Again, I don't like Bush and I certainly don't appreciate him appointing Kissinger as his chief investigator, but I believe he won Florida fair and square. The democrats had no business asking for a recount only in the democratic Counties and they had no business criticizing the ballots when their party designed and approved the ballots.
The recounts and the ballots have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Jeb Bush had his secretary of state throw 10s of thousands of legitimate voters off of the voter roles. I'm sure it was completely coincidental that a large percentage of these voters were black ( who as a group typically vote democrat). There is no more fundamental right of a citizen of a free society than the right to vote (rights basic to all people aside). In deciding that some people who were likely to vote against his brother should not be allowed those rights, Jeb and everyone else involved committed acts of *treason*. The only reason that the election was even close in Florida was due to *treason*.
The election itself was a clusterfuck on both sides, but it has nothing to do with the reason Jeb, and GW are both traitors to this country and everything it stands for.
It will take awhile, the voting public still seems to be in shell shock, but when enough people become active again the Patriot Act will be fixed/removed
It's more difficult for something like this to happen when anyone who speaks out against it can be labeled a terrorist and taken away and executed without a trial. Especially since anyone promoting an alternative viewpoint can now legally be spied upon and harassed. This was already happening illegally. Now that the FBI etc. can legally do what they were already doing do you really think they won't step over the line again? I really don't think you understand the gravity of the situation.
The security of this country doesn't change overnight simply because a new administration takes over. The screeners didn't change and they certainly didn't care about the new administration. Plus, the hijackers probably didn't care either since most of them were probably already in the US under the Clinton administration.
The only thing, that might have changed, is that the Bin Laden family could have been forbidden to fly out of the United States. That would have been nice. Under Bush and because of Bush, the Bin Laden plane was the only plane allowed to fly out of the United States when every other plane was grounded.
Well, Clinton might not have *ordered* the FBI to stop investigating the bin Ladens. John Ashcroft wouldn't have been there to *order* the FBI not to examine "the 20th hijacker's" laptop. Clinton might have gotten up off of his ass and put down the kiddy book before a half an hour passed after a fucking plane blew up the WTC. Maybe he would have scrambled a few fucking fighters rather than grounding them which could have prevented the rest of the attacks.
Don't get me wrong though, maybe Clinton would have done all this too. Democrats and Republicans are equally slimy scum. But to say Bush's presence at the controls didn't have a very serious affect in helping the attacks is just crazy.
Seriously, he blocks all attempts at investigating what went wrong for as long as he can, and then when trillion dollar lawsuits are coming up, he tries to appoint Henry Fucking Kissinger to do the investigation. That scrap of garbage is known primarily for crimes against humanity and covering up treacherous illegal actions. How is that different from screaming out "I'm hiding shit that I did" Look at the piece of work he's putting up now. He's in business with Osama bin Laden's wife for fuck's sake.
Can you even name one thing that Bush has done since he usurped power through his brother's treason in Florida by disenfranchising 10s of thousands of voters that doesn't show hatred and contempt for the freedom we claim to stand for?
Raping the FOIA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, WTC attacks.
Sure, Clinton was a fuckwad too, but they're not even in the same league.
You seem to confuse the Church with the people who run it. I agree, there are people at the head of the church who are child molestors, rapists, heathens, in it only for the power trip, etc. etc. However, that is not the Church, per say.
Then you are merely redefining the term I was using in one specific way. I am refering to the power structure that is the Catholic Church (or any other large church). When you redefing the words being used you can demonstrate anything you want to.
The real Christian Church is all of God's people and what they stand for under God, and the real Catholic church is all the Catholics and what they stand for Under God, and they are part of the entire Christian Church
Without getting into the whole debate of which is more "real", the one that actually has any affect in this lifetime on this planet is the "people at the head of the church who are child molestors, rapists, heathens, in it only for the power trip, etc. etc. " Those are real people doing real evil. They are doing it all in the name of your god.
You can deny that they are "real" Christians all you want, but if you would stop long enough to have actually read my previous comment you would have seen me say just that. That is, however, irrelevant.
Critize the actions of the people in the church who did wrong, not the Church itself.
Again using your new definition of "Church", it can by definition do no wrong.
Nobody in any power happens to belong to this church which you conveniently ignore.
Using the definition I was using, the Church is made up of these people who are utter scum, so since the church has more power than these people alone and that power is used almost exclusively to further their earthly goals of money power and domination, it is absolutely correct to criticize the church.
Again, this says nothing about Christians in general, except that if they happen to belong to one of these major churches then they are fools.
I hate AOL as much as the next guy. But don't forget the bandwidth costs, server storage space, administrative costs, etc associated with having 25% of the incoming email to your system being spam-related.
Who's more affected at that point? Joe Customer or AOL?
Let's see... AOL spends X on all of the above and other various sundry expenses. Joe Customer*s* spend X+Y where Y is AOL's profit.
The answer to your question is obvious. Joe Customer*s*
The actions of a few should not dictate the reputation of many. Christianity does not approve of the molestation of little children, or of anybody for that manner.
Dude, seriously now.
If I don't approve of molesting people and still do it am I cool with you?
The fact is that the power structure that is the catholic church actively worked to hide the sickening inhuman actions of its leaders.
Why do you think they will fight tooth and nail and use every manipulative legal trick at their disposal to defend their worldly assets yet will fight with the same tenacity to *not* protect the innocent and the meek that their power structure raped?
Why not turn the other cheek? What would Jesus do?
Apparently you think that if he didn't rape children he would do anything he could to protect the reputation of those who did. Or, of course, his own reputation by covering up those actions.
Do the sickening actions of the church make Joe Catholic of Any City, Earth a child molestor? No. But if any person can even attempt to defend any major church (or other power structure which is so evidently corrupt), then that action does make them a fool.
People who have done bad things in the name of Christianity do not [decapolis.com] represent Jesus Christ or his true followers.
When the people doing bad things are the majority (of the power if not the population) then your argument disintegrates.
Such statements prejudicing Christians and Christianity are every bit as offensive as saying Please compare and contrast the good and evil done in the name of Christianity over the years. No bullshit, "well...that isn't a Christian thing to do" cop outs allowed. "In the name of" is the key here.
. It usually takes about 20 years for something to progress from proven scientific discovery to engineered product, and this discovery is at least worth a Nobel prize. In other words, if these people had a real discovery they would have a million bucks as seed capital for their business. I don't recall seeing "Nobel Laureate" after any of their names, do you?
Not to defend these people, but Nobel prizes aren't necessarily awarded before a significant amount of time goes by. A good example is Einstein. He is generally remembered for his Theories of Relativity. He did get a Nobel prize, but it was for the photoelectric affect, rather than for Special or General Relativity. Relativity was too new and "crackpot" at the time.
ENOUGH WITH YOUR LAME-ASS PAGE. I would rather look at a gaping asshole [goatse.cx].
Now, this comment might well be offtopic, but I think it at least deserves an honorable mention as, perhaps, the first goat link with an accurate description.
can you provide a specific portion of the legislation that would allow the government to come and shoot you, without any recourse?
The part where it says you can be held without access to a lawyer and without any other communication if someone decides you are a "terrorist". This has been widely reported. If you have no recourse, the FOIA has been raped, and what's left Byush has ordered all government agencies to fight tooth and nail. Given this, they can do whatever the hell they want.
While I will grant that a president shoudn't go about stopping investigations for the purposes of profit, I think you are making a leap in logic here that is not really supportable.
This isn't the only piece of information regarding Bush's handling of the situation which logically leads to this conclusion. How about the fact that not a single fighter was scrambled? How about the fact that Bush was told about the first attack *on TV* and did nothing for at least another 20 minutes. This doesn't constitute "absolute proof", but it is certainly clear ythat if he was not acting maliciously then at the very least he was acting with criiminal neglect of his duties. When you throw in the fact that him, his administration and his business partners are the only people who stand to profit from the situation, the rational thing to do is suspect something very shady. You seem to have the attitude that until something is proven absolutely it isn't worth considering. What has Bush ever done to inspire such blind devotion on your part? You don't seem to understand your responsibilities as a citizen. Trusting your government is not patriotism. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Your job is to question *everything* your government does. Vote for who you believe will do the best job for our country but do not trust them at all. That, my friend, is what it means to be a patriot.
First, the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia had already distanced themselves from Osama.
Publicly sure. And you believe them?!? Why?
Second, there is no garantee that continuing the investigation would have stopped the attacks.
There is a guarantee that if Ashcroft had not *refused* to allow the FBI to search Massoui(sp?)'s computer that the attacks would have been known about. What did he know? Why has he prevented any investigation of it? Why, when he is finally being forced into allowing an investigation, did he put Kissinger, a scumbag wanted in several countries for crimes against humanity, in charge of it?
What you are doing is pointing out a maybe and trying to use it to assign blame. You seem otherwise logical, so please, get off the Bush bashing bandwagon, yes he's screwed up a couple of things but this is nothing more than an illogical personal attack.
I'm pointing out many many pieces of evidence and drawing a rational conclusion from them. You are saying that regardless of all the evidence, there isn't any call to suspect him? That is a failure of logic.
I do have to agree with this point. I don't like the way that the government is using the attacks as a way to trample privacy. At this point, we can only hope that in a year or three, when the attacks are further behind, that the Judical branch will re-assert its constitutional powers and duty, and vacate these laws.
So your solution is to wait, allow the draconian power structure to solidify, and hope that it gets fixed at some point? How do you propose getting the SC to even look at this case? They don't just look for bad laws and strike them down. They can't do this. Your optimism is nice among friends and family, but it is always foolish with respect to your government.
As for not mentioning the rider in the Homeland security act (again, I've not had a chance, if you could point me at the specific clause I would appreciate it.) The reporter may not have known about it. This report was probably written by a journalist specializing in medicine, not in law, and so he/she may not have even known about that particular clause.
Here is one link This was debated in congress and reported on NPR while it was going on.
As for making informed descions, are you implying that every person should hold a law degree? Because that's what it would truly take for people to know and understand the implications of every law that gets passed.
I'm implying that detailed analysis of all of the implications of the law from all points of view is the job of the news services. They have long since ceased doing anything even close to investigative journalism, and this is a critical problem. I don't think there is a solution to this. Freedom of the press is a two edged sword. The press can't be prevented from printing things, but neither can they be made to perform their role which is (largely) transparancy of the government.
This is one of the advantages of a Republic, the people elect a person who has the time, drive, and education to fully understand a proposal before codifying it into law And then you watch them like a hawk. This is the part you're forgetting.
Also, if I may interject my opinion, term limits on congressmen would help out a lot, by denying someone the chance to build a powerbase, and getting rid of carrer congressmen.
Abso-freaking-lutely. As well as preventing *all* financial contributions from non-citizens (read corporations).
But, its about as good as we are going to get.
I find your lack of faith disturbing. I still hope and strive for something better. It's sad that you are so accepting of things.
You might try things such as letters to the editor of newspapers,
I do. They certainly won't print anything that might make their advertisers look bad or that might lower their parent corporations profits. This is basic economics. It won't stop me from trying, but given that 7 corporations control 85% of all news, it would be silly to believe this could work.
For an example of how to do this sort of thing, look a Limbaugh, you may not agree with what he has to say (hell, I rarely do and I'm mostly conservative) but he is a good example of how to start and run a sucessful political radio talk program.
Spout out drooling rhetoric, and uninformed opinions demonizing one party and canonizing the other? I don't want to lead a herd of sheep. I want people to start thinking critically and informing themselves.
Though I don't think I would quite call it a totalitarian state yet. The simple fact that we are able to discuss this sort of thing publicly seems to indicate otherwise.
Boiling a frog. The powers are in place. They aren't stupid though. It starts slowly. First you cut off the public from knowledge of what the government is doing. This step is in place.
I agree that we should be worried about where we are headed, but it something that should be approced in a more thoughtful manner than name calling.
Worry in one hand and shit in the other. See which fills up first. I'm not calling names. I'm looking at evidence and drawing a reasoned conclusion. You seem to be saying that without absolute proof of guilt, questioning motives is silly. That, I find very sad.
Thanks much for the info. I did have a fairly good understanding of the process (mostly due to Schoolhouse Rock. Do they still show that between cartoons? If not where the heck do kids learn about this today?), but you did definately add to my knowledge.
Jury nullification, too... but you've fallen asleep.:)
Still awake;-) This sounds suspiciously like something the mafia is famous for. But a Google search tells me:
Jury nullification is the power and ability of a criminal trial jury, federal or state, to acquit the defendant not only on the "facts" of the case but to declare the law illegal, nonsensical, or otherwise simply not justifiably enforceable. I.e., the jury can "nullify" the law.
Interesting that the judges tell the juries that this isn't true. Thanks again for the info.
The Supreme Court has discretionary review (by granting a writ of certiorari) and decides fewer than a hundred cases a year from thousands submitted.
Is there any sort of oversight, or process of appeal to get a case heard if the SC doesn't decide to hear it?
Purely hypothetically, say that Congress passed a law making it illegal to be blonde. Clearly this is unconstitutional, but if it is enforced many people will go to jail. Obviously they will want to appeal it. What if the SC refuses to hear it? A law that extreme certainly should be overturned. But say all members of the SC hated blondes more than anything in the world. Is there any way, in a case this clear cut and critical, to make them hear it? (you did say you loved this stuff so I thought I'd ask)
The issue isn't one of what things are hypothetical possibilities, rather what is specifically coded into the laws of the United States today.
The US is mired in conflicting interests with Oil? Get out of here! I suppose you'll agree with me when I say that we should stop importing oil and oepn up ANWR?
There is also a difference between "conflicting interests" and a specific case where, according to the deputy director of the FBI, the interference by an oil man who is also president led directly to the worst terrorist attack in US history. Further these attacks were used as an excuse to pass the most draconian laws in the history of the country.
, but I am under the impression that it consolidates existing departments into one. That seems like a reduction of government not an increase.
It does indeed consolidate many departments in to one. Some of those departments were separated for very good reasons. The CIA was banned by law from operating inside the US for any reason whatsoever. Why? Because people realised that a government spying on its own citizens is a bad thing, and contrary to our ideals of freedom.
I heard a few days ago that even if the fears of people like you come true and every citizen is spied on, it'd still be a failure. Ever try to get your driver's license renewed? It's called bureauacracy. The CIA/FBI/Whatever is still made up of government employees.
So if I decided to throw a baseball through your window you would be ok with it as long as you heard I was a bad shot? Beauracracy has very little to do with this problem. It is largely dealing with computerized records and automatic cameras as well as other automated means of data collection. The very idea is totally broken. The fact that you seem to be ok with it only because it "can't work" is really frightening.
Yeah well Clinton evoked Presidential immunity a few times as well. He also tried to redefine what the word "is" means. Oh wait, forget it, that whole thing was a witch hunt to expose the sex life of a private citizen, nothing more.
Which has exactly what to do with Bush? Have you ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right? You seem to think that since I'm against Bush, I'm for Clinton. I personally can't stand the Republicans *or* the Democrats. Few, if any, things in this world are right/wrong, black/white etc. This idea is created to some fairly large extent by the two party system. The fact is that there are very few real differences between the two parties. They are all bought and paid for tools of major special interest groups. Often the same groups own people from both sides.
Why do you think that Bush has been fighting tooth and nail an investigation of September 11? Isn't the possibility that John O'Neill wasn't lying when he gave up his life's work worthy of an inquiry at the very least? Lying about a blow job got an impeachment. Ordering the FBI off the back of the terrorist who the CIA trained to blow up our buildings doesn't even get a mention. That is an extremely fucked up set of priorities.
Personally, I think the whole Clinton thing was a witch hunt because a freaking blow job is totally irrelevant to his job. Yes, he lied, but that is what would be expected of a gentleman. No, I don't think that had a thing to do with why he did it though. There are many other things about the Clinton Presidency and his prior Governership which I would much rather see investigated. Like the deaths of *a lot* of the people he was associated with and the evidence of his involvement with the cocaine trade in Arkansas.
Again though, the fact that he is a total scumbag doesn't mean that Bush isn't just because he's in a different party.
Aren't you disproving your point by postng here? try going to Nigeria, where hinting that Mohammed would have dated a Miss World winner, gets your business burnt down. Point me to something like that happening to the US press?
To make this example fit, you would have to get some of your friends together and come over and burn my house down because I said something you didn't like. Also, it isn't so much what they do print as what they don't. For example, I saw a report the other day stating that there was some evidence linking childhood immunizations to the huge increase in autism in this country. I had seen many other such reports previously, mainly in European papers. Now, the link hasn't been demonstrated absolutely, correlation not being causation and all of that. The thing that struck me as very suspicious was that no mention whatsoever was made in this report (might have been CNN, but I'm not sure) that one of the riders put into the Homeland Security bill specifically prevents the company who made this vaccination from being sued. Isn't that a critical feature of this story? Yet it wasn't even mentioned. That is the type of collusion that destroys any benefit from even having a "free" press.
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.
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.
My vote counted, my candidate won. Just because yours didn't, doesn't mean you showuldn't vote again.
I assume you mean you voted for Bush?
If you would actually take the time to research the subject, you would know that he was shown absolutely to have lost when the whole state of Florida was recounted. Another fact you would come across if you took your responsibility to inform yourself seriously is that the only reason it was even close in Florida is that Jeb robbed 10s of thousands of citizens of their most fundamental right as a citizen of a democracy.
The fact that you don't know these things shows that you do not deserve the freedoms we are supposed to have since you can't be bothered take *any* responsibility for them. The fact that you can, at this point, after he has demonstrated absolutely that he hates freedom and the constitution, defend the traitor Bush proves you to be a fool and a traitor as well.
With ignorant scum like you here, I have very little hope for this country's future.
In the case of the US, this is utter nonsense. If money can be said to buy votes, and therefore buy power, who, exactly, is selling these votes.
I think you misunderstood what he said. If not, and I did, I think my interpretation is more relevant.
The votes are not what is for sale. The elected officials are what is for sale. Whether it is straight bribes, or merely campaign donations, it would be a very difficult thing to argue that most if not all of our elected officials are not completely owned by corporate interests.
Now, given the rest of your post, this is arguably a merely semantical distinction. So once more into the breach.
Whe we vote for polititians that act on sound principles rather than pandering to our own special interests, we will get polititians that don't pander to special interests.
There is one incredibly huge obstacle to this to which I see no non horribly bloody solution. I certainly hope there is a better answer, but I'm losing hope quickly. That is the Republican *and* the Democratic parties. Essentially, they choose who we are allowed to vote for. There are the primaries, but it's still a choice between pieces of garbage wrapped in very slightly different skin. I personally will never vote for a major party candidate again (it's been years) . I would vote for a white supremacist, or a black supremacist or any other sick wacko long before I would vote for a Rep. or a Dem. You saw it in the last election. Many more people than did would have voted for Nader or some other "other party" candidate if they weren't convinced (not by anyone in particular) that that would be throwing their vote away. Now, of course, this is only part of the issue.
Why do we allow ourselves, as voters, to be manupulated so easily by expensive political advertising. When we view these messages skeptically and critically, the messages will begin to reflect the intelligence we bring to bear on them.
Again, there is a large chunk of truth in this, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The expensive advertising is not the only manipulation. It starts practically from birth. "America is a free country" This "freedom" we have is told to us as if it was our birthright and somehow inviolate. When, in school, were you taught that being a patriot does not mean trusting your government, rather it means never under any circumstances trust anything *any* government *ever* does.
"We have freedom of the press" Where is the analysis of this statement in our education or in our society? Most people, by my observation, think this somehow means that the press has a duty to tell us the straight unbiased truth. All it means is that the government can't pass laws restricting their freedom to print practically anything they want. 85% of all news you hear see or read (for an average value of "you" YMMV) is fed to you by 7 corporations. This is worldwide, not just in America. What obligations do they have to the public they are supposed to be working for? Zero. They havve one and only one obligation. Maximize profits. This works up to a point with other types of companies, but it should be painfully obvious to anybody with a minute to think about it that it is absolutely antithetical to the percieved purposes of a news organization.
Now, anybody who has bothered to inform themselves knows that George Bush lost the election. It was buried in a few major papers, but it wasn't made a big deal of. Their reasons? They thought it might undermine his presidency?!? Well, yes. That's their freaking job. It was reported two weeks before the attacks that John O'Neill Resigned as Deputy Director of the FBI for the specific reason that George Bush and US oil interests were the major block in their investigations of the Saudis. In particular, GB *ordered him to get off the Bin Laden family's backs* Where was the analysis of this later?
Yes, these things can be discovered if you have the time, the means, and the inclination to dig for it. Given the incredible lack of free time we have compared to the rest of the civilized world, is it any surprise that more people haven't discovered these things?
Even "counter news" (for lack of a better word) sites aren't unbiased. You can find sites with this information next to pretty far out conspiracy theories and other merely bizarre stories with undetermined (by me) truth values.
So, while it is possible to do your most basic duty as a citizen of a free society and inform yourself, it is really difficult.
Can you point me to one source that is unbiased?
Yes, the American people are to blame, but given how completely the deck is stacked against us, how do you propose they do better?
But it's foolish to think that our problem is a failure in democracy rather than a failure in the voting population.
Democracy (or Constitutional Republicism) depends absolutely on a free flow of information (not copyrighted MP3s) and a transparent government.
So when it's in the best interest of the media conglomerates, who have massive wealth and vast knowledge of mass propaganda techniques at their disposal, to lie to us and manipulate us for profit what do we do?
When our government is creating an Uber Gestapo and specifically putting into the laws that we are not allowed to know what they do; even to the point of exempting them for the Federal Whistleblowers act (which says absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they *plan* on breaking the law), what is a good citizen supposed to do?
We are still different from the particular brand of authoritarian state that would invalidate my point.
I agree with this, but only up to the point that I'd agree that the water in the pot you're boiling the frog in isn't hot...yet.
We're in the water, in the pot, on the stove, and the hand is on the dial. All our recourse to the law to stop the hand from turning and even our ability to look outside the pot to see what the hand is doing has been specifically legislated against.
So yes, you can still read this post, but I can be taken away in the night and shot in the head without trial for saying it. Is this scenario likely? I don't think so... yet. Has recent legislation made it "legal" Absolutely.
While America still acts like a democratic nation in many ways, it is a very dangerous thing to consider it one.
Your vote does not count. This was demonstrated absolutely in the last presidential election.
The recent laws (patriot act, homeland security etc) which have been passed by our congress have completely gutted the protections in our constitution. Do you really think the supreme court would strike them down (even if you were permitted to bring a suit which you are specifically not allowed to do)?
While they will certainly use the slow heat process used in boiling a frog, every single piece is in place to make Orwell's vision a reality.
The question is, are you more worried about a backhoe taking out an essential backbone, or are you more worried about our government turning into communist China. I'd say the backhoe is more likely, just because it already happened.
You haven't actually read the so called Patriot Act or the Homeland Security bill, have you?
Technically, we're not communist, nor are we called "China", but every piece is now in place to make Orwell's vision a reality.
Please start paying attention before it's too late if it isn't already.
Slashdot Mirror
Again, I don't like Bush and I certainly don't appreciate him appointing Kissinger as his chief investigator, but I believe he won Florida fair and square. The democrats had no business asking for a recount only in the democratic Counties and they had no business criticizing the ballots when their party designed and approved the ballots.
The recounts and the ballots have nothing to do with what I'm talking about. Jeb Bush had his secretary of state throw 10s of thousands of legitimate voters off of the voter roles. I'm sure it was completely coincidental that a large percentage of these voters were black ( who as a group typically vote democrat). There is no more fundamental right of a citizen of a free society than the right to vote (rights basic to all people aside). In deciding that some people who were likely to vote against his brother should not be allowed those rights, Jeb and everyone else involved committed acts of *treason*. The only reason that the election was even close in Florida was due to *treason*.
The election itself was a clusterfuck on both sides, but it has nothing to do with the reason Jeb, and GW are both traitors to this country and everything it stands for.
It will take awhile, the voting public still seems to be in shell shock, but when enough people become active again the Patriot Act will be fixed/removed
It's more difficult for something like this to happen when anyone who speaks out against it can be labeled a terrorist and taken away and executed without a trial. Especially since anyone promoting an alternative viewpoint can now legally be spied upon and harassed. This was already happening illegally. Now that the FBI etc. can legally do what they were already doing do you really think they won't step over the line again?
I really don't think you understand the gravity of the situation.
The security of this country doesn't change overnight simply because a new administration takes over. The screeners didn't change and they certainly didn't care about the new administration. Plus, the hijackers probably didn't care either since most of them were probably already in the US under the Clinton administration.
The only thing, that might have changed, is that the Bin Laden family could have been forbidden to fly out of the United States. That would have been nice. Under Bush and because of Bush, the Bin Laden plane was the only plane allowed to fly out of the United States when every other plane was grounded.
Well, Clinton might not have *ordered* the FBI to stop investigating the bin Ladens.
John Ashcroft wouldn't have been there to *order* the FBI not to examine "the 20th hijacker's" laptop.
Clinton might have gotten up off of his ass and put down the kiddy book before a half an hour passed after a fucking plane blew up the WTC.
Maybe he would have scrambled a few fucking fighters rather than grounding them which could have prevented the rest of the attacks.
Don't get me wrong though, maybe Clinton would have done all this too. Democrats and Republicans are equally slimy scum.
But to say Bush's presence at the controls didn't have a very serious affect in helping the attacks is just crazy.
Seriously, he blocks all attempts at investigating what went wrong for as long as he can, and then when trillion dollar lawsuits are coming up, he tries to appoint Henry Fucking Kissinger to do the investigation. That scrap of garbage is known primarily for crimes against humanity and covering up treacherous illegal actions. How is that different from screaming out "I'm hiding shit that I did"
Look at the piece of work he's putting up now. He's in business with Osama bin Laden's wife for fuck's sake.
Can you even name one thing that Bush has done since he usurped power through his brother's treason in Florida by disenfranchising 10s of thousands of voters that doesn't show hatred and contempt for the freedom we claim to stand for?
Raping the FOIA, Patriot Act, Homeland Security, WTC attacks.
Sure, Clinton was a fuckwad too, but they're not even in the same league.
You seem to confuse the Church with the people who run it. I agree, there are people at the head of the church who are child molestors, rapists, heathens, in it only for the power trip, etc. etc. However, that is not the Church, per say.
Then you are merely redefining the term I was using in one specific way. I am refering to the power structure that is the Catholic Church (or any other large church). When you redefing the words being used you can demonstrate anything you want to.
The real Christian Church is all of God's people and what they stand for under God, and the real Catholic church is all the Catholics and what they stand for Under God, and they are part of the entire Christian Church
Without getting into the whole debate of which is more "real", the one that actually has any affect in this lifetime on this planet is the "people at the head of the church who are child molestors, rapists, heathens, in it only for the power trip, etc. etc. "
Those are real people doing real evil.
They are doing it all in the name of your god.
You can deny that they are "real" Christians all you want, but if you would stop long enough to have actually read my previous comment you would have seen me say just that.
That is, however, irrelevant.
Critize the actions of the people in the church who did wrong, not the Church itself.
Again using your new definition of "Church", it can by definition do no wrong.
Nobody in any power happens to belong to this church which you conveniently ignore.
Using the definition I was using, the Church is made up of these people who are utter scum, so since the church has more power than these people alone and that power is used almost exclusively to further their earthly goals of money power and domination, it is absolutely correct to criticize the church.
Again, this says nothing about Christians in general, except that if they happen to belong to one of these major churches then they are fools.
I hate AOL as much as the next guy. But don't forget the bandwidth costs, server storage space, administrative costs, etc associated with having 25% of the incoming email to your system being spam-related.
Who's more affected at that point? Joe Customer or AOL?
Let's see...
AOL spends X on all of the above and other various sundry expenses.
Joe Customer*s* spend X+Y where Y is AOL's profit.
The answer to your question is obvious.
Joe Customer*s*
Any other questions?
The drawback to that is there probably isn't enough ocean to hold all of the spammers they'll give concrete shoes to.
;-)
I would actually move away from the beach for that
The actions of a few should not dictate the reputation of many. Christianity does not approve of the molestation of little children, or of anybody for that manner.
Dude, seriously now.
If I don't approve of molesting people and still do it am I cool with you?
The fact is that the power structure that is the catholic church actively worked to hide the sickening inhuman actions of its leaders.
Why do you think they will fight tooth and nail and use every manipulative legal trick at their disposal to defend their worldly assets yet will fight with the same tenacity to *not* protect the innocent and the meek that their power structure raped?
Why not turn the other cheek?
What would Jesus do?
Apparently you think that if he didn't rape children he would do anything he could to protect the reputation of those who did. Or, of course, his own reputation by covering up those actions.
Do the sickening actions of the church make Joe Catholic of Any City, Earth a child molestor?
No.
But if any person can even attempt to defend any major church (or other power structure which is so evidently corrupt), then that action does make them a fool.
People who have done bad things in the name of Christianity do not [decapolis.com] represent Jesus Christ or his true followers.
When the people doing bad things are the majority (of the power if not the population) then your argument disintegrates.
Such statements prejudicing Christians and Christianity are every bit as offensive as saying
Please compare and contrast the good and evil done in the name of Christianity over the years.
No bullshit, "well...that isn't a Christian thing to do" cop outs allowed. "In the name of" is the key here.
what you will say cana nd will come back to haunt you.
True enough, but where do you draw the line?
In the future when 'cana' is slang for 'your mother' and 'nd' is slang for 'is who I fucked'?
It'll be taken out of context and you won't be given the opportunity to defend yourself against the accusation.
Your point is certainly true, but how much more closely do you have to watch what you say when your words stay around forever?
In this period in history, what you said years ago can be extremely dangerous to your whole future.
How free can any speech be said to be with this?
Being two different people, the conspiracy theories kind of fall flat on their face.
Ah no, my friend.
It's kind of tough to have a conspiracy with only one person.
. It usually takes about 20 years for something to progress from proven scientific discovery to engineered product, and this discovery is at least worth a Nobel prize. In other words, if these people had a real discovery they would have a million bucks as seed capital for their business. I don't recall seeing "Nobel Laureate" after any of their names, do you?
Not to defend these people, but Nobel prizes aren't necessarily awarded before a significant amount of time goes by. A good example is Einstein. He is generally remembered for his Theories of Relativity. He did get a Nobel prize, but it was for the photoelectric affect, rather than for Special or General Relativity. Relativity was too new and "crackpot" at the time.
ENOUGH WITH YOUR LAME-ASS PAGE. I would rather look at a gaping asshole [goatse.cx].
Now, this comment might well be offtopic, but I think it at least deserves an honorable mention as, perhaps, the first goat link with an accurate description.
can you provide a specific portion of the legislation that would allow the government to come and shoot you, without any recourse?
The part where it says you can be held without access to a lawyer and without any other communication if someone decides you are a "terrorist". This has been widely reported. If you have no recourse, the FOIA has been raped, and what's left Byush has ordered all government agencies to fight tooth and nail. Given this, they can do whatever the hell they want.
While I will grant that a president shoudn't go about stopping investigations for the purposes of profit, I think you are making a leap in logic here that is not really supportable.
This isn't the only piece of information regarding Bush's handling of the situation which logically leads to this conclusion. How about the fact that not a single fighter was scrambled? How about the fact that Bush was told about the first attack *on TV* and did nothing for at least another 20 minutes. This doesn't constitute "absolute proof", but it is certainly clear ythat if he was not acting maliciously then at the very least he was acting with criiminal neglect of his duties. When you throw in the fact that him, his administration and his business partners are the only people who stand to profit from the situation, the rational thing to do is suspect something very shady. You seem to have the attitude that until something is proven absolutely it isn't worth considering.
What has Bush ever done to inspire such blind devotion on your part?
You don't seem to understand your responsibilities as a citizen. Trusting your government is not patriotism. "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance". Your job is to question *everything* your government does. Vote for who you believe will do the best job for our country but do not trust them at all. That, my friend, is what it means to be a patriot.
First, the Bin Laden family in Saudi Arabia had already distanced themselves from Osama.
Publicly sure. And you believe them?!? Why?
Second, there is no garantee that continuing the investigation would have stopped the attacks.
There is a guarantee that if Ashcroft had not *refused* to allow the FBI to search Massoui(sp?)'s computer that the attacks would have been known about. What did he know? Why has he prevented any investigation of it? Why, when he is finally being forced into allowing an investigation, did he put Kissinger, a scumbag wanted in several countries for crimes against humanity, in charge of it?
What you are doing is pointing out a maybe and trying to use it to assign blame. You seem otherwise logical, so please, get off the Bush bashing bandwagon, yes he's screwed up a couple of things but this is nothing more than an illogical personal attack.
I'm pointing out many many pieces of evidence and drawing a rational conclusion from them. You are saying that regardless of all the evidence, there isn't any call to suspect him? That is a failure of logic.
I do have to agree with this point. I don't like the way that the government is using the attacks as a way to trample privacy. At this point, we can only hope that in a year or three, when the attacks are further behind, that the Judical branch will re-assert its constitutional powers and duty, and vacate these laws.
So your solution is to wait, allow the draconian power structure to solidify, and hope that it gets fixed at some point? How do you propose getting the SC to even look at this case? They don't just look for bad laws and strike them down. They can't do this. Your optimism is nice among friends and family, but it is always foolish with respect to your government.
As for not mentioning the rider in the Homeland security act (again, I've not had a chance, if you could point me at the specific clause I would appreciate it.) The reporter may not have known about it. This report was probably written by a journalist specializing in medicine, not in law, and so he/she may not have even known about that particular clause.
Here
is one link
This was debated in congress and reported on NPR while it was going on.
As for making informed descions, are you implying that every person should hold a law degree? Because that's what it would truly take for people to know and understand the implications of every law that gets passed.
I'm implying that detailed analysis of all of the implications of the law from all points of view is the job of the news services. They have long since ceased doing anything even close to investigative journalism, and this is a critical problem. I don't think there is a solution to this. Freedom of the press is a two edged sword. The press can't be prevented from printing things, but neither can they be made to perform their role which is (largely) transparancy of the government.
This is one of the advantages of a Republic, the people elect a person who has the time, drive, and education to fully understand a proposal before codifying it into law
And then you watch them like a hawk. This is the part you're forgetting.
Also, if I may interject my opinion, term limits on congressmen would help out a lot, by denying someone the chance to build a powerbase, and getting rid of carrer congressmen.
Abso-freaking-lutely. As well as preventing *all* financial contributions from non-citizens (read corporations).
But, its about as good as we are going to get.
I find your lack of faith disturbing. I still hope and strive for something better. It's sad that you are so accepting of things.
You might try things such as letters to the editor of newspapers,
I do. They certainly won't print anything that might make their advertisers look bad or that might lower their parent corporations profits. This is basic economics. It won't stop me from trying, but given that 7 corporations control 85% of all news, it would be silly to believe this could work.
For an example of how to do this sort of thing, look a Limbaugh, you may not agree with what he has to say (hell, I rarely do and I'm mostly conservative) but he is a good example of how to start and run a sucessful political radio talk program.
Spout out drooling rhetoric, and uninformed opinions demonizing one party and canonizing the other? I don't want to lead a herd of sheep. I want people to start thinking critically and informing themselves.
Though I don't think I would quite call it a totalitarian state yet. The simple fact that we are able to discuss this sort of thing publicly seems to indicate otherwise.
Boiling a frog. The powers are in place. They aren't stupid though. It starts slowly. First you cut off the public from knowledge of what the government is doing. This step is in place.
I agree that we should be worried about where we are headed, but it something that should be approced in a more thoughtful manner than name calling.
Worry in one hand and shit in the other. See which fills up first. I'm not calling names. I'm looking at evidence and drawing a reasoned conclusion. You seem to be saying that without absolute proof of guilt, questioning motives is silly.
That, I find very sad.
I did have a fairly good understanding of the process (mostly due to Schoolhouse Rock. Do they still show that between cartoons? If not where the heck do kids learn about this today?), but you did definately add to my knowledge.
Jury nullification, too... but you've fallen asleep.
Still awake
This sounds suspiciously like something the mafia is famous for.
But a Google search tells me:
Interesting that the judges tell the juries that this isn't true.
Thanks again for the info.
Hey Archie,
Did you actually take a shit each and every time you flushed the toilet?
The Supreme Court has discretionary review (by granting a writ of certiorari) and decides fewer than a hundred cases a year from thousands submitted.
Is there any sort of oversight, or process of appeal to get a case heard if the SC doesn't decide to hear it?
Purely hypothetically, say that Congress passed a law making it illegal to be blonde. Clearly this is unconstitutional, but if it is enforced many people will go to jail. Obviously they will want to appeal it.
What if the SC refuses to hear it?
A law that extreme certainly should be overturned.
But say all members of the SC hated blondes more than anything in the world.
Is there any way, in a case this clear cut and critical, to make them hear it?
(you did say you loved this stuff so I thought I'd ask)
Anything is possible.
The issue isn't one of what things are hypothetical possibilities, rather what is specifically coded into the laws of the United States today.
The US is mired in conflicting interests with Oil? Get out of here! I suppose you'll agree with me when I say that we should stop importing oil and oepn up ANWR?
There is also a difference between "conflicting interests" and a specific case where, according to the deputy director of the FBI, the interference by an oil man who is also president led directly to the worst terrorist attack in US history. Further these attacks were used as an excuse to pass the most draconian laws in the history of the country.
, but I am under the impression that it consolidates existing departments into one. That seems like a reduction of government not an increase.
It does indeed consolidate many departments in to one. Some of those departments were separated for very good reasons. The CIA was banned by law from operating inside the US for any reason whatsoever.
Why? Because people realised that a government spying on its own citizens is a bad thing, and contrary to our ideals of freedom.
I heard a few days ago that even if the fears of people like you come true and every citizen is spied on, it'd still be a failure. Ever try to get your driver's license renewed? It's called bureauacracy. The CIA/FBI/Whatever is still made up of government employees.
So if I decided to throw a baseball through your window you would be ok with it as long as you heard I was a bad shot?
Beauracracy has very little to do with this problem. It is largely dealing with computerized records and automatic cameras as well as other automated means of data collection. The very idea is totally broken. The fact that you seem to be ok with it only because it "can't work" is really frightening.
Yeah well Clinton evoked Presidential immunity a few times as well. He also tried to redefine what the word "is" means. Oh wait, forget it, that whole thing was a witch hunt to expose the sex life of a private citizen, nothing more.
Which has exactly what to do with Bush?
Have you ever heard the expression two wrongs don't make a right?
You seem to think that since I'm against Bush, I'm for Clinton. I personally can't stand the Republicans *or* the Democrats. Few, if any, things in this world are right/wrong, black/white etc. This idea is created to some fairly large extent by the two party system. The fact is that there are very few real differences between the two parties.
They are all bought and paid for tools of major special interest groups. Often the same groups own people from both sides.
Why do you think that Bush has been fighting tooth and nail an investigation of September 11?
Isn't the possibility that John O'Neill wasn't lying when he gave up his life's work worthy of an inquiry at the very least? Lying about a blow job got an impeachment. Ordering the FBI off the back of the terrorist who the CIA trained to blow up our buildings doesn't even get a mention. That is an extremely fucked up set of priorities.
Personally, I think the whole Clinton thing was a witch hunt because a freaking blow job is totally irrelevant to his job. Yes, he lied, but that is what would be expected of a gentleman. No, I don't think that had a thing to do with why he did it though.
There are many other things about the Clinton Presidency and his prior Governership which I would much rather see investigated. Like the deaths of *a lot* of the people he was associated with and the evidence of his involvement with the cocaine trade in Arkansas.
Again though, the fact that he is a total scumbag doesn't mean that Bush isn't just because he's in a different party.
Aren't you disproving your point by postng here? try going to Nigeria, where hinting that Mohammed would have dated a Miss World winner, gets your business burnt down. Point me to something like that happening to the US press?
To make this example fit, you would have to get some of your friends together and come over and burn my house down because I said something you didn't like. Also, it isn't so much what they do print as what they don't.
For example, I saw a report the other day stating that there was some evidence linking childhood immunizations to the huge increase in autism in this country. I had seen many other such reports previously, mainly in European papers.
Now, the link hasn't been demonstrated absolutely, correlation not being causation and all of that.
The thing that struck me as very suspicious was that no mention whatsoever was made in this report (might have been CNN, but I'm not sure) that one of the riders put into the Homeland Security bill specifically prevents the company who made this vaccination from being sued.
Isn't that a critical feature of this story?
Yet it wasn't even mentioned.
That is the type of collusion that destroys any benefit from even having a "free" press.
Actually, it does fail when you throw "weird" at it.
I think this is a case of the lesser of two evils.
Either you break the rule, or "weird" is spelled in a way which isn't.
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, it does blow the haiku, but for completeness:
Except when sounded like "A" as in neighbor and reign.
My vote counted, my candidate won. Just because yours didn't, doesn't mean you showuldn't vote again.
I assume you mean you voted for Bush?
If you would actually take the time to research the subject, you would know that he was shown absolutely to have lost when the whole state of Florida was recounted.
Another fact you would come across if you took your responsibility to inform yourself seriously is that the only reason it was even close in Florida is that Jeb robbed 10s of thousands of citizens of their most fundamental right as a citizen of a democracy.
The fact that you don't know these things shows that you do not deserve the freedoms we are supposed to have since you can't be bothered take *any* responsibility for them.
The fact that you can, at this point, after he has demonstrated absolutely that he hates freedom and the constitution, defend the traitor Bush proves you to be a fool and a traitor as well.
With ignorant scum like you here, I have very little hope for this country's future.
.... Both political power and direct
profit interests motivate the decision makers.
This is certainly true. The political aspects aren't legal obligations as is the profit though.
In the case of the US, this is utter nonsense. If money can be said to buy votes, and therefore buy power, who, exactly, is selling these votes.
I think you misunderstood what he said. If not, and I did, I think my interpretation is more relevant.
The votes are not what is for sale. The elected officials are what is for sale. Whether it is straight bribes, or merely campaign donations, it would be a very difficult thing to argue that most if not all of our elected officials are not completely owned by corporate interests.
Now, given the rest of your post, this is arguably a merely semantical distinction. So once more into the breach.
Whe we vote for polititians that act on sound principles rather than pandering to our own special interests, we will get polititians that don't pander to special interests.
There is one incredibly huge obstacle to this to which I see no non horribly bloody solution.
I certainly hope there is a better answer, but I'm losing hope quickly.
That is the Republican *and* the Democratic parties.
Essentially, they choose who we are allowed to vote for. There are the primaries, but it's still a choice between pieces of garbage wrapped in very slightly different skin.
I personally will never vote for a major party candidate again (it's been years) . I would vote for a white supremacist, or a black supremacist or any other sick wacko long before I would vote for a Rep. or a Dem.
You saw it in the last election. Many more people than did would have voted for Nader or some other "other party" candidate if they weren't convinced (not by anyone in particular) that that would be throwing their vote away.
Now, of course, this is only part of the issue.
Why do we allow ourselves, as voters, to be manupulated so easily by expensive political advertising. When we view these messages skeptically and critically, the messages will begin to reflect the intelligence we bring to bear on them.
Again, there is a large chunk of truth in this, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
The expensive advertising is not the only manipulation. It starts practically from birth.
"America is a free country"
This "freedom" we have is told to us as if it was our birthright and somehow inviolate. When, in school, were you taught that being a patriot does not mean trusting your government, rather it means never under any circumstances trust anything *any* government *ever* does.
"We have freedom of the press"
Where is the analysis of this statement in our education or in our society?
Most people, by my observation, think this somehow means that the press has a duty to tell us the straight unbiased truth. All it means is that the government can't pass laws restricting their freedom to print practically anything they want.
85% of all news you hear see or read (for an average value of "you" YMMV) is fed to you by 7 corporations. This is worldwide, not just in America.
What obligations do they have to the public they are supposed to be working for? Zero.
They havve one and only one obligation.
Maximize profits.
This works up to a point with other types of companies, but it should be painfully obvious to anybody with a minute to think about it that it is absolutely antithetical to the percieved purposes of a news organization.
Now, anybody who has bothered to inform themselves knows that George Bush lost the election. It was buried in a few major papers, but it wasn't made a big deal of. Their reasons? They thought it might undermine his presidency?!?
Well, yes.
That's their freaking job.
It was reported two weeks before the attacks that John O'Neill Resigned as Deputy Director of the FBI
for the specific reason that George Bush and US oil interests were the major block in their investigations of the Saudis. In particular, GB *ordered him to get off the Bin Laden family's backs*
Where was the analysis of this later?
Yes, these things can be discovered if you have the time, the means, and the inclination to dig for it. Given the incredible lack of free time we have compared to the rest of the civilized world, is it any surprise that more people haven't discovered these things?
Even "counter news" (for lack of a better word) sites aren't unbiased. You can find sites with this information next to pretty far out conspiracy theories and other merely bizarre stories with undetermined (by me) truth values.
So, while it is possible to do your most basic duty as a citizen of a free society and inform yourself, it is really difficult.
Can you point me to one source that is unbiased?
Yes, the American people are to blame, but given how completely the deck is stacked against us, how do you propose they do better?
But it's foolish to think that our problem is a failure in democracy rather than a failure in the voting population.
Democracy (or Constitutional Republicism) depends absolutely on a free flow of information (not copyrighted MP3s) and a transparent government.
So when it's in the best interest of the media conglomerates, who have massive wealth and vast knowledge of mass propaganda techniques at their disposal, to lie to us and manipulate us for profit what do we do?
When our government is creating an Uber Gestapo and specifically putting into the laws that we are not allowed to know what they do; even to the point of exempting them for the Federal Whistleblowers act (which says absolutely without a shadow of a doubt that they *plan* on breaking the law), what is a good citizen supposed to do?
We are still different from the particular brand of authoritarian state that would invalidate my point.
I agree with this, but only up to the point that I'd agree that the water in the pot you're boiling the frog in isn't hot...yet.
We're in the water, in the pot, on the stove, and the hand is on the dial. All our recourse to the law to stop the hand from turning and even our ability to look outside the pot to see what the hand is doing has been specifically legislated against.
So yes, you can still read this post, but I can be
taken away in the night and shot in the head without trial for saying it.
Is this scenario likely?
I don't think so... yet.
Has recent legislation made it "legal"
Absolutely.
While America still acts like a democratic nation in many ways, it is a very dangerous thing to consider it one.
Your vote does not count. This was demonstrated absolutely in the last presidential election.
The recent laws (patriot act, homeland security etc) which have been passed by our congress have completely gutted the protections in our constitution. Do you really think the supreme court would strike them down (even if you were permitted to bring a suit which you are specifically not allowed to do)?
While they will certainly use the slow heat process used in boiling a frog, every single piece is in place to make Orwell's vision a reality.
The question is, are you more worried about a backhoe taking out an essential backbone, or are you more worried about our government turning into communist China. I'd say the backhoe is more likely, just because it already happened.
You haven't actually read the so called Patriot Act or the Homeland Security bill, have you?
Technically, we're not communist, nor are we called "China", but every piece is now in place to make Orwell's vision a reality.
Please start paying attention before it's too late if it isn't already.