Far Right Power Grab

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
Post Reply
JPP13
Angela's best friend
Posts: 246
Joined: Oct 6th 2002, 3:10 pm

Far Right Power Grab

Post by JPP13 » Aug 26th 2003, 5:25 pm

3 events have happened in recent years that should scare the hell out of anyone not brainwashed by Fox "News". That is the coup being launched by the Far Right against democracy.

First, when Clinton went after some Right-wing tradtional industrys like guns, tobacco and health care, the Republicans responded with a fury to undo the election by bringing in the sex police. They failed, but damn if they didn't give it a go.

Next was the 2002 election. We all know of course that Gore won the popular election. We all know what happened in Florida. The Right -Wing was able to get its nominees on the US Supreme Court in a strict party-line vote to insure that the Florida election was taken out of the hands of Florida judges and Florida voters. Someone should take a long hard look at the political rewards bestowed upon Katherine Harris and her legal team. It would make your skin crawl. Quietly, the team was rewarded with judgeships and political posts. And the overall coup was a resounding success. As a direct result we are now having our troops killed in Iraq.

Giddy with the success from the 2000 election heist, a right wing nut job (who previously was convicted for armed car-jacking, though the conservative media will never let you know that) spent 1.3 million dollars to buy a recall of an election the Republicans fairly lost. Will this last attempt work too? We'll see soon enough.

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Post by andrewgd » Aug 27th 2003, 1:25 pm

And have we all heard about PNAC? Pretty scarey stuff. These are the things of conspiracy theories. Only this isn't a theory.

http://www.philly.com/mld/dailynews/200 ... 025024.htm
It was 2:40 p.m. on Sept. 11, 2001, and rescue crews were still scouring the ravaged section of the Pentagon that hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 had destroyed just five hours earlier.

On the other side of the still-smoldering Pentagon complex, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was poring through incoming intelligence reports and jotting down notes. Although most Americans were still shell-shocked, Rumsfeld's thoughts had already turned to a longstanding foe.

Rumsfeld wrote, according to a later CBS News report, that he wanted "best info fast. Judge whether good enough [to] hit Saddam Hussein at the same time. Not only UBL" - meaning Osama bin Laden. He added: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

JPP13
Angela's best friend
Posts: 246
Joined: Oct 6th 2002, 3:10 pm

Post by JPP13 » Aug 28th 2003, 12:38 pm

Follow up : Nevada Right Wingers announced today they were going after the Governor. Is it scary enough for you yet?

That was an interesting memo from Rumsfeld. Can someone please explain to me why Bush has not been impeached?

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Aug 28th 2003, 1:37 pm

Oops, I posted twice. I deleted this first message.
Last edited by Nothingman on Sep 2nd 2003, 5:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Aug 28th 2003, 1:37 pm

I was watching the news last night and was trying to remember when the country had been in worse shape. I couldn’t decide if there was always this many problems and I didn’t pay attention before, or if it really was as bad as I thought. I’m leaning toward the latter. Three stories blew me away. First, that Bush reduced the scheduled increase in federal employee’s incomes from 4.1% to 2%. Second, that the deficit will be $500 Billion without including, anti terrorist programs, the rebuilding of Iraq, or operations in Afghanistan or Liberia. And finally, the White House repealed sections of the clean air act allowing factories to expand/remodel 20% of their facility without upgrading any other their pollution scrubbers. Which means if they only expand 20% a year they can avoid the requirements. Then they had the nerve to say that it “might” improve air quality. The story even related it to the blackout, saying that now coal/oil power generation plants may be more likely to expand their capacity. (An obvious ploy for public approval) What really happened was someone wrote a big enough check to the campaign fund.

The White House still refuses to admit that there is any correlation between the amount of the deficit and the economy. Then they reduce the scheduled increase on federal employees that countless people were counting on just to make ends meet. Give the people less money, and that will help the economy? What does Bush care, white upper class conservative republicans don’t work for the gov’t anyway. The occupation of Iraq is costing 1 Billion a week, and that’s without any money going towards repairing buildings, water mains, oil fields, electricity, police, etc. I support other nations lack of economic support for the building of Iraq. I believe it is an important message, “You insisted on making this mess, you clean it up.” Apparently, when Bush modeled the rebuilding of Iraq on Sim City 2000 (the new versions are too complicated), when he demolished the old buildings, new ones just started springing up. Now he’s left wondering what went wrong.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Aug 28th 2003, 6:37 pm

Nothingman wrote: The occupation of Iraq is costing 1 Billion a week, and that’s without any money going towards repairing buildings, water mains, oil fields, electricity, police, etc. I support other nations lack of economic support for the building of Iraq. I believe it is an important message, “You insisted on making this mess, you clean it up.” .

A billion dollars a week? Is this an exaggeration? I agree with the sentiment of what you are saying but I think that the position many other countries are taking is that they are willing to help out both financially and with troops in Iraq but not under the unilateral control of the "US". If Bush is willing to seek a new UN resolution on Iraq that would involve relinquishing sole decision making power, many countries who are currently not getting involved in Iraq would be willing to do so.

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Post by grim4746 » Aug 28th 2003, 9:11 pm

grim4746 wrote:
Nothingman wrote: The occupation of Iraq is costing 1 Billion a week, and that’s without any money going towards repairing buildings, water mains, oil fields, electricity, police, etc. I support other nations lack of economic support for the building of Iraq. I believe it is an important message, “You insisted on making this mess, you clean it up.” .

A billion dollars a week? Is this an exaggeration?
As usual I was just being lazy, i've since answered my own question (no exaggeration, a billion dollars a week!) and now know what most everyone else probably already did given that the information was so readily available. Also the pentagon had estimated in April that costs would be half of that in the following months. Reports claim that continuing attacks against US forces is largely responsible for the higher cost. So far I've had more difficulty finding information about other US spending in Iraq like the big government contracts that are being handed out. I guess it's best to keep the focus on spending that can be blamed on iraqi resistance.

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Aug 29th 2003, 5:23 am

Nothingman wrote: First, that Bush reduced the scheduled increase in federal employee’s incomes from 4.1% to 2%.

I continue to be amazed that employees put up with this crap. Are there no trade unions? No 'let's band together and go on strike' movements? If such a move were tried over here, employees would be on strike faster than you can say 'paycut'. There are laws protecting people from being fired for participating in a Union-supported strike. I work in the public sector and I remain thankful that I know that the most that can happen to me for participating in a strike is that I will be docked pay. I can express my opinion (or even 'solidarity' with other members of the union) without fear of repercussion. People whinge about strikes all the time but I think it's vital that employees can't just be walked on by their employers because of the 'well, don't work here any more' threat.
Nothingman wrote: And finally, the White House repealed sections of the clean air act allowing factories to expand/remodel 20% of their facility without upgrading any other their pollution scrubbers. Which means if they only expand 20% a year they can avoid the requirements. Then they had the nerve to say that it “might” improve air quality.
Oh, here we go again. This is just so shortsighted that I can't even begin to comprehend it. Bush pulls out of Kyoto, to world disdain and disgust. Who cares if Europeans will suffer the results of our emissions? Americans still need to consume more energy and burn more petrol and use more packaging (something I particularly noticed on my recent trip) than the rest of the world! Why? Because we're American, that's why! It 'might' improve air quality in the US. The result will be that Scandinavia will reap the results of US polluters and their forrests will be wiped out by acid rain. God it makes me angry. Almost as angry as I was about Halliburton. Almost as angry as I was when Bush slapped tariffs on imported steel, costing thousands of jobs over here, right after Britain stood shoulder to shoulder on the terrorist issue with him.

:evil:
Nothingman wrote: I support other nations lack of economic support for the building of Iraq. I believe it is an important message, “You insisted on making this mess, you clean it up.”
Cool. I think there are too many people in the rest of the world that think that Bush is accurately representing the will of the US on these issues, and I'm glad he isn't.

Bush has recently had to admit that he really needs UN help now. US soldiers continue to die and they need the support of important countries like India and Pakistan to name a couple. But they won't help without UN backing. So Bush has indicated that he would support a 'UN force' rather than the 'coalition' that currently exists. Snag? The US government is insisting that they remain in charge of the whole operation even if the UN agrees to back the sending of troops. Now, I appreciate that in an operation of this magnitude, SOMEONE has to be in charge otherwise nobody makes a decision and things drag on forever. But step aside, Bush, admit you're screwing it up, and let someone else have a go at fixing the mess you made. After all, we are talking about people's lives here. Stop expecting the world to put their trust and the lives of their soldiers in your hawkish undiplomatic hands.

Oh, and here's another questionable policy he's come up with recently that I saw on CNN when I was over... chop down vast swathes of forrest in order to stop forrest fires from spreading. Hmmm. Even more trees to go. Plus, I have been to Yellowstone and I went on an early-morning ride with a rancher who seemed extremely knowleagable. He was telling about how forrest fires, although they look unpleasant and are devastating and all the rest, allow the forrest to clean itself up, burning off old, dead wood, putting charcoal nutrients back into the soil, and allowing new trees to grow back in place and the forrest to be replenished. Sure, it takes a while, but nature will always sort itself out. The only problem may arise when they really get out of hand.

I don't know whether he was right or wrong, but it definitely sounded like a convincing argument to me. Nature shouldn't really be messed with.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

stuff

Post by lance » Aug 29th 2003, 10:53 am

starbug wrote:
Nothingman wrote: First, that Bush reduced the scheduled increase in federal employee’s incomes from 4.1% to 2%.

I continue to be amazed that employees put up with this crap. Are there no trade unions?
If you remember the creation of the Homeland Security Department Bush and the GOP whined that they needed the flexibility of hire and fire as they see fit. So no union representation in Homeland Security. Transportation Security Administration workers has been quoted in papers that they are forced to work overtime with no sign of relief in sight. They cannot unionize, its the law. The fact that the law is evil and reprehensible not withstanding.
No 'let's band together and go on strike' movements? If such a move were tried over here, employees would be on strike faster than you can say 'paycut'. There are laws protecting people from being fired for participating in a Union-supported strike. I work in the public sector and I remain thankful that I know that the most that can happen to me for participating in a strike is that I will be docked pay. I can express my opinion (or even 'solidarity' with other members of the union) without fear of repercussion. People whinge about strikes all the time but I think it's vital that employees can't just be walked on by their employers because of the 'well, don't work here any more' threat.
Nothingman wrote: And finally, the White House repealed sections of the clean air act allowing factories to expand/remodel 20% of their facility without upgrading any other their pollution scrubbers. Which means if they only expand 20% a year they can avoid the requirements. Then they had the nerve to say that it “might” improve air quality.
Oh, here we go again. This is just so shortsighted that I can't even begin to comprehend it. Bush pulls out of Kyoto, to world disdain and disgust. Who cares if Europeans will suffer the results of our emissions? Americans still need to consume more energy and burn more petrol and use more packaging (something I particularly noticed on my recent trip) than the rest of the world! Why? Because we're American, that's why! It 'might' improve air quality in the US. The result will be that Scandinavia will reap the results of US polluters and their forrests will be wiped out by acid rain. God it makes me angry. Almost as angry as I was about Halliburton. Almost as angry as I was when Bush slapped tariffs on imported steel, costing thousands of jobs over here, right after Britain stood shoulder to shoulder on the terrorist issue with him.

:evil:
On the NewsHour on PBS on Wednesday evening Conneticut's Attorney General has already said that they will sue the EPA in court over the new regulations. Conneticut and other east coast states are down wind from the coal burning power plants in Ohio and other midwestern states that will directly benefit from the EPA's new feel-free-to-pollute policy.

Nothingman wrote: I support other nations lack of economic support for the building of Iraq. I believe it is an important message, “You insisted on making this mess, you clean it up.”
Cool. I think there are too many people in the rest of the world that think that Bush is accurately representing the will of the US on these issues, and I'm glad he isn't.
Not by a long shot. :D
Bush has recently had to admit that he really needs UN help now. US soldiers continue to die and they need the support of important countries like India and Pakistan to name a couple. But they won't help without UN backing. So Bush has indicated that he would support a 'UN force' rather than the 'coalition' that currently exists. Snag? The US government is insisting that they remain in charge of the whole operation even if the UN agrees to back the sending of troops. Now, I appreciate that in an operation of this magnitude, SOMEONE has to be in charge otherwise nobody makes a decision and things drag on forever. But step aside, Bush, admit you're screwing it up, and let someone else have a go at fixing the mess you made. After all, we are talking about people's lives here. Stop expecting the world to put their trust and the lives of their soldiers in your hawkish undiplomatic hands.

Oh, and here's another questionable policy he's come up with recently that I saw on CNN when I was over... chop down vast swathes of forrest in order to stop forrest fires from spreading. Hmmm. Even more trees to go. Plus, I have been to Yellowstone and I went on an early-morning ride with a rancher who seemed extremely knowleagable. He was telling about how forrest fires, although they look unpleasant and are devastating and all the rest, allow the forrest to clean itself up, burning off old, dead wood, putting charcoal nutrients back into the soil, and allowing new trees to grow back in place and the forrest to be replenished. Sure, it takes a while, but nature will always sort itself out. The only problem may arise when they really get out of hand.

I don't know whether he was right or wrong, but it definitely sounded like a convincing argument to me. Nature shouldn't really be messed with.
Thanks for the post Starbug.

Lance Man

User avatar
Nostradamus
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1213
Joined: Jun 29th 2002, 6:42 am
Location: No matter where you go, There you are.

Post by Nostradamus » Aug 31st 2003, 2:46 am

Bush was by no means the first U.S. president to subvert the process for his own ends:
The Incident

by Harry Browne

February 3, 2003

In 1939 England and France went to war with Germany. Franklin Roosevelt assured Winston Churchill privately that the United States would join England in its war, even as he reassured Americans publicly that their sons would never fight and die in a foreign war.

Americans were strongly opposed to getting into the war. So strongly that it was obvious to Roosevelt that he could never fulfill his promises to Churchill unless someone attacked the United States.

Since Hitler was trying very hard to avoid provoking a war with America, Roosevelt turned his attention to Japan — especially after Japan and Germany signed a mutual defense treaty.

Roosevelt's diplomats held secret negotiations with the Japanese — demanding that the Japanese give up their conquered possessions in Southeast Asia, although the U.S. didn't make similar demands that Britain, France, and the Netherlands give up their possessions.

Japan is an island country with virtually no natural resources of any note. It had been necessary to rely on trading with the colonies of Southeast Asia until the European colonial powers began monopolizing those resources. The Japanese leaders decided they had to establish colonies of their own — by force, just as the European powers had.

Roosevelt's only interest in the Japanese' problems was that these problems put Japan in a vulnerable position where its leaders might do something drastic — which is what he wanted. He stepped up the pressure on the Japanese, prohibiting critical exports from America to Japan.

Finally, it became obvious to the Japanese that war with America was inevitable. They knew they had practically no chance to win a war against the world's #1 industrial power. Their only hope lay in the possibility of destroying the American fleet at the outset.

And so the Japanese kept negotiating with the Americans in hope of reaching a peaceful settlement — while making plans to attack Pearl Harbor if the negotiations failed. Roosevelt made sure the negotiations did fail, and the attack came.

That incident — the Pearl Harbor attack — caused the anti-war movement in America to collapse. Even Charles Lindbergh, the most public opponent of war, hurried to the recruiting office to enlist the day after Pearl Harbor.

It was only years and decades later that the full truth came out piece by piece — that the Americans had broken the Japanese diplomatic and military codes and knew the Japanese intentions, that the American military had made a secret agreement with the British and Dutch to go to war with Japan, that Roosevelt had told his cabinet prior to Pearl Harbor that "we are at war; we now have to maneuver the Japanese into firing the first shot," that the American Chiefs of Staff had misled the Pearl Harbor commanders about the possibility of an attack on Pearl Harbor.

(For a brief summary of this deceit, see http://www.independent.org/tii/news/001207Stinnett.html or http://www.independent.org/tii/news/020 ... gnano.html.)

Vietnam

After World War II and the Korean War stalemate, the American people were in no mood to go to war again.

However, the American government had been engaged in a war against Vietnam — both overtly and covertly. The war had started in 1945 when Vietnamese nationalists wanted independence from France and the French government resisted. The U.S. taxpayers financed nearly half the French side before the French threw in the towel.

By that time Vietnam had been divided "temporarily" between the North, run by communist dictator Ho Chi Minh, and the South, run by non-communist dictator Ngo Dinh Diem. The war resumed soon afterward — only now it was a civil war between the two parts of Vietnam. The U.S. aided the South, but the American public was still generally opposed to U.S. troops fighting in another foreign war.

But in August 1964 an incident occurred.

The American navy was covertly aiding South Vietnamese troops making commando raids in North Vietnam. The destroyers Maddox and C. Turner Joy were in the Gulf of Tonkin providing support when they reported being attacked by North Vietnamese torpedo boats.

The U.S. retaliated with air strikes against North Vietnamese Naval bases and oil storage areas. Lyndon Johnson also used the incident to gain support for a Congressional resolution authorizing him to use "all necessary measures to repel any armed attacks against the forces of the United States and to prevent further aggression." No one seemed interested in asking what "the forces of the United States" were doing in North Vietnam in the first place.

Needless to say, it turned out that there had been no attack against the American destroyers, that the Johnson administration already had plans to widen the war, and that administration officials had used hazy, ambiguous reports from the Gulf of Tonkin to do what they had wanted to do anyway. (In 1970 Congress repealed the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.)

The incident had served the purpose of the American politicians who wanted to escalate the war.

9/11

On September 11, 2001, a single incident transformed overnight a President with a mediocre approval rating into the Glorious Leader of the Free World.
You can read the full article quoted above here. The author goes on to show how such abuse can be prevented:
Power

The problem isn't George Bush.

The problem is that American Presidents have too much power and not enough hobbies to keep their minds occupied.

We will always be in fear of being dragged into war so long as American Presidents have the power to do whatever they want. As Michael Cloud has pointed out, "The problem isn't the abuse of power; it's the power to abuse."

The power has been abused by Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. And it will be abused by the next President as well.

Why? Because the power is there — waiting to be abused.

Presidents have too much power over domestic affairs and too much power over foreign affairs.
I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.
-- Clarence Darrow

I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.
-- Mark Twain

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests