posted on November 8, 2002 06:20:41 PM new
Driving home this evening, I tuned into a talk radio station I don't usually listen to, and happened upon someone called Dr. Savage (apparently a medical doctor at some time in the past).
He was ranting on about people who dare to oppose a war in Iraq and I was listening with half an ear when suddenly he grabbed my full attention. "When," Dr. Savage said, "does dissent become sedition?" He claimed to be all for dissent (yeah right) stating that he had "dissented" against the medical establishment back in the 70s by backing natural cures & food supplements over traditional medicines. Ooooh. He went on to state emphatically that anyone against a war with Iraq is preaching sedition & should be up on charges. Then he harked back to the good old days & said that another HUAC should be formed pronto and anyone going against the Bush regime should be brought before it!
Oh joy. The Republicans have had the majority only 3 days and already some are calling for the fist to tighten!
To answer a question posed in another thread, things like *this* are why we should hold on fervently to our right to bear arms. Folks talking about "organized militias" are most likely talking about a group sanctioned by the federal government. But this right was put in place precisely to protect the citizenry *from* the federal government...
posted on November 8, 2002 07:10:12 PM new
Yah, I've listened to that jackass on his talk radio show, "The Savage Nation." It isn't so much the anti-American things that he says while wrapping himself up in the American flag, it is the callers that baffle me. Maybe they only put the looney-tune callers on so that the rest of the neo-nazis in American won't have to feel so alone. Sometimes the callers are worse, but most call to suck up to him. Personally, I wish Savage and his followers and the Bush Adminstration would get out of America and leave it alone! Wishful thinking, that.
posted on November 8, 2002 07:29:33 PM newanyone going against the Bush regime should be brought before it!
The junta cometh.
He went on to state emphatically that anyone against a war with Iraq is preaching sedition & should be up on charges
"SEDITION - Conduct which is directed against a government and which tends toward insurrection but does not amount to treason. Treasonous conduct consists of levying war against the United States or of adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
The raising commotions or disturbances in the state; it is a revolt against legitimate authority.
The distinction between sedition and treason consists in this, that though its ultimate object is a violation of the public peace, or at least such a course of measures as evidently engenders it, yet it does not aim at direct and open violence against the laws, or the subversion of the Constitution.
The. obnoxious and obsolete act of July 14, 1798, was called the sedition law, because its professed object was to prevent disturbances."
posted on November 8, 2002 08:34:52 PM new
The speed that this country is going to hell is scary. What the doctor is talking about is nonsense now but just wait a few months.
I believe that the election was decided when the Democrats approved the Iraq war plan. Most Americans probably saw that as the beginning of the end of the Democratic Party. That explains why only 40% even bothered to vote. This was no massive approval vote for Bush. Almost every election was a cliff hanger. Americans didn't suddenly decide that they are in favor of war and tax cuts for the wealthy, environmental destruction, loss of jobs and social services. The Democratic Party is in serious trouble.
Cuts in social spending will escalate along with loss of civil liberties as the Department of Homeland Security is established under the ruse of a war on terrorism. And "Homeland Security" will usher in the era when opinion may, in fact, become sedition.
posted on November 8, 2002 09:28:16 PM new
Chris Matthews' show last night featured that moron Dornan, Pat Robertson and someone else whose dynamic persona escapes me at the moment. These goofballs are the new spokesmen for the party that claims to represent mainstream America. Looks like a little sedition is definitely in order...
posted on November 8, 2002 11:06:58 PM new
It is going to have to get a lot, lot darker before America realizes that it is in serious trouble. The Republicans and the Bush Administration knows this. They know that at some point, the American people will wake up and rise up and attempt to sweep them out of power.
This is why they want to take away our guns, so that we can not rise up against their millitary might; this is why they have in several ways deleted the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution, so that we will have no legal justification, nor use a Right as a self-defense against the depravities of the state; this is why they want to run the economy into the ground, so that they can make slaves and cannon-fodder of our kids and grandkids; this is why they control nearly all of the media (except the Internet), so that we can not know that others are also fighting and take heart. They know it will happen and they are trying to do every single thing that they can think of to defeat us.
How many have already dissappeared into the middle of the night under the Patriot Act? How many have vanished, incommunicato, without being charged with a crime, without any hope? Have any of you even tried to think about that? People ARE missing, but we won't hear of it, mnainly because we can't prove it. When we can prove it, it will be too late. All dissent will be sedition.
posted on November 9, 2002 06:12:39 AM new
"Personally, I wish Savage and his followers and the Bush Adminstration would get out of America and leave it alone! Wishful thinking, that."
I'm sure they feel the same about you and yours. Why don't the two of you flip a coin to see who leaves.
posted on November 9, 2002 11:11:51 AM newThis is why they want to take away our guns, so that we can not rise up against their millitary might
I'm curious about something, Borillar. What percentage of the population would you feel you would need to agree with your actions before you felt it was O.K. to rise up against the governement with guns? How would you know for sure that you had that percentage support from the population?
posted on November 9, 2002 12:38:41 PM new
Borillar,
"This is why they want to take away our guns, so that we can not rise up against their millitary might"
I find this statement very funny since the last time I checked, it was the liberal democrats that wanted to remove the guns from everyone, not the Republicans.
The problem is now going to be that the democrats will be going more liberal, this will mean a sure victory in 2004 since most of the country is moderate to conservative (not hard right). If the democrats go hard left, there will be a bigger republican majority in 2004. Also remember, the republicans did have control of the Senate until Jim Jefferts became an independant and sided with the Democrats.
posted on November 9, 2002 01:20:51 PM newThis was no massive approval vote for Bush. Almost every election was a cliff hanger.
Far from it. The Senate races in Tennessee, South Carolina, and North Carolina were blowouts. Most House races were blowouts with very few exceptions. The races that were indeed close were (for the most part) in traditionally Democratric leaning states where the Republican candidate either won or barely lost against the usual tide of state politics. Bush should take the mandate (and yes, it WAS a mandate, and run with it. Finally, we have a chance to get some decent judges placed on the bench.
And as for Michael Savage, he has been quite critical of the Bush administration of late. The reason he supports Bush overall is because of the lack of a common sense alternative on the Democratic side. Tom Daschle? A big joke. Al Gore? He couldn't get elected dog catcher after the shameful way that he handled himself after losing the 2000 Presidential election. Yes, it's a great time to be a Republican and an American.
[ edited by mrbusinessman on Nov 9, 2002 01:25 PM ]
posted on November 9, 2002 01:41:23 PM newLESS THAN ZERO DEMS
by David Corn
It's hard to beat something with nothing. That seems to be especially true when that something includes a quasi-wartime President (post-Afghanistan/pre-Iraq) whose approval rating is in the mid-60s. George W. Bush and Karl Rove took a gamble. At a moment when the economy was slacking, Al Qaeda was reviving, North Korea was going nuclear and Iraq (according to Bush) was threatening, Bush took time off to be a divide-not-unite campaigner for GOP candidates, several of whom his White House had handpicked.
What did the Democrats--under the leadership of Tom Daschle, Dick Gephardt and Terry McAuliffe--put up in response? Not much, in the eyes of many Americans. In a poll published by the New York Times two days before Election Day the pollsters asked, "Do the Republicans have a clear plan for the country if they gain control of the Congress?" "Yes" narrowly beat "no," 42 percent to 39 percent. But when the same question was applied to the Democrats, only 31 percent said yes, and 49 percent answered no. So the Democrats failed to concoct a meta-message. The GOP is the party of war and tax cuts. The Democratic Party is the party of... well, war too (kind of) and, on tax cuts, not really, but some of us are for them, and in any case we're not going to fight them, even though others of us think they're tilted toward the rich and have caused a budget-strangling deficit. Without a clear position on the tax cuts, the Democrats had no clear-cut economic assault. Sure, Gephardt released an economic plan to help working families. But--quick--name one of its provisions.
The Democrats should be sued for malpractice--or nonpractice. A sluggish economy, corporate scandals, deteriorating 401(k)s--they took advantage of none of it. When was the last Senate hearing on Enron? (With the Senate in the hands of the Republicans, there won't be many of those in the future.) Where was the frontal assault on Bush's corporate cronyism? It would have benefited from the latest scandal at the Securities and Exchange Commission, which broke the week before the elections. Did the party decry the accelerating gap between wealthy and working-class Americans? Did they revive the call for healthcare for all? What was their slogan? "The economy sucks, so vote for us"? At the same time, national Democrats were praising Bush for performing outstandingly as Commander in Chief. They were saying he could be trusted on war and peace, but not on the economy. That's a hard sell, while the war--or pseudo-war--is ongoing.
True, the media environment wasn't favorable for the Dems. Coverage of the off-year election was down. War talk and the DC sniper overwhelmed the national discourse. And those crafty Republicans tried to blur differences and, in most cases, eschewed strategic ideological thrusts. They scurried away from the party's previous embrace of Social Security privatization. Social Security? We're for protecting it, too! Prescription drug benefits for seniors? We're for that, too. In the aftermath of Paul Wellstone's tragic death, Minnesota Democrat-turned-Republican Norman Coleman revamped his campaign, from attacking Wellstone to declaring his concern for the future. "We're going to articulate our vision of why the future is now," he bleated on his way to beating Walter Mondale. Yet Republicans were not shy in whacking Democrats for being weak on national security. The Democrats presented no equally potent blast concerning Bush/GOP economic policy. And they did not offer any initiatives for which the GOP could not produce cover-your-ass copycat versions.
Democrats shouldn't waste time with excuses. The leaders who failed the party ought to be booted. And now the Republicans are ready to rumble. More tax cuts for the well-to-do. More loopholes for the corporate crowd. More deregulation. More conservative judges. A modest prescription drug benefit the GOP will hail as revolutionary. The path to war will be even easier. The tools left to Senate Democrats are the filibuster and the antidemocratic practice that permits one member to place a hold on a presidential appointment--weapons difficult to use consistently.
Before Election Day, political journalists and poli-sci scholars seemed to reach a consensus that in 50-50 America, neither party had much incentive to engage in breakout politics--politics based on big and bold ideas. Many of them dubbed campaign 2002 "the Seinfeld Election"--it was about nothing. (Elections can have little meaning, but still matter greatly.) But with the dust still in the air, it seems as if the GOP may not have to engage in breakout politics to maintain a significant edge. Resentment over the Florida recount fiasco did not work for the Democrats. Nor did economic anxiety. Nor did McAuliffe's supersized fundraising. Nor did accommodating Bush. In the next two years, they may have to resort to ideas.
posted on November 9, 2002 02:52:26 PM new
>I'm sure they feel the same about you and yours. Why don't the two of you flip a coin to see who leaves.
And even STILL more insults!
Tex, if you keep this up, I'm going to make a formal complaint to AW aboiut your behavior.
AUCTION WATCH COMMUNITY GUIDELINES
8.6. Breach. You will breach this Agreement if you: a) Harass, threaten, or intimidate another member or AuctionWatch staff. During debate or disagreement, always address the issue at hand, not the individual.
You know, I'm really getting sick of this. If posters can't post without addressing the issue at hand, instead of harassing posters, I'm going to see to it that they simply can't post here anymore. I've been as nice as can be, I address the issues at hand as best that I can, I don't insult BACK at others anymore. So either you contribute as per the Community Guidelines or go lurk!
posted on November 9, 2002 02:54:54 PM new
>I'm curious about something, Borillar. What percentage of the population would you feel you would need to agree with your actions before you felt it was O.K. to rise up against the governement with guns? How would you know for sure that you had that percentage support from the population?
I have no idea, Irene. However, if the peole of this country DID have to make that choice, the government is now ensuring that it can deal ruthlessly with any insurrection, on any scale - say, comments made on AuctionWatch, or in a private newsletter.
posted on November 9, 2002 02:58:19 PM new
>Borillar,
>
>"This is why they want to take away our guns, so that we can not rise up against their millitary might"
>
>I find this statement very funny since the last time I checked, it was the liberal democrats that wanted to remove the guns from everyone, not the Republicans.
-thchaser200-
Why do you find it funny? I can't see what you're driving at. Explain your comments, please.
posted on November 9, 2002 03:06:28 PM new
> Yes, it's a great time to be a Republican and an American.
-mrbusinessman-
I'll agree with the first part of that statement and disagree with the latter.
The Democrat's answer to their problems is too swing to the far left - just as you said. What a tragic mistake that is! The ONLY way that I can see the Democrats saving their party is for all of the politicians and democrats to get into the trenches with "the common folk" of America and fight side-by-side with them. That means to risk getting Billy-clubbed in a demonstration, to risk being arrested on trumped-up charges in the middle of the night, to dirty, greasy, and sweaty with a working folk of this land and to breath the same air that they do. They will have to immerse themselves into the problems to be able to lead them to the solutions. They can't go about acting like Lords and Ladies of the Court anymore. Personally, I don't see many of them willing to get their hands "dirty" with the rest of us, so I can't see that the Democrats will ever matter again. Instead, I see the party breaking up and being absorbed into other minority political parties.
posted on November 9, 2002 03:31:22 PM new
"Tex, if you keep this up, I'm going to make a formal complaint to AW aboiut your behavior."
If you can find an insult, please, do file a complaint. You appear to have a problem living in the same country with certain factions, with which you have political differences. I was offering you a solution that would make the country a better place to live.
posted on November 9, 2002 03:47:26 PM newThe Democrats should be sued for malpractice--or nonpractice. A sluggish economy, corporate scandals, deteriorating 401(k)s--they took advantage of none of it.
They took advantage of none of it because they couldn't. Why not? Because upon careful reflection on these issues it's quite apparent that the Republicanss weren't at fault. This is backed up by poll after poll. The voters are no longer buying the bill of goods that the left has been trying to sell.
posted on November 9, 2002 07:10:41 PM new
The article that Helen posted above referenced a question in a recent poll about the vision of the future that our political parties presented. I remember reading an article about the results of that poll and there was another question that I thought more significant.
When asked whether or not their children's future lives would be better than theirs now, 66% of those polled answered "no." Though people might quibble or fight endlessly about what would qualify as a better life, I assume that the majority envision a time of peace and prosperity. And they are right. I see nothing in the present that will move us in that direction.
It's not really a pessimistic view so much as a realistic one. Except for the relatively small zealous factions in the society, the majority of people are indifferent and would prefer to remain uninvolved. It's essentially a child-like view of the adult-world, a problematic world which doesn't make much sense, so it's best to go back to the serious business of cartoons and toys and to trust in the re-assurances of the surrogate parental authorities.
posted on November 9, 2002 07:15:36 PM new
The Democrats and the Republicans are not that far apart anymore. I call them corpocrats--beholden to the corporate interests and not to the interests of the people.
Campaign finance has to change. These politicians along with their corporate masters are destroying the industrial/manufacuring base of the this country. The jobs are relocating to China at 50 cents an hour.
posted on November 9, 2002 07:58:30 PM new
Antiquary
I think that I found the article that you mentioned and was referenced in the first article. Thanks for telling me about it!
In Poll, Americans Say Both Parties Lack Clear Vision
By ADAM NAGOURNEY and JANET ELDER
The battle for control of Congress moved into its final stretch with Americans unsettled about conditions at home and threats from abroad, but saying that Democrats and Republicans have failed to offer a clear vision about how they would lead the nation, the latest New York Times/CBS News Poll shows.
The poll also found an emerging divide between Democrats and Republicans in their perception of the state of the nation and the problems it faces this fall. More than twice as many Republicans as Democrats — 63 percent compared with 27 percent — said the country was heading in the right direction. Democrats were twice as likely as Republicans to say the economy was the primary issue that would determine their vote.
These findings come in the closing days of a campaign that has failed to stir much interest among voters. Nearly half said they were less enthusiastic about voting this time than they have been in past Congressional campaigns.
But the poll suggested that if many voters were uninspired with the candidates, many were worried about where the country was heading, and about the challenges the next Congress would face. Americans expressed concerns about a worsening economy, the prospect of a war with Iraq and terrorist attacks at home. In one sign of disquiet, a substantial majority, 66 percent, said they believed life would not be better for their children than it was for them.
The final poll of this campaign suggested some difficulties for Democrats as they seek to win back control of the House, a goal that party leaders have in recent days described as daunting, while maintaining control of the Senate. Despite a flurry of speeches, advertisements and policy papers issued by Democratic leaders over the last month, barely a third of respondents said the Democrats had presented a "clear plan for the country" in the fall campaign. About 4 in 10 respondents said the same thing about the Republican Party.
In one closely watched if imprecise measure of the overall partisan strength of the two parties, 47 percent of likely voters said they would vote for a Republican in next week's Congressional contest, compared with 40 percent who said they would vote Democratic. The margin of sampling error for that question was plus or minus five percentage points.
But that question, known as a generic ballot question, is a measure of national sentiment, and does not necessarily reflect how Americans will vote in the governor's races around the country and in the handful of close Senate and House races that will ultimately determine the control of Congress.
The concern among Democrats about the nation's direction and the economy suggests that Democratic voters might be more motivated to cast their ballots on Tuesday and respond to the ambitious get-out-the-vote drives that have been organized by the Democratic Party, aimed in particular at voters who are distressed about the economy.
President Bush, who has invested so much of his own political capital in the outcome of the elections, remains extremely popular with voters. In this poll, 62 percent of respondents said they approved of how he was handling his job, though that is down markedly from his 74 percent rating of last summer.
The nationwide poll of 1,018 Americans, including 795 registered voters, was taken from Oct. 27 to Oct. 31. The margin of error for the overall poll was plus or minus three percentage points.
The poll found that the political significance many Democratic and Republican analysts in Washington ascribed to the vote in Congress on the Iraq resolution might have been overstated. Nearly two-thirds of respondents said they had no notion of how their representative had voted on the Iraq resolution that passed Congress last month. Twice as many voters said that a candidate's position on the economy was more important to them than how that candidate had voted on Iraq.
The poll came at the close of an extraordinarily competitive campaign for Congress that will determine whether a single party, the Republicans, will control the White House, the Senate and the House for at least the next two years. The Republicans now have a six-seat edge in the House, while the Democrats held a single-seat margin in the Senate until the death of Paul Wellstone.
As a final measure of just how competitive these contests are, President Bush turned his weekend into a nonstop campaign swing, visiting states and Congressional districts that remained close in these final days. A visit by Mr. Bush, White House aides said, produces a bounce of support for the Republican candidate that can last for two or three days, so this last weekend of trips has taken on particular significance.
Yet for all the attention being showered on these races by the president and the national political committees this weekend, the poll found that many Americans remained unmoved by the contests before them — and unimpressed with the candidates and what they are saying. About 40 percent of voters said they were less enthusiastic about voting in this election than in previous Congressional elections.
"There used to be more enthusiasm and the issues were clearer," Claire Forst, 50, a nurse from Brooklyn, said in a follow-up interview. "Now you just feel that there is no reason to go out to vote because whatever happens, it's not going to matter anymore."
At the same time, Americans are clearly unsettled about the problems facing the nation. More than half of all respondents said they believed the nation was heading in the wrong direction; by a similar margin, Americans said the economy was in fairly bad or very bad shape. In this latest poll, 59 percent of Americans said they believed an attack on Iraq would worsen the threat of a terrorist attack in the United States, an increase of 9 points from a month ago.
"Saddam scares me," said Linda Annan, 53, a clerk from Lancaster, Pa., who is a Democrat. "Going to war scares me. The economy has me concerned."
Chris Spensberg, 49, a Republican from Wisconsin Rapids, Wis., said, "With the economy and the world situation with Iraq and terrorism, you don't really have a notion that anybody has a clear-cut answer to take care of them."
The economy continues to be the issue of principal concern among the electorate: 15 percent of respondents named it as the most important issue. By contrast, just 2 percent of respondents named terrorism and 2 percent said foreign policy.
In one sense, that is precisely what Democratic strategists had hoped for in laying out a plan this year to win back control of the House, in the belief that voters would turn to Democrats at a time when they were concerned about the nation's economic health.
But for whatever reason — the success President Bush had in focusing attention on Iraq, or what some Democrats say is the party's failure to offer its own economic plan — there is little evidence to date that the Democrats have been able to take command of the issue. The nation was evenly divided over which party was more likely to make the country prosperous: 38 percent of respondents named Republicans, while 39 percent named Democrats.
There were still some clear differences among voters in how they viewed the strengths of the parties. By a three-to-one margin, voters said Republicans were more likely than Democrats to provide the nation with a strong military. By nearly the same margin, voters said Democrats were more likely than Republicans to make certain that prescription drugs were affordable to the elderly.
For Mr. Bush, there has, over the last month, been a slight increase — to 35 percent from 27 percent — in the number of people who say he is "paying enough attention" to the economy. The rise coincides with a period in which the White House made a concerted effort to portray Mr. Bush as concerned with that issue. At the same time, 54 percent of respondents in this poll said they approved of the president's handling of foreign policy, among the lowest figures since the World Trade Center attack of last September.
Still, as always, there was mixed evidence of the degree to which Mr. Bush benefited Republican candidates, and how much weight his appeal for a Republican Congress might carry.
Nearly half of voters said it was "better for the country" to have divided government. About 40 percent said the president was not a factor in their vote, while 31 percent said they considered their vote to be one of support for Mr. Bush and 19 percent considered their vote to be in opposition to him.
"I really support Bush," said Nona Hesson, 58, a retired teacher from Kerrville, Tex., who is a Republican. "If the Republicans get control of Congress, I think it would be a lot easier for Bush to get his point across."
But, Ms. Hesson added: "I don't want things to just be railroaded through. I think if we had equal representation in Congress, it would be the best solution, rather than one party having main control."
posted on November 10, 2002 12:14:34 AM new
>It's unbelievable that with so much at stake that less than 40% care enough to vote.
Helen, maybe the other 60% are too dissolusioned with both parties and it doesn't matter to htem which bogus political party is ruling, because neither of them represents mainstream Americans.
I think that we ought to let the Republicans do their thing for five or ten years without obstuction from political parties, Americans, or other world leaders. Americans are either too ignorant to understand the danger to themselves by not voting or they are too stupid. Either way, they (and we) are about to get a lesson in civics that won't be forgotten for a few more hundred years.
posted on November 10, 2002 08:27:19 AM new
Our "ship of state" is a wreck with an idiot in the captain's chair.
"We see many instances of cifies going down like sinking ships to their destruction . There have been such wrecks in the past and there surely will be others in the future, caused by the wickedness of captains and crews alike. For these are guilty men, whose sin is supreme ignorance of what matters most."
posted on November 10, 2002 09:09:46 AM newOur "ship of state" is a wreck with an idiot in the captain's chair.
This is an excellent example of the degree to which the Democrats continue to underestimate the President.
This "idiot" President has responded to the Sept. 11 attacks in a forceful way that Al Gore couldn't have even conceived.
This "idiot" President has managed to keep the economy from the devastation that one would normally expect after losing the world's center of international finance (WTC) and the huge losses incurred by the insurance companies and other businesses as a direct result of that attack.
This "idiot" President has maintained a 65% approval rating among the American people, the majority of whom describe themselves as Democrats.
This "idiot" President's party has taken control of BOTH houses of Congress in an off-year election, a feat that is not only unusual, it is unprecendented in American history.
This "idiot" President put his own historic high approval rating on the line by campaigning vigorously for Republican candidates (including the unfairly maligned Jeb Bush) in the final weeks of the campaign. As expected, it worked out splendidly.
This "idiot" President holds an MBA from an Ivy League University, the first to do so.
This "idiot" President was elected Governor of the nation's second largest state not once, but twice. And this after successfully beating a bout with alcoholism.
This "idiot" President was elected over Al Gore, who was Vice-President for 8 years.
This "idiot" President will be elected to a second term as well. Why? Two reasons: 1) He is a great leader who was intelligent enough to surround himself with the most qualified cabinet members and advisors that he could find. 2) Those on the other side of the political aisle continue to underestimate his intelligence and leadership abilities. Please, by all means, don't stop!
posted on November 10, 2002 11:36:32 AM new
I find the statement that republicans want to take away guns since it is the democrats that have constantly preached gun control and the not republicans.
As for Helen's comment about the President being an idiot. It just shows how bad of a sore loser she really is. You may have the opinion that the President is an idiot, however, a majority of voters do not. What are going to do if he gets re-elected, cry some more? Or insult posters on their grammer and spelling. Your posts show just how hateful democrats really are.
What percentage of the population would you feel you would need to agree with your actions before you felt it was O.K. to rise up against the governement with guns? How would you know for sure that you had that percentage support from the population?