posted on April 2, 2002 02:14:21 AM new
What the Bush administration considers "none of your business" is both unprecedented and mind-boggling.
"In free governments, the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors and sovereigns." Benjamin Franklin said that.
And Thomas Jefferson added: "When a man assumes a public trust, he should consider himself as public property."
George W. Bush has it exactly backwards. He thinks the government of the United States of America is his, to do with, as he pleases. That’s the problem with a puppet - he responds only to the puppet master, and to no one else. George has been told by his handlers that he is the ruler - the leader -
and he believes them. George has been told by his handlers that he needn’t worry about ethics, or honesty, or integrity, or even
constitutional checks and balances. He can do whatever he’s told to do, by edict alone.
For the Bushies, government is a big secret. Undisclosed locations, undisclosed shadow governments, undisclosed misinformation,
disinformation,false-information, non-information and executive privilege are the hallmarks of this administration, all of which, of course, are designed to keep the interests of the people at bay, provide cover for the plutocracy, and maintain the fiction that George W. Bush is competent.
Here’s a partial list of what is undisclosed by the Bush administration: George W. Bush’s driving record (a secret); George W.Bush’s drug use record (a secret); ALL records from the Reagan and Daddy Bush presidencies (a secret); ALL records of George W.’s years as governor of Texas (a secret); plans and provisions for the "shadow government" (a secret); plans for first-strike nuclear weapons (a secret); use of torture to
interrogate suspects (a secret); identities of suspects (a secret); FBI investigations into the anthrax attacks (a secret); FBI investigations into FBI misconduct,including knowingly allowing an innocent man to rot in prison for decades (a secret); and oh yeah, the nation’s energy policy (a big secret).
This Bush administration has turned government on its head. George W. Bush is not a public servant - he's a private puppet. The Bush handlers don’t even bother to pretend to subscribe to the principles of our founding fathers any longer. They think they have the power. They think they are in control.
They think they can do whatever the hell they want.
Michael Ventura said it best, when he wrote in the Austin Chronicle of the Bushies: "They ignore Congress almost completely on
crucial issues; they feel no obligation to inform American citizens of the White House's deliberations or even of its policies(!), whether or not national security is at stake; they concentrate tremendous power among the very few. That is not conservatism. There is only one word that adequately describes the bent and preference of George W. Bush's White House: Totalitarian."
posted on April 2, 2002 06:54:15 AM new
Hitler had his "not very bright", way less bright and desperate; Omar had his uneducated and desperate plentitudes and his Taliban took control of education to the point of it being restricted to the "Koran" only; and the USA isn't tipping any scales in the IQ or informed departments, because the education here sucks for the most part; convenient? But hey, boys...
posted on April 2, 2002 07:32:56 AM new"And what if the people start asking questions about any of these secrets? Stonewall! Lie! Ignore the law! Break the law! Let’s look at just one of the current examples:"
"According to the 1972 Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Bush administration’s Energy Task Force, whether it’s called a committee or not, "...must make all of its proceedings open to the public, keep records of the proceedings, and accommodate a broad spectrum of views."
"That’s the law, folks."
"And yet, this administration has not only failed to follow the law, it has refused, even under court order, to disclose to the American people, the proceedings of the committee."
KadyD . . . NearTheSea ... come explain this! How come Clinton gets Impeacment for a blowjob and Bush gets to openly break law after law after law? In fact, ANY Republican can come in here and please explain why Bush gets to do that!
posted on April 2, 2002 10:56:57 AM new
Borillar, I have no idea why you would invite me to explain (defend) Bush's (or his father's) policies. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for Bush (Sr. or Jr.). I will not vote for Bush in the next go-round. Because I don't agree with your lunatic political opinions doesn't mean I am a "Bushie" or a Republican.
Frankly, I think you give Democrats a bad name. You and the rest of your lunatic fringe conspirator cronies are friggin nuts. And that's all I have to say about it.
posted on April 2, 2002 11:42:30 AM new
>>How come Clinton gets Impeachment for a blowjob<<
The ONLY thing funny about this American humiliation (and I'm not refering to Bill's good times)was that that this was newsworthy, and a matter of great political consequence, had half the globe peeing in their pants from laughing so hard.
In all fairness most of the fringe lunatic people who post here have one thing in common. They are technically correct in saying that the government is way out of control from what the constitution authorizes them to do.
The constitution does not give Congress power to print fiat money much less give away the power to do so to a quasi-govermental authority like the Federal Reserve Board.
Technically they only have the power to strike specie.
The situation is also way out of control with Congress failing to use the powers granted it such as the ability to declare war - which they have refused to do and passed by default to the executive branch.
Secret trials.
Confiscation of property by forfeiture.
Usurption of powers reserved to the states and people.
Secret wars.
Sale of influence.
They are correct but it does not matter.
The government has the POWER to put you in jail or kill you if you are not willing to at the very least stand aside and let them run things any way they want.
I see the chances of an armed rebellion to remove the unlawful powers as zero - ziltch - nada.
Just as the Palestinians are nuts if they think they can fight the Israeli government with rifles and pistols there is no power base here to oppose the government.
Do you have any doubt that if the army was called out they would mow down the citizens in the street like hay?
Oh yeah - the army is not supposed to be used against civilians. Guess they will have to call them Homeland Defenders or such. But they will still have armor and heavy weapons.
posted on April 2, 2002 12:19:19 PM new
I'm still curious as to where the ARP HQ is. It wouldn't be on your hard drive, would it Borillar? You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on April 2, 2002 04:04:11 PM new
How extremely rude you are, KadyD! Nasty!
Since you have often taken the Conservative side of issues, it seemed to me that you had also sided with Bush before. Forgive me for not checking my notes (sheese!)
As far as the rest of your opinions go about my opinions, they've been filed into the appropraite container and flushed down with the rest of the floatsom.
posted on April 2, 2002 04:33:39 PM newSince you have often taken the Conservative side of issues, it seemed to me that you had also sided with Bush before.
Nope. You have me confused with someone else. However, if you think that it is "siding with Bush" when I've disagreed with you vis a vis the events of 9/11, the various lunatic conspiracies floating out there about how the damn plane never hit the Pentagon, and whether 9/11 was a big ol' Bush and Republican cronies conspiracy to stir trouble and make money...then yes, I've disagreed with you and no, I don't believe it. And frankly, I can't think of one duly elected Democrat that will agree with you either. In fact, I can't think of many friggin crazy topics you've frothed about that any elected Democrat has agreed with either. You give Democrats a bad image. I pity your poor neighbors. I don't blame them for voting Republican if they think YOU are the alternative.
posted on April 2, 2002 04:44:11 PM new
I find that interesting KatyD I really do. I am not upset easy by a few swear words. But they really don't tell me WHY you think I am nuts.
Notice I am not calling you names. I would rather hear specifically why I am nuts than just get all bent and call you something back.
Would you humor me please just a little and tell me why I am a fruit cake?
Am I not understanding what I read in the history bookd and in the Constitution?
Or is it that a person is crazy to point out the obvious?
Really please answer - do you think that the present way the government operates is what the founding fathers intended?
Does it really look perfectly OK and legal to you?
Is it just automatically OK because they ARE the government? That is should we just shut up and accept whatever these superior people tell us?
If you doubt the only way the government operates is by force tell me how many people would pay their income tax next year if there was NO threat of jail.
[ edited by gravid on Apr 2, 2002 04:48 PM ]
posted on April 2, 2002 04:52:38 PM new
Well I'm disappointed. I thought you could at least tell me which specific point you thought was wrong. I didn'y need a big long winded thing. And obviously I am not interested in attacking you, but if you can't make any answer at all I have no reason to change any of the views stated. I AM capable of changing views if I am given a good reason.
posted on April 2, 2002 04:59:35 PM new
Gravid. You seem like a fairly nice person and I often enjoy reading your tales and all, but I DON'T CARE what your views are. I DON'T CARE if you change them or not. YOU responded to my post to Borillar. I never said whether I agree or disagree with any of your "points". I was responding to Borillar's ignorant assumption that because I think he's a 5150, that I am a Bush supporter. I wasn't posting in support or disagreement. So think whatever you like about it. I don't care.
posted on April 2, 2002 07:35:33 PM new
Let me get this straight. KatyD calls Gravid names "nutty" and "fruitcake" I believe. (I lost "copy/paste" and I ain't going back right now.) Gravid, in a reasonable and rational manner basically asks KatyD., "what is it about my thoughts that would make you call me these names. Not that I find some name-calling offensive but I find it helpful in context so could you please tell me which thought/s disturb you and why?" KatyD's essential response is "Kiss off, nice guy that you are."
Might it be that KatyD. simply can't answer the question?
posted on April 2, 2002 09:56:00 PM new
Blathering again Ken? I've been wondering what bridge you've been hiding under.
I appreciate your interest, but no need for your concern. You and Borillar fill the required "fool quota" for this forum quite adequately, I'd wager. I suppose somebody has to do it.
Now drink your milk and toddle off to bed like a good boy.
