[grand_master_d]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I saw the head of the DNC on TV last night talking about voters in predominately black areas of Ohio getting carded for ID (illegal in OH), and consistantly longer waits at polling booths in such neighborhoods.

Well if it came from the head of the DNC it must be true... the RNC says the same crap. I like to think all the crap, in the end, evens out... and the universe is a nice, happy place.

Election tampering happens in every election (and from all sides). The question is whether the tampering was of a higher level than normal, and whether said tampering resulted in a different outcome than would have occured under neutral elections.

Which is a lot of tampering for Ohio to go the other way...

Never think that there isn't more in a campaign than an honest attempt to get people to see your policy and why its the right one... that's just reality.

Agreed...

[JerryLove]

This all falls under the category of what I was talking about. Again, I highly doubt what we have is legitimately comparable to the Russian secret police, which I'm sure anyone who has researched the Soviet Union could tell you (I haven't, but if I have to in order to show how absurd your comparison is, I will).

Soviet Era Russia was worse that Bush Era America is (duh!). Comparisons become valid when you look at things like "how many similarities there are between Bush's America and Breshnev's USSR compared to (say) Carter's America and Breshnev's USSR".

Looking at financial records is nothing compared to purges, and you know that.

Which was only Stalin's Russia (note that I did not compare specifically with Stalin's regime. I would actually look more at the USSR in the 70s).

There is perverse and immoral reasoning behind all all of that. In the case of Iran, their absurd religious zeal causes them to persecute other religions. In the case of China and Russian, their communism results in absolute moral atrocities. Yes, you can word their justification in a way that sounds good, but the essence of it is not righteous. In the case of neo-con idealogy, they are geniunely trying to protect American from attack. The threat from terrorists is actual. People lose their lives to terrorist attacks. The threat of moral and religious perversion in Iran is not.

Of course the threat of moral perversion is real. Look at how the west dresses, look at the number of Infadels, look at the unIslamic teachings and tell me that's not a real threat to Iran?

US citizens are really dead in Iraq over neo-con policy as well. People will really die from global warming. People are really dying from the *increase* in terrorism since Bush took office.

Meanwhile, in the country founded on "better dead and free than alive and enslaved" (also "better dead than red"), we are giving up freedom for some perception of safety.

I have never once heard the claim that it is unpatriotic to disagree with the president. The idea of sacrificing freedoms for safety is the basis of natural law theory, which this government was founded on.

"While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." - Republican convention keynote speaker, 2004 RNC

Their drive to do things in order to secure power or wealth is not anymore than any other politicians in the mix. They just happen to be succeeding, it would seem.

I didn't say that it was abnormal to do so... I was just pointing out the fallacy of "they are doing it to help the American people" position.

[JerryLove]

Well if it came from the head of the DNC it must be true... the RNC says the same crap. I like to think all the crap, in the end, evens out... and the universe is a nice, happy place.

If it came out of the head of the DNC, it's not some remote paranoid conspiricy theory. Whether it's true or false is a debate all it's own, but it would be a mistake to be incredulous prefacia.

Which is a lot of tampering for Ohio to go the other way...

I don't suspect that tampering was sufficient in the case of OH. Florida in 2000 I still suspect was decided by who was better at tampering.

[+Donny]

Soviet Era Russia was worse that Bush Era America is (duh!). Comparisons become valid when you look at things like "how many similarities there are between Bush's America and Breshnev's USSR compared to (say) Carter's America and Breshnev's USSR".

But because the USSR was so much worse, it is too loaded of a comparison. A more legitimate comparison would be to examine similarities between American now and Russia before the fascism had set in, or while Hitler was trying to gain power in Germany.
Of course, I still think such things are pretty absurd, given the fact that you can't honestly think Bush is intentionally trying to set up an empire. I suppose you could say someone behind him is, but that is getting way too conspiracy theory for me.

Of course the threat of moral perversion is real. Look at how the west dresses, look at the number of Infadels, look at the unIslamic teachings and tell me that's not a real threat to Iran?

You know what I meant.

US citizens are really dead in Iraq over neo-con policy as well. People will really die from global warming. People are really dying from the *increase* in terrorism since Bush took office.

Yes, I know, and I don't support that. But Bush is going around murdering Americans. That is why the comparison is illegitimate. I believe Bush is honestly governing more for Americans than for himself. This is the core of what differentiates a good ruler from a bad one, the former ruling for the people, the latter ruling against them, as Aristotle argued. Now, this doesn't prevent Bush from making overzealous, foolish mistakes, but there is a substantial different between he and historic, crazy tyrants. Bush isn't Nero.

"While young Americans are dying in the sands of Iraq and the mountains of Afghanistan, our nation is being torn apart and made weaker because of the Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief." - Republican convention keynote speaker, 2004 RNC

That's a logical leap. Because the RNC thinks it's sad that the democrats are obsessed with pointing out every little mistake of Bush and trying to tear him down while a war is going on, you can imply that the republicans are spreading the idea that it is unpatriotic to disagree with the president? That is simply taking the RNC's words way farther than they can rationally be taken. Unless you have a heck of a lot better evidence than this, your statement is illegitimate.

I didn't say that it was abnormal to do so... I was just pointing out the fallacy of "they are doing it to help the American people" position.

You honestly believe that the welfare of the American people is not part of their drive? You don't think they are honestly trying to protect us? I never said it was their exclusive drive, I said it was a big part of it.

[+Donny]

I don't suspect that tampering was sufficient in the case of OH. Florida in 2000 I still suspect was decided by who was better at tampering.

1) If both parties do it, it makes no sense to point it out to prove that there is some sort of secret republican conspiracy to keep Bush in office. It's a part of elections, and everyone does it.

2) It is not really decided by the tampering, as the bulk of the votes in the election are honest votes by people convinced by either part. The percentage of votes via corruption are probably incredibly small, so the practice of beating one's opponent in debates and offering better promises as a politician are a heck of a lot more important.

[JerryLove]

Of course, I still think such things are pretty absurd, given the fact that you can't honestly think Bush is intentionally trying to set up an empire. I suppose you could say someone behind him is, but that is getting way too conspiracy theory for me.

An Empire? You mean invading other nations and setting up puppet governments? Naw *caugh*Iraq*caugh*, I can't see that happening *caugh*Afghanistan*caugh*.

Yes, I know, and I don't support that. But Bush is going around murdering Americans. That is why the comparison is illegitimate.

Is that the only criteria? He is very "pro-death-penalty". Does it need to be by firing squad or can it be by bad envyronmental policy (or, for that matter, does sending 1,700 of them to their deaths in an invasion of a foreign country count?). Can we count non-Americans?

I believe Bush is honestly governing more for Americans than for himself. This is the core of what differentiates a good ruler from a bad one, the former ruling for the people, the latter ruling against them, as Aristotle argued.

I think a good ruler, like a good chef, is determined more by his results than his intents and methods. That said, when we give China (which has WMD and opresses its people) favored-nation status, while invading Iraq (which lacked WMD, and was opressing its people), the message I get is "the corporate dollar (gained though favored nation status) is worth more than the soldier (or Iraqi's) life".

Now, this doesn't prevent Bush from making overzealous, foolish mistakes, but there is a substantial different between he and historic, crazy tyrants. Bush isn't Nero.

Again, not as crazy as Nero supposedly was.

BTW, he also said "wherever people seek freedom from opression we support them" (or something close to that), and cited it when the US officially welcomed a North-Korean defector.

A member of the Chinese diplomatic corps recently tried to defect in Australia... he was a leader at Tein-Min square who came out of the "re-education" training and became a diplomat. It would be an intelligence coup and I could not think of a more worthy person to give political asylum to that an organizer of Tein-min.... The Bush admistration (last I checked) was refusing asylum.

Also interesing on that point, the properly elected ruler of the democracy of Venisuela (an oil eporting country) is not pro-American, and was overthrown a while back in an illegal coup. The US supported the rebels over the democratic government (much to their trouble when the president reegained power).

That's a logical leap. Because the RNC thinks it's sad that the democrats are obsessed with pointing out every little mistake of Bush and trying to tear him down while a war is going on, you can imply that the republicans are spreading the idea that it is unpatriotic to disagree with the president?

"Nine months after the attacks of 11 September, leading American political cartoonists say they are under intense pressure to conform to a patriotic stereotype and not criticize the actions of Mr Bush and his "war on terror". " - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0623-02.htm

"Neo-patriots think that if you criticize U.S. foreign policy or the country’s obsession with security you are “unpatriotic.” " - http://www.daveblackonline.com/there's_a_new_world.htm

"How dare Senator Daschle criticize President [sic] Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field. He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united." - Trent Lott

You honestly believe that the welfare of the American people is not part of their drive? You don't think they are honestly trying to protect us? I never said it was their exclusive drive, I said it was a big part of it.

I'd imagine it interests them... but not much. I've met too many seantors and CEOs in my time.

If both parties do it, it makes no sense to point it out to prove that there is some sort of secret republican conspiracy to keep Bush in office. It's a part of elections, and everyone does it.

Just because someone else is performing the same crime does not excuse the criminal.

It is not really decided by the tampering, as the bulk of the votes in the election are honest votes by people convinced by either part. The percentage of votes via corruption are probably incredibly small, so the practice of beating one's opponent in debates and offering better promises as a politician are a heck of a lot more important.

There was an unusual ballot in Pal-Beach that resulted in Buchanan getting many thousands more votes than his general numbers would indicate (even he said so), and there were 50,000 votes purged from the record even though most were elidgeable under FL law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000), this in a state of 16,000,000 people where Bush won by 537 votes. How much of a percentage is that?

[+Donny]

An Empire? You mean invading other nations and setting up puppet governments? Naw *caugh*Iraq*caugh*, I can't see that happening *caugh*Afghanistan*caugh*.

Didn't we set up a government in Germany after WWII? I want to be a WWII buff, but I don't have the time. Oh well.
Or, we could interpret his actions according to normal neo-con idealogy, namely, the spreading of democracy. Yes, I think it's incredibly hypocritical to spread democracy in this way, but to say he is setting up puppet governments to build some sort of American empire is stretched. The former is a much simpler, sensible way to interpret his actions than the conspiracy theory you are putting forth.

Is that the only criteria? He is very "pro-death-penalty". Does it need to be by firing squad or can it be by bad envyronmental policy (or, for that matter, does sending 1,700 of them to their deaths in an invasion of a foreign country count?). Can we count non-Americans?

The death penalty is for convicted criminals. Bad environmental policy is not comparable to killing people in order to stay in office. At worst, it is manslaughter. Soldiers dying is based on neo-con "Iraq is full of WMD-carrying terrorists that want to kill your children" claims, not a some sort of George Bush empire. And if by "non-Americans" you mean civilian deaths in the war in Iraq, I wouldn't support it, but it is part of modern warfare.
Again, the only thing similar between this and the examples we were talking about is that people are dying. The reason they are dying and the intentions of Bush draw a huge chasm between the two. You haven't shown that Bush has murderous intentions, or is killing in order to estalish his own regime, or anything like that. This isn't Hitler killing off his opponents, this is the outworking of neo-con idealogy. Some things are consistent with the idea that Bush is setting up an empire, but a much more sane explanation is that this is what happens when neo-cons are in power, and unless you are going to tell me that neo-cons are a bunch of fascists (in which case, the conversation would be over), your explanation fails. What is it.. Occam's Razor?

I think a good ruler, like a good chef, is determined more by his results than his intents and methods. That said, when we give China (which has WMD and opresses its people) favored-nation status, while invading Iraq (which lacked WMD, and was opressing its people), the message I get is "the corporate dollar (gained though favored nation status) is worth more than the soldier (or Iraqi's) life".

Then you are looking at it in too biased a manner. Once again, a more charitable and probably more sane explanation would be that Bush is concerned with middle eastern terrorists and fascist regimes he can take down with reasonable ease, as opposed to countries like China, who, if we attacked, would be a hell of a lot more difficult to deal with. Furthermore, Bush believed Iraq was tied to the terrorists that had indeed attacked us, while China, I'm sure, was not. You are only mentioning some of the facts, and then drawing a conclusion from them that isn't warranted if you look at the big picture. Again, assuming neo-con international relations, it makes perfect sense to attack Iraq and not touch China. Why do you have to keep bringing in alternative explanations, like oil, money, etc., when the simple explanation works perfectly well? Oil and money could influence some of the people in power, and probably do, but simplest explanation is that this is a neo-con president who does neo-con things. What else do you expect?

Again, not as crazy as Nero supposedly was.

BTW, he also said "wherever people seek freedom from opression we support them" (or something close to that), and cited it when the US officially welcomed a North-Korean defector.

A member of the Chinese diplomatic corps recently tried to defect in Australia... he was a leader at Tein-Min square who came out of the "re-education" training and became a diplomat. It would be an intelligence coup and I could not think of a more worthy person to give political asylum to that an organizer of Tein-min.... The Bush admistration (last I checked) was refusing asylum.

Also interesing on that point, the properly elected ruler of the democracy of Venisuela (an oil eporting country) is not pro-American, and was overthrown a while back in an illegal coup. The US supported the rebels over the democratic government (much to their trouble when the president reegained power).

I don't know the details in either of these cases, so I can't remark. All it would show, though, is that neo-con idealogy can be very inconsistent, which is something I won't dispute.

"Nine months after the attacks of 11 September, leading American political cartoonists say they are under intense pressure to conform to a patriotic stereotype and not criticize the actions of Mr Bush and his "war on terror". " - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0623-02.htm

"Neo-patriots think that if you criticize U.S. foreign policy or the country’s obsession with security you are “unpatriotic.” " - http://www.daveblackonline.com/there's_a_new_world.htm

"How dare Senator Daschle criticize President [sic] Bush while we are fighting our war on terrorism, especially when we have troops in the field. He should not be trying to divide our country while we are united." - Trent Lott

I would have to know the context and more details behind these things.
Of course, even despite this, it obviously hasnt stopped anyone from criticizing them, so what's the big deal if the neo-cons don't like being picked on? You would have a point if there were censorship going on.

I'd imagine it interests them... but not much. I've met too many seantors and CEOs in my time.

I can't dispute that; I haven't met any. Well, that's not true, I have met one CEO, I think, and he was a good guy, but he wasn't the CEO of a massive corporation, so that is irrelevant.

Just because someone else is performing the same crime does not excuse the criminal.

But all politicians are criminals, it doesn't make much sense to complain about the Republicans being criminals, given the context.

There was an unusual ballot in Pal-Beach that resulted in Buchanan getting many thousands more votes than his general numbers would indicate (even he said so), and there were 50,000 votes purged from the record even though most were elidgeable under FL law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._p..._election,_2000), this in a state of 16,000,000 people where Bush won by 537 votes. How much of a percentage is that?

50,000 votes purged, and many thousands added. So, let's say 60,000? According to the handy-dandy calculator on the computer, 3/8 of a percent. Not much, and that seems to be your top example.

So, 3/8 of a percent of votes were gained via corruption. This isn't factoring in corruption on the other side, either. So, in the long run, bothi presidents had roughly around half the votes, which means, of course, that the vast majority of their votes were legitimate and won via policy, because people actually liked them. Buch had to do good enough to bring the race within 3/8 of a percent for this corruption to win him the state.
I'm obviously not supporting the corruption, but if it is such a small percentage in a single state in all of America, you are really getting up in arms over nothing.

[JerryLove]

Or, we could interpret his actions according to normal neo-con idealogy, namely, the spreading of democracy.

I don't know. Do you think that his first priority is "spreading democracy"?

"April 11 2002 changed the course of Venezuela’s history when, the radical but democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez was overthrown in a military coup. Until April 11, Venezuela was South America's oldest democracy, because since 1958, no coup had ever been successful."

This coup was started over disagreements over oil dispersion, and the involvement of US oil companies. This rebellion to overthwo by force a democratically elected leader was backed by the Bush administration (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ezuela&spell=1).

Do you *really* think that Bush is invading oil-rich nations to "spread democracy"?

The death penalty is for convicted criminals.

And I'm sure Stalin convicted his victims as "enemies of the state"... seems semantics.

Soldiers dying is based on neo-con "Iraq is full of WMD-carrying terrorists that want to kill your children" claims, not a some sort of George Bush empire. And if by "non-Americans" you mean civilian deaths in the war in Iraq, I wouldn't support it, but it is part of modern warfare.

and Bush / Cheney led that charge. It's *their* policy. He sent these people to their deaths. Why? "to spread democracy"? See above for that (or tell me why we didn't go into far worse but easier areas like Somalia or Ruwanda).

Again, the only thing similar between this and the examples we were talking about is that people are dying. The reason they are dying and the intentions of Bush draw a huge chasm between the two. You haven't shown that Bush has murderous intentions, or is killing in order to estalish his own regime, or anything like that. This isn't Hitler killing off his opponents, this is the outworking of neo-con idealogy. Some things are consistent with the idea that Bush is setting up an empire, but a much more sane explanation is that this is what happens when neo-cons are in power, and unless you are going to tell me that neo-cons are a bunch of fascists (in which case, the conversation would be over), your explanation fails. What is it.. Occam's Razor?

Not quite facist (not a single leader), but totalitarian. The neo-cons seem to want to use the country as a way to maintain power and wealth (mostly oil-based in this case).

Then you are looking at it in too biased a manner. Once again, a more charitable and probably more sane explanation would be that Bush is concerned with middle eastern terrorists and fascist regimes he can take down with reasonable ease, as opposed to countries like China, who, if we attacked, would be a hell of a lot more difficult to deal with.

I'm not talking about attacking China.. I want to know why we are giving China preferred nation status. I want to know why we are refusing political defectors with valueable intelligence from China. Can you offer me a reason that doesn't boil down to "money"?

Furthermore, Bush believed Iraq was tied to the terrorists that had indeed attacked us, while China, I'm sure, was not.

Then Bush was stupid, because no one else believed that there were any ties between Iraq and attacks on American soil (you know what I mean by "no one").

There was no evidence for it at all... furthermore, there's support (we can google it if needbe) that Bush was after invading Iraq *before* 9/11.

You are only mentioning some of the facts, and then drawing a conclusion from them that isn't warranted if you look at the big picture. Again, assuming neo-con international relations, it makes perfect sense to attack Iraq and not touch China. Why do you have to keep bringing in alternative explanations, like oil, money, etc., when the simple explanation works perfectly well? Oil and money could influence some of the people in power, and probably do, but simplest explanation is that this is a neo-con president who does neo-con things. What else do you expect?

But why are neo-con things what they are? Why did we support the overthrow of a democracy in South America while supporting an opressive regime in China? Why did we invade a problem country like Iraq when there are complete disasters in Africa... disasters like Somalia with operating AlQuida, and terrorism, and opression, and genocide, and not a single member of the international community who would oppose us sending troops to straigten them out.

I don't know the details in either of these cases, so I can't remark. All it would show, though, is that neo-con idealogy can be very inconsistent, which is something I won't dispute.

Which begs the question of "why". We know why Afghanistan (they did have BinLauden)... but why invade Iraq? Why try to overthrow Venisuelia? Why not help in the Ivory Coast, or Ruwanda? Why accept a defector from N.Korea then turn down one from China? What pattern can we see?

Iraq = Oil... big money for business.
Vensuelia = Oil... big money for business.
China = manufacturing... big money for business (you do know that's where WalMart gets most of its stuff?)

Somalia = No Oil.
N.Korea = No Oil.
Ruwanda = No Oil.
Ivory Coast = No Oil.

And these are not countries chosen at random. The UN (and many others) have called for aid in Ruwanda, where mass rapes and genocide is still underway. The French (who we called names for not invading Iraq) have been committed to the Ivory Coast for some time trying to help. Somalia (the worlds only country with no government) is famous as a base of operations for Alquida (recall "Black hawk down").

I would have to know the context and more details behind these things.
Of course, even despite this, it obviously hasnt stopped anyone from criticizing them, so what's the big deal if the neo-cons don't like being picked on? You would have a point if there were censorship going on.

Depends on how you define "censorship".

But all politicians are criminals, it doesn't make much sense to complain about the Republicans being criminals, given the context.

They are in charge, and therefore the root of my current problems... I also find them worse than their major opposition (the Deomcrats). More to the point, I want what's happening to stop.

50,000 votes purged, and many thousands added. So, let's say 60,000? According to the handy-dandy calculator on the computer, 3/8 of a percent. Not much, and that seems to be your top example.

Bush won by 537 votes... not much tampering was required.

So, 3/8 of a percent of votes were gained via corruption. This isn't factoring in corruption on the other side, either. So, in the long run, bothi presidents had roughly around half the votes, which means, of course, that the vast majority of their votes were legitimate and won via policy, because people actually liked them. Buch had to do good enough to bring the race within 3/8 of a percent for this corruption to win him the state.
I'm obviously not supporting the corruption, but if it is such a small percentage in a single state in all of America, you are really getting up in arms over nothing.

I'm upset over illegal interference in the voting practice (from all who do it), and I'm upset over the result. I'm upset that it continues. I'm upset over the blatent hypocracy of a group that mocked the DNC for challenging the reults but gladly went and challenged the Washington State results for govenor. Hypocracy annoys me.

[+Donny]

I don't know. Do you think that his first priority is "spreading democracy"?

"April 11 2002 changed the course of Venezuela’s history when, the radical but democratically elected President of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez was overthrown in a military coup. Until April 11, Venezuela was South America's oldest democracy, because since 1958, no coup had ever been successful."

This coup was started over disagreements over oil dispersion, and the involvement of US oil companies. This rebellion to overthwo by force a democratically elected leader was backed by the Bush administration (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...nezuela&spell=1).

Do you *really* think that Bush is invading oil-rich nations to "spread democracy"?

I don't know enough about the details, so I can't say anything, but things like this have made me doubt the consistency and sensibility behind neo-conism for quite a while.

And I'm sure Stalin convicted his victims as "enemies of the state"... seems semantics.

That is absurd. Convicted murderers being executed comparable to "enemies of the state" being executed? Come on, Jerry.

and Bush / Cheney led that charge. It's *their* policy. He sent these people to their deaths. Why? "to spread democracy"? See above for that (or tell me why we didn't go into far worse but easier areas like Somalia or Ruwanda).

I have no idea. Are you telling me that every single place we have gone into has had oil? That I am not buying so easily.

Not quite facist (not a single leader), but totalitarian. The neo-cons seem to want to use the country as a way to maintain power and wealth (mostly oil-based in this case).

Or they seem to want to use it to spread neo-con ideals. There are multiple explanations, and I'm willing to bet they all contribute to varying degrees.

I'm not talking about attacking China.. I want to know why we are giving China preferred nation status. I want to know why we are refusing political defectors with valueable intelligence from China. Can you offer me a reason that doesn't boil down to "money"?

No, because I don't know much about politics. All I am saying is that your evidence doesn't prove your case. I am not saying I know enough to offer an elaborate, developed altnerative explanation of everything you throw out there.

Then Bush was stupid, because no one else believed that there were any ties between Iraq and attacks on American soil (you know what I mean by "no one").
There was no evidence for it at all... furthermore, there's support (we can google it if needbe) that Bush was after invading Iraq *before* 9/11.

It is quite possible that his belief was stupid and that 9/11 served as justification for something he had been wanting to do.

But why are neo-con things what they are? Why did we support the overthrow of a democracy in South America while supporting an opressive regime in China? Why did we invade a problem country like Iraq when there are complete disasters in Africa... disasters like Somalia with operating AlQuida, and terrorism, and opression, and genocide, and not a single member of the international community who would oppose us sending troops to straigten them out.

Because neo-cons have tunnel vision? Because they are inconsistent? Because there is more to it than a surface evaluation of "country A has oil, country B doesn't, and country A was invaded"? Probably a combination of the three.

Which begs the question of "why". We know why Afghanistan (they did have BinLauden)... but why invade Iraq? Why try to overthrow Venisuelia? Why not help in the Ivory Coast, or Ruwanda? Why accept a defector from N.Korea then turn down one from China? What pattern can we see?

Iraq = Oil... big money for business.
Vensuelia = Oil... big money for business.
China = manufacturing... big money for business (you do know that's where WalMart gets most of its stuff?)

Somalia = No Oil.
N.Korea = No Oil.
Ruwanda = No Oil.
Ivory Coast = No Oil.

And these are not countries chosen at random. The UN (and many others) have called for aid in Ruwanda, where mass rapes and genocide is still underway. The French (who we called names for not invading Iraq) have been committed to the Ivory Coast for some time trying to help. Somalia (the worlds only country with no government) is famous as a base of operations for Alquida (recall "Black hawk down").

Have we helped any countries without oil? I'm sure we have.
Do oil and money influence the decisions for some neo-cons in power? I'm sure they do. But a one-dimensional, "War for oil/Bush empire" conspiracy theory is stretched.

Depends on how you define "censorship".

Jerry, Bush is not controlling the papers. He is not removing the right to free speech and free press. He has been getting hammered. Michael Moore made "Farenheit 9/11", which tons of people watched. You have no room to accuse him of censorship.

They are in charge, and therefore the root of my current problems... I also find them worse than their major opposition (the Deomcrats). More to the point, I want what's happening to stop.

So do I, but it still doesn't serve as a good argument to support the "Bush is trying to form an empire" claim, as the democrats can be accused of the exact same thing.

Bush won by 537 votes... not much tampering was required.

Not much tampering was possible.

I'm upset over illegal interference in the voting practice (from all who do it), and I'm upset over the result. I'm upset that it continues. I'm upset over the blatent hypocracy of a group that mocked the DNC for challenging the reults but gladly went and challenged the Washington State results for govenor. Hypocracy annoys me.

Then get upset at both parties.
And if you are upset over Hypocrisy, sorry for being blunt but welcome to politics. You study it more than me, you know it's a part of it.

[JerryLove]

That is absurd. Convicted murderers being executed comparable to "enemies of the state" being executed? Come on, Jerry.

Depends on where you look from. It's very easy, being opposed to capital punishment, to see it as "degrees of unwantedness".

I have no idea. Are you telling me that every single place we have gone into has had oil? That I am not buying so easily.

No. For example, Afghanistan did not... and I can tell you why we went there. Are you telling me that you don't see a pattern?

Or they seem to want to use it to spread neo-con ideals. There are multiple explanations, and I'm willing to bet they all contribute to varying degrees.

They apparently are most interested in spreading those ideals to countries with heavy fiscal involvment in the American Oil industry.

No, because I don't know much about politics. All I am saying is that your evidence doesn't prove your case. I am not saying I know enough to offer an elaborate, developed altnerative explanation of everything you throw out there.

Depends on the definition of "prove" here. Under a strict guideline, the answer will almost always be "we don't know" for any motive. Under a more relaxed guideline, I wonder how you can appeal to your own ignorance to assert that your position is correct.

It is quite possible that his belief was stupid and that 9/11 served as justification for something he had been wanting to do.

That's progress. Now we need to know what he wanted to do, why, and what both that want (and the willingness to lie to get it) means about this administration.

Because neo-cons have tunnel vision? Because they are inconsistent? Because there is more to it than a surface evaluation of "country A has oil, country B doesn't, and country A was invaded"? Probably a combination of the three.

Of course it's not as simply as "if they have oil, invade". I'm asserting that "we are seeking to spread democracy" is a sham, and that it's not a signifigant motivation (as proven by their support of an insurgency *against* a democracy).

Have we helped any countries without oil? I'm sure we have.
Do oil and money influence the decisions for some neo-cons in power? I'm sure they do. But a one-dimensional, "War for oil/Bush empire" conspiracy theory is stretched.

You still haven't made a case for supporting n insurrection in Venisuelia. You still have not given a casse for taking a defector from N.Korea but not China, nor invading Iraq but not boycottign China, nor ignoring Somalia, Ruwanda, and the Ivory coast.

I have made a case, and supported it. It's apparent and consistant. You've offered none.

Jerry, Bush is not controlling the papers. He is not removing the right to free speech and free press. He has been getting hammered. Michael Moore made "Farenheit 9/11", which tons of people watched. You have no room to accuse him of censorship.

I don't accuse Bush, personally, of censorship.

So do I, but it still doesn't serve as a good argument to support the "Bush is trying to form an empire" claim, as the democrats can be accused of the exact same thing.

Bush conqured by millitary might two countries. How many did Clinton conquer? How many governments did the Clinton adminstration create whole-cloth?

Not much tampering was possible.

I suspect a lot was possible... but then, I live in FL. What I do know is that not much change would have been neccessairy to reverse the result.

Then get upset at both parties.
And if you are upset over Hypocrisy, sorry for being blunt but welcome to politics. You study it more than me, you know it's a part of it.

I am upset at both parties, but moreso at the republicans. Partially because I find them *more* evil, and partly simply because they are more effective at pulling off evilness.

A democratic president would have readily gotten resistance from a democratic congress... the Republicans are known for being lock-step. I don't think Clinton nor Kerry nor Gore pulled the under-handed tactics Bush did, and I've found every one of them more reasonable and less dishonest.

More to the point, I found my freedoms less infringed and my neighbor's lives less endangerd under the last administration than this one.

[+Donny]

Depends on where you look from. It's very easy, being opposed to capital punishment, to see it as "degrees of unwantedness".

Just like imprisoning child rapists is only different from imprisoning jews in regards to "degrees of unwantedness"?

No. For example, Afghanistan did not... and I can tell you why we went there. Are you telling me that you don't see a pattern?

I don't know enough about it to see a pattern. I'm not saying it's not necessarily there, though. I have admitted that oil and/or money probably is an influence to some people in power. I only object to making it out to be the determiner for all/most people in power.

They apparently are most interested in spreading those ideals to countries with heavy fiscal involvment in the American Oil industry.

Yeah, and what if all the countries were east of here? That's it, they hate people east of America.
The point is that for some, if not most people in power, the correlation could just be circumstantial. I'm not denying the influence altogether, but I'm not convinced it's as big as you make it out to be.
Furthermore, I'm willing to bet you could find some sort of pattern or corrupt motive to invasion of practically any country if you really wanted to. That's why I'm sure a good portion of this is just circumstantial.

Depends on the definition of "prove" here. Under a strict guideline, the answer will almost always be "we don't know" for any motive. Under a more relaxed guideline, I wonder how you can appeal to your own ignorance to assert that your position is correct.

I'm not appealing to my own ignorance to assert that my position is correct. I am merely saying that the evidence you are offering doesn't seem very convincing.

That's progress. Now we need to know what he wanted to do, why, and what both that want (and the willingness to lie to get it) means about this administration.

There is an important line between lying and being misinformed.

Of course it's not as simply as "if they have oil, invade". I'm asserting that "we are seeking to spread democracy" is a sham, and that it's not a signifigant motivation (as proven by their support of an insurgency *against* a democracy).

That is not proven by one example. There would have to be more examination into the situation. Like I said, perhaps there is more below a surface level "they supported a coup against a democracy, therefore they aren't concerned about democracy".

You still haven't made a case for supporting n insurrection in Venisuelia. You still have not given a casse for taking a defector from N.Korea but not China, nor invading Iraq but not boycottign China, nor ignoring Somalia, Ruwanda, and the Ivory coast.

Because I'm not a neo-con and don't know how they think. How can I make a case for something I don't understand, nor know the facts about?

I have made a case, and supported it. It's apparent and consistant. You've offered none.

I specifically said that I am only expressing the fact that I find your evidence unable to bear the enormous burden your claims amount to.

Bush conqured by millitary might two countries. How many did Clinton conquer? How many governments did the Clinton adminstration create whole-cloth?

Conquered? That's an incredibly loose definition of the word "conquer". Very rhetorical and loaded terminology.

I am upset at both parties, but moreso at the republicans. Partially because I find them *more* evil, and partly simply because they are more effective at pulling off evilness.

A democratic president would have readily gotten resistance from a democratic congress... the Republicans are known for being lock-step. I don't think Clinton nor Kerry nor Gore pulled the under-handed tactics Bush did, and I've found every one of them more reasonable and less dishonest.

More to the point, I found my freedoms less infringed and my neighbor's lives less endangerd under the last administration than this one.

None of which supports the idea that Bush is a fascist trying to establish an empire built on the backs of middle eastern oil workers.

[JerryLove]

Just like imprisoning child rapists is only different from imprisoning jews in regards to "degrees of unwantedness"?

Shall I do what you have been doing and find areas where the analogy doesn't work and call it "completely different", as you have done with the move towards totalitarianism the US has made and my comparison?

OK. The purpose of imprisonment for people who have shown they are a danger is to protect the public. Killing someone already imprisoned is not a protective act. You are therefore comparing entirely different things.

I don't know enough about it to see a pattern. I'm not saying it's not necessarily there, though. I have admitted that oil and/or money probably is an influence to some people in power. I only object to making it out to be the determiner for all/most people in power.

But you've admitted you don't know enough to say if it is or is not.

Yeah, and what if all the countries were east of here? That's it, they hate people east of America.
The point is that for some, if not most people in power, the correlation could just be circumstantial. I'm not denying the influence altogether, but I'm not convinced it's as big as you make it out to be.

Give me another one that fits the facts.

Furthermore, I'm willing to bet you could find some sort of pattern or corrupt motive to invasion of practically any country if you really wanted to. That's why I'm sure a good portion of this is just circumstantial.

I'm not talking about a single invasion (though Cheny's profits from the no-bid grant of billions to Haliburton could certainly make a case in one country), but a whole pattern.

Name one other coup against a democratic government that the Bush administration has supported.

I'm not appealing to my own ignorance to assert that my position is correct. I am merely saying that the evidence you are offering doesn't seem very convincing.

To someone who has dismissed it as "I've no idea, but I don't think that would be it". Do you really want to start reviewing Bush and Cheney's ties to oil companies? Would that help?

There is an important line between lying and being misinformed.

So it's a conspiricy of his underlings to lie about global warming (does modifying that report count ans censure?), lie about WMD, lie about most everything.

That is not proven by one example. There would have to be more examination into the situation. Like I said, perhaps there is more below a surface level "they supported a coup against a democracy, therefore they aren't concerned about democracy".

It sounds pretty cut-n-dry to me. You can't argue that you support democracy and then seek to overthrow a democracy by a coup.

I specifically said that I am only expressing the fact that I find your evidence unable to bear the enormous burden your claims amount to.

Based on what. Other than a manifesto signed by Bush in blood, what would it take?

Conquered? That's an incredibly loose definition of the word "conquer". Very rhetorical and loaded terminology.

OK. Clinton to Bush, how many countries had US troops enter the borders, depose the government by force of arms, and then set up a US appointed government?

Less loaded?

None of which supports the idea that Bush is a fascist trying to establish an empire built on the backs of middle eastern oil workers.

Facism != Imperialism. I don't know why you keep putting the two together.

And I've not called him a facist... I've compared the direction of his administration to other opressive regimes, including a facist one. Stop equivocating the entire comparison.

Going after Naziism, in both cases the countries used nationalism to empower a party that took away freedoms in the name of security. They used secret searches, secret courts, and imprisonment without habius corpus. They couched it all in the name of "protecting the fatherland". They even have a scapegoat (Jews or Arabs).

Are there differences? Of course there are (Bush might look good with that little moustache though... it would go with his face), if there weren't differences we couldn't tell the two apart in conversation.

[+Donny]

Shall I do what you have been doing and find areas where the analogy doesn't work and call it "completely different", as you have done with the move towards totalitarianism the US has made and my comparison?

OK. The purpose of imprisonment for people who have shown they are a danger is to protect the public. Killing someone already imprisoned is not a protective act. You are therefore comparing entirely different things.

The issue is degree and relevancy. For example, when comparing Hitler and Stalin as fascists, pointing out a difference in hair color or height doesn't indicate that one was a fascist, and therefore the other one wasn't, because fascism has nothing to do with hair color or height. Obvious an extreme example, but it is not simply a matter of pointing out similarities, but pointing out relevant similarities. The fact that Bush supports the death of people and Stalin supported the death of people is not a good way to compare them because the people and the reason for their deaths are so completely different. I am trying to say that the differences contextually outweight the similarities, making the comparison weak as evidence.

Give me another one that fits the facts.

I'm not attempting to. I'm just evaluating the evidence you have put forth. The only stance I am taking is that the evidence I have seen presented here does not seem to support the idea that Bush is fascist. Bad president? Interested in money/oil, in addition to neo-conism? Both possibilities, but fascist? No.

To someone who has dismissed it as "I've no idea, but I don't think that would be it". Do you really want to start reviewing Bush and Cheney's ties to oil companies? Would that help?

If you can tell me how oil is linked to fascism.

So it's a conspiricy of his underlings to lie about global warming (does modifying that report count ans censure?), lie about WMD, lie about most everything.

What does global warming have to do with fascism?
And why can't it just be that someone screwed up about the WMD intelligence and there was an overreaction based on faulty intelligence?

It sounds pretty cut-n-dry to me. You can't argue that you support democracy and then seek to overthrow a democracy by a coup.

Yes, that part does seem hypocritical, but I'm not about to form an opinion based simply on a surface level look at the situation.

Based on what. Other than a manifesto signed by Bush in blood, what would it take?

Elimination of the opposing political parties. Actually fascist neo-cons. I don't know, but I'm not seeing it.

OK. Clinton to Bush, how many countries had US troops enter the borders, depose the government by force of arms, and then set up a US appointed government?

Less loaded?

Again, what about WWII? Furthermore, setting up a democracy is an expected neo-con approach.

Facism != Imperialism. I don't know why you keep putting the two together.

And I've not called him a facist... I've compared the direction of his administration to other opressive regimes, including a facist one. Stop equivocating the entire comparison.

This began when I responded to someone else who, IIRC, did use the word fascist.

Going after Naziism, in both cases the countries used nationalism to empower a party that took away freedoms in the name of security. They used secret searches, secret courts, and imprisonment without habius corpus. They couched it all in the name of "protecting the fatherland". They even have a scapegoat (Jews or Arabs).

Are there differences? Of course there are (Bush might look good with that little moustache though... it would go with his face), if there weren't differences we couldn't tell the two apart in conversation.

See above about weight of differences/similarities.



Basically, what I am trying to say is that most of the evidence I am seeing seems like it can be explained as normal neo-conism. Because there is an alternative explanation that doesn't involve any conspiracy theories and is just overall more moderate and simple, I do not see enough proof to sway me to believe that Bush is an aspiring emperor or a fascist, or whatever. Furthermore, I find the comparisons to people like Hitler and Stalin illegitimate because of how much the dissimilarities outweigh the similarities. All the comparison shows is that neo-conism has some things in similar to horrific examples of fascism, but the differences mean that one must horribly abuse neo-conism to bring it to that level, as neo-conism opposes what makes those fascist leaders so horrible (persecution, death, purges, etc.).
Furthermore, as I pointed out earlier, this country was founded in part on the idea that one gives up freedoms for safey, so just because Hitler used that reasoning to justify his abuses doesn't mean the reasoning itself is wrong. Some things that can be abused can also be used properly and for good.

[Jeffrey]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

For all of Guantanimo's problems, it's not even as similar as the concentration campes we put Japaneese-Americans in in the 40s.

Or the sex camps the Japanese put Korean women in.

Frankly, there's more to this amendment than burning flags. There has to be - I have never seen a flag burnt in front of me, despite having observed many anti-war, anti-business protests on my campus. I haven't seen the news after 9/11 filled with stories of burnt flags. I'd have to study the wording of this amendment - it may seem simple ("Let's stop flag desecration"), but Flag Fever isn't exactly an epidemic in this country. So what would they really have to gain in this?

Three options:
1. They really believe there's a sanctity to the flag to be protected. I'd be amazed and impressed by their altruism if this was the case, even though I think this amendment is poor.
2. They are passing an easy amendment to bolster their image in the eyes of Americans, gaining support from a nation increasingly sensitive to matters of national prestige.
3. They have ulterior motives, and this amendment will give the government the power to involve themselves in other matters of expression.

[Danny]

Originally Posted by Jeffrey

Or the sex camps the Japanese put Korean women in.

Frankly, there's more to this amendment than burning flags. There has to be - I have never seen a flag burnt in front of me, despite having observed many anti-war, anti-business protests on my campus. I haven't seen the news after 9/11 filled with stories of burnt flags. I'd have to study the wording of this amendment - it may seem simple ("Let's stop flag desecration"), but Flag Fever isn't exactly an epidemic in this country. So what would they really have to gain in this?

Three options:
1. They really believe there's a sanctity to the flag to be protected. I'd be amazed and impressed by their altruism if this was the case, even though I think this amendment is poor.
2. They are passing an easy amendment to bolster their image in the eyes of Americans, gaining support from a nation increasingly sensitive to matters of national prestige.
3. They have ulterior motives, and this amendment will give the government the power to involve themselves in other matters of expression.

The wording is simple:

Originally Posted by CNN.com

The proposed one-line amendment to the Constitution reads, "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."