Bright Spark
Posts: 314 
July 16th, 2004, 04:10 PM
Bush did come to power through fraud. Without question. Here are two different opinions.
In 2000, Bush and the election fraud cabal that included his brother, Florida Governor "Jebbie" Bush, and Jebbie's old flame, Florida Secretary of State (now Congresswoman) Katherine Harris and Fox News election analyst John Ellis (Bush's first cousin), engineered Bush's phony Florida "win" using a combination of scrubbed electoral rolls that disenfranchised almost 100,000 African-Americans, confusing "butterfly ballots," an early Fox projected Bush "win" in the Sunshine State, and voter intimidation at mainly rural polling places.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special...504madsen.html
Remember, Al Gore remained mum following the electoral fraud in Florida in the 2000 elections. And the fraud was then endorsed by the Supreme Court in Bush versus Gore.
There were at least two conflicts of interest in the Supreme Court. The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas was working for the Bush campaign and the two sons of Justice Scalia, belonged to law firms on contract to Bush in the Florida recount lawsuit.
Al Gore's could have asked Justices Scalia and Thomas to recuse themselves and Al Gore would have been instated in the White House. Recusing is a simple and unequivocal legal procedure.
The conventional wisdom among Liberals and "Progressives" is that "Bush stole the 2000 election."
That is not what happened.
Al Gore's star Attorney, David Boies, perhaps among the best in the US, had been instructed "to lay off" and loose the Bush versus Gore case in the Supreme court.
In other words, the Democrats had been instructed, no doubt by powerful people in the corporate establishment, operating behind the scenes, to accept a de facto coup d'Etat.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407D.html
The question right now is if there WILL be an election for the Americans to vote out bush as three articles discuss.
Coup d'Etat in America? Known internally as "Continuity of Government" or COG, the secret Shadow government would become functional in the case of a red code alert, redeploying key staff to secret locations.
Based on so-called "credible" reports, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has warned that Osama is now "planning to disrupt the November elections". A large scale attack on American soil is said to be planned by Al Qaeda during the presidential election campaign:
"... Credible reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process... This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm... But every day we strengthen the security of our nation."
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407B.html*
Bush did come to power through fraud. Without question. Here are two different opinions.
In 2000, Bush and the election fraud cabal that included his brother, Florida Governor "Jebbie" Bush, and Jebbie's old flame, Florida Secretary of State (now Congresswoman) Katherine Harris and Fox News election analyst John Ellis (Bush's first cousin), engineered Bush's phony Florida "win" using a combination of scrubbed electoral rolls that disenfranchised almost 100,000 African-Americans, confusing "butterfly ballots," an early Fox projected Bush "win" in the Sunshine State, and voter intimidation at mainly rural polling places.
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Special...504madsen.html
Remember, Al Gore remained mum following the electoral fraud in Florida in the 2000 elections. And the fraud was then endorsed by the Supreme Court in Bush versus Gore.
There were at least two conflicts of interest in the Supreme Court. The wife of Justice Clarence Thomas was working for the Bush campaign and the two sons of Justice Scalia, belonged to law firms on contract to Bush in the Florida recount lawsuit.
Al Gore's could have asked Justices Scalia and Thomas to recuse themselves and Al Gore would have been instated in the White House. Recusing is a simple and unequivocal legal procedure.
The conventional wisdom among Liberals and "Progressives" is that "Bush stole the 2000 election."
That is not what happened.
Al Gore's star Attorney, David Boies, perhaps among the best in the US, had been instructed "to lay off" and loose the Bush versus Gore case in the Supreme court.
In other words, the Democrats had been instructed, no doubt by powerful people in the corporate establishment, operating behind the scenes, to accept a de facto coup d'Etat.
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407D.html
The question right now is if there WILL be an election for the Americans to vote out bush as three articles discuss.
Coup d'Etat in America? Known internally as "Continuity of Government" or COG, the secret Shadow government would become functional in the case of a red code alert, redeploying key staff to secret locations.
Based on so-called "credible" reports, Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge has warned that Osama is now "planning to disrupt the November elections". A large scale attack on American soil is said to be planned by Al Qaeda during the presidential election campaign:
"... Credible reporting indicates that Al Qaeda is moving forward with its plans to carry out a large-scale attack in the United States in an effort to disrupt our democratic process... This is sobering information about those who wish to do us harm... But every day we strengthen the security of our nation."
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO407B.html*
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 16th, 2004, 04:11 PM
Quoting
Not necessarily, if you consider that the Bush Admin will simply cancel the election if there is a terrorist attack. For all we know, they might cancel the election if there is a whiff of a terrorist attack, or if someone says 'terrorist' in a back room in Timbuktu.
Americans it they choose to do so can vote Mr. Bush out in their election.
Don't bother arguing, I KNOW!
Posts: 10,754
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
July 16th, 2004, 04:24 PM
Like I say I am just a lumberjack, most of you are more knowledgeable and probally more educated than myself. Your points are interesting and I and my cabinet of yaks will think on them. I don't know about one of those darn yaks tho, he use to work for the ministry of truth over in Oceania.
Like I say I am just a lumberjack, most of you are more knowledgeable and probally more educated than myself. Your points are interesting and I and my cabinet of yaks will think on them. I don't know about one of those darn yaks tho, he use to work for the ministry of truth over in Oceania.
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 16th, 2004, 04:28 PM
Quoting
Hey, Pea, your yaks are fiddling with the 'submit' button. 8-)
I don't know about one of those darn yaks tho, he use to work for the ministry of truth over in Oceania.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 16th, 2004, 06:27 PM
Haggis, you said:
Further, what exactly has this US administration done that is so Hiteresque?
Rhetoric is one thing- but it can go too far.
Haggis, you said:
Quote:
Exactly how is that different from your politics-- or mine-- or anyone elses?
I think, though, that comparisons to Hitler are natural enough, given the political climate south of the border. It isn't just Bush, it is the whole American attitude these days, they are on a hair-trigger - they're ready to champion a cause, they're wanting to champion a cause, they're needing to champion a cause.
Further, what exactly has this US administration done that is so Hiteresque?
Rhetoric is one thing- but it can go too far.
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 16th, 2004, 06:46 PM
Research: Too far? Sure. Emotions are running high, it is election time. Comparisons of Bush to Hitler are as natural as the other side making their suggestions that a vote for Kerry means you are for the terrorists., that you don't love your country, etc..
It IS all rhetoric, and of course it goes too far.
As to how the attitude stateside is different from here? You are in denial if you can honestly say that there is not something disturbing about the way Americans have been. To put a finger on exactly what it is, is damned hard, but having lived stateside, I can tell you this, Americans are different now, and they are looking for a leader they can blindly follow without question.
Canadians are simply not like that. They really aren't. They're kind of jaded about leaders, and blind following - even in the days of Trudeau - does not happen to any significant degree.
Research: Too far? Sure. Emotions are running high, it is election time. Comparisons of Bush to Hitler are as natural as the other side making their suggestions that a vote for Kerry means you are for the terrorists., that you don't love your country, etc..
It IS all rhetoric, and of course it goes too far.
As to how the attitude stateside is different from here? You are in denial if you can honestly say that there is not something disturbing about the way Americans have been. To put a finger on exactly what it is, is damned hard, but having lived stateside, I can tell you this, Americans are different now, and they are looking for a leader they can blindly follow without question.
Canadians are simply not like that. They really aren't. They're kind of jaded about leaders, and blind following - even in the days of Trudeau - does not happen to any significant degree.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 16th, 2004, 06:59 PM
Well, were on the same page.
The rhetoric is out of control, as far as Im concerned. It does not benefit the electorate- no matter who goes overboard.
I do agree Americans are more likely to blindly follow-- but they are also quick to air their dirty laundry-- moreso than others.
Well, were on the same page.
The rhetoric is out of control, as far as Im concerned. It does not benefit the electorate- no matter who goes overboard.
I do agree Americans are more likely to blindly follow-- but they are also quick to air their dirty laundry-- moreso than others.
Don't bother arguing, I KNOW!
Posts: 10,754
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
July 16th, 2004, 08:04 PM
hag don't argue with the guy, he is looking for matches! By the way you old hag very cute on the "submit" poke, is there anything I write down that you can't figure out
Be careful I will sic winston on you.
hag don't argue with the guy, he is looking for matches! By the way you old hag very cute on the "submit" poke, is there anything I write down that you can't figure out
Be careful I will sic winston on you.
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 16th, 2004, 08:33 PM
As to Americans airing their dirty laundry, yes I suppose they do more than we do, but it is more of a Puritan angst thing, ie it still bugs them that Clinton had sex with Monica, and Cheney bugs them for having said naughty words. Bush, on the other hand, is faithful to his wife (apparently) and clean-as-a-whistle morally speaking, so all his other crimes (like sending American boys to die for naught) go uncriticized by the angsting Puritans. I think, on the whole, the dirty laundry aired serves more as a titillating adventure for Americans grown bored with life than any serious self-reflection.
Quoting
Yes, we are on the same page, I think. Sure, such rhetoric doesn't benefit anybody, but it is the nature of the beast. I don't actually think it hurts anybody, either, strangely enough. In a very strange way, I would say it is better to have passions running high, rhetoric and all, than to have indifference.
Well, were on the same page.
The rhetoric is out of control, as far as Im concerned. It does not benefit the electorate- no matter who goes overboard.
I do agree Americans are more likely to blindly follow-- but they are also quick to air their dirty laundry-- moreso than others.
The rhetoric is out of control, as far as Im concerned. It does not benefit the electorate- no matter who goes overboard.
I do agree Americans are more likely to blindly follow-- but they are also quick to air their dirty laundry-- moreso than others.
As to Americans airing their dirty laundry, yes I suppose they do more than we do, but it is more of a Puritan angst thing, ie it still bugs them that Clinton had sex with Monica, and Cheney bugs them for having said naughty words. Bush, on the other hand, is faithful to his wife (apparently) and clean-as-a-whistle morally speaking, so all his other crimes (like sending American boys to die for naught) go uncriticized by the angsting Puritans. I think, on the whole, the dirty laundry aired serves more as a titillating adventure for Americans grown bored with life than any serious self-reflection.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,103
July 16th, 2004, 09:26 PM
I disagree somewhat-- I do think it hurts.
I do believe that the office- and thus the office holder-- merit a certain respect.
In our democracies, there is an orderly transfer of power-- an extraordinary event. Even in dispute, there is a mechanism to mediate the dispute.
There comes a point where, because of our 'higher' committmenst, we accept that mecahnism as serving the greater good.
Of course, I'm referring to 2000-- and the fact that after Bush-- this year or in 4 years-- there will once again be an orderly transfer of power. That will be repeated in democracies world over.
The level of rhetoric we hear- from all sides (make no mistake, this was started by the republicans under Clinton (corrected by edit), brought to new heights by the dems)- can and does serve to belittle the the system and mechanism. The very notion that somehow one side or the other is in toto morally endowed by their beliefs, is outrageous. It is sheer hubris.
I am reminded that the greatest of leaders have certain qualities in common.
They are humble, they are modest. They fight fiercely for their beliefs and yet are giving and forgiving. Whether it was Rene Levesque-- who many feared but none 'feared' because he believed in a Quebec for all Quebecois (how I wish he were still here!) or PET, who was imperious, but not imperious enough to spend hours with the poor and the disenfranchised, out of camera range, to listen and learn, or Ronald Reagan, who many despised-- yet wrote letters to his wife and strangers-- rich and poor-- for years-- gave us an insight into a decent man.
All those men- and others-- never labeled opponents as is done now. They fought bitterly for their beliefs-- but never resorted to the name calling and the visceral hatred we see today. They never stood by when those things were done in their name.
Jean Chretien was and is, an example of that kind of attack and an example of the well deserved repulsion towards those that 'crossed the line' when he was attacked.
The rhetoric we see today does indeed hurt the system. Fortunately, the purveyors of this garbage are usually ill equipped to actually argue facts and reality, and have no influence among people who do make decisions. The moral malaise they- of whatever poliical stripe-- spread however, depresses a society, rather than uplifts it.
We have seen that rhetoric before and when left unchecked, where it went and what became of it, in the last century.
Time to look in the mirror, folks-- all of us.
I disagree somewhat-- I do think it hurts.
I do believe that the office- and thus the office holder-- merit a certain respect.
In our democracies, there is an orderly transfer of power-- an extraordinary event. Even in dispute, there is a mechanism to mediate the dispute.
There comes a point where, because of our 'higher' committmenst, we accept that mecahnism as serving the greater good.
Of course, I'm referring to 2000-- and the fact that after Bush-- this year or in 4 years-- there will once again be an orderly transfer of power. That will be repeated in democracies world over.
The level of rhetoric we hear- from all sides (make no mistake, this was started by the republicans under Clinton (corrected by edit), brought to new heights by the dems)- can and does serve to belittle the the system and mechanism. The very notion that somehow one side or the other is in toto morally endowed by their beliefs, is outrageous. It is sheer hubris.
I am reminded that the greatest of leaders have certain qualities in common.
They are humble, they are modest. They fight fiercely for their beliefs and yet are giving and forgiving. Whether it was Rene Levesque-- who many feared but none 'feared' because he believed in a Quebec for all Quebecois (how I wish he were still here!) or PET, who was imperious, but not imperious enough to spend hours with the poor and the disenfranchised, out of camera range, to listen and learn, or Ronald Reagan, who many despised-- yet wrote letters to his wife and strangers-- rich and poor-- for years-- gave us an insight into a decent man.
All those men- and others-- never labeled opponents as is done now. They fought bitterly for their beliefs-- but never resorted to the name calling and the visceral hatred we see today. They never stood by when those things were done in their name.
Jean Chretien was and is, an example of that kind of attack and an example of the well deserved repulsion towards those that 'crossed the line' when he was attacked.
The rhetoric we see today does indeed hurt the system. Fortunately, the purveyors of this garbage are usually ill equipped to actually argue facts and reality, and have no influence among people who do make decisions. The moral malaise they- of whatever poliical stripe-- spread however, depresses a society, rather than uplifts it.
We have seen that rhetoric before and when left unchecked, where it went and what became of it, in the last century.
Time to look in the mirror, folks-- all of us.
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 17th, 2004, 02:08 AM
Well put, Research. The essence of what you have said is true, and so well put that I see no reason to add a single word or attempt to detract in any way from a valuable message.
Well put, Research. The essence of what you have said is true, and so well put that I see no reason to add a single word or attempt to detract in any way from a valuable message.
Don't bother arguing, I KNOW!
Posts: 10,754
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
July 17th, 2004, 08:47 AM
My yaks have a question, if bush is just like hitler, how come nobody said Johnston and Nixon were like hitler? These 2 men sent hundred of thousands of american boys to die, to a place many felt was none of their business. Was it power and spring rolls?
I heard Mr. Bush is saying John Kerry is just like hitler at his website now....this stuff is catchy.
My yaks have a question, if bush is just like hitler, how come nobody said Johnston and Nixon were like hitler? These 2 men sent hundred of thousands of american boys to die, to a place many felt was none of their business. Was it power and spring rolls?
I heard Mr. Bush is saying John Kerry is just like hitler at his website now....this stuff is catchy.
Don't bother arguing, I KNOW!
Posts: 10,754
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
Location: pumpkin pie bungalow
July 19th, 2004, 05:03 PM
All jestering aside, I would like somebody to give me their point of view. Why were not johnston and nixon not called hitler? It is a honest question I am asking. I looked around I could not find any comparsion in the written. Is there some out there, as anyone seen it?
Would not the people of that generation who had first hand experience with hitler and lived in those times have been the ones to see the these two men were like hitler. They sent alot more boys to a war that was not their business according to their nation than bush ever did. So why did not that generation not say nixon and johnston are just like hitler. Maybe they knew what hitler was all about first hand and knew the difference. This generation calls bush just like hitler. It does not make much sense to me. Now bush has called kerry just like hitler..as hitler become the new bootylicious of this generation.
All jestering aside, I would like somebody to give me their point of view. Why were not johnston and nixon not called hitler? It is a honest question I am asking. I looked around I could not find any comparsion in the written. Is there some out there, as anyone seen it?
Would not the people of that generation who had first hand experience with hitler and lived in those times have been the ones to see the these two men were like hitler. They sent alot more boys to a war that was not their business according to their nation than bush ever did. So why did not that generation not say nixon and johnston are just like hitler. Maybe they knew what hitler was all about first hand and knew the difference. This generation calls bush just like hitler. It does not make much sense to me. Now bush has called kerry just like hitler..as hitler become the new bootylicious of this generation.
Walks on Forum Water
Posts: 5,154
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
Videos: 25
Location: Victoria, B.C.
July 19th, 2004, 05:39 PM
I think the thing that has brought Hitler to mind in association with Bush is the very real fear that many people have over what is happening in the United States.
The US is not A world power, it is THE world power. It can do any damn thing it wants, and there is NOBODY to stop it. The US AND the world needs the US to have a good, strong and fair president, now more than any other time in history. The President of the United States affects every citizen of the world far more than our own leaders do, and this is unusual in history.
As a result, it matters a very great deal, and people care a very great deal what happens in the US at election time. I think the people of the world feel highly vulnerable in the face of it, they feel threatened by the enormous power held by this one single man, a man who is not a particularly good or wise man. I think it is very, very natural to vilify something that frightens us so much.
I think the thing that has brought Hitler to mind in association with Bush is the very real fear that many people have over what is happening in the United States.
The US is not A world power, it is THE world power. It can do any damn thing it wants, and there is NOBODY to stop it. The US AND the world needs the US to have a good, strong and fair president, now more than any other time in history. The President of the United States affects every citizen of the world far more than our own leaders do, and this is unusual in history.
As a result, it matters a very great deal, and people care a very great deal what happens in the US at election time. I think the people of the world feel highly vulnerable in the face of it, they feel threatened by the enormous power held by this one single man, a man who is not a particularly good or wise man. I think it is very, very natural to vilify something that frightens us so much.
