Slashdot Mirror

A further followup on this was posted today.

http://ustogether.org/election04/dopp/dopp_respons e.html

Given the way the media has abused this story, that recent ./ article on Science and Balanced Journalism was very interesting to me.

http://www.buzzflash.com/alerts/04/11/The_unexplai ned_exit_poll_discrepancy_v00k.pdf)

There are some sites out there dedicated to watching out for election and general improper government issues: http://www.blackboxvoting.org/, http://www.buzzflash.com/, http://www.stolenvote.org/, http://www.truthout.org/

The terrorists' biggest failure has been their failure to get Donald Rumsfeld's memos.

Look at Iraq: the terrorists just don't understand that the war is "really" about air power, which is why we can win with such a small number of ground troops. Yet their small, sporadic attacks go unchallenged because they can't understand this basic fact. The paradigm has shifted, and they're still fighting yesterday's wars.

Bin Laden's biggest failure occurred when he and the Al Qaeda leadership esaped at Tora Bora. It proved they don't understand that the fight was "really" about air power, which is why US ground troops were not needed. Moreover, bin Laden can't seem to understand that terrorism is "really" a state problem, which is why toppling states like Iraq is going to pull the rug from under him. And Iraq was at the "geographical center" of those who attacked us on 9/11. Doesn't he understand the basic reality principle that's operating here.

I can't emphasize enough the number of memos that these guys failed to get. The White House, on the other hand, understands these ideas perfectly. Bin Laden doesn't, and that just shows how irrelevant he is. Look, neither the words "Al Qaeda" nor "Osama bin Laden" appeared more than once in any major speech at the RNC convention, though 9/11 and "terror" were invoked dozens of times. It just shows how irrelevant he is now. Before this tape, Bush has only mentioned his name a handful of times in the past 2 years!

People like him believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality. That's not the way the world really works anymore. If he would just get Rumsfeld's memos, then he would understand this. He would know that in the new paradigm, he can't win. He would know how defeated he is!

If Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the insurgency in Iraq, and the rest of reality would just get the memo, then all this fighting would be over a lot sooner. I'm just glad we have leaders who understand this.

How about getting arrested for wearing a T-shirt in public? That's not silly, it's scary. And that's the point of arresting people, to scare them. We call that terrorism, whether the terror is political intimidation by threat of bombs or arbitrary arrest.

Cute. I guess the other things don't count then. I don't doubt he's a hard worker; I do question his fitness for office.

"re-started" what?

The war on terrorism; you might have heard of it? The war on al Qaeda specifically, which the Bush administration completely ignored until 9/11, after which Bush gave a speech that almost word for word copied Clinton's 1998 speech.

And he has not refused to enforce any laws. It's never happened. You're confused.

Here's one example of what I'm talking about.

(ME): His refusal to go after terrorists and their ilk on the American right.

(YOU):Never happened.

Again, cute, but not responsive. Of course it happened; read the link to the UPI article from my post. Unless you prefer to answer arguments by putting your hands over your ears and shouting "I can't hear you!" which is basically what your "it never happened" amounts to.

Here is another 101 things to ponder.

Recommended reading: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/PDF/Commonwealth. pdf and http://www.buzzflash.com/farrell/04/08/far04029.ht ml

There is a common reason behind the recent major changes in US foreign policy and internal politics, and none of the comments so far have pointed it out.

We are becoming a police state and finding (or even creating) excuses to project military power in the Middle East in preparation for, basically, Doomsday.

So much of our economy is dependent on oil production, not only for energy, but for agricultural fertilizer and countless consumer and industrial goods as well.

We've all heard that petroleum reserves will be depleted by about 2040. But most haven't considered that oil production is predicted to peak in 2007. After about 2007 one can only assume there will be increasingly hostile international competition for dwindling oil production.

Add to the 2007 peaking in oil production the following looming crises:

1. Global warming. If the jump in the rate of increase in the concentration of atmospheric CO2 seen in the last two years maintains, action will have to be taken within decades or less to insure a run-away greenhouse effect is avoided.

2. Decreasing production from farms, the fact fertilizers used in commercial farming are made from petroleum, and the peaking of oil production in 2007. Add to this exponential population growth. Studies have predicted the world can only sustain a population of about 2.5 billion given current technologies.

A life and death struggle between 6 billion for resources that can only support about 2.5 billion is a recipe for a global conflagration that will make the previous world wars look like minor skrimishes.

That is why the US continues to spend for defense at Cold War levels even though the world is currently at peace. I think the increase in power of right-wing fundamentalist christianity in US society can be fit to this theory as well.

What doesn't fit (I admit!) is the current administrations refusal to take global warming seriously, rejection of the Kyoto Protocol, and insufficient leadership in developing alternative energy sources, especially nuclear. Maybe the Armageddon-fixated christian fundamentalists really have taken over. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/ story/0,14259,1204684,00.html

Do they wonder if G.W. Bush might be one of the bad guys the Bible warns of? After all, some of Bush's reported statements flash "false prophet" like a sign in a David Lynch movie. "I trust God speaks though me," Bush reportedly told the Amish. "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did," Haaretz quoted Bush saying. "We will export death and violence to the four corners of the earth in defense of our great nation," Bob Woodward said Bush said.

Actually, I did go through all of Kerry's points from his web [site] in another post.

You haven't linked to the aforementioned post. I'm pretty incompetent with the Internet; for some reason I can't seem to find it in the history listed at your user page. Did you only mentally review the Kerry campaign's platform?

I shouldn't have to hold somebody's hand and explain in detail why [the campaign's promises] are meaningless and the difference between a point that has substance and one that does not.
To the first: your condescension drips from the screen. You are not obliged (at present) to make or abstain from any decisions about whose hand you choose to hold and when. However, your blatant disregard for, say, a nine-page white paper summarizing an economic plan which is pretty specific, is troubling. Likewise, I'd like to hear what you have to say about the promise to "fully fund [the] No Child Left Behind Act, adding an average of about $10 billion per year". Would you prefer we "take the pain, stay the course", as Rod Paige (US Secretary of Education) advises the millions of students in failing schools do? (These are students whose schools are being cut off from all federal funds in the theory that this will somehow reduce failure rates.)

To your second issue, regarding the difference between a vague idea and a solid plan:
The only post of yours I've seen that addresses the current administration's policies and future plans states

Actually, Bush has been flexible on strategy and tactics, but has been firm on his goal; which is to rid us of the threat of terrorism.

March 2002:
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,

Gosh - that sounds firm. And let's not forget that there is still no link between Iraq and al'Qaeda, nor were there weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; Bush picked the nation for, at best, altruistic motives of liberation that don't seem to have been very well-coordinated. (I mustn't forget Poland here; they are a notable exception and gain a gold star, even if their leader says they were misled.)

So if Bush is so firm, why have his policies ignored Saudi Arabia, which was the home to 15 of the 19 September 11, 2001 attackers? Why has he accepted the tentative "oh, we stopped the terrorist!" cries of Saudi leaders while the independent princes of the region continue to funnel millions of dollars into terrorism - far greater a bounty than Hussein ever could have offered? (This line of questioning even gives you the supposition that he funded al'Qaeda at all.) Saudi Arabia is guilty of at least as great religious and political oppression as Iraq; why haven't we liberated them?
Is it really necessary, in waging a war on terror, to maintain the USA PATRIOT Act? Can a libertarian state support such an infringement? Or is our state one of expedience? For a conservative to support such egregious encroachments on liberty is frightening. For a pragmatist, who just wants "a solid policy so I know what not to do", a slightly fascist state is fully tolerable - but I worry about anyone who will tolerate such encroachment lightly.

Kerry just waves in the political wind like a willow (I'm for the war, I'm

This is a prime example of the -real- bias in the media, not the imagined "liberal bias" you often hear AM talk radio hosts sobbing about. The media is owned by wealthy right wingers and that ultimately determines the bias of reporting. "Not true! Not true!" the Rush's ditto head army screams, "there was a study that said the majority of reporters were liberal!" That study is over 20 years old now, and major media consolodation has changed a lot of things for TV and Radio. Those changes have resulted in a small handfull of right wingers controlling just about every word that is printed, or broadcast. "But but but, they just own the media! They don't write the stories!" comes the laughable retort from ignorant AM talk show listeners. The people who pull the strings at the top ultimately hire people with their bias, or fire reporters that don't share their bias.

Just last week the CEO of CBS's parent company Viacom announced he was voting for George W. Bush, and that Bush was the best thing for Viacomm. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, an important story regarding Bush's lies, what he knew, and when he knew it in regards to WMD claims in Iraq was stopped cold from being reported by CBS.

It does not help that today's reporters are profoundly lazy. For example when Bush gave his state of the union address and lied about the Niger's nuclear materials purchase by Iraq, the same day I was reading alternative news sites like BuzzFlash that headlined the story of how the documents Bush was referring to had already been debunked years ago. While Tony Blair was going before Parliament presenting "intelligence reports" about Iraq's ability to go to war in 15 minutes, the same day I was reading how these reports were in fact a 12 year old thesis from a graduate student. Yet this wasn't reported by major newspapers, or TV media for months.

We are in dangerous times when the Whitehouse's lies are reprinted, without any fact checking, by a lazy news media urgent to get a story out. At what point does the media just become a mouth of the party? If the media doesn't question, or fact check, what is to stop the lies from turning on Americans who don't agree with the Republicans? If the Republicans were to issue a statement, "Democrats planning to ban bibles*," would the press repeat that lie? The answer is yes, because they already have: two weeks ago in the south the Republicans sent out flyers with that very statement on it, and local media reprinted it dutifully.

Congratulations America, our press is now just a propoganda device for the Republican party, and we are just a step away from facism.

There is something really fishy about the whole thing. Have a look at this.

On the other hand, the break-in doesn't quite have the Rovian flair. I think it was just one of those freak crimes by some anarchist.

Buzzflash isn't a blog per se, but it is a presentation of selected news stories with brief commentary - which is what I consider blogging to be at its core. It is widely considered to be the most respectable progressive news filter.

BartCop is a more traditional-style blog with rantings of a particular individual - very funny and intelligent. What's the kicker? The blogger in question is a redneck okie from Tulsa, Oklahoma - and he's a hard-core liberal! Also includes "BartCop Radio" for subscribers.

Taste the lights, taste the action, taste the fame!

I like a gentle mix of Daily Kos, AmericaBlog.org and some BuzzFlash (yes, I know BussFlash isn't a blog, quite).

By the way: 12 minutes of your time should change your mind.

Hmm. 5 minutes of your time should show you that Kerry's about as bad as Bush

Still not convinced? Try this: George W. Bush: King of the Flipocrites

Buzzflash

I'm an avid progressive, and I identify with many of the issues presented in this list ... but all of these articles should be taken with a grain of salt.
Many of the articles come from seriously left-leaning rags. BuzzFlash, for example, is hyperliberal, and the editorials are often kind of tin-foil hat. Oneworld.net, "Organic Consumer" ... these are all good sources of information, but you've got to keep a close eye on what you're reading, and sift through the editorializing to get to the facts.

Just my 3.14...

-- m.Operandi

Bush's service in the TANG was no assurance of not going to Vietnam.

Give me a break. The guy scored 25 (out of 100) on his pilot aptitude test. The average to get to be a pilot was in the 70s. Yet somehow, he mysteriously became a pilot in the TANG at a time when everyone and their brother was trying to get into the Nat'l Guard.

Ben Barnes, who was the Lt. Gov. of TX at that time admits he gave Bush and other sons of the TX elite special treatment (if you don't like that link, search Google and you'll find many references of Barnes' admission) to avoid Vietnam.

When you have connections like that, do you really think there was a chance George Bush was going to be sent into harm's way?

Republican brains are more of a liability than any help at all. Here's a list of things you have to believe to be a Republican today:

- Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney did business with him and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.

- Trade with Cuba is wrong because the country is communist, but trade with China and Vietnam is vital to a spirit of international harmony.

- The United States should get out of the United Nations, and our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.

- A woman can't be trusted with decisions about her own body, but multinational corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind without regulation.

- Jesus loves you, and shares your hatred of homosexuals and Hillary Clinton.

- The best way to improve military morale is to praise the troops in speeches while slashing veterans' benefits and combat pay.

- If condoms are kept out of schools, adolescents won't have sex.

- A good way to fight terrorism is to belittle our longtime allies, then demand their cooperation and money.

- Providing health care to all Iraqis is sound policy. Providing health care to all Americans is socialism.

- HMOs and insurance companies have the best interests of the public at heart.

- Global warming and tobacco's link to cancer are junk science, but creationism should be taught in schools.

- A president lying about an extramarital affair is an impeachable offense.

- A president lying to enlist support for a war in which thousands die is solid defense policy.

- Government should limit itself to the powers named in the Constitution, which include banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.

- The public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades, but George Bush's driving record is none of our business.

- Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime, unless you're a conservative radio host. Then it's an illness, and you need our prayers for your recovery.

- You support states' rights, which means Attorney General John Ashcroft can tell states what local voter initiatives they have the right to adopt.

- What Bill Clinton did in the 1960s is of vital national interest, but what Bush did in the '80s is irrelevant.

MS newsbot "self-censoring"?

You haven't seen anything yet.

Go check out this movie:

http://www.buzzflash.com/orwell/default.htm

It's better than Fahrenheit 9/11. It explains how de-regulation of the media creates hundreds of stations that represent the views of a handful.

All of this, of course, ignores the fact that when the President of the United States decides to embrace the doctrine of preemptive war, claiming that there is an imminent threat to his own nation, the burdern of proof is on him to support those claims. Let's see the evidence of WMDs in Iraq. How about those aerial drones that could be used against the US? An Iraq-Al Qaeda link? Some uranium from Africa? Anything?

Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."

In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news. Here are some articles refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study that specifically counters the studies you quote.

I'm sorry. I got the impression when Stern said: "As soon as I came out against Bush, that's when my rights to free speech were taken away. It had nothing to do with indecency" on March 19, 2004. That he was against the war. I don't listen to Stern. I used to, but I've moved around a bit and haven't gotten into the habit of listening to morning radio again.

I have hard time imagining Stern being "pro-war" but "anti-bush" since that seems to be the major election issue but I will concede that is possible. I might have been mistaken, but I wasn't lying. So please don't fling that word around so freely.

Stern is right though, he didn't get canned from the six Clear Channel stations because a caller used the word "nigger" before Stern hung up on him. It is almost certainly because he is "anti-bush", and I'm happy he is fighting back in a productive way. But, I'll reiterate nothing about what went down was illegal, or something I feel the government should get involved with. I disagree with Stern that his right to free speech was taken away. However, I do think something is definetly wrong with our current media conglomerate system we have in America. But, that isn't currently under discussion.

I've heard of a recent book by an ex-conservative journalist that exposes the corrupt process of right-wing media. You can read an exerpt here.

Perhaps someone needs to write another book that focuses on how policy organizations are running rampant with taxpayer funds inside the beltway.

mhack

Not exactly pointing out problems with the United States, but with Bush:

Bush's Resume

George W. Bush Resume

Past work experience:
* Ran for congress and lost.
* Produced a Hollywood slasher B movie.
* Bought an oil company, but couldn't find any oil in Texas, company went bankrupt shortly after I sold all my stock.
* Bought the Texas Rangers baseball team in a sweetheart deal that took land using tax-payer money. Biggest move: Traded Sammy Sosa to the Chicago White Sox.
* With fathers help (and his name) was elected Governor of Texas.

Accomplishments:
* Changed pollution laws for power and oil companies and made Texas the most polluted state in the Union. Replaced Los Angeles with Houston as the most smog ridden city in America. Cut taxes and bankrupted the Texas government to the tune of billions in borrowed money. Set record for most executions by any Governor in American history.
* Became president after losing the popular vote by over 500,000 votes, with the help of my fathers appointments to the Supreme Court.

Accomplishments as president:

* Attacked and took over two countries.
* Spent the surplus and bankrupted the treasury.
* Shattered record for biggest annual deficit in history.
* Set economic record for most private bankruptcies filed in any 12 month period.
* Set all-time record for biggest drop in the history of the stock market.
* First president in decades to execute a federal prisoner.
* First president in US history to enter office with a criminal record.
* First year in office set the all-time record for most days on vacation by any president in US history.
* After taking the entire month of August off for vacation, presided over the worst security failure in US history.
* Set the record for most campaign fund-raising trips than any other president in US history.
* In my first two years in office over 2 million Americans lost their job.
* Cut unemployment benefits for more out of work Americans than any president in US history.
* Set the all-time record for most foreclosures in a 12 month period.
* Appointed more convicted criminals to administration positions than any president in US history.
* Set the record for the least amount of press conferences than any president since the advent of television.
* Signed more laws and executive orders circumventing the Constitution than any president in US history.
* Presided over the biggest energy crises in US history and refused to intervene when corruption was revealed.
* Presided over the highest gasoline prices in US history and refused to use the national reserves as past presidents have.
* Cut healthcare benefits for war veterans.
* Set the all-time record for most people worldwide to simultaneously take to the streets to protest me (15 million people), shattering the record for protest against any person in the history of mankind.
* Dissolved more international treaties than any president in US history.
* My presidency is the most secretive and un-accountable of any in US history.
* Members of my cabinet are the richest of any administration in US history. (the 'poorest' multi-millionaire, Condoleezza Rice has an Chevron oil tanker named after her).
* Had more states to simultaneously go bankrupt than any president in the history of the United States.
* Presided over the biggest corporate stock market fraud of any market in any country in the history of the world.
* Created the largest government department bureaucracy in the history of the United States.
* Set the all-time record for biggest annual budget spending increases, more than any president in US history.
* First president in US history to have the United Nations remove the US

I see so many of those particular professions are in the service or retail sectors - so what happens when the middle class is no longer able to afford many retail products, or eating out at places other than fast food joints (if even that much)? We can't exactly be a nation of food servers, cash-register-jockies, and appliance salespeople - such folks don't have a lot of disposable income, and the upper-crust will only shop so much.

After Sept. 11, to the amusement/horror of music critics and radio industry professionals, Clear Channel issued a list of 150 songs to its member stations that it deemed too sensitive to play in the wake of the terrorist attacks. The list included an odd mix of songs: the more understandable choices featured flight references ("Bennie and the Jets," "Ticket to Ride"); others were associated with New York ("On Broadway"); and, most surprisingly, many were related to peace ("Bridge Over Troubled Water," "Imagine"). The list also included all songs by the political rock group Rage Against the Machine.

They have given $42,200 to Bush, vs. $1,750 to likely Democratic nominee John Kerry in the 2004 race. What's more, the executives and Clear Channel's political action committee gave 77% of their $334,501 in federal contributions to Republicans. That's a bigger share than any other entertainment company, says the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. In contrast, Viacom (VIA) executives and its political action committee gave just 30% of their $545,650 to Republican candidates. Viacom syndicates Stern's show.

No, I don't see anything political there. Just good business sense. (Yeah, right.)

W

not quite.

it is pretty well known that howard stern was dropped from the air by the ubercompany clear channel, under the guise of self-censorship. actually, it was because he criticized clear channel itself on the air (admittedly, not the smartest move).

here's a link.

i know i'll get modded down for not being anti-government enough, but please criticize the government only for their own actions (lest we become what we hate?).

That's not necessarily true.

If you'll take a look at fine sites like this one, this one or possibly this one, you will see that there is little doubt that should Bush get re-elected, we will have, at least, a limited draft instated by early 2005. If you don't follow the other links, I suggest this one. especially if you have a 17-18 year old son OR daughter.

As to the obvious reason that this is going to happen, well you might start looking here; even though the military is basically not letting ANYONE out these days, time up or not, they aren't in my opinion going to be able to meet the numbers due to missed targets.

My word of advice (and I volunteered, was in Gulf War lite, so screw anyone who says I'm not a patriot) is that if you have a boy or girl who are in high school, and they do NOT fully support the policies of the current administration, have them drop out if Bush gets reelected; the current system doesn't take people without high school diplomas, and it'll take them awhile to change the rules.

Look, I'ma War President [smirk]. Since 9/11, we realized we can't sit around waiting for things to happen. We need to act now. Al Queda operatives are trying to destroy America. Saddam was a dangerous evil dictator. By hurting big business, the terrorists will win. Democrats want to let the terrorists win, tax corporations and put "Queer Eye" reruns on C-Span. These are things we know.

Now, I don't know about you, but that last election? Where people say I didn't win [lip curl], even though the U.S. Supreme Court had run out the clock to make sure I did [grin]? Well, I felt bad when I heard those poor old, octogenarian Jews in Palm Beach County get all confused over the Butterfly ballots.

Now, with those electric voting machines? We can just flip a switch and turn those confused votes into the proper votes. We don't have time to wait around for the machines to be modified to keep paper records. At least not until after the re-election [smirk].

I have been assured by all the electric voting systems companies, all great supporters of the Republican Party, that their machines are in perfect working order and don't need audits or a paper trail to mess things up. Don't let the terrorists win!

Those of us that were serving their country in Vietnam in those days still remember.

You should also remember all those rich kids that used their connections so that they did not need to serve their country, people like Bush, Cheney, Delay, etc etc

The Apache is a mixed bag. It was sent but never got operational in Kosovo, then did fine in Afghanistan, which is nice except I don't think the Taliban had any weapons besides AK-47 and RPGs. It's a lethal platform but it crashes a lot and takes a lot of maintainence, and isn't that tolerant of dusty environs. It's also vulnerable, even to small-arms fire (the Apache in this photo was later bombed into oblivion by one of our own fighter jets). The Apache's performance in Iraq wasn't all that stellar, but of course it will depend alot on whom you ask, and the articles I'm linking aren't presenting the glamorous side. The Apache had a lot of kills in Gulf War I.

There was a great article on BuzzFlash about just this. Bush's cowboy image is popular with an entire swath of America (the red states I think) who are fed up with "liberals", political correctness, welfare, and so on.

In other words, there are plenty of "bruised egos" in the hinterlands of America. Males whose traditional place at the head of the family has been eroded, as their jobs earn them less, and their wives have to go off to work. They aren't as powerful as they once were, and they resent it. Their daily dose of Rush and their local news have convinced them that trial lawyers, Hollywood, and Hillary Clinton are the reason for their malaise. It's not true, but it sure plays in Peoria.

There are more similarities than I would like there to be between the Third Reich and Bush. The Nazi seizure of power was legal, as is PATRIOT. That blank check that Congress signed for the "War on Terror" isn't looking too good either.

Buzzflash article here

Of course, it is notup to date on the stock market, but I suspect that that may be a shell game anyhow, at least on some level.

A Washington Post investigation last fall said the Justice Department has imprisoned at least 44 people, including seven U.S. citizens, under the same law, with some held for many months and possibly over a year.

Jesus, a hippie? Not Supply Side Jesus!

I have a question. For many people outside USA it's really bizarre to watch what's going on in that country.

Other presidents might also have done questionable things, but that's not a justification. George Bush's "resume"

• Up until recently, Mitch Daniels (former LLY VP for Corporate Strategy) was Dubya's Director of the Office of Management & Budget (OMB)
• Current LLY CEO Sidney Taurel sits on the president's "Homeland Security Advisory Panel"

So the students rebelled thinking they were going to get a democracy, but instead got a dictatorship that was even worse than the previous one. One that saw as its mission the export of islamic fundamentalism and the funding of terrorist groups.

Skip many years. Fast forward through Iran-Iraq war and our role in helping both sides with intel so that neither side would wons, etc...

Now we're sponsoring freedom and democracy. About 50 years and hundreds of thousands of lives too late, but better late than never, right?

If all of this anonymizer shit means the people of Iran will get some help freeing themselves from a group of bloodthirsty fundamentalist fuckwads, great. But let's not delude ourselves about our real motivations. We use lofty language about democracy when it suits us, and just as easily discard it to support dictators.

By the way, there hasn't been a Persia for a long time. It's been "Iran" since 1935. If you want to make yourself sound like a rug or a cat, be my guest.

BBC broadcast bush getting primped up before his attack speech. He pumps his fist and says "feels good" with a smile on his face.

Check out the clips here:
bush news feed (warning already slashdotted before slashdot)

Here's the article about it:
Bush's Groom and Gloom

Why don't I have a right to pass on what's mine to somebody else?

When you are dead, you have no rights in the living world. None. Some third party can strongarm victims in your name, but that has nothing to do with any "rights" imbued in your mouldering corpse. This issue is slightly muddied by inheritance law, until you remember all inheritance law is primarily concerned with the rights and properties of the living, because the state has a vested interest in allocation of taxable assets.

When you engage in speech, or publishing, you release an image from your mind (something that's yours) to others (whoever's listening or reading). You have gifted them with knowledge, and although that knowledge may be worthless, it is now available to the recipient to do with as that person wills.

You need to grasp the fundamental difference between property, which exists in a single instance (like a physical CD-ROM) and communication, which can be replicated without diminishment of the source (like a picture that can be copied, or a speech that can be transcripted). Consider Thomas Jefferson's remarks on the subject; if I light your candle with mine, you are illuminated, but my own light is not extinguished.

My reference to "the divine right of kings" is apropos, as you have demonstrated, because most people (like yourself) have been brainwashed into thinking they have a right to force others behavior, all because of an imaginary right to own and inherit that which is essentially and naturally free - human thought and communication.

Your comments about the current regime in the US may be correct, but they have nothing to do with anyone's rights- they have to do with the ability of powerful families to hoard power and escape punishment. Case in point: Bush is apparently a military deserter, which is normally a punishable crime that would invalidate ones' ability to hold public office. There are no "rights" being exercised here, it's plain old corruption at work.

Just because someone can get away with something doesn't mean they have a right to do so. If your dead ancestor wrote down an idea, or painted a picture, you don't have a right to forcibly prevent me from writing down the same idea.

...does it extend to everything I own, including the clothes on my back? I ask because you don't seem to make any distinction.

This will be Bush science.

If Gore would have won the whole state, why didn't he ask the whole state be recounted and not just the very heavily Democrat counties?

The full recount wasn't done until long after the fact. Gore didn't know what the results would have been, so he attempted to pick and choose the method of recounting which he thought would give him the best chance of winning regardless of the actual will of the populace. Does this make him a scumbag as well? Damn straight. Does it change the fact that he won the election? Absolutely not.

You forgot to place a link or two here, backing up your claim Jeb robbed people the right to vote.

Since part of my point was that the ignorance and laziness of the American people is a major part of the problem, I'd hoped that you might actually show some small interest in doing your fundamental duty as a citizen and inform yourself.
Given this "spoon feed me" attitude far too common among Americans, I'm not surprised that you couldn't be bothered.
That said, here is one link. Rather than seeking out a way to discredit this one particular link, do yourself, me, and everyone else in the world a favor and take a look around for others. The information is out there, but you have to work to find it.

Here's one

Good god I hope you never get elected to an office with power, your opponents would be locked up and killed for not believing you.

That's quite an extrapolation from what I said. Did I say that you deserved to be locked up or killed?
It's especially disturbing given the fact that you are defending Bush who has done all of these things.
You have a fundamental responsibility as a citizen of a free society to take an active role in informing yourself. An informed electorate is essential to the operation of a democracy (or constitutional republic). You have demonstrated a lack of interest in doing this. Given that you are not willing to do your part to ensure our freedoms are not taken away how is it that you deserve them?
Again, I'm not recommending that you have your rights and freedoms stripped away for the crime of apathy just stating that you are not doing what is required to earn them.

Again I didn't see any references to Bush's 'hatred' of the constitution. In my world, Congress makes laws, not the President or John Ashcroft, so take your beef up with them.

Did I say that congress wasn't equally guilty?
Are you aware of the passage of the Patriot act?
What about the Homeland Security bill?
Congress passed them, but Bush pushed them very hard. Both of these laws are absolutely incompatable with a free society.

You are aware, are you not, that for even writing this I can be taken away in the night and shot in the head without a trial, without recourse to the law and without my family being allowed to even find out what happened?
This is also a fact. If you would read these laws, you would be aware of this.
Do I think this is at all likely right now? No.
But it absolutely is possible.
The fact that he pushed for this is clear proof that Bush hates everything this country claims to stand for with a passion since it was designed to remove all of these things.

If Bush was so evil and he's doing so much to hurt this country, why is for the first time in years, the opposing party lost the mid-term elections? Oh wait, don't answer that, me and 1000's of others didn't VOTE for Republicans, Democrats were just robbed.

What does the one have to do with the other? I don't think I have ever said that the democrats were anything but garbage wrapped in flesh either.
Well, like I said, an informed electorate is essential to the proper operation of an alection process. When people are not aware of all the facts, they will almost inevitably make bad decisions.
Incidentally, since you are (apparently) a Republican, how do you reconcile the Small Government plank with the Department of Homeland Security which is the worst type of Big Government possible?

Sticks and stones, my friend. But if I were you I'd read the Constitution. Look for things like "Congress makes the laws" and "Electoral College elects the President." You won't see "Popular vote is the way to elect the President."

I have read it, my friend. This is part of the reason that I am aware that it is currently being raped. I never said Congress was innocent. Bush pushed very hard for these laws though so he is hardly free of blame in this.
I am well aware that popular vote does not elect the president. Gore won on the popular vote regardless of the recount. This is a completely different issue though.

Here is another *fact* which I doubt you are aware of.

John O'Neill former Deputy director of the FBI resigned in protest stating that US oil interests were the primary problem with their terrorist investigations. Further, he stated that he was specifically ordered by Bush to lay off of the Bin Laden family.
Even if he was lying, which nobody has ever tried to show, don't you think this fact would deserve mention two weeks later when the attacks happened?

There are two things without which a free society are not possible.
One is a transparent government. If you are not allowed to know what your government is doing, then how can you possibly decide. Bush has done everything he can to remove all possibility of doing this.
He pushed to exempt the Homeland Security department from the federal whistleblowers act.
If you are not aware, this act protects people who come forward about criminal actions, from prosecution. This shows very clearly that this department fully intends to commit illegal actions. Why else would he be so desperate to have it?
He has completely gutted the Freedom of information act. Further, to prevent what is left of it from working, he ordered all government departments to fight any such requests to the best of their abilities.
The fact that other people, parties, and government institutions are also complicit in these things are irrelevant to the fact that Bush has done nothing to add to freedom and everything he can to remove it.

The other thing is an informed populace. A truly free press is part of this, but that is something we certainly do not have. Sure, Congress shall pass no law etc.
But does this imply some sort of obligation on them to report the important news? Of course not.
The only obligation the press has is to maximize profits for their parent corporations. If this means lying, misrepresenting, manipulation, and supression of stories which might decrease profits, then not only is it likely they will do this, if they are owned by a public company they could, in theory, be sued for not doing this.

Sorry for the sticks and stones, but when your lack of knowledge helps make my freedoms a crime, I think some anger is understandable though neither polite nor helpful.

Well, for instance here, or maybe here.