| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Denis Loubet" |
| Date: |
04 Nov 2004 02:14:47 AM |
| Object: |
Inconceivable |
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
05 Nov 2004 09:16:08 AM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
05 Nov 2004 09:50:11 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2004 07:16:08 -0800 in alt.atheism, (Iain)
defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
I don't think it would be a wise idea to start off with that. A better idea
might be to work towards economically isolating the U.S. so that the rest of the
world can finally start ignoring it and get on with the business of running a
_grown up_ world. We couldn't reasonably attack anyone simply for refusing to
do business with us. And if we did it _un_reasonably, which is entirely
possible, then the world as a collective whole - not just the Arab world - would
have not only a legitimate excuse, but a much larger and more united front in
doing as you suggest above.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
"Opinions are like people - every ***** has one..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
06 Nov 2004 10:02:43 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Nov 2004 03:50:11 GMT, (Uncle
Dollar Bill) wrote:
On 5 Nov 2004 07:16:08 -0800 in alt.atheism, (Iain)
defied the status quo and scrawled upon the toilet stall:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
I don't think it would be a wise idea to start off with that. A better idea
might be to work towards economically isolating the U.S. so that the rest of the
world can finally start ignoring it and get on with the business of running a
_grown up_ world.
The rest of the world doesn't need the U.S..
We couldn't reasonably attack anyone simply for refusing to
do business with us. And if we did it _un_reasonably, which is entirely
possible, then the world as a collective whole - not just the Arab world - would
have not only a legitimate excuse, but a much larger and more united front in
doing as you suggest above.
And Bush will loose the nukes.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
06 Nov 2004 10:01:35 PM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2004 07:16:08 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
Seriously? Never. They're too weak militarily (and I'm not talking
nukes). And don't think that aspect isn't being watched for from
orbit, either.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
08 Nov 2004 03:27:14 AM |
|
|
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<ad7ro0h3aukchi7o52lscgi3fm3rcv2t4t@4ax.com>...
On 5 Nov 2004 07:16:08 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
Seriously? Never. They're too weak militarily (and I'm not talking
nukes). And don't think that aspect isn't being watched for from
orbit, either.
Are you saying the rest of the entire Indo-European(including English)
speaking world plus a handful of other countries is collectively
weaker than the United States?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
08 Nov 2004 07:06:13 AM |
|
|
Iain wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message
news:<ad7ro0h3aukchi7o52lscgi3fm3rcv2t4t@4ax.com>...
On 5 Nov 2004 07:16:08 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention
that the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the
possibility of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked.
But in all that talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what
it meant, or how bad it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but
my mind avoided the details and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying.
It's not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their
raping of the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and
no threat of an upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything
they want, and play the public like a violin. They can get away with
anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
Seriously? Never. They're too weak militarily (and I'm not talking
nukes). And don't think that aspect isn't being watched for from
orbit, either.
Are you saying the rest of the entire Indo-European(including English)
speaking world plus a handful of other countries is collectively
weaker than the United States?
~Iain
Yes, the US has lot more planes, aircraft carriers
and nuclear weapons.
Of course, this does not always translate into
military power. Its all useless in Iraq.
Europe also has a long standing problem in it is
not united or capable of acting decisively in
a leadership role with a few exceptions, such as French
action in parts of Africa where France does intervene
from time to time.
Europe was helpless in face of Serb aggression and
genocide, and only when Bill Clinton actively lead
did real action get undertaken. We see little European
leadership in cases like Sudan for example, where as
a military threat, they are neglegible.
Europe is in no danger iof invasion from any part of
the world. But save for France, few projections of force
are to be seen from Europe except in cases of US leadership, like in
Afghanistan.
Europe has no doctrines, no unified forces, no real
plans that make it a military power to be much reckoned with.
Except again, France which this week is sending troops to intervene in
Ivory Coast.
--
Kerry - two medals a silver and bronze star.
Bush? Well they don't give medals
for going AWOL, missing your medical and
getting grounded or falling off of a bar stool.
Kerry - a hero, Bush - a zero
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
08 Nov 2004 04:02:51 AM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2004 01:27:14 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<ad7ro0h3aukchi7o52lscgi3fm3rcv2t4t@4ax.com>...
On 5 Nov 2004 07:16:08 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
Seriously? Never. They're too weak militarily (and I'm not talking
nukes). And don't think that aspect isn't being watched for from
orbit, either.
Are you saying the rest of the entire Indo-European(including English)
speaking world plus a handful of other countries is collectively
weaker than the United States?
Militarily weaker. However the US cannot dominate it apart from the
threat of destruction. It can't even occupy the militarily weakest
country in the Middle East without wholesale slaughter of the people
who don't want them there.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
08 Nov 2004 05:10:22 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Nov 2004 10:02:51 GMT in alt.atheism, Christopher A. Lee
(Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net>) said, directing the reply
to alt.atheism
On 8 Nov 2004 01:27:14 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<ad7ro0h3aukchi7o52lscgi3fm3rcv2t4t@4ax.com>...
On 5 Nov 2004 07:16:08 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
Seriously? Never. They're too weak militarily (and I'm not talking
nukes). And don't think that aspect isn't being watched for from
orbit, either.
Are you saying the rest of the entire Indo-European(including English)
speaking world plus a handful of other countries is collectively
weaker than the United States?
Militarily weaker.
Musing: in what sense, I wonder... Oh I *like* a good muse if there's
a wonderful and interesting "what if" in there....
However the US cannot dominate it apart from the
threat of destruction.
Well, I suppose there's always the nuke threat. On the other hand many
countries have the capability to deliver a significant nuclear strike
on the US. Not enough to completely destroy it, perhaps, but enough,
in the words of Gen. 'Buck' Turgidson, to muss their hair, which is to
say cause it to cease functioning as a coherent political and economic
entity, albeit at the price of total destruction for the perceived or
actual aggressor.
And of course there's a persistent rumour, originating in the 50s as
far as I can tell, that in such an event the US has a plan to nuke
*everyone* allies and enemies alike, so no one can take advantage of
the power vacuum that would result.
It can't even occupy the militarily weakest
country in the Middle East without wholesale slaughter of the people
who don't want them there.
Ah. That sense. More musing.
IIRC, the US used to maintain the military capability to fight two
major conventional wars and a fair regional conflict at the same time,
but presumably this has changed post the demise of the USSR, rather as
the old Royal Navy rule that we had to have more ships that the two
other largest navy powers combined went the way of economy and the
loss of empire.
On the other hand in Iraq the US is limited as regards what it can do
because of political and other "social" considerations. As it was in
Vietnam. Neither were "total war". Indeed my suspicion is that Vietnam
was seen by the US military powers that be, amongst other things, as a
way to keep a large standing and trained army on call for more serious
operations.
If it came to "USA vs The Rest of the World," one presumes the gloves
would come off as they did in WWII in the case of the Allies vs the
Axis: more or less any action would be perceived as acceptable
provided it increased the probability of victory without incurring
strategically significant losses.
In some sense in Iraq, the "insurgents," native and foreign, can only
do what they do because of the limitations the occupying powers impose
on themselves, rather as Gandhi could only do what he did in India
because of the metier of the British occupying power: had Nazi
Germany, or Stalinist Russia occupied India, or more realistically the
WWII version Japanese, how long would Gandhi's non-violent resistance
movement lasted?
IMO, somewhere between 8 and 19 seconds. Given the lead time for
reloading.
As I say, this is a muse and I really dunno what's going to happen in
real life: there are many possibilities, but as the Chinese are apt to
say the one thing I am sure of is that we live in interesting times.
And of course to say to someone, in Chinese (yes I know...) "may you
live in interesting times" is a curse.
But "no doubt we shall see".
--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
10 Nov 2004 12:04:20 PM |
|
|
On 8 Nov 2004 01:27:14 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote in message news:<ad7ro0h3aukchi7o52lscgi3fm3rcv2t4t@4ax.com>...
On 5 Nov 2004 07:16:08 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
How long do you think it will be before the the nations of the British
Commonwealth and the European Union, plus a handful of other allies,
do collectively unto the U.S.A. what the U.S.A. did to Iraq?
Seriously? Never. They're too weak militarily (and I'm not talking
nukes). And don't think that aspect isn't being watched for from
orbit, either.
Are you saying the rest of the entire Indo-European(including English)
speaking world plus a handful of other countries is collectively
weaker than the United States?
I don't know what the numbers are, but mobilization takes time.
There's also a whole lot of ocean to cross.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "LisaKay" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
04 Nov 2004 07:34:47 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message news:<_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>...
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
I think it's also a big slap of reality that the American people
mostly agreed to this. I thought this election would be VERY close,
if not a win for Kerry. Apparently most (more than half) if us want
what Bush is offering. So it's not just my imagination that the
christians want to take over the country/world...
It really is scary!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Witziges Rätsel" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
04 Nov 2004 07:37:46 AM |
|
|
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the
possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the
details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of
an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play
the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
Yes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
.
|
|
|
| User: "RainLover" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
04 Nov 2004 09:04:52 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 08:37:46 -0500, "Witziges Rätsel" <zer@roer.com>
wrote:
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the
possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the
details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of
an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play
the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
Yes, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power
attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other
things than power. - David Brin
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
05 Nov 2004 01:38:45 AM |
|
|
In article <_OmdnSJoEsFseRTcRVn-jA@io.com>,
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
I will tip my hat to Karl Rove, though. They ran a very skillful
political campaign. Goebbels would have been proud.
--
John Hachmann aa #1782
Vive le Resistance!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
04 Nov 2004 11:48:16 AM |
|
|
On Thu 04 Nov 2004 02:14:47a, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> kicked
back with a beer, ruminated at length, fell asleep, woke up, lit up a
joint, then fell asleep again after thoughtfully blurting out:
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention
that the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the
possibility of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked.
But in all that talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what
it meant, or how bad it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but
my mind avoided the details and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying.
It's not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their
raping of the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and
no threat of an upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything
they want, and play the public like a violin. They can get away with
anything.
I fear...
It's worse than that. Bush's party has a significant majority in Congress
and among the state governors, and will soon have an almost complete
majority in the SCOTUS. We *had* checks and balances -- but what happens
when one party controls the entire government, especially given the
behavior of the Bush administration? What, exactly, is going to stop Bush
from doing whatever the hell he wants to do? Tell me, does anyone here
think for a second that our current Congress would impeach Bush? Not only
is he a member of the majority political party, he's passed just about
every bill (if not actually every one, can't remember) that Congress has
sent to his desk. They owe him, both as fellow Party members and as
politicians whose goals have been strongly supported by the President.
So we're now in a situation where George W. Bush can do basically anything
he feels like with our nation. What protection do we have against tyranny,
oppression, discrimination, religious establishment, warmongering, and so
on?
First, the American people. It is to be hoped that they would not
willingly give up their freedoms or condone foolish and dangerous policies.
However, that form of protection inevitably means a revolution. If Bush
tries to pull some shady stuff on us, and the American people try to stop
him, it's going to mean blood, death, destruction. That is inevitable.
For this reason, any checks on the government short of revolution are
preferable. The American people's patriotism is our last resort in the
event of a undemocratic takeover.
Otherwise, in this current administration, we are protected by the limits
Bush places on himself for political reasons, popularity reasons, personal
morality, and so on. But wait -- what limits? Have we really seen that
the President *has* limits? Not in my opinion. Perhaps we'll see some
limits in the next four years, now that he has a free rein to do whatever
he likes. However, I wouldn't count on it.
So our protection from Bush is very, very thin and we can place very little
confidence in it. This is bad. This is very bad. I don't know that I can
think of a single time in history when we were so in danger of losing our
treasured freedom. As they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
absolutely.
In closing, let me present two points that it would be wise to consider.
First, remember how Hitler took power -- he got a majority in all branches
of the government and soon afterwards outlawed his competition. Can we be
confident that Bush would not do the same, if he thought it would help him
fight his "war on terror" or legislate his "traditional morality"? Second,
does anyone remember what happened the last time a significant sector of
America had no representation in the federal government? That's right --
we had a civil war.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"Atheism is ... the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
--Emmett F. Fields
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
05 Nov 2004 09:11:58 AM |
|
|
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95977A0F6B419Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
<snip>
Is assassination out of the question? Germany was still a democracy at
the same time it would have been wise to assassinate Hitler.
Of course, his collegues don't all have what it takes to win an
election, so it must be done as a time when election are still
relevant and still happen, instead of after.
Just a thought.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
05 Nov 2004 11:04:45 AM |
|
|
On 5 Nov 2004 07:11:58 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95977A0F6B419Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
<snip>
Is assassination out of the question? Germany was still a democracy at
the same time it would have been wise to assassinate Hitler.
Of course, his collegues don't all have what it takes to win an
election, so it must be done as a time when election are still
relevant and still happen, instead of after.
Just a thought.
Don't even hint at that. Even as a joke. The FBI and the Secret
Service are paranoid about that sort of thing. They take it seriously
until proven otherwise. Like the bloke they arrested for displaying
the Bible quote about "Burning Bush".
And their influence reaches into the UK. Remember the Indymedia web
host having its hardware siezed and turned over to the FBI? Under
Blair the UK is like a colony.
~Iain
.
|
|
|
| User: "Iain" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
06 Nov 2004 09:20:50 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<cgcno0pld069k0ccne5ik4cbi4uu77hkmd@4ax.com>...
On 5 Nov 2004 07:11:58 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95977A0F6B419Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
<snip>
Is assassination out of the question? Germany was still a democracy at
the same time it would have been wise to assassinate Hitler.
Of course, his collegues don't all have what it takes to win an
election, so it must be done as a time when election are still
relevant and still happen, instead of after.
Just a thought.
Don't even hint at that. Even as a joke. The FBI and the Secret
Service are paranoid about that sort of thing. They take it seriously
until proven otherwise. Like the bloke they arrested for displaying
the Bible quote about "Burning Bush".
And their influence reaches into the UK. Remember the Indymedia web
host having its hardware siezed and turned over to the FBI? Under
Blair the UK is like a colony.
How many people on the Usenet have joked about assassination, do you reckon?
~Iain
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
06 Nov 2004 09:58:59 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:04:45 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 5 Nov 2004 07:11:58 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95977A0F6B419Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
<snip>
Is assassination out of the question? Germany was still a democracy at
the same time it would have been wise to assassinate Hitler.
Of course, his collegues don't all have what it takes to win an
election, so it must be done as a time when election are still
relevant and still happen, instead of after.
Just a thought.
Don't even hint at that. Even as a joke. The FBI and the Secret
Service are paranoid about that sort of thing. They take it seriously
until proven otherwise.
It's their job to take it seriously until proven otherwise. Military
personnel are also to report any threats to the President. It's
probably the same with civil service personnel.
Like the bloke they arrested for displaying
the Bible quote about "Burning Bush".
I understood investigation showed much more than the singular item.
And their influence reaches into the UK. Remember the Indymedia web
host having its hardware siezed and turned over to the FBI? Under
Blair the UK is like a colony.
Yeah, I had read something about that.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mephisto" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
06 Nov 2004 03:30:55 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 05 Nov 2004 17:04:45 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On 5 Nov 2004 07:11:58 -0800, (Iain) wrote:
Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message news:<Xns95977A0F6B419Mekkala@199.45.49.11>...
<snip>
Is assassination out of the question? Germany was still a democracy at
the same time it would have been wise to assassinate Hitler.
Of course, his collegues don't all have what it takes to win an
election, so it must be done as a time when election are still
relevant and still happen, instead of after.
Just a thought.
Don't even hint at that. Even as a joke. The FBI and the Secret
Service are paranoid about that sort of thing. They take it seriously
until proven otherwise. Like the bloke they arrested for displaying
the Bible quote about "Burning Bush".
And their influence reaches into the UK. Remember the Indymedia web
host having its hardware siezed and turned over to the FBI? Under
Blair the UK is like a colony.
They must have a big, fat file on me then :-)
It's sad to see such a sentiment being expressed in a country that was
once famed for its freedom of speech.
Mephisto
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Dollar Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
04 Nov 2004 10:57:43 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:48:16 GMT in alt.atheism, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> defied the status quo and scrawled upon the
toilet stall:
<snip>
So we're now in a situation where George W. Bush can do basically anything
he feels like with our nation. What protection do we have against tyranny,
oppression, discrimination, religious establishment, warmongering, and so
on?
First, the American people. It is to be hoped that they would not
willingly give up their freedoms or condone foolish and dangerous policies.
Then we're screwed. They've already done both of these things with their vote.
--
L8r,
Uncle Dollar Bill
"Opinions are like people - every ***** has one..."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
05 Nov 2004 05:30:43 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 04 Nov 2004 17:48:16 GMT, Mekkala <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
It's worse than that. Bush's party has a significant majority in Congress
and among the state governors, and will soon have an almost complete
majority in the SCOTUS. We *had* checks and balances -- but what happens
when one party controls the entire government, especially given the
behavior of the Bush administration?
Welcome to 'rat willie's first two years.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
04 Nov 2004 02:28:27 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:14:47 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
They've been doing that from 'Day 1,' Denis. :\
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Inconceivable |
05 Nov 2004 05:28:31 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 4 Nov 2004 02:14:47 -0600, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:
During the last few years whenever I talked politics, I would mention that
the alternative to Kerry was unthinkable. When talking about the possibility
of Bush winning, I'd say we would be completely fucked. But in all that
talk, I never really THOUGHT long and hard about what it meant, or how bad
it would be. I knew it would have to be bad, but my mind avoided the details
and depth of that particular horror.
Wow, you really are screwed in the head. You sucked up to 'rat kerry's bs, and you can't
understand that America had spoken. I suggest you realize you are on the minority side,
almost equal in number, and look to the good that will be coming even though it's not 'rat
kerry's doing.
Now I'm thinking about what the Bush win means, and it's terrifying. It's
not just Bush, it's the whole republican media machine and their raping of
the truth. It's the Bush administration with a mandate, and no threat of an
upcoming election to answer to. They can do anything they want, and play the
public like a violin. They can get away with anything.
I fear...
I fear that you just don't want to grasp that we're all Americans.
duke
*****
Matthew 22
14"For many are invited, but few are chosen."
*****
.
|
|
|
|
|
