| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Terry Cross" |
| Date: |
12 Jan 2006 07:11:43 PM |
| Object: |
What is wrong with the Republicans? |
Dave Lister wrote:
What is wrong with the Republicans?
With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
"For the first time?" Bush does not seek to govern. Bush seeks to
rule.
The difference between "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the United
States is really not that great. Both seek unlimited power. Both seek
a stratified society where some people get rich and the rest get
nothing. Both seek ultimately to ascend to tyranny. And the
inescapable obstacle to that ascent is always the armed and educated
middle class.
What therefore, is the difference? Liberals seek to destroy the Middle
Class with guilt. Given the right levers of accusation and deception,
the Middle Class can be made to abandon their guns, their liberties,
their wealth, and their rights. In fact, they are already doing so.
The Conservatives, in contrast, seek to destroy the Middle Class with
fear. Given the right levers of accusation and deception, the Middle
Class can be made to abandon their guns, their liberties, their wealth,
and their rights. In fact, they are already doing so.
The process of democracy is to treat the public with one arm of
punishment until they weary and will tolerate no more. At the next
election, they are permitted to elect the opposite party and suffer
their abuse from the other arm. Those who would ascend to tyranny are
not really concerned with which arm wins an election - in the end, the
people will choose their own nemesis and the result will be the same.
TCross
.
|
|
| User: "Mark Atwood" |
|
| Title: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
16 Jan 2006 04:10:32 AM |
|
|
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> writes:
Bush does not seek to govern. Bush seeks to rule.
I am royally sick of that claim.
I will bet you one thousand dollars that George Walker Bush will leave
office after the next US presidental election cycle, and that a
different person will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the
United States next January 20th, 2008.
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
me@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
17 Jan 2006 12:21:48 PM |
|
|
Mark Atwood wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> writes:
Bush does not seek to govern. Bush seeks to rule.
I am royally sick of that claim.
I will bet you one thousand dollars that George Walker Bush will leave
office after the next US presidental election cycle, and that a
different person will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the
United States next January 20th, 2008.
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
If you want anyone to take you up on that, let them hold your
cash until 2009. Or STFU.
And by the by, if Shrub is impeached, you lose.
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
EAC's chief cook and brainwasher
-----
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,
it's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
- George W. Bush, US President
"I've never seen a pro-choicer bomb any churches. Have you?"
- Aaron Kinney, speaking on Eric Rudolph
"The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the
non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God."
- 15-year-old fundamentalist fan of the books
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Atwood" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
17 Jan 2006 03:53:16 PM |
|
|
writes:
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
If you want anyone to take you up on that, let them hold your
cash until 2009. Or STFU.
I'm willing to put it in an escrow until January 20th, 2008, if
you are willing to do the same.
And by the by, if Shrub is impeached, you lose.
Is not part of the terms of my bet. In fact, if he gets impeached,
my point is reinforced, not defeated.
Let's go, asshat. Are you willing to play with real money?
Or is just shooting your mouth without backing it up the best you can do?
--
Mark Atwood When you do things right, people won't be sure
me@mark.atwood.name you've done anything at all.
http://mark.atwood.name/ http://www.livejournal.com/users/fallenpegasus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
17 Jan 2006 05:52:11 PM |
|
|
"Mark Atwood" <me@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2acdujzcw.fsf@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...
bg12345@apexmail.com writes:
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
If you want anyone to take you up on that, let them hold your
cash until 2009. Or STFU.
I'm willing to put it in an escrow until January 20th, 2008, if
you are willing to do the same.
And by the by, if Shrub is impeached, you lose.
Is not part of the terms of my bet. In fact, if he gets impeached,
my point is reinforced, not defeated.
You need to rephrase it then:
that a different person will be inaugurated as the *44th* President of the
United States next January 20th, 2008.
Oh, did you say 2008? I'll take that bet, but let's make it $10,000.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
21 Jan 2006 04:54:15 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:52:11 GMT, "Mike Schilling"
<mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in alt.atheism
"Mark Atwood" <me@mark.atwood.name> wrote in message
news:m2acdujzcw.fsf@amsu.fallenpegasus.com...
bg12345@apexmail.com writes:
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
If you want anyone to take you up on that, let them hold your
cash until 2009. Or STFU.
I'm willing to put it in an escrow until January 20th, 2008, if
you are willing to do the same.
And by the by, if Shrub is impeached, you lose.
Is not part of the terms of my bet. In fact, if he gets impeached,
my point is reinforced, not defeated.
You need to rephrase it then:
that a different person will be inaugurated as the *44th* President of the
United States next January 20th, 2008.
Oh, did you say 2008? I'll take that bet, but let's make it $10,000.
EEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
18 Jan 2006 05:55:01 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:53:16 GMT, Mark Atwood <me@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com writes:
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
If you want anyone to take you up on that, let them hold your
cash until 2009. Or STFU.
I'm willing to put it in an escrow until January 20th, 2008, if
you are willing to do the same.
And by the by, if Shrub is impeached, you lose.
He won't be impeached. Nothing to charge him with.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "prestorjon" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
18 Jan 2006 07:10:35 PM |
|
|
<<He won't be impeached. Nothing to charge him with>>
-illegally revealing the name of an intelligence officer
-illegally wiretapping people's phone calls
-lying to congress
-various election fraud
Admitedly the last two are almost certainly not going to go anywhere.
However these are all actions of which Bush is almost certainly guilty
and the first two are still being investigated and could lead to
something. If we can impeach a president for getting head in the white
house we should be able to impeach someone for endangering US security
and getting thousands of Americans killed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David Loewe, Jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
21 Jan 2006 08:58:14 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2006 17:10:35 -0800, "prestorjon" <prestorjon@aol.com>
wrote:
<<He won't be impeached. Nothing to charge him with>>
Remember, it has to be characterized as a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
-illegally revealing the name of an intelligence officer
Very hard to prove HE did that (if it was even done - there is reason
to believe that Plame was not covered by the law at that point).
-illegally wiretapping people's phone calls
Will we be retroactively impeaching every President since FISA was
enacted? You ARE aware that President Clinton domestically spied on
Aldrich Ames for example, correct?
-lying to congress
-various election fraud
Admitedly the last two are almost certainly not going to go anywhere.
However these are all actions of which Bush is almost certainly guilty
and the first two are still being investigated and could lead to
something. If we can impeach a president for getting head in the white
house
It amazes me how the old lie keeps getting trotted out. President
Clinton was impeached for lying about getting head in the White House
during a court case. This is perjury. He eventually had his law
license suspended for five years over it.
we should be able to impeach someone for endangering US security
and getting thousands of Americans killed.
--
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth."
- Lenin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Christie" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
21 Jan 2006 10:11:13 AM |
|
|
--
www.blackcatcrossing.net
"David Loewe, Jr." <dloewe@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:r6i4t1hmlipu7vs7svhl04m7j7p4ca05r1@4ax.com...
On 18 Jan 2006 17:10:35 -0800, "prestorjon" <prestorjon@aol.com>
wrote:
<<He won't be impeached. Nothing to charge him with>>
Remember, it has to be characterized as a High Crime or Misdemeanor.
-illegally revealing the name of an intelligence officer
Very hard to prove HE did that (if it was even done - there is reason
to believe that Plame was not covered by the law at that point).
-illegally wiretapping people's phone calls
Will we be retroactively impeaching every President since FISA was
enacted? You ARE aware that President Clinton domestically spied on
Aldrich Ames for example, correct?
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at that
time.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gerry Quinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
22 Jan 2006 08:20:25 AM |
|
|
In article <q2tAf.42$S56.30@fe06.lga>, "Roger Christie" <rochrist@
<REMOVETOEMAIL>charter.net> says...
Will we be retroactively impeaching every President since FISA was
enacted? You ARE aware that President Clinton domestically spied on
Aldrich Ames for example, correct?
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at that
time.
I thought that was the complaint about Bush, too?
- Gerry Quinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
22 Jan 2006 09:59:59 AM |
|
|
"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e3da500bb6381998a9ee@news1.eircom.net...
In article <q2tAf.42$S56.30@fe06.lga>, "Roger Christie" <rochrist@
<REMOVETOEMAIL>charter.net> says...
Will we be retroactively impeaching every President since FISA was
enacted? You ARE aware that President Clinton domestically spied on
Aldrich Ames for example, correct?
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at that
time.
I thought that was the complaint about Bush, too?
Can you tell the difference between:
1. He did something not covered by any law, and
2. He violated a law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roger Christie" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
22 Jan 2006 11:09:15 AM |
|
|
"Mike Schilling" <mscottschilling@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3_NAf.15784$Yu.13601@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net...
"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e3da500bb6381998a9ee@news1.eircom.net...
In article <q2tAf.42$S56.30@fe06.lga>, "Roger Christie" <rochrist@
<REMOVETOEMAIL>charter.net> says...
Will we be retroactively impeaching every President since FISA was
enacted? You ARE aware that President Clinton domestically spied on
Aldrich Ames for example, correct?
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at
that
time.
I thought that was the complaint about Bush, too?
Can you tell the difference between:
1. He did something not covered by any law, and
2. He violated a law.
Exactly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gerry Quinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
22 Jan 2006 07:20:43 PM |
|
|
In article <3_NAf.15784$Yu.13601@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
mscottschilling@hotmail.com says...
"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e3da500bb6381998a9ee@news1.eircom.net...
In article <q2tAf.42$S56.30@fe06.lga>, "Roger Christie" <rochrist@
<REMOVETOEMAIL>charter.net> says...
Will we be retroactively impeaching every President since FISA was
enacted? You ARE aware that President Clinton domestically spied on
Aldrich Ames for example, correct?
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at that
time.
I thought that was the complaint about Bush, too?
Can you tell the difference between:
1. He did something not covered by any law, and
2. He violated a law.
If the claim is that what he did was unconstitutional, then the
existence of a law regulating the behaviour is irrelevant.
A law validating behaviour proscribed by the Constitution, or
proscribing behaviour validated by the Constitution, is a
constitutionally invalid law.
- Gerry Quinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Schilling" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
23 Jan 2006 09:01:25 AM |
|
|
"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e3e3fc7220806b498a9ef@news1.eircom.net...
In article <3_NAf.15784$Yu.13601@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>,
mscottschilling@hotmail.com says...
"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e3da500bb6381998a9ee@news1.eircom.net...
In article <q2tAf.42$S56.30@fe06.lga>, "Roger Christie" <rochrist@
<REMOVETOEMAIL>charter.net> says...
Will we be retroactively impeaching every President since FISA was
enacted? You ARE aware that President Clinton domestically spied on
Aldrich Ames for example, correct?
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at
that
time.
I thought that was the complaint about Bush, too?
Can you tell the difference between:
1. He did something not covered by any law, and
2. He violated a law.
If the claim is that what he did was unconstitutional, then the
existence of a law regulating the behaviour is irrelevant.
Shfting goalposts to avoid admitting being mistaken, are we?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gerry Quinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
23 Jan 2006 08:21:16 PM |
|
|
In article <9d6Bf.14808$Jd.7074@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>,
mscottschilling@hotmail.com says...
"Gerry Quinn" <gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote in message
news:MPG.1e3e3fc7220806b498a9ef@news1.eircom.net...
?
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at
that
time.
I thought that was the complaint about Bush, too?
Can you tell the difference between:
1. He did something not covered by any law, and
2. He violated a law.
If the claim is that what he did was unconstitutional, then the
existence of a law regulating the behaviour is irrelevant.
Shfting goalposts to avoid admitting being mistaken, are we?
No, we haven't shifted them at all. The claim made was that Bush's
actions were unconstitutional.
- Gerry Quinn
.
|
|
|
| User: "Keith Morrison" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
24 Jan 2006 12:53:19 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:21:16 -0000, Gerry Quinn
<gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at
that
time.
I thought that was the complaint about Bush, too?
Can you tell the difference between:
1. He did something not covered by any law, and
2. He violated a law.
If the claim is that what he did was unconstitutional, then the
existence of a law regulating the behaviour is irrelevant.
Shfting goalposts to avoid admitting being mistaken, are we?
No, we haven't shifted them at all. The claim made was that Bush's
actions were unconstitutional.
They are. Illegal too.
The search under Clinton was not only not illegal, but in 1995 Gorelick
testified to Congress about it in support of the amendment which closed the
loophole, which Clinton supported and signed.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gerry Quinn" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
25 Jan 2006 06:05:30 AM |
|
|
In article <dkjbt1takv6idkm4au03k14neau24oq0v9@4ax.com>,
keithm@nonspam.polarnet.ca says...
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 02:21:16 -0000, Gerry Quinn
<gerryq@DELETETHISindigo.ie> wrote:
What Clinton did was specifically not covered by the FISA statute at
that
time.
I thought that was the complaint about Bush, too?
Can you tell the difference between:
1. He did something not covered by any law, and
2. He violated a law.
If the claim is that what he did was unconstitutional, then the
existence of a law regulating the behaviour is irrelevant.
Shfting goalposts to avoid admitting being mistaken, are we?
No, we haven't shifted them at all. The claim made was that Bush's
actions were unconstitutional.
They are. Illegal too.
The search under Clinton was not only not illegal, but in 1995 Gorelick
testified to Congress about it in support of the amendment which closed the
loophole, which Clinton supported and signed.
Was that a Constitutional amendment? If not, the Constitution remains
the same.
Of course there can be various nuances involved. Nevertheless the more
the assertions of unconstitutionality are looked at, the more vague and
nonsensical they seem to become. It seems at least as arguable that
FISA is unconstitutional.
- Gerry Quinn
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "westprog" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
19 Jan 2006 05:52:12 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:q9lts1dhst064s88r3keamflktlmusavt2@4ax.com...
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:53:16 GMT, Mark Atwood <me@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
....
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
If you want anyone to take you up on that, let them hold your
cash until 2009. Or STFU.
I'm willing to put it in an escrow until January 20th, 2008, if
you are willing to do the same.
And by the by, if Shrub is impeached, you lose.
He won't be impeached. Nothing to charge him with.
Any president can be impeached for anything. A majority of the Judiciary
committee, a majority in the House, and two-thirds of the Senate. Any
president who isn't in a coma will have done something that his political
opponents would claim to be worthy of punishment.
The reason presidents don't get regularly impeached is that they can usually
get a few more than a third of the Senate to support them. It's only when
someone like Nixon gets comprehensively caught out that impeachment is
likely. At that point, the President will make a deal and resign to save
trouble.
(Technically, the impeachment is the process of sending to trial, not the
trial or conviction itself).
J/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Terry Cross" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet |
18 Jan 2006 06:54:24 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 21:53:16 GMT, Mark Atwood <me@mark.atwood.name> wrote:
bg12345@apexmail.com writes:
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
If you want anyone to take you up on that, let them hold your
cash until 2009. Or STFU.
I'm willing to put it in an escrow until January 20th, 2008, if
you are willing to do the same.
And by the by, if Shrub is impeached, you lose.
He won't be impeached. Nothing to charge him with.
Just war crimes of various flavors and abrogating the Constitution that
he was sworn to uphold - nothing really big like a sex scandal.
TCross
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Tolle" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
17 Jan 2006 05:46:46 PM |
|
|
Mark Atwood wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> writes:
Bush does not seek to govern. Bush seeks to rule.
I am royally sick of that claim.
I will bet you one thousand dollars that George Walker Bush will leave
office after the next US presidental election cycle, and that a
different person will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the
United States next January 20th, 2008.
Well of course he'll leave office. It'll be Jeb's turn in '08-
remember, sharing is caring.
Seriously, the biggest problem with staying in office would be, well,
having to stay in office. It may be my imagination, but I've gotten
the subtle impression that the last three two-term presidents have left
office silently saying "Thank God THAT'S over with."
Eric Tolle
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
16 Jan 2006 08:02:27 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 10:10:32 GMT, Mark Atwood <me@mark.atwood.name>
wrote:
"Terry Cross" <tcross77@hotmail.com> writes:
Bush does not seek to govern. Bush seeks to rule.
I am royally sick of that claim.
Bush isn't the first president who's been accused of that and he
almost certainly won't be the last. I recall people saying much the
same thing about Nixon.
In the case of both Nixon and Bush, certain..shall we say
tactless...remarks allegedly made by the president himself have tended
to lend some weight to the idea in many peoples' minds.
I will bet you one thousand dollars that George Walker Bush will leave
office after the next US presidental election cycle, and that a
different person will be inaugurated as the 44th President of the
United States next January 20th, 2008.
Of course. I agree that Bush won't attempt a takeover. But that
doesn't mean he wouldn't *like* to.
Our system of government has many built in safeguards designed to
prevent such a thing, but I'm not so naive as to imagine there aren't
people in positions of authority at this very moment who wouldn't like
to try. I don't doubt they're a minority, but they exist. The
difference between me and the paranoid faction is I wouldn't give you
a wooden nickel for their chances of succeeding if they ever did try.
<G>
One thousand dollars. US. Cash. In twenty dollar bills.
Take my bet, or shut the ***** up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
17 Jan 2006 12:30:49 PM |
|
|
John Baker wrote:
In the case of both Nixon and Bush, certain..shall we say
tactless...remarks allegedly made by the president himself have tended
to lend some weight to the idea in many peoples' minds.
<snip>
Of course. I agree that Bush won't attempt a takeover. But that
doesn't mean he wouldn't *like* to.
One name and one phrase:
Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Exigent circumstances".
Don't put it past Shrub to invent or permit a situtation where
cancelling the election is deemed "necessary". Don't put it
past the Shrub Whitewash House to use treasonous tactics to do
so.
Our system of government has many built in safeguards designed to
prevent such a thing, but I'm not so naive as to imagine there aren't
people in positions of authority at this very moment who wouldn't like
to try. I don't doubt they're a minority, but they exist. The
difference between me and the paranoid faction is I wouldn't give you
a wooden nickel for their chances of succeeding if they ever did try.
<G>
The Repugnicant goal is clear: a one party state, like Mexico.
It's much easier to defeat the opposition if you can arrest and
harass them with impunity. It's also much easier to sign off on
corruption your friends engage in as well, much like Shrub has
already done.
Bob Dog
Atheist #153 = 1^3 + 5^3 + 3^3
EAC's chief cook and brainwasher
-----
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face,
it's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
- George W. Bush, US President
"I've never seen a pro-choicer bomb any churches. Have you?"
- Aaron Kinney, speaking on Eric Rudolph
"The best thing about the Left Behind books is the way the
non-Christians get their guts pulled out by God."
- 15-year-old fundamentalist fan of the books
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
18 Jan 2006 01:41:06 PM |
|
|
wrote in
news:1137522649.899362.264760@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
John Baker wrote:
In the case of both Nixon and Bush, certain..shall we say
tactless...remarks allegedly made by the president himself have
tended to lend some weight to the idea in many peoples' minds.
<snip>
Of course. I agree that Bush won't attempt a takeover. But that
doesn't mean he wouldn't *like* to.
One name and one phrase:
Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Exigent circumstances".
Don't put it past Shrub to invent or permit a situtation where
cancelling the election is deemed "necessary". Don't put it
past the Shrub Whitewash House to use treasonous tactics to do
so.
You're projecting again, Bob. We know you lefties would do that sort of
thing at the drop of a hat.
Our system of government has many built in safeguards designed to
prevent such a thing, but I'm not so naive as to imagine there aren't
people in positions of authority at this very moment who wouldn't
like to try. I don't doubt they're a minority, but they exist. The
difference between me and the paranoid faction is I wouldn't give you
a wooden nickel for their chances of succeeding if they ever did try.
<G>
The Repugnicant goal is clear: a one party state, like Mexico.
It's much easier to defeat the opposition if you can arrest and
harass them with impunity. It's also much easier to sign off on
corruption your friends engage in as well, much like Shrub has
already done.
Two words: Teddy Kennedy.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Point the finger and make a fuss
before someone points the finger at us."
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
18 Jan 2006 02:16:57 PM |
|
|
I live in Massachusetts -- and Ted Kennedy is a criminal on the order
of men like Beria, he doesn't murder men himself, he just makes
decisions that result in others losing their life.
And corrupt? Well, he exceeds Beria. On the order of say a Sadaam
Hussein.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
18 Jan 2006 02:45:24 PM |
|
|
I live in Massachusetts -- and Ted Kennedy is a criminal on the order
of men like Beria, he doesn't murder men himself, he just makes
decisions that result in others losing their life.
And corrupt? Well, he exceeds Beria. On the order of say a Sadaam
Hussein.
My god, man, that's awful!
What did he do, send troops to Iraq?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
21 Jan 2006 04:52:42 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2006 12:16:57 -0800, wrote in
alt.atheism
I live in Massachusetts -- and Ted Kennedy is a criminal on the order
of men like Beria, he doesn't murder men himself, he just makes
decisions that result in others losing their life.
And corrupt? Well, he exceeds Beria. On the order of say a Sadaam
Hussein.
Laughing AT you.
--
Fundies and trolls are cordially invited to
shove a wooden cross up their arses and rotate
at a high rate of speed. I trust you'll
be 'blessed' with a cornucopia of splinters.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Douglas Berry" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
18 Jan 2006 06:33:43 PM |
|
|
What's so funny about peace, love and posting
the following on 18 Jan 2006 12:16:57 -0800 iin alt.atheism?
I live in Massachusetts -- and Ted Kennedy is a criminal on the order
of men like Beria, he doesn't murder men himself, he just makes
decisions that result in others losing their life.
Him and 99 other Senators.
And corrupt? Well, he exceeds Beria. On the order of say a Sadaam
Hussein.
So, what's he been convicted of?
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sean OHara" |
|
| Title: Re: Thousand Dollar bet (was Re: What is wrong with the Republicans?) |
17 Jan 2006 05:23:10 PM |
|
|
In the Year of the *****, the Great and Powerful
declared:
John Baker wrote:
Of course. I agree that Bush won't attempt a takeover. But that
doesn't mean he wouldn't *like* to.
One name and one phrase:
Franklin D. Roosevelt. "Exigent circumstances".
Don't put it past Shrub to invent or permit a situtation where
cancelling the election is deemed "necessary". Don't put it
past the Shrub Whitewash House to use treasonous tactics to do
so.
So you'll be taking Mark's bet?
--
Sean O'Hara | http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com
Doctor: Then don't listen to me. I never do.
-Doctor Who
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Birchy" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with the Republicans? |
12 Jan 2006 10:16:39 PM |
|
|
It's not just about the Middle Class, though.
http://www.fallingskyhazard.com/catalog.htm
Terry Cross wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
What is wrong with the Republicans?
With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
"For the first time?" Bush does not seek to govern. Bush seeks to
rule.
The difference between "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the United
States is really not that great. Both seek unlimited power. Both seek
a stratified society where some people get rich and the rest get
nothing. Both seek ultimately to ascend to tyranny. And the
inescapable obstacle to that ascent is always the armed and educated
middle class.
What therefore, is the difference? Liberals seek to destroy the Middle
Class with guilt. Given the right levers of accusation and deception,
the Middle Class can be made to abandon their guns, their liberties,
their wealth, and their rights. In fact, they are already doing so.
The Conservatives, in contrast, seek to destroy the Middle Class with
fear. Given the right levers of accusation and deception, the Middle
Class can be made to abandon their guns, their liberties, their wealth,
and their rights. In fact, they are already doing so.
The process of democracy is to treat the public with one arm of
punishment until they weary and will tolerate no more. At the next
election, they are permitted to elect the opposite party and suffer
their abuse from the other arm. Those who would ascend to tyranny are
not really concerned with which arm wins an election - in the end, the
people will choose their own nemesis and the result will be the same.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "Warchild" |
|
| Title: Re: What is wrong with the Republicans? |
13 Jan 2006 12:13:43 AM |
|
|
In article <1137125799.737434.31440@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Birchy" <birchcone@yahoo.com> wrote:
It's not just about the Middle Class, though.
http://www.fallingskyhazard.com/catalog.htm
Terry Cross wrote:
Dave Lister wrote:
What is wrong with the Republicans?
With Republican George Bush as President we no longer have a leader
seeking to positively inspire Americans to greatness, we have a
President for the first time seeking to govern by the manipulation of
our basest and most irrational fears.
"For the first time?" Bush does not seek to govern. Bush seeks to
rule.
The difference between "Liberal" and "Conservative" in the United
States is really not that great. Both seek unlimited power. Both seek
a stratified society where some people get rich and the rest get
nothing. Both seek ultimately to ascend to tyranny. And the
inescapable obstacle to that ascent is always the armed and educated
middle class.
What therefore, is the difference? Liberals seek to destroy the Middle
Class with guilt. Given the right levers of accusation and deception,
the Middle Class can be made to abandon their guns, their liberties,
their wealth, and their rights. In fact, they are already doing so.
The Conservatives, in contrast, seek to destroy the Middle Class with
fear. Given the right levers of accusation and deception, the Middle
Class can be made to abandon their guns, their liberties, their wealth,
and their rights. In fact, they are already doing so.
The process of democracy is to treat the public with one arm of
punishment until they weary and will tolerate no more. At the next
election, they are permitted to elect the opposite party and suffer
their abuse from the other arm. Those who would ascend to tyranny are
not really concerned with which arm wins an election - in the end, the
people will choose their own nemesis and the result will be the same.
TCross
I read a lot of misguided nonsense in both your arguments. You both
posit an attack on the middle class. *****. The middle class
accepts whatever continues to allow them their comforts, as long as you
don't bother them too much.
The 'Liberals' and the 'Conservatives' agree on one outcome: to prevent
social upheaval that would dislodge the political elite. They differ in
the means. The Liberals attempt to buy off disaffected groups by
offering the possibility (or illusion, if you like) of economic
improvement, while the Conservatives threaten disaffected groups with
punishment in order to suppress upheaval. The Conservatives like to
threaten the middle class with the possibility that disaffected groups
will harm them if no suppressed by courts and prisons. Liberals like to
play for sympathy and the suggestion that the middle class has common
cause with disaffected groups.
Unfortunately for the Republicans, they have had power for the last
eight years and the chance to demonstrate their philosophy in action.
They have screwed the pooch, royally. They have not had the decency to
hide their greed, and have drawn a lot of negative attention to the
current crop of Republican politicians. They will be removed. Bush
will be sitting on top of a Democratic congress for the last two years
of his administration. A Democratic congress that will be looking for
pay-back. Can you say impeachment? I knew that you could. You may not
like it, and you may not agree, but just watch. It doesn't take a
weatherman to know which way the wind blows. The White House is the
Democrat's to lose in '08 (which by the way, I wouldn't put past them).
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
