority.  They wanted to eradicate freedom on earth and place themselves in the cat bird seat with the rest of the world working for them and treating them like the Master Race.
  
  Am I telling you something you don't already know?
  

• bloc said on Oct 14, 2007....

  power corrupts, it's really that simple and it's one of the core principles our country was founded upon. 

• muckpar said on Oct 15, 2007....

  The two parties are both guilty of catering to the wealthy. They are both controlled by the wealthy. Why do you think special interests give millions to both parties, their sorry selves are covered by whoever wins the congress and presidency. What to do about it? Take the money out of campaigns, until that is done nothing will change.

• bloc said on Oct 15, 2007....

  aren't citizens also guilty of voting for the people that take this money? This is one of the issues that I'm on the fence about, but lean towards not taking money out of campaigns. There are two major reasons for this.
  
  1. It's peoples votes that cause these people to get elected, not money. I feel that we shouldn't legislate to fix peoples voting habits unless I'm convinced the positives far outweigh the negatives.
  
  2. Regarding the negatives, it seems a very difficult problem to decide what is and isn't a "contribution" to a campaign. If I decide, with my own money, to make a website opposing a particular candidate is that considered a campaign contribution to the other candidate? If not, then won't money simply be spent in other ways, but still have the same effect?
  

• stopmediabias said on Oct 15, 2007....

  Lfbno-Don't we have a free market system in which people are unlimited in the amount of money they can make?  A majority of the wealthy people in this country were not born wealthy they earned it.  If the "mere working people" do not want to be in that catagory, this is America, there are so many opportunities and success stories.  How on earth do wealthy people benefit from a gap between the rich and the poor?  If wealthy people worked there way to the top then who are we to punish them for that?
   
  Anyway, let me see if I read you correctly, President Bush does all of these supposed above mentioned things to "enrich their elite constituency" and "To constantly increase the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the mere working people"
   
  Sorry, but I just don't see what your getting at.
  Why are all Liberals pissed off at the wealthy?

• bloc said on Oct 15, 2007....

  "A majority of the wealthy people in this country were not born wealthy they earned it. "
  
  I'm not sure this is true. Can you source it?
  
  "If wealthy people worked there way to the top then who are we to punish them for that?"
  
  Your assumption that they worked their way to the top is false in many regards. I'll illustrate it with a simple argument. Many of the people in america that worked their way to the top wouldn't not have been able to do that had they been born ito a 3rd world country. Clearly there is more at work in opportunity than the individual!!!
  
  "Why are all Liberals pissed off at the wealthy?"
  
  I thought liberals were the elite and wealthy! You guys can't even keep your talking points straight ;)
  

• D6fer said on Oct 15, 2007....

  has it ever occurred to any of you that they have had to invoke that privilege, not because they are hiding something sinister, but because the opposing party is trying to undermine them?  Both parties are playing politics stronger than ever....The Dems are still pissed about all of the Clinton investigations as well as the 2000 election....The republicans aren't much better....While I admit there could be illegalities involved...I don't think it is to the extent that you would like to believe....I also think that those possible illegalities have or are being committed with the best of intentions. 

• silverwhisper said on Oct 16, 2007....

  if that's the case, d6, that's simply wrong. that's the kind of thing people do in monarchies, not democracies, and is an insult to the rule of law.
  
  you do realize that by saying what you do in your first sentence, you actually agree with all the things bush's critics have been saying, don't you?
  
  ed

• bloc said on Oct 16, 2007....

  @d6
  they are hiding it because it is illegal and unconstitutional. If you want to throw away the constitution you should do it through the legal mechanisms laid out by our founding fathers. This nonsense you are claiming is exactly the same justification given by dictators and totalitarian states. It's also the exact same reasoning as a person like hugo chavez. Read his nonse on why he's done some of the things he's done and you'll find that they almost mirror your words.
  
  
  
  

• D6fer said on Oct 16, 2007....

  I stand by my last statement....reread it and you have your response

• kelly said on Oct 17, 2007....

  "has it ever occurred to any of you that they have had to invoke that privilege, not because they are hiding something sinister, but because the opposing party is trying to undermine them?"
  
  
  When America goes down the tubes it won't be because of "liberals."  It will be because we have lots of common people that think like this.  Totalitarianism always starts out sounding good to someone.
  
  
  When you use questionable and illegal means to quash the opposition then you no longer have a democracy.  The way is paved for complete suppression of anyone who disagrees with the ruling junta.  You just think that because it's your party doing the suppressing that everything will be OK.  You think that you'll never fall afoul of your own party's good graces.  You will eventually be wrong.
  
  
  If anyone is trying to undermine anything it the the Bush administration trying to undermine the constitution.

• D6fer said on Oct 17, 2007....

  When you use questionable and illegal means to quash the opposition then you no longer have a democracy.
  
  The opposition? I have always been very clear that this has been about terrorists....now we really know which side you are on!
  

• bloc said on Oct 18, 2007....

  @d6
  your conclusion doesn't make sense. When you have a secret lawless government that uses torture you no longer have a democracy. That is what Kelly said.
  

• D6fer said on Oct 18, 2007....

  As I have said many times before....this is specifically about terrorism....Bush has used these resources for that purpose and that purpose only.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 21, 2007....

  o sure...heaven knows the government doesn't ever make any mistakes, now do they, d6? :>
  
  aren't you a republican? aren't you supposed to be suspicious of government power? :>
  
  ed

• bloc said on Oct 21, 2007....

  he worships idols that have R's by their name. It's really that simple. 

• D6fer said on Oct 22, 2007....

  yawwwn! how many posts do we have to argue the same points over and over again?

• silverwhisper said on Oct 22, 2007....

  the thing is, d6, that you aren't arguing. you're ignoring. you think that bush says it's about terrorism, and he can't possibly ever be wrong or lie about that.
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Oct 23, 2007....

  There hasn't been any evidence otherwise ed....like I said before...if there was evidence that he was gathering info on democrats or something like that...then sure I would have a problem with that.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 23, 2007....

  the problem w/ that thinking, d6, is that you refuse even to look. seriously, what would convince you that bush authorized torture which later was actually carried out, short of a signed confession?
  
  bloc has repeatedly pointed out to you that jose padilla had his civil liberties denied for years. bush denied the civil liberties of an american citizen for years. that is the act of a despot.
  
  that is evidence. that's how i know you won't even look.
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Oct 23, 2007....

  I looked very closely.....at an american terrorist getting what he deserved.....and I watch very closely those of you who continually take the side of that terrorist....it's clear who's side you are on.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 24, 2007....

  that's just the stupidest thing i've seen to date from you on the matter, d6. and here's why.
  
  legally speaking--and that's all the matters here b/c we're speaking of rights and civil liberties after all--he isn't a terrorist until convicted of being one in a court of law.
  
  you seem willing to shed two whole branches of the government and have a monarchy. well, i won't stand for it.
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Oct 25, 2007....

  desperate times call for desperate measures ed.....the only people that are concerned about this are terrorists and liberals....I am sure that Ted Kennedy and Osama Bin Laden would be in complete agreement with you though ed.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 25, 2007....

  this is not more desperate than the cold war, d6. did you actually live through any part of it?
  
  compared to imminent, planet-wide destruction of human society, terrorism is a tempest in a teacup.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Oct 25, 2007....

  @d6
  desperate times may call for desperate measures, but those measures need to be effective and it needs to be shown that they are more effective than measures that don't violate our countries core principles. I look at the padilla case and I don't see how removing the due rights process of an american citizen made us any safer. Can you tell me why we needed to do that rather than charge him with a crime in the first place? What did we gain by violation the constitution that wouldn't have been achieved by acting within the rules of the constitution?

• D6fer said on Oct 25, 2007....

  How many Americans died during and due to the cold war ed? 
  Don't we have another cold war on our hands now? Russia is trying to arm Iran with nukes....China is shooting down satellites and hacking into our defense system computers...how safe is that?
  
  I am not sure how to answer the padilla question bloc other than 1. hindsight is 20/20
  and 2. do we have absolutely all of the facts? Were there national security issues at stake? could have there been?
  

• silverwhisper said on Oct 26, 2007....

  we can begin with the vietnam war, which absolutely was a function of the cold war. absolutely, positively. a whole buttload more than 3000 americans were killed in that b/c it was, you know, a war.
  
  ed

• bloc said on Oct 26, 2007....

  "Were there national security issues at stake? could have there been?"
  
  This is one of the trade offs we take for liberty. The founding fathers were very clear about it the dangers in trusting people with secret and absolute power. The President does not have the power to detain americans without proving their guilt. Bush violated the Constitution, it's that simple.
  
  
  I can understand you wanting to give him a pass on it once, in the heat after 9/11. But can we agree that this should never happen again?

• D6fer said on Oct 27, 2007....

  Vietnam was indeed a war....but it was not the cold war...not by definition
  
  under the same circumstances bloc? no....we couldn't agree 

• silverwhisper said on Oct 27, 2007....

  d6: how do you figure? we were there b/c of the stupid domino theory, which was what drove most of the cold war!
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Oct 28, 2007....

  when I think of the cold war I think of the arms race...as I think most people do.

• silverwhisper said on Oct 28, 2007....

  if not for the cold war, do you seriously think that the vietnam war still would have happened? i don't care how popular an idea is, hell look at the popularity of reality TV, man! :>
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Oct 28, 2007....

  hey watch it! I love reality tv.....thems fightin words! [smacks ed with his own trout]

• silverwhisper said on Oct 28, 2007....

  reality TV is for the brain-dead, d6. :p
  
  ed

• D6fer said on Oct 28, 2007....

  oh I see another post comming!

• silverwhisper said on Oct 28, 2007....

  yes, i see! :D
  
  ed

Comment on "This isn't democracy"

Currently tagged	politics bush the constitution law Constitutional law Unclear about conspiracy Corruption (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment