Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 05-18-2005, 11:22 PM   #1 (permalink)
Insane
 
Fascism is now a reality in America

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/patriot_act

Fascism, as defined by Merriam Webster, is a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

The Grand Old Party wants to pass new "Patriot" laws which grants the FBI unlimited authority to wiretap and issue subpoenas without ANY court authority in the name of fighting "terrorism". This proposed law would start would terrorism but it sure wont end there.

As an attorney, I have never been as scared of the US government as i am right how. The loss of our constitutional guaranteed freedoms are being eroded a faster rate than anytime in the history of America. Personally, we will move to Canada as soon as our kids are out the house. I want out of george bush's america.

----------------------------------------
GOP Aides Say New Patriot Act Obliges Bush

WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury

Much of the debate in Congress has concerned possibly limiting some of the powers in the anti-terrorism law passed 45 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record), R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.

Recipients could challenge the subpoenas in court and the Bush administration would have to report to Congress twice a year exactly how it was using this investigatory power, the aides said.

The administration has sought this power for two years, but so far been rebuffed by lawmakers. It is far from certain that Congress will give the administration everything it wants this year.

Roberts' planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said.

Eight expiring sections of the law that deal with foreign intelligence investigations would become permanent, they said.

So, too, would a provision that authorizes wiretapping of suspected terrorists who operate without clear ties to a particular terrorist network.

The aides spokes on condition of anonymity because Roberts has yet to make public the bill's contents.

Opponents of expanding the Patriot Act said Roberts' proposal would amount to an expansive wish list for the administration.

"While we're fighting to bring provisions ... back into balance with the Bill of Rights, here we have the intelligence committee moving to give the government more power outside the judicial system to gain access to records of Americans," said former GOP Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, a critic of the law.

Lisa Graves, the American Civil Liberties Union's senior counsel for legislative strategy, said the new subpoena power would "be a dramatic expansion of secret search powers."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials have been adamant that the expiring provisions become permanent, with few changes.

They also have pushed for the administrative subpoena power, which they say prosecutors already are using in health care fraud and other criminal cases.

Justice Department officials have been consulted on the legislation and offered technical advice, department spokesman Kevin Madden said.

"The Department of Justice appreciates that the Senate Intelligence Committee has signaled their intention to support provisions that enhance law enforcement's ability to combat terrorism effectively," Madden said.

Committee aides said the committee planned to meet in private when it considers the bill because the discussions would involve intelligence operations.

Barr said he was distressed that the committee "would do something like this in secret."

Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., the panel's senior Democrat, has not said publicly whether he would support the entire bill that Roberts was working on or seek changes.

Last edited by Mobo123; 05-18-2005 at 11:28 PM..
Mobo123 is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 04:35 AM   #2 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
It's funny but I was listening to this song earlier today called Fatherland America:

Fatherland America
McDonald's land, America

Nazi scientists in US laboratories
paved the way for our democracy
Fascism and democracy
Now they go hand-in-hand
Yeah, now they go hand-in-hand--CHORUS

Fatherland America
Legoland America

For your freedom to be installed
They say that they'll take it away,
but only just for a little while
Yeah, only just for a little while
Only just for a little while



While I don't think America is a Facist state I do find it facinating how the political tactics of facist governments past can get adopted by democracies of today... In order for America or much of the West to go fully fascist there would have to be a civil war on a grand scale. It is much better to get your electorate to grant you increasing levels of power by legitimate means.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 04:36 AM   #3 (permalink)
Junkie
 
Janey's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Is that Ramstein?
Janey is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 04:50 AM   #4 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Kinda off topic, but not really.

I've been amazed lately at the pro gun crowd.

They always used to use the argument "the 2nd guarantees our right to guns, and it does that so that we can rise up against a tyrranical government if necessary."

Well, OK, I don't agree with that interpretation of the 2nd but presumably they do, so that begs the question, why aren't they shooting?

As our liberties erode faster than the east coast shoreline, it's amazing to see how few people actually realize it.
shakran is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 05:17 AM   #5 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
The same party that pretends to oppose this type of Orwellian legislation (the Democrats) are the ones who vote right along with it. People need to realize it's BOTH parties that are going along with the 9/11 commission reccomendations. We had a 100-0 vote in the senate to pass the REAL ID ACT btw.
samcol is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 05:56 AM   #6 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Make no mistake... it doesn't matter who is in power. The Democrats are just as guilty of this slide to authoritarianism.
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 05:56 AM   #7 (permalink)
Getting it.
 
Charlatan's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: Lion City
Quote:
Originally Posted by Janey
Is that Ramstein?
Honest Injun being covered by furnaceface....
__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke
Charlatan is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 06:42 AM   #8 (permalink)
Easy Rider
 
flstf's Avatar
 
Location: Moscow on the Ohio
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Kinda off topic, but not really.

I've been amazed lately at the pro gun crowd.

They always used to use the argument "the 2nd guarantees our right to guns, and it does that so that we can rise up against a tyrranical government if necessary."

Well, OK, I don't agree with that interpretation of the 2nd but presumably they do, so that begs the question, why aren't they shooting?

As our liberties erode faster than the east coast shoreline, it's amazing to see how few people actually realize it.
IMHO, this government will eventually fail just like every other government that has existed on earth has in the past. I don't think we or our system are so superior to prevent this from happening.

Whether the breakup is peaceful or not depends on how much force the corrupt polititians use to try to stay in power. It hasn't gotten bad enough yet but the erosion of our liberty is certainly moving in the wrong direction. When (not if) it gets bad enough, people will revolt. We probably have a long way to go before that happens. Hopefully the breakup will be as peaceful as the Soviet Union's was.
flstf is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 08:24 AM   #9 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI


Slay those Nasty Demons...Pronto!
powerclown is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 09:58 AM   #10 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran

Well, OK, I don't agree with that interpretation of the 2nd but presumably they do, so that begs the question, why aren't they shooting?
Because it's the liberals, not the conservatives, who have largely divested themselves of guns. Consequently, they don't have the necessary skills or equipment to do more than get arrested at a Starbucks for shouting their Stalinist slogans too loudly.
moosenose is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 11:42 AM   #11 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
It's always the liberals. It's always the liberals.

Read between the lines a little instead of blaming someone else for your problems. The GOP supporters just don't want to admit that they've been bamboozled, swindled, taken, and had. Righties always claim that they want their guns so they can fight the government like shakran said. I find it ironic that the same group fails to realize that their party is responsible for the deterioration of our freedoms so that they WON'T be able to rise up with said guns.

They're affecting YOUR freedoms too righties. Liberals are bitching because we see through Dubya's wool. You all just have to wake up and admit it. Once you do, then change will happen.

Either that, or the GOP will fuck things up so badly that America will eventually destryoy itself from within.
Hardknock is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 11:49 AM   #12 (permalink)
All important elusive independent swing voter...
 
jorgelito's Avatar
 
Location: People's Republic of KKKalifornia
I think it may be a case of, "it has to get much WORSE before it gets better".

I don't think people realize what's happening yet. People are reactive so it's gonna have to take a lot more than "passing of legislation" for the people to "rise up" etc. We need to feel the effects, the immediate effects and the ramifications.

I think we're still too comfortable in our lives, lifestyle to be willing to "do anything about anything". When peoples lives start to get really affected, then, maybe then you'll start to see, hear action.
jorgelito is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 11:54 AM   #13 (permalink)
Junkie
 
samcol's Avatar
 
Location: Indiana
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
They're affecting YOUR freedoms too righties. Liberals are bitching because we see through Dubya's wool. You all just have to wake up and admit it. Once you do, then change will happen.
You just touched on the true complexity of the current political situation in the United States. Real conservatives have been hijacked by the neo-cons and the liberals recognize this which is good. However, the Democratic party leaders are doing little or nothing to oppose what is going on. They are providing a false solution to the current problems. So in my opinion the they are contributing to this autocratic or dictatorial control.

I can't stand these new Republicans, but why should I put my faith in the Democrats? All I have to do is look at at their voting history, and their weak stance against this administration. Your Democratic leaders are going along with everything this administration is doing.

Last edited by samcol; 05-19-2005 at 11:56 AM.. Reason: fixed quote, i lose at the interweb
samcol is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 03:33 PM   #14 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown


Slay those Nasty Demons...Pronto!
Time passes but the politics board remains the same eh powerclown?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 08:19 PM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Long time, Ustwo...good to see you.
The more things change, eh?

Were you aware that Fascism is now a Reality in America? I just found out this morning!
COMMENCE WITH THE RALLIES!!!

powerclown is offline  
Old 05-19-2005, 08:43 PM   #16 (permalink)
Tone.
 
shakran's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by samcol
You just touched on the true complexity of the current political situation in the United States. Real conservatives have been hijacked by the neo-cons and the liberals recognize this which is good. However, the Democratic party leaders are doing little or nothing to oppose what is going on. They are providing a false solution to the current problems. So in my opinion the they are contributing to this autocratic or dictatorial control.

I can't stand these new Republicans, but why should I put my faith in the Democrats? All I have to do is look at at their voting history, and their weak stance against this administration. Your Democratic leaders are going along with everything this administration is doing.

You hit the nail on the head. The democratic party is filled with delusional wimps. Kerry's announced he'll be the democratic candidate in '08. Now, aside from the fact that I don't think even the democrats want to lose THAT badly, what the hell is wrong with him? He lost the last election - one in which a pet rock should have been able to defeat the incumbent. What makes him think he's winning material?

And you guys will note that in my other post in this thread, I didn't mention any party names. That's because while I despise what the Republicans are doing to the country, I also despise what the democrats are letting them do to the country.

We've frankly got a crowd of warmongering nutjobs running the place right now, and someone (ahem, maybe the opposing party?) should be standing up to it, but no one is. I'm a firm believer that it's just about as bad to watch wrongdoing without stopping it as it is to be the wrongdoer in the first place.

But I won't say the country's doomed just yet. Don't forget, we've had other winners in the whitehouse, and they didn't manage to kill off the country. Andy Jackson was certifiable, Nixon was a crook. Hell even John Adams, champion of liberty that he was pre-1776, went around as president having people arrested for treason and sedition just for speaking out against him.

Bush only has 3.5 years left. All the country has to do now is hunker down and hope he doesn't start world war 3 before someone with a little common sense can get in there and start us down the right path again.



Now before some in here start calling me a republican bashing liberal, I wanna make it clear that I think both sides have led the country in the wrong direction in the past. We as a country have gotten entirely too eager to mess around with other countries and their affairs. It's high time we figure out that the world does not want us to be their policeman, and even if they did, we don't have the resources. Clinton's little excursion to Somalia was no more justifiable than Bush's invasion of Iraq.

Our policy needs to be "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone. But if you mess with us, we're gonna get even."

That's why I never criticized the attack on Afghanistan - -well. . I didn't until Bush got distracted by Iraq and forgot all about getting the guy that actually attacked us. Afghanistan was knowingly harboring terrorists that had directly hurt our country. There was no problem with going in there.

Iraq was not harboring terrorists, had no capability of harming us, and pretty much left us alone with the exception of the occasional childish insult hurled by Saddam. There was no reason to attack it other than Bush wanted to.

And not only did that damage our reputation in a BIG way world wide - - - now we're the country that invades and conquers people just because we're don't happen to like them - - -but it also brought sweeping consequences that Bush never considered - - or if he did consider them, he quickly pretended he hadn't so he could still have his little war.

Ever stop to wonder why the Pentagon wants to close all these bases? Some of 'em are really stupid bases to close - -the submarine base in connecticut for example. Have we not learned from Pearl Harbor? Don't put all your boats in one harbor unless you want to make them easier to destroy all at once. But the pentagon HAS to close them because they've run out of money - - and of course they're out of money because Bush & Co. forgot to consider that wars have to be paid for.

The short sightedness of this administration is appalling, but not surprising - - after all every company Bush ever touched wilted and died. Texas plunged into enormous debt when Bush took the reins. The man can't lead a kid to the crapper, and he's now in charge of the country.

And who's fault is that? The democrats. Sure, they were excused for his first term because for those four years we ceased being a constitutional republic, and instead became an oligarchy with a leader appointed by a council of judicial ministers. That wasn't their fault at all.

But this last election - - they threw it. Even staunch republicans admit that Kerry would have given Bush much more of a challenge if he'd just defended himself against Bush's attacks.

So the point of this long, drawn out post, is that both parties suck, but for different reasons. And until either a third party gets enough of a political foothold to count, or until the democrats wake up and start wanting to win again (hint, that means actually taking stands and saying what you believe in even if you think it might offend a few people. Hey, it worked for the republicans), it's gonna continue the way it's going now.
shakran is offline  
Old 05-20-2005, 05:00 AM   #17 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Long time, Ustwo...good to see you.
The more things change, eh?

Were you aware that Fascism is now a Reality in America? I just found out this morning!
COMMENCE WITH THE RALLIES!!!

I'd love to go to the rally but I have a bund meeting to go to.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-20-2005, 09:24 AM   #18 (permalink)
Thank You Jesus
 
reconmike's Avatar
 
Location: Twilight Zone
Does this mean that SS style boots will be coming back in fashion?

I will need to get me a pair of those suckas.
Then if the feds really do not believe I am on their side, I will need a phone scrambler/decoder and never answer the door again, (might be a process server).

I have a very good friend who listens into cell phone conversations for a living, and I have asked him how they decide who they are going to target, all he will tell me is that someone like myself should not be concerned.

Hey Ustwo, can I come to that bund meeting?
__________________
Where is Darwin when ya need him?
reconmike is offline  
Old 05-20-2005, 09:30 AM   #19 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmike
Hey Ustwo, can I come to that bund meeting?
Sure, but bring snacks, we always are short of snacks!
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-20-2005, 12:29 PM   #20 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
I like lighthearted banter.

Be sure it stays that way, folks
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 05-20-2005, 02:16 PM   #21 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by reconmike
Does this mean that SS style boots will be coming back in fashion?

Man, chicks DIG Jackboots. Make sure they're shiny. Back after the Wall fell, I got a bunch of the high-polish East German Officer's riding boots that went above the calf. My wife tells me that's why she started dating me...

BTW, they aren't "SS Style" boots...the former ComBlock still uses them. They're also festive because you generally can stash stuff in them, and when being lightly frisked, they very rarely frisk your boots. I used to keep my "wire" in one boot, and a holdout .380 in the other, and they never caught on.
moosenose is offline  
Old 05-21-2005, 03:38 AM   #22 (permalink)
Crazy
 
magictoy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
It's always the liberals. It's always the liberals.

Read between the lines a little instead of blaming someone else for your problems. The GOP supporters just don't want to admit that they've been bamboozled, swindled, taken, and had. Righties always claim that they want their guns so they can fight the government like shakran said. I find it ironic that the same group fails to realize that their party is responsible for the deterioration of our freedoms so that they WON'T be able to rise up with said guns.

They're affecting YOUR freedoms too righties. Liberals are bitching because we see through Dubya's wool. You all just have to wake up and admit it. Once you do, then change will happen.

Either that, or the GOP will fuck things up so badly that America will eventually destryoy itself from within.
Does this mean that YOU are going to start shooting, or are you waiting for others to do it for you?
magictoy is offline  
Old 05-21-2005, 03:55 AM   #23 (permalink)
Crazy
 
magictoy's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by shakran
Our policy needs to be "we'll leave you alone if you leave us alone. But if you mess with us, we're gonna get even."

That's why I never criticized the attack on Afghanistan - -well. . I didn't until Bush got distracted by Iraq and forgot all about getting the guy that actually attacked us. Afghanistan was knowingly harboring terrorists that had directly hurt our country. There was no problem with going in there.
So far, so good.

Quote:
Iraq was not harboring terrorists, had no capability of harming us, ...
Oopsie. Al Zarqawi wasn't training terrorists in explosives and poisoning techniques in Iraq?

Quote:
So the point of this long, drawn out post, is that both parties suck, but for different reasons. And until either a third party gets enough of a political foothold to count, or until the democrats wake up and start wanting to win again (hint, that means actually taking stands and saying what you believe in even if you think it might offend a few people. Hey, it worked for the republicans), it's gonna continue the way it's going now.
NOW you're back on track.

Last edited by magictoy; 05-21-2005 at 03:57 AM..
magictoy is offline  
Old 05-21-2005, 11:24 PM   #24 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictoy
Does this mean that YOU are going to start shooting, or are you waiting for others to do it for you?
I'm not talking about shooting anything at all. That's a completely separate issue. What I was pointing out was the hypocrisy of the right. They scream abut protecting our rights and limiting government but look what has happened. Exactly the opposite.
And I am in total agreement with what shakran said. The current dems need to grow a big pair of balls. They need to start defending themselves. We all know it. That’s one of the reasons why Dean was elected chair. Supposedly, he's supposed to put the "fire" back into the base. I'm still out on that one personally. But I like to be a little optimistic. It's not that they're letting the right walk all over them. Remember, they have total control of two of the three branches of government. Not much the dems can do to stop them. I agree that they still need to grow a pair and say what's on their mind. If someone's offended, then screw it. Let them be offended. Believe me, there are things about the left I don't like either but my main concern right now is the economy and I'm going with the dems on that one. After 4+ years, the right can't seem to get it right with our economy and IMHO they've got to go.
Hardknock is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 02:33 AM   #25 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
I'm not talking about shooting anything at all. That's a completely separate issue. What I was pointing out was the hypocrisy of the right. They scream abut protecting our rights and limiting government but look what has happened. Exactly the opposite.
Some of us have a different viewpoint. As in, the left has been indoctrinating America's children, right up through college. I've seen studies that say 80% of college professors classify themselves as liberal. The reason college students are such easy pickings is that most don't have enough experience in the real world to realize what utter bullshit they're being fed.

After graduation, even though they're armed with a degree in art history, these "useful idiots" blame the right when nobody wants to hire them. "Greedy capitalists," are to blame, of course.

You want to know what's the saddest part? You think the Democrats actually care about you! The only thing 99% of elected officials care about is getting re-elected.

Bill Clinton never made a decision that wasn't designed to benefit his career, regardless of how much it hurt the country. How else do you explain his (and Jimmy Carter's) giving nukes to North Korea? Or missile technology to China?

Can anyone picture Bush doing either of those?

Then there's the economy. I wish more people reallized that politicians don't control it, no matter how much they want you to think that. What controls the economy is how competitive we are in the world market. And we're not competitive if we run out of oil, or shutter factories near a snail darter breeding area.

But back to the part about "protecting rights." There hasn't been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11.

However, those on the left would be screaming the loudest about Bush "doing nothing" if there HAD been. In other words, if he'd reacted like Clinton did to the first WTC bombing, and the U.S.S. Cole (by doing nothing).

I detect hypocrisy, all right.
Cereberus is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 03:44 AM   #26 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereberus
Then there's the economy. I wish more people reallized that politicians don't control it, no matter how much they want you to think that. What controls the economy is how competitive we are in the world market. And we're not competitive if we run out of oil, or shutter factories near a snail darter breeding area.
And what is it that makes up competitive in the world market? Would it be something called an education perhaps? Somthing that those "useful idiots" actually possess? Something that your current administration obviously doesn't believe in since Bush doesn't like to fund his own education programs? Unless it's the war college that is. The fact that China is kicking our asses right now has a lot to do with Bush and his "faith" that everything will be all right is you just pray in school. I don't give a damn if they got missile technology. They were going to get it anyway no matter who was in office because they stole it. Or did that happen to slip your mind? You think I don't know that politicians want to get reelected? I don't give a damn. That's all they're good for. But I'm also not going to sit here and think that Bush and Co is actually good for us when they pass legislation that obviously favors big business over the working class. Bankruptcy laws that allow companies to default on pensions, allowing limited awards on legitimate malpractice suits, the list could go on. Digging for more oil wells ain't gonna save us either bub. The stuff's running out and if we don't switch over to alternate fuels soon, South Korea and the rest of the far east will pass us by with a lot more than stem cells.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereberus
But back to the part about "protecting rights." There hasn't been a terrorist attack in this country since 9/11.
And you think that was all due to lord Bush?? Tell me, was it the felons that the gov't hired as airport screeners that did the trick to save us from the big bad terrorists? Was is the Patriot act that tramples all over my freedoms? Or was it that fake war that the war criminal Bush is still trying to sell us by sending his chrones over every other month on a "surprise visit" to try and reassure the masses that everything is going to plan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cereberus
However, those on the left would be screaming the loudest about Bush "doing nothing" if there HAD been. In other words, if he'd reacted like Clinton did to the first WTC bombing, and the U.S.S. Cole (by doing nothing).

I detect hypocrisy, all right.
I'm sure that starting a war on a band of thugs that moves from country to country by invading the country they happened to be in the week before those events would've solved it perfectly.

By the way on that note, Bush holding hands with one of the Saudi dictators (He hates dictators because they limit freedoms remember?) on the white house lawn begging him to turn up the oil spigot doesn't help his credibility either.
Hardknock is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 06:42 AM   #27 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
one problem with the thread is that the definition of fascism from miriam webster is simply too vague. because the word gets folk riled up, it pays to be more exact when you use it. of course, being more exact will not have any appreciable effect on the "dont worry be happy" tendencies within american conservatism. but then again, dont worry be happy is always a possibility--remember nero? he was happy, he didnt worry.

fascist regimes are hypernationalist. they use nationalism as a political mask behind which they do as they like. nationalism is good for them, because it enables folk who support such a regime viscerally to pretend to themselves that nothing bad or strange is going on. one effect of this style of nationalism on the features that articulate it as an ideology is that these features/signifiers tend to get elevated to a quasi-sacred status--for a good window onto this lunacy here, have a look a the thread concerning the descration of the koran story. you get to read parallels being made, in all seriousness, between the koran and the american flag.

this despite other features, like the preference for working in the context of a state of emergency (war on "terror'), which is linked to both contempt for normal types of legal parameters--(think the iraq war on this one)--and contempt for democratic process, even in its weaker forms (like the american system)--democracy is slow and sloppy and involves bad things like dissent--better to undercut or suppress it. dissent is bad because it indicates divisions within the nation---which in fascist-land is a singular term, united in some Historical Mission (like "spreading freedom" in the george w bush sense of the term). to suppress dissent, there are a range of options, from direct physical suppression (mercifully, "we" are not there--though i still remember pretty clearly how much fun it was to be in america for people close to me who happened to be muslim right after 9/11) to a process of undercutting the legitimacy of information sources, no matter how weak conceptually (newsweek?) with the idea of forcing the loyal footsoldier (dont worry be happy) back from information to faith as the basis for their politics.

clearly the problem is that folk who think about this stuff get overexcited. clearly the solution is valium. dont worry, be happy--it seems to require a drug or two.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 07:54 AM   #28 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
(Emotion-laden outburst)

Well, it isn't quite original, and Roachboy suggested it before I got back, but this seems appropriate

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0RwCfAjYWVzKNedj2rrKrqFW6!t5*If0Kl0GIN*Ar4Vy7ob7MY31wPu6Gjw*P0oKUMy8hATJs*CEaqUaTjoadOy3LyBxLF0srM7iJOOAnjWw/valium.jpg?dc=4675523437964989327></img>

Or maybe

<img src=http://groups.msn.com/_Secure/0SAAAAFQWzTx83q!FhdagVUoAxXvem!dQA1Avv95xoJAK8fxsJrDCDu9040H7RBylqNMRJcb9nWQR*vJKku34TdCWDyGl0GuAnGtPpt7S*7YAAAAAAAAAAA/viagra2.jpg?dc=4675523438030384181></img>


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
The fact that China is kicking our asses right now has a lot to do with Bush and his "faith" that everything will be all right is you just pray in school.
I always thought it had something to do with a massive supply of cheap labor and lack of the environmental regulations of the US, as well as unfair trade practices, but that's just me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
I don't give a damn if they got missile technology. They were going to get it anyway no matter who was in office because they stole it. Or did that happen to slip your mind?
Nope. They BOUGHT it. Google John Hwang and Charlie Trie. And Loral.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
]And you think that was all due to lord Bush?? Tell me, was it the felons that the gov't hired as airport screeners that did the trick to save us from the big bad terrorists? Was is the Patriot act that tramples all over my freedoms? Or was it that fake war that the war criminal Bush is still trying to sell us by sending his chrones over every other month on a "surprise visit" to try and reassure the masses that everything is going to plan?
I thought it was wiping out 75% of al Qaeda, and having the rest of it on the run. But that's just me.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardknock
By the way on that note, Bush holding hands with one of the Saudi dictators (He hates dictators because they limit freedoms remember?) on the white house lawn begging him to turn up the oil spigot doesn't help his credibility either.
I'm sure you were happy to ignore the widely published explanation of that. I'm sure you also ignored all of the pictures of Bill and Hillary smiling out in pictures with drug dealers.

I had a problem with that. But that's just me.
Cereberus is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 11:42 AM   #29 (permalink)
MSD
The sky calls to us ...
 
MSD's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: CT
Please stop with the childish antics and keep this thread on track.
MSD is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 11:44 AM   #30 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
one problem with the thread is that the definition of fascism from miriam webster is simply too vague. because the word gets folk riled up, it pays to be more exact when you use it.
Well said. I agree 100%.

The extreme nature of the title of this thread is proof of just how careless words are thrown around. It's the same irresponsible ridiculousness as yelling fire in a theater, publishing (then retracting, which is worse imo) inflammatory political bombshells, or, say, trolling on the internet.

Last edited by powerclown; 05-22-2005 at 11:53 AM..
powerclown is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 12:23 PM   #31 (permalink)
can't help but laugh
 
irateplatypus's Avatar
 
Location: dar al-harb
agreed. the english language has been raped.

i'm frustrated by the lack of real conservative policy coming out of the GOP... the patriot act and its ilk is just a single example of a wider phenomenon.

thanks to whoever pointed out that the patriot act passed overwhelming on both sides (99-1 if memory serves).

we are the only ones who can change this.
__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill
irateplatypus is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 12:44 PM   #32 (permalink)
Republican slayer
 
Hardknock's Avatar
 
Location: WA
Also, remember that the patriot act passed at a time when tensions were high and everybody was "behind" the president.

In other words, before the lies came out.

But I agree, we are the only ones who can change this. Sadly though, no one seems to give a fuck.
Hardknock is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 01:44 PM   #33 (permalink)
 
roachboy's Avatar
 
Super Moderator
Location: essex ma
powerclown, irate: it is interesting to find us in any kind of agreement--for this fleeting moment at least, good....

but the agreement seems to result from an edit of my post that avoids what i was actually saying. it seems that the rest of us are treated to a bit of semantic warfare from the right even on this level, over the usage of the term fascism. the tactics are obvious: try whenever possible to shortcircuit usage of the term, either by ruling it out altogether (the fatuous godwin's device) or making a great production out of claiming that it means nothing. fact is, folks, that the term fascism has meanings, these meanings refer to forms of conservative authoritarian types of governance, to patterns within those forms of conservative authoritarian governance, many of which in fact can and should be applied to the operations that i like to group together as bushworld. the second tactic seems to function as a plan b, should the first fail: try to focus on the most minute element of an argument and generate an illusion of movement around that. presumably the desired effect is to divert the conversation.

i use the term tactics and refer to the right as a political bloc in this simply because the same moves come form conservatives over and over and over--even from those who might not agree amongst themselves about many issues, but who for whatever reason choose to participate in the general culture of contemporary conservatism. i figure the participation has to explain the persistance of these moves. but the actual link, in this case, is speculative.


at any rate, i think there are definite parallels between the conservatism of george w bush and his administration and aspects of fascism. these parallels are troubling, to say the least. but this is not to say that bushworld is a rerun of nazism, of italian fascism, of franco, or peron, of salazar or anyone else...they are simply parallels. history does not repeat...but is is in the same tradition, it uses the same logic, form its fetishism of the military through its contempt for law and for the possibilities of democratic process to its particular usage of the collective mental disorder called nationalism. the list of parallels could be made quite long--there are features that would not fit into it, however. that fascism is a way to talk about some aspects of this sorry administrations ideology but not all of it does not mean that there fore the term fascism is a problem. you would think this kind of argument is too basic to even require being made. you would think adults would know this sort of thing already.
__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite
roachboy is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 02:21 PM   #34 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Well said. I agree 100%.

The extreme nature of the title of this thread is proof of just how careless words are thrown around. It's the same irresponsible ridiculousness as yelling fire in a theater, publishing (then retracting, which is worse imo) inflammatory political bombshells, or, say, trolling on the internet.
powerclown, the title of this thread is accurate and you are attempting to suppress discussion of this very real and timely threat to the remnants of our pre-Bush civil iberties that still remain. With parallels so easily observed in America today, to past fascist regimes, why are you so intent on minimizing what is an obvious trend, to many of us?
Quote:
http://www.secularhumanism.org/libra...britt_23_2.htm
Fascism Anyone?
Laurence W. Britt
The following article is from Free Inquiry magazine, Volume 23, Number 2.

..........For the purpose of this perspective, I will consider the following regimes: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. To be sure, they constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible.

Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism. From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media. Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security. Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together. Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.
Quote:
http://www.bordc.org/detail.php?id=155
Resolution regarding the Patriot Act and the Protection of Sonoma Residents' Civil Rights (Excerpt)
WHEREAS, there has been no substantive showing by USA Patriot Act sponsors that these fundamental alterations of our civil liberties increase public safety, and subsequent investigation has shown that government powers of access to personal information prior to the events of September 11, 2001 were adequate to prevent the attacks if properly employed, with the resulting information communicated to the appropriate authorities; and

WHEREAS, the expanded powers of secret surveillance, search and seizure and detention conferred upon the federal government by the provisions of the USA Patriot Act herein opposed are far more likely to have a chilling effect on the free exchange of ideas and expression of disagreement with government policy, than to increase public safety; and

WHEREAS, examples of provisions in the USA Patriot Act which threaten the constitutional rights of Sonoma residents are as follows:

1. Section 216- providing for courts to issue orders authorizing wiretapping and internet surveillance if “the court finds that the attorney for the government has certified to the court that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation,” eliminating the requirement, well established by legal precedent, to show probable cause that the subject of the surveillance is involved in criminal activity. Furthermore, section 216 requires wire and electronic service providers to make any information available to government investigators which “may facilitate in the execution of the order.” Such an overly broad and vaguely defined standard virtually eliminates judicial supervision of telephone and internet surveillance.

2. Section 411- granting unchecked power to the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to designate domestic groups as “terrorist organizations” if they qualify as “a political or social group whose endorsements of acts of terrorist activity the Secretary of State has determined undermines United States efforts to reduce or eliminate terrorism,” which could include a Palestinian support group or a group opposing economic globalization.

3. Section 412- allowing the Attorney General to subject non-citizens to indefinite detention, even though they have committed no crime, if the Attorney General “has reasonable grounds to believe that the alien is engaged in any activity that endangers the national security of the United States.”

4. Sections 215, 218, 358 and 508 giving law enforcement broad access to sensitive medical, mental health, library, business, financial and other records about individuals without showing probable cause or evidence of a crime, where suspicion that the person is the agent of a foreign government is a “significant purpose” of the surveillance; and

WHEREAS, our civil rights and liberties are further threatened by orders and rules of the executive branch that:

5. establish secret military tribunals for terrorism suspects (Military Order, Nov. 13, 2001

6. permit wiretapping of conversations between federal prisoners and their lawyers (28 Code of Federal Regulations 501.3)

7. limit the disclosure of public documents and records under the Freedom of Information Act (Memorandum of Attorney general to Heads of all Federal Departments and Agencies, October 12, 2001; and........................
powerclown, you talk as if you are not keeping abreast of current events, or else your statement quoted above requires exclusion of the changes in law since 9/11 and the changes proposed in an effort by the Bush administration to permanently eliminate the rights that these officials swore on Jan. 20, 2001 to defend, protect, and to uphold.....not to compromise or to eliminate:
Quote:
http://www.ftimes.com/main.asp?Secti...18&TM=82221.88
5/19/2005 8:29:00 AM
GOP Aides Say New Patriot Act Proposals Obliges Bush

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee is working on a bill that would renew the Patriot Act and expand government powers in the name of fighting terrorism, letting the FBI subpoena records without permission from a judge or grand jury.

Much of the debate in Congress has concerned possibly limiting some of the powers in the anti-terrorism law passed 45 days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the measure being written by Sen. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., would give the FBI new power to issue administrative subpoenas, which are not reviewed by a judge or grand jury, for quickly obtaining records, electronic data or other evidence in terrorism investigations, according to aides for the GOP majority on the committee who briefed reporters Wednesday.

Recipients could challenge the subpoenas in court and the Bush administration would have to report to Congress twice a year exactly how it was using this investigatory power, the aides said.

The administration has sought this power for two years, but so far been rebuffed by lawmakers. It is far from certain that Congress will give the administration everything it wants this year.

Roberts' planned bill also would make it easier for prosecutors to use special court-approved warrants for secret wiretaps and searches of suspected terrorists and spies in criminal cases, the committee aides said.

Eight expiring sections of the law that deal with foreign intelligence investigations would become permanent, they said.

So, too, would a provision that authorizes wiretapping of suspected terrorists who operate without clear ties to a particular terrorist network.

The aides spokes on condition of anonymity because Roberts has yet to make public the bill's contents.

Opponents of expanding the Patriot Act said Roberts' proposal would amount to an expansive wish list for the administration.

"While we're fighting to bring provisions ... back into balance with the Bill of Rights, here we have the intelligence committee moving to give the government more power outside the judicial system to gain access to records of Americans," said former GOP Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia, a critic of the law.

Lisa Graves, the American Civil Liberties Union's senior counsel for legislative strategy, said the new subpoena power would "be a dramatic expansion of secret search powers."

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and other administration officials have been adamant that the expiring provisions become permanent, with few changes.

They also have pushed for the administrative subpoena power, which they say prosecutors already are using in health care fraud and other criminal cases.

Justice Department officials have been consulted on the legislation and offered technical advice, department spokesman Kevin Madden said.

"The Department of Justice appreciates that the Senate Intelligence Committee has signaled their intention to support provisions that enhance law enforcement's ability to combat terrorism effectively," Madden said.

Committee aides said the committee planned to meet in private when it considers the bill because the discussions would involve intelligence operations.

Barr said he was distressed that the committee "would do something like this in secret."
host is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 02:54 PM   #35 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by magictoy
So far, so good.

Oopsie. Al Zarqawi wasn't training terrorists in explosives and poisoning techniques in Iraq?

NOW you're back on track.
magictoy, what is the real point that you are trying to make with your "Oopsie" taunt, since it is common knowledge that Saddam was not even in control of the Kurdish area of northern Iraq where the US declared in Feb., 2003, to the UN assembly that Al Zarqawi was said to be operating in? If you were not aware of this inconsistancy in the logic of your statement, please retract it, if you meant to make another point than an inaccurate opinion that Saddam supported Al Zarqawi in training terrorists inside Iraq, please tell us what your other point is.
Quote:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...61575#continue
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, The, February, 2003 by GREG MILLER
SHOWDOWN ON IRAQ

Why not hit terrorist camp?

Lawmakers question lack of military action

By GREG MILLER Los Angeles Times

Friday, February 7, 2003

Washington -- Secretary of State Colin L. Powell spent a significant part of his presentation to the United Nations this week describing a terrorist camp in northern Iraq where al-Qaida affiliates are said to be training to carry out attacks with explosives and poisons.

But neither Powell nor other administration officials answered the question: What is the United States doing about it?

Lawmakers who have attended classified briefings on the camp say that they have been stymied for months in their efforts to get an explanation for why the U.S. has not launched a military strike on the compound near the village of Khurmal. Powell cited its ongoing operation as one of the key reasons for suspecting ties between Baghdad and the al-Qaida terror network.

The lawmakers put new pressure on the Bush administration on Thursday to explain its decision to leave the facility unharmed.

"Why have we not taken it out?" Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.) asked Powell during a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing. "Why have we let it sit there if it's such a dangerous plant producing these toxins?"

Powell declined to answer, saying he could not discuss the matter in open session.

"I can assure you that it is a place that has been very much in our minds. And we have been tracing individuals who have gone in there and come out of there," Powell said.

Absent an explanation from the White House, some officials suggested the administration had refrained from striking the compound in part to preserve a key piece of its case against Iraq.

"This is it, this is their compelling evidence for use of force," said one intelligence official, who asked not to be identified. "If you take it out, you can't use it as justification for war."..................

......A White House spokesman said Thursday he had no immediate comment on the matter.

The administration's handling of the issue has emerged as one of the more curious recent elements of the war on terrorism. Failing to intervene appears to be at odds with President Bush's stated policy of pre-empting terrorist threats, and the facility is in an area where the U.S. already has a considerable presence.

U.S. intelligence agents are said to be operating among the Kurdish population nearby, and U.S. and British warplanes already patrol much of northern Iraq as part of their enforcement of a "no- fly" zone.
magictoy, the material you chose to use in your taunt is BS, disinformation, propaganda, one of a long parade of decpetions, misleading statements, and outright lies, broadcast by top officials of the Bush administration, in an attempt, as the May 1, 2005 disclosure of the "Downing Street Memo" clearly shows, to "fix the facts around the policy" of an illegal an unnecessary invasion of Iraq.
Quote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2108880/
Holy Zarqawi
Why Bush let Iraq's top terrorist walk.
By Daniel Benjamin
Posted Friday, Oct. 29, 2004, at 2:08 PM PT

Why didn't the Bush administration kill Abu Musab al-Zarqawi when it had the chance?

That it had opportunities to take out the Jordanian-born jihadist has been clear since Secretary of State Colin Powell devoted a long section of his February 2003 speech to the United Nations Security Council. In those remarks, which were given to underscore the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, Powell dwelt at length on the terrorist camp in Khurmal, in the pre-invasion Kurdish enclave. It was at that camp that Zarqawi, other jihadists who had fled Afghanistan, and Kurdish radicals were training and producing the poison ricin and cyanide.

Neither the Khurmal camp nor the surrounding area were under Saddam's control, but Powell provided much detail purporting to show Zarqawi's ties to the Baghdad regime. His arguments have since been largely discredited by the intelligence community. Many of us who have worked in counterterrorism wondered at the time about Powell's claims. If we knew where the camp of a leading jihadist was and knew that his followers were working on unconventional weapons, why weren't we bombing it or sending in special operations forces—especially since this was a relatively "permissive" environment?
host is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 05:54 PM   #36 (permalink)
Junkie
 
powerclown's Avatar
 
Location: Detroit, MI
Yes, roachboy, I acknowledge that the term "Fascism" does have deeper meaning - so we are again in agreement. Where I disagree with both you and host is in your support of the projection of the concept of Fascism onto the current administration. What happens in 3.5 years, when your derisionally-named BushCo is constitutionally removed from power (a quite un-Fascist practice, no?)?

Does a once Fascist Amerika then revert literally overnight back into a Democratic America once again? In the span of 4 years? If you're going to brand America as "Fascsist" under Bush, will you brand it such under a possbly Democratic Administration? Is it Bush you have a problem with, or is it with America in general?
powerclown is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 06:59 PM   #37 (permalink)
Banned
 
Not to put words in roachboy's mouth, but from what i gather it's capitalism, but that doesn't scare most like it does roachboy. Conservative agenda's where defense is concerned, is where the parallel with fascism is drawn, from the lefts perspective. As such BushCo seems to serve Roachboy quite well. Which is why i think for Roachboy the answer to this question:

"Does a once Fascist Amerika then revert literally overnight back into a Democratic America once again?"

would be "no". But i would be interested in Roachboy's overall attitude toward our country in general with Liberal control. For Host, i think the answer to that question would be yes.
matthew330 is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 07:20 PM   #38 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by powerclown
Yes, roachboy, I acknowledge that the term "Fascism" does have deeper meaning - so we are again in agreement. Where I disagree with both you and host is in your support of the projection of the concept of Fascism onto the current administration. What happens in 3.5 years, when your derisionally-named BushCo is constitutionally removed from power (a quite un-Fascist practice, no?)?

Does a once Fascist Amerika then revert literally overnight back into a Democratic America once again? In the span of 4 years? If you're going to brand America as "Fascsist" under Bush, will you brand it such under a possbly Democratic Administration? Is it Bush you have a problem with, or is it with America in general?
Who T-F know what to believe, powerclown, but we have to contine to tirelessly question everything that those in authority say and do.

Obama voted for "tort reform". even though a 20 year old, permanently incapacitated by an incompetent surgeon, would receive an award that amounts to $12.00 per day, under the provisions of the "reform".

Senator Joe Biden (D) Del., voted for "Bankruptcy Reform", because MBNA is his benefactor and employs him as an internet technology consultant.

The Yale Univ. secret society, "Skull and Bones", invites six members of the junior class to join it's ranks each year. Between '65 and '67, Kerry and then Bush were among the less than 20 new members selected in that period to join Skull and Bones. Howard Dean, struck a chord during pre-primary campaigning in late 2003, early 2004, because he appeared to potential voters to be against the Iraq war from the outset, whereas Kerry agreed with more of Bush's Iraq policy than he disagreed with it. Dean appeared too shrill and radical and was sidelined by the democratic party hierarchy.

Why did the democrats on the 9/11 commission and the panel that Bush selected to review the pre-invasion Iraqi intelligence gathering, not issue dissenting reports from the "official" releases? Why have the deomcrats not insisted on independent, congressional investigations.

In his newly released film, (segment #2) "Martial Law 9/11: Rise Of The Police State", Alex Jones confronts Michael Moore in NYC during the 2004 Republican Convention and demands an answer from Moore as to the omission of the report in Farenheit 9/11, that NORAD was ordered to "stand down" during the 9/11 attacks. Moore is heard to mutter, "because that would be un-American". Alex Jones purports to believe that Moore intended his film to as a cover and a diversion for the Bush government's actual involvement in 9/11. The film, for anyone with an open mind, and a desire not to rule anything out about the curious sequence of events on 9-11-2001, is available for download in three segments at this link:
http://www.archive.org/details/MartialLaw911

powerclown, I lived in Manhattan on 9-11, and I don't know what to believe about what happened that day. To get even closer to the event in it's aftermath, I took advantage of an opportunity to move into an apartment that was three blocks from ground zero, a few weeks after 9/11. I resided there for the next three months, and I took these shots from the roof of the apartment building. I immersed myself in the aftermath of 9/11. It's under my skin. I want this president to permit an investiagtion of what happened that is not under the control of his government. He owes us and the victims that!
I am skeptical, open to most possibilities, and I question the motives of all authority, even of democrats who voted for the Patriot Act, or for the congressional resolutions on Iraq, or who belong to Skull and Bones and don't distance themselves enough from Bush's foreign and military policies.
<img src="http://me.to/wtc/MVC-006F.JPG"><br>
<p>
<img src="http://me.to/wtc/mvc-009f.jpg">
host is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 07:32 PM   #39 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by host
In his newly released film, (segment #2) "Martial Law 9/11: Rise Of The Police State", Alex Jones confronts Michael Moore in NYC during the 2004 Republican Convention and demands an answer from Moore as to the omission of the report in Farenheit 9/11, that NORAD was ordered to "stand down" during the 9/11 attacks. Moore is heard to mutter, "because that would be un-American". Alex Jones purports to believe that Moore intended his film to as a cover and a diversion for the Bush government's actual involvement in 9/11. The film, for anyone with an open mind, and a desire not to rule anything out about the curious sequence of events on 9-11-2001, is available for download in three segments at this link:
Michael Moore is a agent of the Bush administration?

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 05-22-2005, 08:14 PM   #40 (permalink)
Banned
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Michael Moore is a agent of the Bush administration?

Who T-F knows, Ustwo?

Every day, I feel like I know less than I knew the day before. We set our own boundaries as far as the limits of our beliefs and our considerations. If we do not confine our own curiousity and perspective, others, including many on this forum, are quick to challenge with "oh, you're not going THERE, are you?", or "shouldn't this be moved to PARANOIA?"

In a real way, the events of 9/11 and the reactions of the government officials, the populace, and the media, that has followed, in a sequence of events that is still playing out today, has been a catalyst in setting my belief systems "free", or at least loosening them to a degree that I can perceive.

What do you make of the following?
Quote:
http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Heather.htm
...............According to <A HREF="http://www.fortune.com/fortune/articles/0,15114,410237,00.html">Fortune magazine</A> (Jan. 22 2003), <see http://www.independent-media.tv/item...der%20Reported > "Kean appears to have a bizarre link to the very terror network he's investigating - al Qaeda … Kean is a director of petroleum giant Amerada Hess, which in 1998 formed a joint venture - known as Delta Hess - with Delta Oil, a Saudi Arabian company, to develop oil fields in Azerbaijan. One of Delta's backers is Khalid bin Mahfouz, a shadowy Saudi patriarch married to one of Osama bin Laden's sisters. Mahfouz, who is suspected of funding charities linked to al Qaeda, is even named as a defendant in a lawsuit filed by families of Sept. 11 victims."

For the record, bin Mahfouz denies bin Laden is his brother-in-law and also denies ever having had ownership interest in Delta Oil. Interesting coincidence though that Hess severed ties with Delta just three weeks before Kean was appointed to the 911 Commission.

Another interesting coincidence: 28 pages of the inquiry’s final report, covering "specific sources of foreign support for some of the September 11 hijackers," were blanked out. According to an official quoted in The New Republic (Aug. 1 2003), see here. "There's a lot more in the 28 pages than money … We're talking about a coordinated network that reaches right from the hijackers to multiple places in the Saudi government."

Very murky indeed. And a third interesting coincidence surrounds the deadly anthrax-laced letters that hit the nation within weeks of 911. While "shocked" administration members were quick to blame Osama bin Laden and/or Saddam Hussein, they failed to mention one intriguing point: claims that Bush’s staff had started taking Cipro, an anthrax-treatment drug, weeks before the attacks occurred.

According to the public-interest group Judicial Watch: "In October 2001, press reports revealed that White House staff had been on a regimen of the powerful antibiotic Cipro since the September 11th terrorist attacks." Judicial Watch Chairman Larry Klayman notes, "One doesn’t simply start taking a powerful antibiotic for no good reason. The American people are entitled to know what the White House staffers knew."...................
Quote:
http://www.spectrezine.org/war/Heather.htm
....The insightful weblog at http://xymphora.blogspot.com had this comment about Moore falling for the "Blame the Saudis" campaign on October 20, 2003:

"The propaganda campaign has been so successful, the neocons even have Michael Moore parroting it. The main trick was to leave the Saudi matters out of the published 9-11 report, so people could think the worst of the Saudis, and then slyly make people believe that it was left out because Bush was protecting his Saudi business friends. A brilliant strategy! All of this propaganda works only because Americans are still afraid to admit who was really behind 9-11.
"A hint: the Saudis don't run NORAD."

A more recent "xymphora" comment (July 1):

"Moore knows that his American audience has a psychological need for a foreign villain to help deal with the guilt that America itself was primarily responsible for 9-11, and the connections of the Bush Crime Family to the Saudi elites allows him to have his villain and attack Bush at the same time. This would be completely harmless American jingoism except that I guarantee that if Bush gets reelected the neocons will be citing Moore's film and claiming that even the most liberal of all liberals supports their ultimate fantasy, the bombing of Mecca."..............

Last edited by host; 05-22-2005 at 08:24 PM..
host is offline  
 

Tags
america, fascism, reality


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:54 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360