Anyone starting to doubt Nov. elections yet?
 

They are getting us prepared. There is nothing to prepare us Constitutionally for this, and as long as the GOP have the Congress do you really think they would push for him to leave office?

I see an attack at the GOP Convention and Martial Law set in place to cancel elections.

I used to joke about this and half-heartedly say Bush would cancel elections if it looked like he was going to lose..... Now there's no doubt and it ain't silly paranoia anymore.
==================================================
Ridge Warns of Election Terror Plot


By KATHERINE PFLEGER SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A steady stream of intelligence, including nuggets from militant-linked Web sites, indicates al-Qaida wants to attack the United States to disrupt the upcoming elections, federal officials said Thursday.

Besides elaborate security plans for the political conventions this summer in Boston and New York, the officials are considering how to secure polling places come November.

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said the Bush administration based a decision to bolster security on credible reports about al-Qaida's plans, coupled with the pre-election terror attack in Spain earlier this year and recent arrests in England, Jordan and Italy.

"This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm," Ridge said. "But every day we strengthen the security of our nation."

The government is not raising its color-coded alert status, however, he said, and U.S. officials do not have specific knowledge about where, when or how an attack might take place.

The CIA , FBI and other agencies "are actively working to gain that knowledge," Ridge said.

Asked why he had made a public announcement on Thursday, Ridge said that after the attacks in Madrid, Spain, he considered it "very important, on a periodic basis, to frankly just give Americans an update as to where we are and what we are doing."

The Bush administration was criticized by Democrats in late May when Attorney General John Ashcroft put forward a high-profile warning that an attack could be imminent — an assessment not all high-ranking officials shared.

Before Ridge's public comments, top FBI, CIA and Homeland Security Department officials had briefed House members Wednesday and Senate members on Thursday at the request of congressional leaders. With the summer political conventions nearing, lawmakers had requested information about the terror attack threat and security precautions.

FBI Director Robert Mueller said that officials were taking security steps that "we anticipate will continue all the way through the election."

In addition to increasing security at the conventions in Boston and New York, authorities have begun working through the process of how to secure the thousands of polling sites that will be used around the country this fall, said a senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

But the chairman of the new federal Election Assistance Commission complained Thursday that he was rebuffed when he wrote to Ridge seeking to discuss election security issues, including how to handle rescheduling the election if it were to be disrupted by an attack.

"What Ridge basically said is I don't have time to meet with you," said DeForest B. Soaries, a Republican Bush appointee and former secretary of state of New Jersey. "I'm still assuming that there's time for us to meet to share information and work cooperatively on all of these important issues," he added.

A Homeland Security spokesman did not immediately return a call for comment on Soaries' remarks.

There are plans for road and rail closures and even greater restrictions than usual on access to the political convention sites. The Democrats will meet at Boston's FleetCenter July 26-29, and the GOP convention will be at Madison Square Garden in New York from Aug. 30-Sept. 2.

"We have briefed the campaigns, both campaigns — the Kerry-Edwards campaign as well as the Bush-Cheney campaign — about the security measures that are being put in place for those conventions in New York and Boston," White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said.

The information being examined includes some gleaned from militant-linked Web sites, said another intelligence official. Plans for a terror attack are believed to be near completion, the official said, echoing what Bush administration officials said earlier in the summer before the Memorial Day weekend.

The official, also speaking only on condition of anonymity, said recent information indicates that planning is being directed at the most senior levels of al-Qaida, which includes Osama bin Laden and his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, who are thought to be operating in the Afghan-Pakistani border region.

That doesn't necessarily mean a strong command-and-control structure is in place — counterterrorism officials still believe they are breaking al-Qaida down — but rather that senior leaders still oversee operations by pointing to targets and encouraging certain types of attacks, the official said. Counterterrorism authorities are working to understand whether cells that they are dealing with around the globe are closely tied to the central al-Qaida organization.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said after the briefing to his chamber that there was "obviously, no reason for panic, or paralysis."

"What is clear is that law enforcement has generally been notified. ... There are enhanced activities on behalf of law enforcement around the country," he said.

But Texas Rep. Jim Turner, the top Democrat on the House Homeland Security Committee, said what is needed is action. "A press conference will not deter a terrorist," he said.

Vice President Dick Cheney and Ridge later Thursday toured a recently completed 24-hour operations center at the Homeland Security Department's complex in northwest Washington, which replaces a temporary setup.

In the Senate, Democrats and Republicans agreed on a need to quickly consider a homeland security spending bill but bickered over when that debate would begin — and whose fault it would be if the start was delayed.

Link: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...rror_threat_13

============================

Another question I have is they keep saying, "Bin Laden is planning...." how do they know this when supposedly they don't even know where he is?

Maybe this should be in paranoia, but the sad reality right now is, paranoia over politics is now more than ever a fact. And until we have a government that isn't laden with corruption and partisan desires for total control the paranoia will only continue to increase.

/takes tin foil hat off and puts in the KINKS Preservation parts 1&2...

I would not put it past Bush to let an attack succedd just so he could declare martial law, start the draft and destroy America.

We do have a forum entitled Tilted Paranoia. The fact that this sort of spin on a subject of actual significance as regards our national security and the safety of our citizenry is being posted here is revealing enough in itself to let this stand as an example of how far-fetched political discourse can become. In my opinion, this is a quite irrational idea. I won't be commenting further unless it becomes a fiasco.

The first election trick scenario IMO would be stating "We got Osama Bin Laden" just before the election and after it declare that "Oops, it was just some other guy with a beard."

A "coup" really sounds too paranoid.

Yow. Them's big words.

I wouldn't be surprised if the party in power (Whoever that was) in November would push back the elections, simply to give the public the message "We're in control, remember?", and take some steam out of the challenger, but I would be massively surprised if our president allowed an attack to succeed, regardless of the number of $$$ in defense it would generate.

I just don't buy it, and I am for certain not voting for Bush.

Umm...They can't do that, because the date of the election is written in the Constitution. If it get's pushed back, that mean's I get to go to DC with an assult rifle and kill everyone that voted for it since the laws in the nation would be null and void.

Since no one would have the ability to do it anyway, it doesn't matter.

You should call the Secret Service and tell them this. They would be very interested in the details :)

Well the money to be made from defense contracts is already done--even Kerry isn't going to back us out of Iraq.

The more likely effect, in my opinion, is that some people might be afraid to go to the polls.

This is the illogical thinking that has me fed up. You have reasons to feel Bush is a bad president and vote for Kerry, to accuse Bush of conspiring to allow an attack so he could declare Marshall law and keep his position? This point my friend is looney, and yes this thread belongs with all the other conspiracy theories.

If anything of this nature took place Bush wouldnt have a prayer of keeping his office, this coming from someone who will most likely cast his vote for Bush.

Another situation of "damned if they do - damned if they don't". I can just imagine the cacaphony if the Bush Administration didn't raise concerns and put programs in place to protect the election process - and then the election were disrupted with a series of terrorist attacks.

I also see a correlation between people who promote such conspiracies as in the original post and those who loudly claim that Bush did not do enough to prevent 9/11.

Perhaps, it is irrational and far-fetched but the possibility is becoming far more conceiveable.

I do believe Bush did what he could, we were not prepared for what happened and had no internal defense mechanisms in place. We do now, unfortunately it took 9/11 to get us there.

And yes, your point about the elections damned if they do do anything to protect us and damned if they don't is valid.

However, I just don't think we'll make it to the elections if it looks like Bush is going to lose. Martial Law is a Constitutional right of the president.

Quite an assumption there...

Anyways it is indeed damned if you do, damned if you don't.

But I don't think they should move the elections or anything. Tell the terrorists 'we ain't scared' by showing them it won't delay elections or anything.

This country is strong enough to take it and vote and it shouldn't be something to affect us.

Here's my prediction: The elections will be held according to the Constitutional provisions.

Anyone care to make a little wager?

There would have to be a *HUGE* NBC attack, with casualties in the millions, in order for the courts to no longer be able to operate, thus de facto suspending the writ of habeus corpus and entering us into martial law.

Even if such an attack befell a region of the country, martial law would only apply to that region, and the courts, and the constitutional and democratic process would proceed elsewhere.

But a thread like this is good for identifying your rabid foam-at-the-mouth Bush haters (of which I am slightly to the right of ;)).

i don't think the issue is "would bush let an attack happen?" so much as the scare-mongering that this announcement makes. to quote the article...

so basically, it seems that what they're saying is "hey, look what they did to spain, and since it worked, they might want to try it again in other places. and we've got an election coming up. but we have no information on when, where, or how it would happen, or that it's actually being planned, but it could!!!"

my response?

well duh.

i don't think anyone thinks that it's not a possibility after what happened in spain, but making an announcement with no information on where, when or how and not changing the alert level is just scare mongering.

and not saying that they would use that as an excuse to declare martial law and keep the election from happening, but at the very least it seems like this could be the foundation for such an event (although a rather unlikely one, imo).

Well, there are already problems again in florida (off course) http://news.tbo.com/news/MGBUP7387WD.html

So I think there will problems, a lot.

BTW: What about those, "error-free", diebold machines? Are they going to be used?

Pretty simple solution to this reoccurring problem in Florida--

allow felons to vote!

What he hell is wrong with florida, are they still in the fucking dark ages? Only 12 states keep this medieval residual from the "good ole" slave days (ok, ok, ancient roman days, but the coincidence of correlation between southern states and disenfranchisement laws is striking to me and others).

I dont see how any terrorists could benefit from targeting the elections. There is one party which could benefit and they are the incumbent party. I still dont see how we get all these "tips & information".

While the take that "it can't happen" or "this shows how nuts in hating Bush some people are", can be very legitimate.

One does have to ask the question, "Why are so many people afraid of what Bush is doing and do think he is capable of doing something like this?"

It's not the press, I have yet to see them truly dig at Bush like they did Clinton.

I just have never seen this oddity or as a student of history read of anything like this, since the Civil War, where albeit a small minority, but not as small as one may think, is so in fear of the US government and it's president, that he may try something to stay in office.

We can argue it's partisan politics, but there are those in the GOP party that are worried and have lost faith in the man.

This is not to flame, this is truly my wondering why this is happening.

Is it an anomoly in our political system that perhaps has been building for sometime and it just happens Bush is in office as we peak with our fears of government?

Is there rationality behind the fears that the people see?

Is it we are at a crossroads where people are so split in political (and even economical) theories that the belief that this election is so much more important than any in the past people on both sides are becoming worried about what is going to happen?

Is it partisan politics have gotten so far out of hand that people have or are losing faith and looking for corruption in our system?

Or is it human nature in some to want to sense conspiracies and secret agendas in things, so as in some way to be able to say, "see, things are rigged so I have no control, so why should I care."

Or could it be a bit of all?

Just curious and wondering what you all think.

And this is very much political because it can influence how people vote, or if they vote at all.

It also opens, HOPEFULLY, a peaceful dialect to understanding why and what people are thinking and how to maybe dissolve fears and misunderstandings and hatreds.

Perhaps, even help put to rest these paranoid theories and conspiracies (at least in our little world on this board).

There is ONE thing EVERYONE (I'm sure one could argue the use of "everyone") wants and is striving for and that is a better America for our children.

How we get there, though, depends on your philosophies on politics and economics, but both sides want the same thing.

(Other boards I've tried this on are either so "Rense'd out or Limbaugh'd out" that they refuse to try a civil dialect and understanding of the other side. Hopefully, this board can have the civil dialect, I know we have far more tolerant and civil people here.

Things have been done that seem so unbelievable. I feel its a situation where people will see what they choose to see; reguardless of what has happend and why.

I think the same goes for someone that chooses to dig for dirt; they'll find it. And then what. I sometimes feel this Utopia is the closest we will ever get to Utopia.

I feel we live in an immense paradox. This extends on multiple levels. My personal paradox is trying to understand that life would be easier to accept a little complacency in my life; and stop digging in the rabbit hole. It just keeps getting uglier.

Better life- learn the gamebook of the IRS; ignore what I know about about and use it to work for me. Vote conservative because even though I have difficulty stomaching the moral dictation; a stage is set for me to get rich if I utilize the tools I have playing the game. Go to the Bohemian Grove like the rest to rid myself of any conscience issues.

Reguardless which side your on this video is a must see. A) For those to see a little more of . . .

B) For those that view anything on here to be untrue to please point it out and post credable information that directly shows it to be not correct. The information put forth about the 2000 election shows that martial law isnt needed to obtain a politcal goal.

Website with video embedded

High quality download
Right click the first video

This same bit of paranoia happened during the 2000 election just in another guise. When it dragged on for days many thought Clinton would step in for the good of the country and take another term. Seeing as how congress just passed laws to deal with almost their complete eradication I would think the Presidency would go right on schedule. Most right wingers like myself believe in the rule of law according to the Constitution and it shouldn't be tampered with by either party.

True, perhaps this all started with what happened in 2000 and the election mess we went through, and the chads and conspiracies on both sides.

I, also, believe in the rule of the law according to the Constitution, we agree on that. Our differences lie on the interpretations and that can be healthy. It has been for over 200 years. BUT the question then becomes, why now is it the interpretations are becoming so different that it has been leading to total hatred and apathy of those who differ?

The natural order of our country has always been to drift left then right but primarily we focused on the center. Today, it seems we have vocalalities trying to pull it right and others trying to pull it left and the natural balance is becoming affected by the sheer nature of this hatred for the other side.

It is for this reason I believe the conspiracies and the "hidden agendas" come into play. Because we have gotten so polarized neither side wants to lose power and neither side wants to give a little power away to benefit AlLL not just those whose philosophies are shared.

Where can right and left meet so that the natural progression can continue and not be interfered with?

i have wondered about this possibility, often at length, in moments of belgianbeer paranoia....

while i doubt that the scenario will unfold in reality, what interests me about this is the stream of information itself.

for example, i think about karl rove.
i think about what i remember of his modus operandi.
which leads me consider the question of whether there is a correlation between the information that began this thread--which appeared on the front page of the new york times (webversion) this morning---and the release of the intel report later today that will be quite critical of bushworld and its intelligence gathering....

for example.

Well, there's a lot of this that is somewhat scary. I don't know about the people who have posted comments about a faux-Osama capture and the like, however, don't push anything too far from your minds.

As a soldier myself, I've noted first-hand that sometimes the government takes care of things its own way. many times, that means going against the grain of what the people expect or deserve. This is, somewhat unfortunately, how America operates. Chance occurances happen often, sometimes more often than leaves me feeling comfortable with it. The Bush administration has had many of those occurances...

From the Florida vote fiasco right in the beginning to the more recent turn of the tide with the beheading of the first American, which just so happened to QUICKLY take the edge off of anti-American sentiment over the Abu Graib prison scandal. I'm not a conspiracist by any means, but there is a certain law of odds and averages that seems to be stacked in Bush's favor.

Now, I love my country, my military and the People who I am sworn to protect. Bush is our Commander-in-Chief, and I follow oredrs that come down from him or those appointed under him. It doesn't mean I like the guy. Frankly, between Bush and Kerry, I think we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Moving back to the topic at hand...

Martial Law basically cannot happen nation-wide without some serious ammendments to the Constitution. Even if it were to be declared, there are not enough military pesonnel in CONUS to satisfy the requirements of such a thing.

Declaring Martial Law and closing the polls would be a sign of weakness and defeat in the global eye. This would not suit Bush well, nor the country at large and has no value to the current Administration. Will votes be contested? Probably... Will there be chaos, mostly of our own doing in November? Probably... Will there be terrorist attacks? I doubt it highly!

Life is status quo until it all goes to hell. We all just need to keep a cool, level head and things will be just peachy in the end.

I think both sides have kicked the moderates out of the party or regulated them to minor players. We have a screwed up system of ramping up each others base by demonizing each other then both swing to the middle to play up to the independants to gain a majority. What I think may happen would be the rise of the moderates as force. It could be the Libertarians or some other group but I think we are headed towards at least one other party as many are being turned off by the bile that is being shouted lately by both sides. Our laws are so messed up because they ride the see saw that is our Judiciary branch. One Judges partisan views are being over turned by another. I hope that we can get away from these stupid litmus tests we put them through and get people that will only look at written law not implied.

I think the reason that many people are scared that this could happen is because of what Bush has already done. He has ignored the Bill of Rights over and over and the entire Patriot Act gets rid of the common citizens privacy. The reason that the hate of this president has arrisen is from people reading what he is actually doing in the world. If you read CNN and watch the news you will see many reports about his actions. Now while these may not be biased against Bush in that these reports say that Bush is evil, but they do give a clear picture of the crimes he is commiting when you look at the laws this country is supposed to be run on. So while a military coup is not likely, it would not be much more of a stretch of what Bush is currently doing.

1.xepherys: a state of emergency---martial law---is now much easier than it once was--one mechanism was written into the federal emergency management act under reagan--the other is the highest level of "terror alert".

2.cosmo: i really dont see how the democratic party can possibly be understood as extremist, unless you look at it from the left and see its race toward the center as a variant of the term. we live in a single party state with two right wings.
i can see why the right media would have an interest in trying to frame the democrats as left, though--it works as a neutralizing term that functions to conceal the degree to which the right has shifted onto the grounds of the evangelicals, onto a view of international institutions that used to be that of the john birch society, onto a view of guns that used to be that of elements in the militia movement...on and on....

If you watch CNN or read the large liberal newspapers, you will get a very distorted view of reality.

The Patriot Act has been blown way out of proportion. I've read the entire thing. The most germaine features enable domestic law enforcement and intelligence agencies to share data and cooperate on investigations. This is a necessary change.

The more outrageous provisions, such as searching library records, are being dealt with in the SAFE Act. If your are concerned, I suggest contacting your elected representatives to encourge support of this act.

At the time the PA was passed, I predicted that Congress would act to rein in the unacceptable features - which they are now doing. Government always tries to extend its power; that is the nature of the beast. This is why we have a tri-partite system. The balance of power works well, as we can easily observe.

On a personal note, I am on a library board which was the first in the nation to pass a resolution that we would not comply with the Patriot Act. I have not been thrown into a gulag.

LOL, CNN, every channel and newspaper you look at will be distorted. Its just that CNN is less distorted then other channels, such as Fox news.

See one side claims that the news from this is biased to the other side. GOP says most are biased liberal, Libs say Fox and such are biased right. The very hatred of both sides goes into the press that we get information from (that site is way too liberal...or are you serious that radio station is way too right.) But in saying that, you degrade the other person or side because you imply they cannot decide for themselves how much or what to believe or what bias they see. You dictate because you see the PERCIEVED bias on the other side. I say percieved because there are people in your party telling or educating you as to what the biases are.

So hypothetically, if I am a centrist where would I go for news?

Do people not tend to go where their beliefs are most prevelant?

I am seeing one common thing from both sides and that is they are right and the other side is wrong.

How do we overcome this for the common good? Our ancestors did, why can't we.

pan--for what it's worth, here is how i gather information:

i read for american press ny times, washington post--sometimes other papers, for particular situations.

i look at the websites for cnn and fox--i am interested in keeping track of the spread of information/political viewpoints. besides, their fatuousness is funny.

i read the manchester guardian and bbc--often listen to bbc as well, until i have to put on music because, well, sometimes you just have to.

i read le monde and liberation for dailies, and courier international for international press snippets--it is a weekly--all of them are in french.

i look at al-jazeera's website a few times a week.

i trawl around a bit more if there is something that interests me or catches my attention.

it takes me about an hour to do the basic routine.
i do most of it every morning.
the net is good for this much.
i do notice that the way i read these papers is different from how i read them when i have the print version in front of me, however.

i do not watch american television for information.
nor do i understand why anyone would at this point.

as for evaluation, you are in a funny place: there is no outlet whose neutrality you can presuppose, so you have to think about what you are reading, balance things in your mind against each other, and draw your conclusions.

As the thread is moving past its initial statements toward a more constructive direction, I'll comment here.

I don't see consensus as having ever been the way human beings came to any conclusions or decisive action. I see the execution of power and power brokering as the method that things have been acheived throughout history. Given that perspective, the differences among us are not significantly in necessity of resolution. Things progress as they will. What each individual can do is to look around and see who his or her allies are and who the enemy is. From that point, there exists only tactics and strategy. To the victor go the spoils. Fortunately, in a relatively civilized situation, this tends to become an increasingly enlightened process over time. Ultimately everyone benefits from enlightened self-interest.

Depends on your perspective I suppose. Take abortion, it bothers me greatly that this unwritten law of the land was never voted on yet is used by the left as a test of any judge regardless of his assignment. Then you have many radicals pushing for outright Socialism in this country, which was founded on Democracy. A few years back when Hillary proposed federalizing the entire health care system sent shivers down my spine as what was next? Some of the more radical ideas about wealth redistribution and social programs that take power from the family and place in Big Brothers hands also scare me. Neither side has done a good job on immigration issues but the approach many in the left have worries me. Allowing non-citizens driver’s licenses and even the privilege to vote? Just about anything uttered inside or near Berkley California seems to be taken as gospel by many Democrats. Gay marriage was against many laws in different states so radical mayors simply went ahead with them anyway out right breaking set laws they were to uphold. The worst issue for me is the idea that we have to bend our nations policies to become more international. Either through the UN or some quasi world government like the World Court who many support even though they usurp our laws.

CK,

The programs that worry you are all on the agenda of those who wish to overturn the American Revolution. Instead of power being vested in The People (via individual rights, economic liberty and the rule of law) - these people seek to empower the state and to subjugate The People. This is the filter through which I evaluate issues and candidates: do they reaffirm the American Revolution or do they undermine it?

ck---i would see the nationalisation of the health care system in entirely different terms than you outline above....but i suspect that would carry us straight into a different thread.

i also understand democratic socialism in entirely different terms than you outline..another thread.

the basic dividing line is how you understand what the state does.
you can see it as extending the areas of life that are directly accountable to the public.
but to do that, you'd have to move away from attributing the left critique of state bureaucracy that was distorted and co-opted by the thatcherites and has now leaked into conservative discourse in the us as applying only to the state itself---private firms are bureaucracies as well--and stasticially speaking, the most important fiorms in the states are not small businesses, which tend to be more decentralized as a function of size.
yet another thread.


yikes.

cosmo---i would see the nationalisation of the health care system in entirely different terms than you outline above....but i suspect that would carry us straight into a different thread.

i also understand democratic socialism in entirely different terms than you outline..another thread.

the basic dividing line is how you understand what the state does.
you can see it as extending the areas of life that are directly accountable to the public.
but to do that, you'd have to move away from attributing the left critique of state bureaucracy that was distorted and co-opted by the thatcherites and has now leaked into conservative discourse in the us as applying only to the state itself---private firms are bureaucracies as well--and stasticially speaking, the most important fiorms in the states are not small businesses, which tend to be more decentralized as a function of size.

so if you have bureaucracy either way.....

yet another thread.


as for viewpoint: well yes. but regardless of your political viewpoint, i still woudl think that moving outside the limitations of american media--particularly television--is a good thing, that reading papers and journals from other places serves to open up possibilities....and that thinking about what is happening in the states requires--absolutely requires--that you think about the place from viewpoints that are no soley embedded here.
and given that you are posting on this board, which is online, it follows that you can read other things online as well. all the papers i cited--and alot of other ones as well--are easily available.
just as easily as tfproject.

otherwise, you are in a strange position--if you are situated as a person entirely within a particular frame of reference, and that frame of reference moves, how would you know? unless the shift was sudden or violent, chances are you wouldnt, no?

edit: My post was deleted because I didn't have anything constructive to add to this thread.

Seretogis, why are you attacking me? I asked a question we are getting civil and great dialogue, why must you destroy it, by attacking me personally?

Yes, I did post that, but one can change their mind or try to understand things better after cooling off and thinking about things.

Again, you have done this to me in a few threads. If you don't like me don't reply to me, it's that simple. I truly don't appreciate the attacks, especially when you are ruining a good informative thread.

How do you feel about the weakening of the Bill of Rights via the Patriot Act and the soon-to be Patriot Act II, not to mention the circumvention of due process in Guantanamo and other secret prisons? Unlimited detention of prisoners and "sneak & peek" searches seem to run counter to the ideals of the American Revolution to me.

Edit: Yes, congress is trying to reign in some of the powers, such as the viewing of library records with no warrant...unfortunately, house republicans blocked the vote on the libabry issue yesterday until they could strong-arm some of their own into changing their vote. they than ended with a tie and the measure was defeated.

Gitmo is not circumvention of Due process due to the fact that 1) Those held are illegal combatants and 2) not US citizens.

This is from the Washington Times

Regarding your example of government versus privatization. One can choose another company for goods and services and remain in the country. One cannot opt out of a larger more infringing government and remain here. Taking another look at comparing the two from a different angle. Many in the left hate such entities such as Big Oil made up of despised companies like Enron. Why because they are large over baring monopolies who are self serving. Apply that to the government. The larger it grows the more potential for becoming corrupt and the more diluted you ability to change it is. In either case your fighting inertia and only by limiting the size can you effectively limits its overall decay.

He wouldn't let an attack succeed, I don't think he's evil. However, I don't think he'd hesitate to declare martial law if his advisors/cabinet (the ones in the government who we really should be concerned about,) told him that it would be the best way to go.

The less visible things, like barring "felons" (a list which is suspiciously composed of non-felons who happen to be minorities who would vote Democrat) from voting, and creating roadblocks to prevent minorities from voting are what will swing the election. I don't think Bush or his brother will call for an investigation of the practices that got him elected, no matter how unethical or blatantly illegal.

And on that note *SHAZZAM*

" The Republican-led House bowed to a White House veto threat Thursday and stood by the USA Patriot Act, defeating an effort to block the part of the anti-terrorism law that helps the government investigate people's reading habits.

The effort to defy Bush and bridle the law's powers lost by 210-210, with a majority needed to prevail. The amendment appeared on its way to victory as the roll call's normal 15-minute time limit expired, but GOP leaders kept the vote open for 23 more minutes as they persuaded about 10 Republicans who initially supported the provision to change their votes.

"Shame, shame, shame," Democrats chanted as the minutes passed and votes were switched. The tactic was reminiscent of last year's House passage of the Medicare overhaul measure, when GOP leaders held the vote open for an extra three hours until they got the votes they needed.

"You win some, and some get stolen," Rep. C.L. Butch Otter, R-Idaho, a sponsor of the defeated provision and one of Congress' more conservative members, told a reporter.

Rep. Zach Wamp, R-Tenn., said he switched his initial "yes" vote to "no" after being shown Justice Department (news - web sites) documents asserting that terrorists have communicated over the Internet via public library computers.

"This new world we live in is going to force us to have some constraints," Wamp said.

The effort to curb the Patriot Act was pushed by a coalition of Democrats and conservative Republicans. But they fell short in a showdown that came just four months before an election in which the conduct of the fight against terrorism will be on the political agenda.

Besides successfully fending off the effort to weaken the law, the veto threat underscored the administration's determination to strike an aggressive stance on law enforcement and terrorism.

The House has voted before to block portions of the nearly three-year-old law, but Congress has never succeeded in rolling back any of it. Yet neither has Bush succeeded in his quest to expand some of its powers.

Supporters of the law said the Patriot Act has been a valuable tool in anti-terror efforts. The law, enacted in the weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, gave the government stronger powers to conduct investigations and detain people.

"I would say, in my judgment, that lives have been saved, terrorists have been disrupted, and our country is safer" because of the act, said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Fla., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and a man President Bush (news - web sites) is considering to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency (news - web sites).

Otter and Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., led the effort to block one section of the law that lets authorities get special court orders requiring book dealers, libraries and others to surrender records such as purchases and Internet sites visited on a library computer. They contended the provision undermines civil liberties and threatens to let the government snoop into the reading habits of innocent Americans.

"We are all in that together," Sanders, one of Congress' most liberal lawmakers, said of the anti-terror effort. "In the fight against terrorism, we've got to keep our eyes on two prizes: the terrorists and the United States Constitution."

The House voted last summer to block so-called "sneak and peek" searches the law allows without the target's knowledge and with warrants delivered afterward, but the provision never became law. Otter abandoned a similar amendment Thursday after it was ruled out of order for procedural reasons.

Thursday's showdown was over an amendment to a $39.8 billion measure financing the Justice, Commerce and State departments for next year, which passed, 397-18. The Senate has yet to write its version of the bill.

The House vote came amid Bush administration warnings of an increased risk of attacks this summer and fall because terrorists hope to disrupt the November's elections.

Rep. Frank Wolf, R-Va., read a letter from the Justice Department stating that "as recently as this past winter and spring, a member of a terrorist group closely affiliated with al-Qaida" had used Internet services at a public library. The letter mentioned no specifics, Wolf said.



"If we can stop what took place in my area," said Wolf, whose district is near the Pentagon (news - web sites), a Sept. 11 target, "then I want to stop that, because we've gone to enough funerals."

Critics of the Patriot Act argued that even without it, investigators can get book store and other records simply by obtaining subpoenas or search warrants. Those traditional investigative tools are harder to get from grand juries or courts than orders issued under the Patriot Act, which do not require authorities to show probable cause.

"We don't want tyranny," said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y.

According to a list read by a House clerk, lawmakers switching their votes from "yes" to "no" included GOP Reps. Michael Bilirakis of Florida, Rob Bishop of Utah, Tom Davis of Virginia, Jack Kingston of Georgia, Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado, Nick Smith of Michigan, Thomas Tancredo of Colorado, and Wamp.

Some Democrats switched from "no" to "yes," including Robert Bud Cramer of Alabama, Rodney Alexander of Louisiana, and Brad Sherman of California.

___

The bill is H.R. 4754 "

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ss_patriot_act

I remember stories of the "before time" when republicans were actual conservatives and they valued civil liberties and the Constitution. I wish these fascists in conservative clothing would step out and reveal their true colors. Yes, I am quite convinced that Neo-cons are fascists in disguise.

Support for Big Business - Check

Support for the Wealthy - Check

Spending like a drunken sailor - Check

Authoritarian society in the making - Check

Deeply Fundy-Christian - Check

Use of Orwellian Language - Check

Constant threat of danger to herd the masses - Check

This list could continue, but the point is that Neo-cons (Rummy, Cheny, Ashcroft, Wolf, Condy, ect) are not a conservatives. I predict that either neo-cons will be ousted from the Republican party or the party will split between conservatives and fascists in neo-conservative clothing.

Nice tinfoil moment. Thanks!

The SAFE Act is still working its way through Congress.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.01709:

My point was that BushCO will not allow anything anti-Patriot Act to pass. SAFE act will go down in flames just like the above act did. Their trackrecord on this issue proves my point.

There is a self-fulfilling nature about such prophecies of doom and gloom. How about contacting your elected representatives to show your support for the SA?

I have.

"The head of the new US Election Assistance Commission, DeForest Soaries Jr, wrote to Ridge urging him to ask Congress for emergency legislation that would allow his agency to reschedule the election if terrorists were to strike."

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...0711180254&e=5

"Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek

Postponement of the elections still belong in paranoia?

The point under discussion was creating phony pretenses for Martial Law. Having contingency plans for a citizenry that could be in the midst of massive triage, panic, or worse is a responsible thing to do.

well, I'm kinda glad this was not moved to paranoia.


Top Stories - Reuters
Reuters
U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack

2 hours, 33 minutes ago

Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,


U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department (news - web sites) last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress.

"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ion.day.delay/

CNN's reporting it too. I think I just shit myself.

What's the word on absentee ballots if this happens?

Absolutely. The hysteria that the media is causing over this is akin to someone saying they are saving pennies for a rainy day, and then someone shrieking "WHAT? IT'S GOING TO RAIN?!"

I'll write this off as more political drama in an attempt to make Bush look bad. If this keeps up, I may have to change my vote from Badnarik to Bush. ;)

Well, consider it like you would the prisoner abuse scandal of Abu Ghraib and the leaked memos from some of the administrations lawyers that argued for the legality of torturing enemy combatants as an interrogation technique.

Only this time around, they're arguing the legalities first and... well, we'll see.

Contingency plans are fine but I'd think cancelling an entire nation's elections on a smaller attack would make little sense. It'd have to be a pretty big attack to really shake an entire nation's chance to vote.

Show the world why our country is strong and brave by not bending to terrorists' plans.

I think it would make this country look like a bunch of cowards if a bomb or something went off and we all ran around like chickens with our heads cut off while the election is postponed.

Contingency plans are necessary because one can not predict the nature or extent of the attack. A nuclear, chem, or bio attack could be on a scale that would require extraordinary measures. If those measures are not planned for in advance -- well, the fact is any responsible administrator has to make contingency plans for worst-case scenarios.

I agree wholeheartedly, however, the fact that they are looking into it gives a little more credence to the paranoia.

If a scenario where Bush is down by 5-10 points a week before the election and allof a sudden an attack happens and they choose to postpone the elections, do you not think people will truly wonder whether Bush did something or allowed the attacks to happen?

We have gone through Civil War, 2 World Wars, Depression, rebellions and other times in our history where we were unsure of what the future held, yet every time we proceeded with the election and the people voiced their desires.

I just think we need to be watchful and diligent over what happens in government in the next few months, and no matter what happens we should not postpone the elections in anyway (short of a severe grand attack, and then we must ask how that attack was allowed to happen).

I hope I can look back 4 months from now and call myself a paranoid fool who had no idea what he was talking about let alone thinking. I'll be the first to admit I was all of those if Bush is behind a week before the elections and the elections go ahead as scheduled.

I hope we can look back in 4 months and not be in the midst of a bleak and dire situation in which our institutions are unable to respond because of a lack of excellent preparedness and in which the idea of timely national elections pales in comparison to the state of chaos inflicted upon our population by unimaginably insane attack.

Basically, I hope in 4 months, everything goes normal and according to plan.

Warning the public that there may be attacks at voting locations seems very likely to negatively affect voter turnout. I don't know if it's a deliberate action, but it doesn't strike me as impossible.

I think Paranoid is too strong of a word, a better one is cautious. That's what a find more and more people do these days and there's a reason for it. There is a pattern of behavior in our administration's behavior to support this.

I'm glad to see that there's a growing number of cautious people. It keeps the government honest. If you think these folks are too paranoid, then be glad that someone is covering your backside in case there's a knife heading right in there.

I certainly think that this has been a bit overblown. Afterall, the administration has been honest about not finding WMDs. Last week's bipartisan finding of the intelligence failure also shows that the government still works to some degree.

agreed in general with much of the above that counsels caution in the face of paranoia:

what bothers me about this announcement (not so much the plan, but the announcement of the plan, that it was the lead story for cnn, that it can be watched travelling around the world today by looking at the papers) is the following:

that the bush administration has created a legal framework that makes it quite easy to declare a state of emergency.

that their practices lead me to think that this administration would almost prefer a state of emergency.

that almost every regime that has used a state of emergency to keep itself in power in a democratic context has promised elections soon, but they rarely happen.

that there is no administration i can remember that i would trust less in this context than that of george w bush.

and i would worry about the consequences of this scenario, simply because i do not think people would believe that explanations for the declaration of the state of emergency, were it to happen. this is a consequence of losing all credibility over the iraq war. i do not know how things would then play out. but i cannot imagine an other-than-ugly scenario.

and there is a cynical way in which i wonder if the announcement could be seen as a near-advertisement for an attack--if you want to really fuck things up, do it between x and y dates.....

but too i hope to find myself in mid movember 2004, looking back on this and think geez, there was a period of that could easily have been one of total paranoia and it would have been really easy to have gone there

maybe read through this thread, if i remember it is here
.....good thing nothing happened.....

It may also influence people to vote by absentee ballot so that they can ensure their own participation in the election.

Personally, I seriously doubt any of this would happen, as I am a pessimist, not paranoid. It is somewhat telling, taken in context, that this sort of thing is taken at all seriously by any but the conspiracy theory folks. I find it interesting that a relatively large portion of the population is willing to entertain the possibility of what comes down to a coup, in the United States. It definately says much about the perception people have of our current leadership.

I, for one, am rather heartened that the majority of people have enough common sense to distinguish a contingency plan for extreme circumstances from a nefarious coup attempt.

You do know that absentee ballots are only counted in the event of a close election, right?

Balderdash. That is a tinfoil hat perception.

You're right. I have no experience in these matters, having worked at a county courthouse through two election days and having been good friends with several people in the Board of Elections office.

Your method of dismissing opinions that run counter to your own is getting extremely old.

I find the hystrionics and conspiracy theorizing to be just as stale.

Ok enough with the acerbic and sarcastic back and forth.

We all lose.

Thread closed.