The World Can't Wait mass protest reminder [Archive]

andyandy

23rd September 2006, 02:34 AM

sample FAQ (a follow up after they've "established" that Bush is a fascist)

Q: But it's not fascism until I'm affected and besides we still have free speech, no one is putting people in concentration camps. People in this country won't move unless they are directly affected by something like the draft.

A: Denial, Denial, Denial, then freak-out & capitulate because it's too late. How many people in history have done this - passively hoped to wait it out, only to get swallowed up by a horror they never imagined nor wished on anyone?A lot of people remember the famous statement of Martin Niemoller, the German clergyman who resisted Hitler, but too late to make a real difference. After the war, Niemoller said, "First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing; then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I said nothing. . ." and so on down the line, ending with: "then they came for me, and by that time there was no one left to stand up."Niemoller didn't make his statement and sum up experience so that people could REPEAT it. He was trying to tell us that people like me sat around in denial and had the attitude that as long as it wasn't happening to me, it wasn't happening. People like me could have made a difference, and there were thousands of us, but we kept trying to accommodate to what was going on, because "if it wasn't happening to me it wasn't that bad." Niemoller said that the people who knew should have made huge sacrifices because it would have made a difference. He was saying, "If I could turn back the clock to '33, I would have stood with the ones under attack, I would have sounded the alarm, I would have stood up and resisted."

Today we are sitting in a position analogous to that of Martin Niemoller in 1933. Are we going to do what he did, or what he said he should have done? Put yourself back in time. In 1933 Hitler was not the Hitler of 1943 -- he had not put the Jews in concentration camps yet and he disguised his anti-Semitic agenda. What if when Hitler first came to power, people came to you and said, "He's Hitler," and you said "You're too shrill. You're too extreme. You're going to turn people off." Which Niemoller do we want to be? The one who went along, or the one who said this is what I should have done?

Check out more lunacy http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2160&Itemid=2

Cheesejoff

23rd September 2006, 03:15 AM

Isn't a protest which core aim is to over-throw the current government somewhat anti-democratic? Maybe they should take some tips from the Thais....:D

Not entirely. Democracy is the rule of the people, and if the people do not want the Bush regime, they can protest against it.

Of course, such an overthrowal would be illegal, or going against the rules of democracy, but not against the spirit of democracy.

Admittedly there is the problem that the majority of people must be against the Bush regime and Bush must actually be a fascist, both of which are shaky conditions at best.

egslim

23rd September 2006, 03:33 AM

On the other hand, any movement that encourages wider popular participation with the government is a good thing in my book. Indifference towards the government is always dangerous.

WildCat

23rd September 2006, 05:51 AM

Ah yes, this looks like a good time! At least the one last year in San Francisco (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/) was. Join forces and rub elbows w/ communists, paranoid 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and anarchists! Fire bomb a newspaper office! Looks like a swell time.

This takes place on a weekday though, no problem for the unemployed societal leeches that make up the bulk of rally participants but may affect your schedule. Bonus points if you wear your Che Guevara shirt.

Mephisto

23rd September 2006, 06:04 AM

This takes place on a weekday though, no problem for the unemployed societal leeches that make up the bulk of rally participants but may affect your schedule. Bonus points if you wear your Che Guevara shirt.

Does this mean we won't meet any Halliburton execs at the rally? ;)

WildCat

23rd September 2006, 06:07 AM

Does this mean we won't meet any Halliburton execs at the rally? ;)
Of course not. They send their lackeys there to identify the people who will be sent to their FEMA death camps (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/concentration_camps_video_FEMA_camp.htm).

shemp

23rd September 2006, 06:39 AM

How exactly are you going to "drive out" the Bush administration?

Maybe they'll dump a bag of skunks in the White House?

Mephisto

23rd September 2006, 06:54 AM

Of course not. They send their lackeys there to identify the people who will be sent to their FEMA death camps (http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/concentration_camps_video_FEMA_camp.htm).

:) FEMA Death Camps, huh?

Where you'll be herded into "showers" where you'll die of either old age or a natural disaster.

The Central Scrutinizer

23rd September 2006, 06:54 AM

I can't make October 5th. I've set that day aside to rotate my lightbulbs and organize my sock drawer.

Damn the bad luck. :mad:

Dragonrock

23rd September 2006, 07:00 AM

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

23rd September 2006, 07:48 AM

I wonder how widespread this is? How many people really know about it? Are there going to be enough people to make anyone notice? Or is it going to be like the dozens of "pump-strikes" or "boycott AOL" movements that no one paid attention to?

Probably not like those. I think it will be more like the dozens of anti-war protests that nobody paid attention to.

Beerina

23rd September 2006, 08:05 AM

So let's take stock of where we are now:

- US having a tough time in Iraq

- North Korea building missiles and looking for nukes

- Iran building missles, shipping them to terrorists, and looking for nukes

- Iranian leader functionally identical to Hitler in motivation and rhetoric

Yes, let's bitch at Bush, calling him "The Devil" because he stirred up a hornet's nest of murdering savages who would be happy to just have us leave them alone so they could lord over each other their way, denying women many rights and maybe even edumication. I mean, it might be a disincentive if they knew they might be called to justice some day and, oh, I don't know, go on trial for murdering 186,000 Kurds? Horrible, horrible U. S.

Has the US handled Iraq properly (if it's even possible), and things been largely over at the end of the "major combat operations", nobody would be driving idiocy like this protest. The protest is protesting the wrong thing, a chimera that doesn't even really exist.

AmateurScientist

23rd September 2006, 08:26 AM

I can't wait for the World Can't Wait protests. I want to have one NOW!

I'm having my own private one right here, in my home office. I'm drinking a Coke and eating a Big Mac and wearing my Nikes as an ironic protest against BushCo/Halliburton/The Beast/666.

If I were to attend a real WCW rally, and Gosh, I'll have to check my calendar to see if I can, I think that Truth or Consequences, NM might be the venue with the greatest significance. I can't wait to find out the consequences of the truth of being a idiot idealist who thinks leaving work for 15 minutes and milling about with a bunch of like minded idealistic, smelly, unemployed idiots screaming about Bush is going to change anything.

Have fun, Skeptigirl. Go!

AS

Cheesejoff

23rd September 2006, 09:55 AM

Badger

23rd September 2006, 10:08 AM

Yes indeed, as there are many dictatorships around the world but only the one's with large amounts of oil ever get invaded.

Can you explain to me why they're not invading my province? I mean, we have more oil than the whole middle east, put together. All they gotta do is separate it from sand. There's not many of us around, either.

Could it be the mosquitos protecting us? The muskeg? The chilly winters? Please, educate me.

In my opinion, your statement is crap.

RandFan

23rd September 2006, 10:45 AM

Cartman: Hippies.They're everywhere. They wanna save the earth, but all they do is smoke pot and smell bad.

Officer Barbrady: You can't just lock 63 people in your basement.
Cartman: They're not people, they're hippies!

Cartman: I hate hippies! I mean, the way they always talk about "protectin' the earth" and then drive around in cars that get poor gas mileage and wear those stupid bracelets - I hate 'em! I wanna kick 'em in the nuts!

senorpogo

23rd September 2006, 10:57 AM

Q: But it's not fascism until I'm affected and besides we still have free speech, no one is putting people in concentration camps. People in this country won't move unless they are directly affected by something like the draft.

I love that the question isn't a question.

Ziggurat

23rd September 2006, 10:58 AM

Not entirely. Democracy is the rule of the people, and if the people do not want the Bush regime, they can protest against it.

Of course, such an overthrowal would be illegal, or going against the rules of democracy, but not against the spirit of democracy.

I know democracy often gets used as a shorthand for republican government (not Republican as in the party, mind you), I do it myself quite frequently. But there's a difference, and the difference actually matters quite a bit. Pure, unadulterated democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. So in that sense, yes, a popular overthrow of government would be in the "spirit" of democracy. But it's NOT in the spirit of our actual political traditions: constitutional republicanism.

But of course, such an overthrow isn't the point. Hell, the point isn't even to change anything. The real point of this protest is so that the protesters can feel good about themselves and confirm to each other that they hold the proper views.

corplinx

23rd September 2006, 11:08 AM

Looks like I'm getting the super soaker out of the closet for some hippie hunting on Oct 5.

Cheesejoff

23rd September 2006, 11:17 AM

Can you explain to me why they're not invading my province? I mean, we have more oil than the whole middle east, put together. All they gotta do is separate it from sand. There's not many of us around, either.

Could it be the mosquitos protecting us? The muskeg? The chilly winters? Please, educate me.

In my opinion, your statement is crap.

Assuming you live in Canada, when did you become a dictatorship?

I know democracy often gets used as a shorthand for republican government (not Republican as in the party, mind you), I do it myself quite frequently. But there's a difference, and the difference actually matters quite a bit. Pure, unadulterated democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner. So in that sense, yes, a popular overthrow of government would be in the "spirit" of democracy. But it's NOT in the spirit of our actual political traditions: constitutional republicanism.

True, hence it's a conflict with no real right answer.

But of course, such an overthrow isn't the point. Hell, the point isn't even to change anything. The real point of this protest is so that the protesters can feel good about themselves and confirm to each other that they hold the proper views.

That is also true, protests generally only benefit protestors.

Join forces and rub elbows w/ communists, paranoid 9/11 conspiracy theorists, and anarchists! Fire bomb a newspaper office! Looks like a swell time.

Looks like I'm getting the super soaker out of the closet for some hippie hunting on Oct 5.

Commies, conspiracy theorists, anarchists and hippies? You must be running out of stereotypes pretty fast!

Badger

23rd September 2006, 11:25 AM

Assuming you live in Canada, when did you become a dictatorship?

That could be debated.

Anyway, my point is "You think Bush would go and fight an expensive war a half world away for oil when he doesn't have to. Explain to me why he would do that."

AmateurScientist

23rd September 2006, 11:28 AM

That could be debated.

Anyway, my point is "You think Bush would go and fight an expensive war a half world away for oil when he doesn't have to. Explain to me why he would do that."

Don't be so complacent, my Canuck friend. I'm digging out my old army BDUs, my boot knife, and an M-16, and me and my redneck buddies are coming for ya. Lock up the goats!

AS

andyandy

23rd September 2006, 11:31 AM

Commies, conspiracy theorists, anarchists and hippies? You must be running out of stereotypes pretty fast!

Q: But aren't there communists in World Can't Wait?

A: Yeah, there are. Supporters of the Revolutionary Communist Party helped initiate it. They're in it because they think it's absolutely urgent to get rid of this regime, that it would both lift a huge burden from the world and would also give people a sense of their own potential power, and they think all that would open up avenues to get to the kind of society they want. Same as a whole lot of other people in World Can't Wait which, by the way, includes Greens, Christians, Republicans, anarchists, Muslims, Jews, feminists, Democrats, pacifists, and people who claim no affiliation also think it's urgent to drive out the Bush Regime and also think it can help lead to bigger changes that they want in society, coming from their own viewpoints.

Commies, anarchists and tree huggers sounds about right :)

senorpogo

23rd September 2006, 11:32 AM

Commies, conspiracy theorists, anarchists and hippies? You must be running out of stereotypes pretty fast!

Have you checked out the pics in the link supplied by WildCat? Are you suggesting that there weren't communists, conspiracy theorists, and anarchists at the event?

Badger

23rd September 2006, 11:34 AM

Don't be so complacent, my Canuck friend. I'm digging out my old army BDUs, my boot knife, and an M-16, and me and my redneck buddies are coming for ya. Lock up the goats!

AS

Them's fightin words! Thanks for the warning because it gives me enough time to stock up on booze and kubasa, and you and your redneck buddies won't stand a chance. Canadians are like the Borg. One taste of our booze and BBQ Kubie and you'll be begging to be assimilated.

Good thought on bringing the knife. It'll help you guys cut up the kubasa.

You'll have to take your chances with the goats, though.

RandFan

23rd September 2006, 11:36 AM

Lock up the goats!That's hot!

andyandy

23rd September 2006, 11:37 AM

This website is pure gold :D

Q: Well, you have some good points, but I think you go too far. This reference to Hitler in your Call - things aren't that bad yet, and you're going to lose people. It's too strident.

A: After enumerating the many crimes and criminal policies of the Bush Regime, our Call notes that "people look at all this and think of Hitler -- and they are right to do so. The Bush regime is setting out to radically remake society very quickly, in a fascist way, for generations to come."

The question is, is that true or not? Are people thinking of Hitler? Yes, they are. Who hasn't heard that analogy come up in conversation? Are they wrong to do so? Is it wrong to sound the alarm - to point to the ways in which Bush has actually begun to remake society in, yes, a fascist direction, to point to the speed of this, and to point to the logical conclusion of the whole thing - unless stopped? Would it be more truthful to say that "people think of Hitler, but they are wrong to do so" - that the "normalization" of torture and indefinite detention, the empowerment of religious fanatics, the pervasive "above the law" surveillance and suppression of dissent and critical thinking, the military invasion of three countries (going on four) and the blithe reassurance that the deaths and suffering resulting from this are merely "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"? Would it be more truthful to say that all these are mere passing phenomena, of no larger significance or threat, expressing no directional change in society whatsoever?That has to be the point of departure. Not "is it strident", but is it TRUE? And let's face it -- this is a very "inconvenient" truth. It is hard for people to face up to the fact that not only CAN it happen here; it's going on right before our eyes. And it is hard for people to face up to the level of responsibility, to be honest, that this presents us with.

Bush is Hitler! try to overthrow him or you will have the blood of 6 million jews on your hands! jew killer! :rolleyes:

RandFan

23rd September 2006, 11:40 AM

Bush is Hitler! try to overthrow him or you will have the blood of 6 million jews on your hands! jew killer! :rolleyes:I'm beginning to think that skeptigirs's skepticism is rather narrowly focused.

Cheesejoff

23rd September 2006, 11:48 AM

That could be debated.

Anyway, my point is "You think Bush would go and fight an expensive war a half world away for oil when he doesn't have to. Explain to me why he would do that."

Simply because I can think of no other reason for the war to take place. Iraq had no links to terrorists - in fact, Saddam actually fought against Iran at one point - and they didn't have any WMD's. Many other countries have dictatorships and poor human rights records, such as China which the US actually trades with.

So although I'm not certain about the actual motive, oil seems the most likely to me.

Commies, anarchists and tree huggers sounds about right :)

Have you checked out the pics in the link supplied by WildCat? Are you suggesting that there weren't communists, conspiracy theorists, and anarchists at the event?

These groups were indeed present at the event, but why single them out when Democrats and Republicans are also present?

senorpogo

23rd September 2006, 11:49 AM

This website is pure gold :D

They have a myspace account.
www.myspace.com/wcwnational

Way to fight the machine.

RandFan

23rd September 2006, 11:53 AM

Simply because I can think of no other reason for the war to take place.Right or wrong many believed that deposing Saddam and installing a democracy could bring stability and a seachange to the Mideast. Now you can argue that the idea was wrong headed and was doomed to failure as George H. W. Bush argued following Gulf War I but it is stall A reason.

You need to think a little harder.

senorpogo

23rd September 2006, 11:53 AM

These groups were indeed present at the event, but why single them out when Democrats and Republicans are also present?

To stress that the protest contains elements of an extreme political nature? That's my guess.

What's wrong with that?

Badger

23rd September 2006, 11:56 AM

Simply because I can think of no other reason for the war to take place. Iraq had no links to terrorists - in fact, Saddam actually fought against Iran at one point - and they didn't have any WMD's. Many other countries have dictatorships and poor human rights records, such as China which the US actually trades with.

So although I'm not certain about the actual motive, oil seems the most likely to me.

That seems to me like it's pretty shaky support for your proposition, but thanks for clearing that up.

andyandy

23rd September 2006, 12:12 PM

These groups were indeed present at the event, but why single them out when Democrats and Republicans are also present?

You reckon a lot of democrats and republicans were there? They must not have read the small print of the website's aims if they did turn up - seeing as the World Can't Wait is both anti-republican and anti-democratic.

Our Call tells it like it is: "There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into 'leaders' who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people."

Q: But stepping outside the normal political process seems scary.

A: Right now the "normal political process" and where it's heading is itself the scariest thing on the planet. The "normal political process" has for some years now been nothing but a "rolling coup," one with disastrous consequences for the whole world. The "normal political process" has given us electoral charades and suffocating terms of debate ("how best do we fight the 'war on terror'?") and a society locked in denial, despair, and political paralysis.

The choice before us is mass political opposition and yes, political upheaval to halt all this, or the continuation of the current disastrous direction under this regime. To go along with the latter (the continuation of the current regime and the current course) in an attempt to avoid the former (the necessary political upheaval) is in fact to become complicit with the great crimes already carried out, and still greater crimes being prepared, by this regime.

the movement wants political change outside the current political system - so i don't see much room for either democrats or republicans to participate. As such I don't think it's especially unfair to assume that those who want change within the politcal process are not prominent in such a movement.

Ziggurat

23rd September 2006, 12:30 PM

Simply because I can think of no other reason for the war to take place.

One problem with this proposition (in addition to those given above) is that invading "for oil" does not actually specify the reason. Here are a few different alternative reasons to invade a country with oil, all of which fall under "for oil":

1) to gain control of the oil for ourselves
2) to remove control of the oil from Saddam
3) to prevent a third party from gaining control of the oil
4) to gain access to the oil for ourselves
5) to prevent access to the oil for a third party

Now, why might dictatorships with oil keep getting invaded, as you contended? Well, (1) isn't sufficient, because why not just invade Canada? (3) and (5) aren't generalizable or applicable to Iraq, and (4) has never really been a problem if we didn't WANT to prevent access (sanctions). So that leaves (2) as a pretty good contender. And it makes sense: oil resources make a dictator a lot more dangerous, and they also make such dictators essentially immune to economic (ie, non-military) forms of pressure.

So even assuming that this really IS all about oil, well, that alone tells us much less than is often assumed.

RandFan

23rd September 2006, 12:45 PM

Beerina

23rd September 2006, 01:16 PM

Simply because I can think of no other reason for the war to take place. Iraq had no links to terrorists

Well, except for Saddam making a loud, world-wide announcement that he'd pay $20,000 to the family of anybody blowing themselves up against Israel.

Beerina

23rd September 2006, 01:19 PM

Good post.

Remember Bin Laden is also from a rich family who hates the royals of Saudi Arabia. He uses Islam as a tool like any other would-be dictator.

Cheesejoff

23rd September 2006, 01:25 PM

One problem with this proposition (in addition to those given above) is that invading "for oil" does not actually specify the reason. Here are a few different alternative reasons to invade a country with oil, all of which fall under "for oil":

1) to gain control of the oil for ourselves
2) to remove control of the oil from Saddam
3) to prevent a third party from gaining control of the oil
4) to gain access to the oil for ourselves
5) to prevent access to the oil for a third party

Now, why might dictatorships with oil keep getting invaded, as you contended? Well, (1) isn't sufficient, because why not just invade Canada? (3) and (5) aren't generalizable or applicable to Iraq, and (4) has never really been a problem if we didn't WANT to prevent access (sanctions). So that leaves (2) as a pretty good contender. And it makes sense: oil resources make a dictator a lot more dangerous, and they also make such dictators essentially immune to economic (ie, non-military) forms of pressure.

So even assuming that this really IS all about oil, well, that alone tells us much less than is often assumed.

I disagree with your point that Canada has not been invaded yet, because Canada is not a dictatorship.

Reason 2) is also not sufficient as Sadam posed no threat to the US, in fact the US supported him when he went to war with Iran.

Again, Bush only invades dictatorships with oil because he can use the "bringing democracy to the world" argument to get his hands on the oil. If he were to try and invade Canada, he couldn't justify it, if he tried to invade Zimbabwe, he wouldn't profit.

Pardalis

23rd September 2006, 01:32 PM

Again, Bush only invades dictatorships with oil because he can use the "bringing democracy to the world" argument to get his hands on the oil. If he were to try and invade Canada, he couldn't justify it, if he tried to invade Zimbabwe, he wouldn't profit.

Wow, have you thought about this all by yourself?

I think you're making the false dilemma (http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/false-dilemma.html), and the unstated major premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme) fallacies.

HeyLeroy

23rd September 2006, 01:42 PM

Yes indeed, as there are many dictatorships around the world but only the one's with large amounts of oil ever get invaded.

Really? What about Afghanistan?

Don't be so complacent, my Canuck friend. I'm digging out my old army BDUs, my boot knife, and an M-16, and me and my redneck buddies are coming for ya. Lock up the goats!

AS
You don't stand a chance. We have the Polar Bears Of Death.

Oh, and snow snakes. Snow snakes. (shudder)
Them's fightin words! Thanks for the warning because it gives me enough time to stock up on booze and kubasa, and you and your redneck buddies won't stand a chance. Canadians are like the Borg. One taste of our booze and BBQ Kubie and you'll be begging to be assimilated.

Good thought on bringing the knife. It'll help you guys cut up the kubasa.

You'll have to take your chances with the goats, though.

Good thing you didn't mention our sooper seekrit weapon of mass mind-control: Tim Horton's coffee.

...er, oops.

Ziggurat

23rd September 2006, 01:50 PM

I disagree with your point that Canada has not been invaded yet, because Canada is not a dictatorship.

But then it's NOT all about oil, it's ALSO about dictatorship. So what's the connection? Well, I gave my thoughts on the matter.

Reason 2) is also not sufficient as Sadam posed no threat to the US, in fact the US supported him when he went to war with Iran.

Hmmm... what happened between the time we supported him against Iran and our 2003 invasion? We became enemies because he invaded Kuwait. And we remained enemies.

Now, YOU contend that he posed no threat. But that judgment is not universally accepted - in fact, until Bush came onto the scene, even the democrats all agreed that he was a threat. Now, it's a separate question whether or not it was worth the cost to get RID of the threat, but that he was a threat was actually pretty damned widely agreed upon. And for pretty obvious reasons, too: Saddam had, at his disposal, a lot more resources than Al Qaeda and the Taliban, he was our enemy, and he had been hurt by us but not destroyed. Set aside the whole WMD debate for a moment: what I just said about him, in and of itself, means Saddam was in fact a threat.

Again, Bush only invades dictatorships with oil because he can use the "bringing democracy to the world" argument to get his hands on the oil.

This sentence indicates that Bush has invaded more than one dictatorship with oil (Bush "invades" rather than "invaded"). But that's not actually the case, is it? He invaded two countries: Afghanistan and Iraq. Both were essentially dictatorships (yes, Afghanistan was often called a theocracy instead, but it was also a dictatorship under Mullah Omar). Only one, Iraq, had significant oil resources. So he has only ever invaded one dictatorship with oil, and he's invaded one dictatorship without oil. Not exactly a stunning correlation between the two, is it?

Now, what happened to that oil? Did Bush, in fact, get his hands on it? No, actually, he didn't. It's in the hands of the Iraqi government. If we were trying to get our hands on it, we screwed up pretty damned badly at that goal.

So your account of what Bush has done is wrong, and your explanation for the motivation is nonsensical.

Jocko

23rd September 2006, 04:20 PM

Event locations (http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2418&_event=14)

I assume you've been hearing about this. Thought I'd mention it and encourage participation if you are willing and able.

BWAHH! Marina Jack's in Sarasota? Hope you have a reservation and can afford $50 a plate, you lousy hippies.

Oh, and would someone inform the "global thinkers" running this sideshow that Grant Park is not in, nor particularly near, Chicago's Loop? And if your permit is still pending two weeks out, good luck setting up the body painting booths. Daley don't go for any of that hippie crap any more than his dad did.

Darth Rotor

23rd September 2006, 06:52 PM

World Can't Wait
Then world will have to piss in its pants. I am not pulling this car over because you, "The World," have a week bladder. :p
Bush is Hitler!
Oh yeah? So where is his moustache, smart guy? And another thing: Laura's a brunette, Eva a blonde!

Ooh, ooh, and Hitler was a mezmerizing public speaker, while Bush is . . . this is way too much fun. :D

DR

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

23rd September 2006, 07:00 PM

Again, Bush only invades dictatorships with oil because he can use the "bringing democracy to the world" argument to get his hands on the oil. If he were to try and invade Canada, he couldn't justify it, if he tried to invade Zimbabwe, he wouldn't profit.

You keep using dictatorshipS, plural. Out of curiosity, what other dictatorships with a lot of oil has Bush invaded?

ETA: D'oh, I just realized Ziggurat already pointed that out. Oh well.

Darth Rotor

23rd September 2006, 07:02 PM

You keep using dictatorshipS, plural. Out of curiosity, what other dictatorships with a lot of oil has Bush invaded?
Noriega used a lot of oil in his hair.

Oops, wrong Bush -- as the philanderer said right before the pistol went off.

DR

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

23rd September 2006, 07:09 PM

Would it be more truthful to say that "people think of Hitler, but they are wrong to do so" - that the "normalization" of torture and indefinite detention, the empowerment of religious fanatics, the pervasive "above the law" surveillance and suppression of dissent and critical thinking, the military invasion of three countries (going on four) and the blithe reassurance that the deaths and suffering resulting from this are merely "the birth pangs of a new Middle East"?

I love the attempt to inflate the "countries invaded" number to make the Hitler comparison work. They have to label the Israeli invasion of Lebanon as a country that Bush invaded (nevermind that the UN is there now), and then add a hypothetical fourth country of which there are no indications of an imminent invasion. Four countries invaded seems a lot more sinister than two, especially when one of those two (Afghanistan) was about as justifiable as can be.

Skeptic Ginger

24th September 2006, 02:52 PM

I'm beginning to think that skeptigirs's skepticism is rather narrowly focused.The problem here isn't my lack of skepticism, it is my sense of outrage over things I find incredible that apparently aren't an important issue with this forum community.
Holding people in secret prisons.
Ignoring the right of habeas corpus.
Holding people without trial or even access to legal counsel.
Holding people at Gitmo claiming we should believe they were all captured "on the battlefield" and/or the government has evidence they are guilty and we just need to take their word for it.
Torturing anyone, I don't care who they are. There's no evidence one gets anywhere near enough valuable information from this practice to even approach balancing against the harm it does. If we weren't "the Great Satan" before, we certainly are now. And acting on some of the bad information has led to the incarceration and torture of innocent people.
Ignoring the concept of probable cause when searching through computer data bases including not wanting to get warrants after the fact.
Increasingly blurring the line between separation of church and state.
Currently acting without Congressional checks on Administrative power and working to weaken Judicial oversight by federal judge selection which favors the Administration's view.
Cronyism and corruption on an immensely larger than usual scale.
Using 'Faith Based" grants to reward the pastor of at least one large congregation for encouraging that congregation to vote for Bush (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6755&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241). The usual corruption which I also condemn is the rich donating to campaigns and other perks in exchange for favorable government legislation. This kind of faith based grant amounts to using taxpayer money to directly buy votes.
Using religion (in particular rewarding Bush supporters) as the deciding factor in awarding government grants for various social programs rather than the success of the programs.
Increasing the budget for, the amount of, and the effectiveness of government sponsored and produced propaganda directed at the citizens of this country.
Incompetence demonstrated by the response to Katrina as well as planning and executing the Iraq war.The evidence the attack on Iraq was planned before 9/11 (see Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies" and both of Republican Bob Woodward's books on the Bush White House) and the plan only lacked an incident significant enough to generate support for the plan. You don't have to conclude they had anything to do with 9/11 other than incompetent neglect which is what I believe the evidence supports, however discussion of needing some major incident before they could execute the plan was documented as part of the discussion.
The concern that White House rhetoric on Iran mimics (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact) that of the same rhetoric leading up to the Iraq invasion. (See also Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article on the White House involvement in the Israeli decision and plan to bomb Lebanon (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact).)

Regarding the idea behind the World Can't Wait. I think you are mostly all mistaken about the plan but I will take your skepticism into account and look a bit closer, not just at the organizers, but about who will be attending and what the majority's motives are.

There are many people who are indeed too radical for reality. On the one hand it is a mistake that results in people turning away from the real issue, such as all or at least almost all the comments in this thread (haven't read them all yet) indicate has occurred. But on the other hand, it is often those who are over the line who are motivated enough to initiate action. Whether it is effective action will remain to be seen.

-

When those of us look back on the protests of the Vietnam war, those that participated anyway, many have a recollection the anti-war movement was the more common sentiment. In other words the majority who participated don't look back and say, I was a crazy radical when I marched in that rally. They look back and think it was a pretty normal thing to be doing.

I thought so until I saw a documentary on the Kent State shooting at that time which killed 4 student bystanders. I was shocked to see in the documentary that the people interviewed who were not involved had such incredible condemnation for those 'radical' unpatriotic students. The Ohio governor made horrible comments. People in the streets expressed the sentiment the students deserved it. For exercising their political free speech, not only did they deserve to be shot and killed, it didn't matter that the students who were actually killed were not in the crowd of demonstrators.

Maybe some or all of you can't fathom this is related to your response to my post. I certainly don't mean to imply you would react the same if police or guard open fire on the demonstrators. And I am not saying anyone needs to take any action at all. Free speech is just that, an individual action. There's no way everyone feels the need or the benefit in such a rally. But the negative reaction in this thread surprises me considerably.

-

The purpose of this event is to speak out in a county where it has become increasingly harder and harder for the population to have any voice over the continual drone of corporate controlled media. To think the benefit is in the ego of the protesters is a really strange conclusion.

On your local news coverage, hundreds to thousands of anti-war protesters are covered with the balance of an equal amount of footage of the handful of pro-Bush supporters on the corner near the march.

In national coverage, one million people (mostly women) marched (estimates ranged from 800,000 to 1,150,000) to the Capital in the March for Women's Lives (http://truthout.org/imgs.art_01/3.wom.march.dc.jpg) in April of 2004. It was recorded as the largest rally at the Capital in history, even surpassing the Civil Rights marches (http://www.christuskirche-do.de/mlking3.jpg). Do any of you recall the march? The news coverage? Have you seen any clips of the speeches like those of [/url=http://www.popartuk.com/g/l/lgpp0057.jpg]"I had a dream"?[/url] Heard the rally's name repeated like the Million Man March (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40906000/jpg/_40906360_millionman_ap203.jpg) of Louis Farakhan?

Every year since some time ago, there has been an annual March for Life rally at the same Capital Mall. Attendance has been recorded between a few tens of thousands to one year when a whopping 200,000 were estimated in attendance. You may also not recall, but President Bush has called (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030122-3.html) the leader of this rally during the rally I believe every year Bush has been in office. The result, extensive news coverage, of course, as well as plenty of coverage on the White House web page.

This is not the result of any conspiracy. It is the result of corporate controlled media and there are numerous reasons which belong in another thread. The result however, is those million people had almost no voice. You cannot have a democracy if a million people cannot be heard.

-

The purpose of The World Can't wait is to have a voice, simple as that. The purpose is to say you don't want your government to bomb Iran. You don't want your government to target the people of this country with propaganda. You don't want this government to be torturing people, holding them without even a trace of due process. You don't want warrantless wiretaps and computer searches of data bases or of individual PCs.

-

As far as overthrow, that's an inaccurate interpretation. There are many people in this country who believe the distortions fed to the American public before the Iraq war were purposeful, calculated to mislead, and that the truth was withheld. Many people do not believe the government just made an unintentional mistake. I am one of those and my beliefs are based on evidence, and I have looked at the evidence skeptically. Much of that evidence I knew about a while ago and it is now becoming more commonly known, like the CIA repeatedly told the White House the information from Chalabi was unreliable and likely false. There is a lot more evidence as well.

And of the people who have concluded we were lied to about Iraq's imminent threat, many of those feel it is an impeachable offense. That is the idea. No one with any semblance of normality is seeking any more than that, let alone thinks it could be done any other way.

There are many people who also believe some of the actions of the Bush regime meet the standard of war crimes. Surely you've heard (http://www.alternet.org/story/41411/) the discussion this latest bill being passed in Congress defining where to draw the line between torture and acceptable interrogation tactics was initiated out of fear of being prosecuted under US law for violations of due process and human rights abuses.

I've said it before, I find it simply incredible that most US citizens are not outraged at the arrests and holding of people without any due process. Most certainly we have never been a country that openly approved of torturing people for information. The people in the Bush administration have, interestingly, been involved in the Reagan and Nixon governments where the US supported torture by right wing dictators in other countries, (Chile, Argentina, Guatemala, Nicaragua). It is no surprise when they hold the reigns of power themselves, they would openly expand the US's involvement using these tactics directly rather than only through proxies.

-

These are legitimate points of view whether you agree with them or not. These views are based on evidence and on international as well as US law (at least until the US law is changed). The World Can't Wait is merely a microphone for people who have few other options to be heard. Democracy cannot survive unless the people in it have a voice.

Ziggurat

24th September 2006, 03:09 PM

Holding people without trial or even access to legal counsel.

Yeah, that damned Geneva Convention. It's horrible how it makes holding people without trial, charges, or legal counsel standard procedure for armed conflict. We should withdraw from the Geneva Conventions immediately to protest!
:rolleyes:

Pardalis

24th September 2006, 03:13 PM

The purpose of this event is to speak out in a county where it has become increasingly harder and harder for the population to have any voice over the continual drone of corporate controlled media. To think the benefit is in the ego of the protesters is a really strange conclusion.

Funny that you say that, since you are saying it, and you are protesting.

Who is stopping you?

Skeptic Ginger

24th September 2006, 04:03 PM

I see there is a concerted effort on the web to falsely portray this event and movement. So those of you with a real critical thinking skills need to go back and revisit why you think this is not a mainstream movement. I didn't say majority though I do believe Bush has less than a majority of supporters right now according to polls. However, the comments here are quite baseless.

I presented my points and some references. Seems a lot of the BS replies here are just the typical sarcasm and insults that those of you Bush supporters on this forum usually spew out.

Yes, I am baiting you. So go for it. Post something about this movement that is more than opinion. Present some facts refuting the conclusions I have drawn. I took a brief look to see why there were such unexpected replies here and found a concerted effort by the right wing spin machine to spin this protest into a big lie it has to do with changing a capitalist economy to a communist or even socialist one. Nonsense. And you call yourselves skeptics? I think not.

Alareth

24th September 2006, 04:12 PM

Event locations (http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2418&_event=14)

I assume you've been hearing about this. Thought I'd mention it and encourage participation if you are willing and able.

Sorry, no. Haven't heard of it.

Looked over the website. Seems pretty foolish and self indulgent.

I'll pass.

Pardalis

24th September 2006, 04:12 PM

You are a skeptic, Skeptigirl? If you are, you're a brainwashed one.

http://www.beheard.com/cgi-bin/beheard/browse/World%20Can%27t%20Wait.html?mv_pc=wcw

ETA: oh, and the media is not letting you speak your mind? Yeah, right...

WildCat

24th September 2006, 04:17 PM

The problem here isn't my lack of skepticism, it is my sense of outrage over things I find incredible that apparently aren't an important issue with this forum community.

Holding people in secret prisons.
Ignoring the right of habeas corpus.
Holding people without trial or even access to legal counsel.
Holding people at Gitmo claiming we should believe they were all captured "on the battlefield" and/or the government has evidence they are guilty and we just need to take their word for it.
Torturing anyone, I don't care who they are. There's no evidence one gets anywhere near enough valuable information from this practice to even approach balancing against the harm it does. If we weren't "the Great Satan" before, we certainly are now. And acting on some of the bad information has led to the incarceration and torture of innocent people.
Ignoring the concept of probable cause when searching through computer data bases including not wanting to get warrants after the fact.
Increasingly blurring the line between separation of church and state.
Currently acting without Congressional checks on Administrative power and working to weaken Judicial oversight by federal judge selection which favors the Administration's view.
Cronyism and corruption on an immensely larger than usual scale.
Using 'Faith Based" grants to reward the pastor of at least one large congregation for encouraging that congregation to vote for Bush (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6755&abbr=pr&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241). The usual corruption which I also condemn is the rich donating to campaigns and other perks in exchange for favorable government legislation. This kind of faith based grant amounts to using taxpayer money to directly buy votes.
Using religion (in particular rewarding Bush supporters) as the deciding factor in awarding government grants for various social programs rather than the success of the programs.
Increasing the budget for, the amount of, and the effectiveness of government sponsored and produced propaganda directed at the citizens of this country.
Incompetence demonstrated by the response to Katrina as well as planning and executing the Iraq war.
The evidence the attack on Iraq was planned before 9/11 (see Richard Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies" and both of Republican Bob Woodward's books on the Bush White House) and the plan only lacked an incident significant enough to generate support for the plan. You don't have to conclude they had anything to do with 9/11 other than incompetent neglect which is what I believe the evidence supports, however discussion of needing some major incident before they could execute the plan was documented as part of the discussion.
The concern that White House rhetoric on Iran mimics (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact) that of the same rhetoric leading up to the Iraq invasion. (See also Seymour Hersh's New Yorker article on the White House involvement in the Israeli decision and plan to bomb Lebanon (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060821fa_fact).)That's why we need communists, anarchists, and paranoid conspiracy loons running the country! Because those people are known for their honesty, integrity, and tireless commitment to human rights.

Ziggurat

24th September 2006, 04:19 PM

I presented my points and some references. Seems a lot of the BS replies here are just the typical sarcasm and insults that those of you Bush supporters on this forum usually spew out.

Oh, I was certainly sarcastic, but my comments weren't baseless at all. You complained about prisoners being held without trial or lawyers. I pointed out that this is the standard treatment for prisoners in armed conflicts under the Geneva Conventions. If you have a problem with this standard, the you should demand that we withdraw from the Geneva conventions, since it allows for such treatment. You have not responded.

WildCat

24th September 2006, 04:22 PM

And of the people who have concluded we were lied to about Iraq's imminent threat, many of those feel it is an impeachable offense.
Bush never said it was an imminent threat. But i have no doubt the totalitarians behind the WCW rally wouldn't mind show trials based on trumped-up charges. It's what communists do, after all.

The World Can't Wait is merely a microphone for people who have few other options to be heard. Democracy cannot survive unless the people in it have a voice.
Yeah, ever since they banned the internet 10 years ago it's been impossible to get any sort of mesage past the government censors.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

24th September 2006, 04:23 PM

Should I repost what I posted before? It is not opinion that on the FAQ of the organization's page, they try to seriously claim that Bush is the equivalent of Hitler. Look, I have no problem if you want to go protest. I have no problem if you dislike Bush. I don't like Bush either. But for an organization to seriously try and claim that Bush and Hitler are one and the same is complete and utter bullsh!t of the highest order, and it is not something that I have any desire to be a part of. Perhaps you, in your skeptical wisdom, ought to take at what is written on the page you linked to, and contemplate, at least for a few moments, why people here responded with derision, and yes, skepticism, rather than trying to attribute it to some shadowy right-wing conspiracy. I find it ironic that you ask us to think about why this is not a mainstream movement. Perhaps you ought to take a look at the movement itself, and how it is portraying itself. It is easy to blame a "corporate controlled media" rather than taking a hard look at what this protest is doing to itself to turn people off from it. You said you were going to take a closer look at the protest and its organizers, but it doesn't seem to me that you have.

WildCat

24th September 2006, 04:24 PM

I pointed out that this is the standard treatment for prisoners in armed conflicts under the Geneva Conventions. If you have a problem with this standard, the you should demand that we withdraw from the Geneva conventions, since it allows for such treatment. You have not responded.
When the WCW people are in charge all POW's will be charged w/ crimes and summarily executed. After a big show trial on TV, of course.

WildCat

24th September 2006, 04:29 PM

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world.
Tou tell me that it’s evolution,
Well, you know
We all want to change the world.
But when you talk about destruction,
Don’t you know that you can count me out.
Don’t you know it’s going to be alright,
Alright, alright.
You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We’d all love to see the plan.
You ask me for a contribution,
Well, you know
We’re doing what we can.
But if you want money for people with minds that hate,
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait.
Don’t you know it’s going to be alright,
Alright, alright.
You say you’ll change a constitution
Well, you know
We all want ot change your head.
You tell me it’s the institution,
Well, you know
You better free your mind instead.
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman Mao,
You ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.
Don’t you know it’s going to be alright,
Alright, alright.

RandFan

24th September 2006, 04:51 PM

The problem here isn't my lack of skepticism, it is my sense of outrage over things I find incredible that apparently aren't an important issue with this forum community.I'm guessing that the Kool-Aid tastes pretty good to you. :) That's fine. I've come to realize that rationality, reason and critical thinking are things that can't be pushed on anyone. It requires a personal commitment.

I've been critical of Bush and I'm willing to discuss the many wrongs committed by this administration. It's just that your strident yelling in my ears makes it hard for me to understand you. It also makes it difficult to swallow that you are a reasoned skeptic.

To me the Kool-Aid tastes bitter. I would just as soon abstain.

gtc

24th September 2006, 06:48 PM

I see there is a concerted effort on the web to falsely portray this event and movement. So those of you with a real critical thinking skills need to go back and revisit why you think this is not a mainstream movement.

I think these photos cover why it is not a mainstream movement:

World Can't Wait Rally November 2005 (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/)

Also is it true that the Revolutionary Communist Party (old style Maoists) started World Can't Wait? The SF Chronicle reports on the crossover between the two organisations here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/02/BAGKAFHM8U1.DTL) and there are certainly a lot of RCP presence in the photos I have seen.

Much of the discussion about the link seems to be coming from the left, not the right. A large proportion of the results of a Google search on "WCW RCP" are for Indymedia sites.

RandFan

24th September 2006, 07:28 PM

Kopji

24th September 2006, 07:51 PM

...Also is it true that the Revolutionary Communist Party (old style Maoists) started World Can't Wait? The SF Chronicle reports on the crossover between the two organisations

The article does not state that, only that some members were involved in its creation. And so what? Yeah, dirty rotten commies, but not against the law and they have a right to protest like everyone else.

"They're in it because they think it's absolutely urgent to get rid of this regime, that it would both lift a huge burden from the world," according to the site, which also touts, "Greens, Christians, Republicans, anarchists, Muslims, Jews, feminists, Democrats, pacifists, and people who claim no affiliation" as members.

Is a protest march ever mainstream?

AmateurScientist

24th September 2006, 08:04 PM

The article does not state that, only that some members were involved in its creation. And so what? Yeah, dirty rotten commies, but not against the law and they have a right to protest like everyone else.

Yeah, well, I don't think that gtc was trying to imply that commies don't have a right to protest peacefully. I think he was simply providing some photographic evidence that affirms what the WCW website mentions -- that yeah, it has lots of commie types in it.

Is a protest march ever mainstream?

According to Skeptigirl this one is. Anyway, I would lay pretty good odds that she's the only one in this thread giving serious consideration to joining one of the protests.

Far from being mainstream, the WCW folks seem mostly like loony extremist nuts to me.

AS

WildCat

24th September 2006, 08:36 PM

Yeah, dirty rotten commies, but not against the law and they have a right to protest like everyone else.
Until they attain power, of course. Then free speech will be banned like it has been in every other place they have attained power.

I'd go, but I don't look good in one of those Che Guevara berets. Hard look to pull off.

gtc

24th September 2006, 08:58 PM

And so what?

RCP is hardly mainstream but they have the right to protest to their heart's content.

I also think I have the right to point out that they wish to replace a democratically elected government with a Maoist dictatorship.

If they are the alternative, then my bit of the world can wait until 2008.

Mycroft

24th September 2006, 10:51 PM

andyandy

25th September 2006, 03:13 AM

Jocko

25th September 2006, 05:36 AM

Mainstream message in a nutshell:

Q: But stepping outside the normal political process seems scary.

A: Right now the "normal political process" and where it's heading is itself the scariest thing on the planet. The "normal political process" has for some years now been nothing but a "rolling coup," one with disastrous consequences for the whole world. The "normal political process" has given us electoral charades and suffocating terms of debate ("how best do we fight the 'war on terror'?") and a society locked in denial, despair, and political paralysis.

The choice before us is mass political opposition and yes, political upheaval to halt all this, or the continuation of the current disastrous direction under this regime. To go along with the latter (the continuation of the current regime and the current course) in an attempt to avoid the former (the necessary political upheaval) is in fact to become complicit with the great crimes already carried out, and still greater crimes being prepared, by this regime.

Mainstream? The deride the electorate, the people's will and the Constitution itself because they declare that they know better. These are the same sh!tbags who refuse to shower and then try to turn the conversation about your hangups regarding their stink.

Loons, plain and simple, and I look forward to tossing an egg or two if I encounter them here in Chicago. After all, the only way to be heard is to step outside the process, right?

Skeptigirl, please hand in your skpetic credentials and screen name immediately.

Cylinder

25th September 2006, 05:46 AM

These are the same sh!tbags who refuse to shower and then try to turn the conversation about your hangups regarding their stink.

Grow up, Jocko. Don't you know that patchouli equals social justice?

Jocko

25th September 2006, 05:52 AM

Grow up, Jocko. Don't you know that patchouli equals social justice?

Grown up or not, a size 14 Reebok in the sack is equals social justice in this town, so God help any of these goat-chasers if they slow my commute by as much as thirty f**king seconds on 10/5.

Cylinder

25th September 2006, 06:32 AM

Grown up or not, a size 14 Reebok in the sack is equals social justice in this town, so God help any of these goat-chasers if they slow my commute by as much as thirty f**king seconds on 10/5.

LOL!

senorpogo

25th September 2006, 11:18 AM

The WCW vs. the NWO?

As a long time fan of pro wrestling (yes, I'm an idiot), I can't help but think this whole organization is some kind of avant garde joke gone horribly wrong.

senorpogo

25th September 2006, 11:29 AM

I think these photos cover why it is not a mainstream movement:

World Can't Wait Rally November 2005 (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/)

Also is it true that the Revolutionary Communist Party (old style Maoists) started World Can't Wait? The SF Chronicle reports on the crossover between the two organisations here (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/11/02/BAGKAFHM8U1.DTL) and there are certainly a lot of RCP presence in the photos I have seen.

Much of the discussion about the link seems to be coming from the left, not the right. A large proportion of the results of a Google search on "WCW RCP" are for Indymedia sites.

Also worth mentioning this SFGate article linked in the zombietime page.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/11/03/PROTEST.TMP

An anti-Bush demonstration in San Francisco ended with the arrest of 10 people, including one who was found carrying several Molotov cocktails after such a device was thrown at The San Francisco Chronicle building on Wednesday, police said.

At one point, as the small group marched along Mission Street, somebody pulled out a Molotov cocktail, lit it and threw it against the Chronicle building, where it exploded, sending fiery material onto the shoulder of San Francisco police Officer Gary Constantine, who was not injured, Shinn said.

The peace movement?:jaw-dropp

Darth Rotor

25th September 2006, 12:28 PM

At one point, as the small group marched along Mission Street, somebody pulled out a Molotov cocktail, lit it and threw it against the Chronicle building, where it exploded, sending fiery material onto the shoulder of San Francisco police Officer Gary Constantine, who was not injured, Shinn said.
The peace movement?:jaw-dropp
Damnit, where are the national guardsmen with hair triggers when you need them? Oh, wait, they are in Iraq.

DR

Skeptic Ginger

25th September 2006, 02:37 PM

Unbelievable. Iraq has now been confirmed to be making terrorism worse. Bush is blatantly incompetent and corrupt. The only reason the economy hasn't tanked is because we're spending borrowed dollars. We are indebted to China, at the mercy of other people's oil valves and the big guns that are what the remaining Bush supporters foolishly believe will solve all these problems are actually causing most of them.

OK folks, I'll be at the rally. You can believe the swift boat lies about the organizers and the selected pictures montage meant to deceive the remaining people gullible enough they still think Bush is doing "a heck of a job".

You've presented no substance here which I need reply to though I will post some on the Faux news style attempt to portray the rally as something it is not.

I can say, "I told you so", since I've known how bad this administration was since the beginning. 60-70% of the people in the US have now figured out how bad the Bush administration is depending on the polls and poll questions as well as the latest propaganda spewing from the White House. So that makes the batch of you posting here (if I missed any positive responses I apologize) some of the remaining 30-40% who believe Faux news, who vote the image of the Party rather than the actual actions of the Party*, and who fall for every Karl Rove campaign trick. Amazing there would be so many on a forum I would have thought was for those who actually were critical thinkers.

*Like "borrow and spend" as if the Democrats were really the "spenders" when the Republicans from Reagan to Bush Jr all managed to transfer huge amounts of our tax dollars and borrowed dollars to their military industrial complex and oil corporate buddies, all the while distracting the gullible with claims welfare spending was really the problem. Don't look over there at that $600 toilet seat and whatever you do, don't investigate the Billions in cash that were spent in Iraq with no accounting, because that might help the 'enemy'. Believe the Democrats have no plan for Iraq without looking to see they do, and believe the Republicans do have a plan for Iraq as if "stay 'til the job is done" is actually a plan. Great image those Republicans have. Fortunately the majority have now looked behind the curtain. You should try it. Though beware, it may just be too disturbing for you.

Darth Rotor

25th September 2006, 02:40 PM

Unbelievable. Iraq has now been confirmed to be making terrorism worse. Bush is blatantly incompetent and corrupt. [/i]
Some of us knew that a couple of years ago: Iraq = excellent training ground for a variety of underground/guerilla/terrorist groups.

Where have you been? What, you were waiting for a confession from Washington, the land of the ever cycling spin machine? (Closest thing to a perpetual motion machine I know of. :p )

DR

Ziggurat

25th September 2006, 02:57 PM

You've presented no substance here which I need reply to though I will post some on the Faux news style attempt to portray the rally as something it is not.

Well, you don't NEED to reply to anything, even if it has substance. But I asked you a question, twice already, and it's not even about the rally but about an opinion you expressed yourself in the original post. You objected to people being held prisoner without trial and without lawyers. I pointed out that the Geneva Conventions make this standard treatment for prisoners in armed conflicts. Presumably, you either object to the Geneva Conventions which justify that kind of treatment, or you should retract that objection. But you haven't: you've avoided the question. Feel free to continue to do so, but don't expect anyone to be impressed.

Marquis de Carabas

25th September 2006, 04:18 PM

OK folks, I'll be at the rally.
I hope you have a satisfying time.

Tailgater

25th September 2006, 04:42 PM

You've presented no substance here which I need reply to though I will post some on the Faux news style attempt to portray the rally as something it is not.

I think you are right. Those commies were obviously paid actors by the corporate news.

AmateurScientist

25th September 2006, 05:35 PM

Unbelievable. Iraq has now been confirmed to be making terrorism worse.

What? Making terrorism worse? No, the military conflict there has served to draw insurgents from inside and outside Iraq to the mix like flies on honey. Our deposing of Saddam by force and thus allowing for free elections unfortunately created a vacuum of civil order and helped ignite a factional civil war. Besides Iraqi factions fighting our soldiers and each other, we have ideologues from other Muslim nations drawn to the romance and glory of fighting the Great Satan Uncle Sam, and by extension, the West and the rest of the infidels. The War in Iraq isn't making terrorism in this country or anywhere else worse.

In the US, we are no more or no less safe from terrorists who wish to harm us than we were before we deposed Saddam. The most likely beneficiaries of our taking out Saddam are the Israeli citizens, as they are the ones who suffered most from suicide bombers enticed by Saddam's standing offer of $20,000 cash to the families of such bombers. At least now possibly some would be bombers won't do it for the money for their families.

Bush is blatantly incompetent and corrupt. The only reason the economy hasn't tanked is because we're spending borrowed dollars.

Those two sentences are unconnected. Business cycles and a host of other economic variables affect the nation's economy far more in the long run than anything a President can do or not do.

The state of the economy, to the extent it can be measured accurately at the time, is the result of a very complex interplay of hundreds or even thousands of factors. Reducing it to the simple result of Presidential policy is naive and ... not well informed.

We are indebted to China

Money is flowing into and out of China as a result of its waking potential giant of an economy. China is undergoing a rapid transformation due to its people's embracing of capitalism and a market economy, and technology that allows it to connect with and join the rest of the world in the global marketplace. What the hell does this have to do with our President and his policies?

OK folks, I'll be at the rally.

Have a blast. Be sure and take pictures, and try not to get hit with a Molotov cocktail. Peace can be a real bitch.

AS

Elizabeth I

25th September 2006, 05:43 PM

Don't look over there at that $600 toilet seat
Um, I think the $600 toilet seat and the $200 hammer were around a long time before either Bush administration. Doesn't make them okay, but they're not new.

Believe the Democrats have no plan for Iraq without looking to see they do...
What exactly is the Democrats' plan? All I have heard is, "Get out now." Not saying they DON'T have a plan or that being there is right. I'm just saying if the Dems have a plan I haven't heard it.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

25th September 2006, 05:48 PM

I can say, "I told you so", since I've known how bad this administration was since the beginning. 60-70% of the people in the US have now figured out how bad the Bush administration is depending on the polls and poll questions as well as the latest propaganda spewing from the White House. So that makes the batch of you posting here (if I missed any positive responses I apologize) some of the remaining 30-40% who believe Faux news, who vote the image of the Party rather than the actual actions of the Party*, and who fall for every Karl Rove campaign trick. Amazing there would be so many on a forum I would have thought was for those who actually were critical thinkers.

Oh puh-leaze, save the sanctimonious nonsense for the protest. Does the term "False Dichotomy" mean anything to you? Not supporting a protest that tries to compare Bush to Hitler does not make one a Bush supporter. Apparently, to you, anyone who doesn't agree with the premise of this protest must be a brain-washed, Bush-loving Republican.

So I guess you believe in the "You are either with us, or you are against us" mentality. I swear someone else has used that line of thinking in the past... the name escapes me at the moment.

RandFan

25th September 2006, 06:18 PM

Skeptic Ginger

26th September 2006, 02:03 AM

Well, you don't NEED to reply to anything, even if it has substance. But I asked you a question, twice already, and it's not even about the rally but about an opinion you expressed yourself in the original post. You objected to people being held prisoner without trial and without lawyers. I pointed out that the Geneva Conventions make this standard treatment for prisoners in armed conflicts. Presumably, you either object to the Geneva Conventions which justify that kind of treatment, or you should retract that objection. But you haven't: you've avoided the question. Feel free to continue to do so, but don't expect anyone to be impressed.I was going to get back to this, actually. There is a lot of stuff to wade through here to find anything worth replying to so keep that in mind.

Shortly after 9/11 it may have been easier to consider the war charge. But 5 years later, an invasion into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and which has actually resulted in more terrorist attacks, not less, the fact these people were not all "enemy combatants" as claimed, and the fact the Geneva Conventions were written with something completely different in mind, makes what is occurring now with these secret abductions and no writ of habeas corpus quite inappropriate and worrisome if one believes the Constitution really is the rule of law.

We are not at war with terrorism any more than we were at war with terrorism when McVey blew up the Federal Building. That is not to say the people involved in these activities are not extremely dangerous. It doesn't mean Congress shouldn't give some leeway to a responsible President on matters such as assassinating Bin Laden who has been clearly linked to 9/11.

But at the same time, this President has been irresponsible. There is plenty of evidence the 'renditions' and incarcerations along with the torture have been reckless and very harmful to the image of the US thus providing an ongoing recruitment tool for more terrorists to join up. The only evidence we have any of these actions have been successful is the word of an administration which we have additional evidence has lied time and time again.

Being patriotic in one thing. Being stupid is another. I imagine it looked good at the time to send our Japanese citizens to camps during WWII. That was an actual war. In retrospect, it was excessive and unnecessary.

There is no evidence which supports the need or effectiveness here today to be setting our values and Constitutional protections aside. If we are at such a great risk of terrorist attack that it warrants imprisoning and torturing innocent people in order to get some information out of some who might be guilty and might give real, not fabricated information as most experts will tell you is more likely, then we are in big trouble. Because while this incompetent President is squandering all our defense resources in Iraq lining the pockets of a few of his cronies, the actions which would be more effective like checking cargo containers for radioactivity before ships dock in our ports, like actually sealing the borders and knowing more about who has come into the country and where they are, like establishing an effective Homeland Security department and following the other 9/11 Commission recommendations are not a priority and are not being done.

And while we are at it, maybe we should remember terrorist bombs are not the only things that are a threat to the people in the US. Reinforcing the dikes in major cities like New Orleans would have saved over a thousand lives.

So, it ain't a war, it's an incompetent administration. Dangerous people, yes; enemy combatants, only a few who were actually picked up in Afghanistan in battle. They could have been jailed there. That is where their crimes were committed. If we are going to pick up a Canadian changing planes in the US or a German citizen visiting Macedonia, then there is no good reason probable cause and due process should not remain the standard. That is what one does in a democracy in a nation of laws such as we are supposed to be.

And one more thing about the Geneva Conventions, Bush and his neocons are not following those conventions. They themselves set up this new category of "enemy combatant" because Congress did not declare a war. Bush has ignored the Conventions as they applied to torture. Ashcroft and Gonzales have made all sorts of outrageous legal claims about how the Conventions don't apply. It seems you are picking cherries here and ignoring the ones you don't like.

President Bush today has decided that the Geneva Convention (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html) will apply to the Taliban detainees, but not to the al Qaeda international terrorists....The war on terrorism is a war not envisaged when the Geneva Convention was signed in 1949. In this war, global terrorists transcend national boundaries and internationally target the innocent. The President has maintained the United States' commitment to the principles of the Geneva Convention, while recognizing that the Convention simply does not cover every situation in which people may be captured or detained by military forces, as we see in Afghanistan today....In essence this says the Bush administration is making up its own rules. There are plenty of claims here about keeping to lofty principles of humane treatment of people. We know from the evidence that was a lie.

andyandy

26th September 2006, 02:11 AM

*Like "borrow and spend" as if the Democrats were really the "spenders" when the Republicans from Reagan to Bush Jr all managed to transfer huge amounts of our tax dollars and borrowed dollars to their military industrial complex and oil corporate buddies, all the while distracting the gullible with claims welfare spending was really the problem. Don't look over there at that $600 toilet seat and whatever you do, don't investigate the Billions in cash that were spent in Iraq with no accounting, because that might help the 'enemy'. Believe the Democrats have no plan for Iraq without looking to see they do, and believe the Republicans do have a plan for Iraq as if "stay 'til the job is done" is actually a plan. Great image those Republicans have. Fortunately the majority have now looked behind the curtain. You should try it. Though beware, it may just be too disturbing for you.

lol i don't think my views have ever been described as "right wing" before :D
If i understand your post, then you are a democrat - which begs the question what on earth you're doing going to a march for an organisation which is against the democratic party and the current democratic process - and wants a mass-grassroots revolution to overthrow the current US government and to replace the entire US democratic process. The following quotes are all from their website.

Does protest make any difference?

A: It does -- and it doesn't. Let's start with how it doesn't. Protest doesn't make a damn bit of difference if it's "protest as usual". Protest that trims its sails to the political terms set by electing Democrats, or that tries to be respectable, or that doesn't convey that THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE AND MUST BE BROUGHT TO A HALT. No, protest like that doesn't really amount to much. Never has and never will.

We're talking about tens of thousands going into the streets with a clear standard -- BRING THIS TO A HALT -- and a spirited call to others to join this. Our recent statement envisions "a great wave of people unleashed from the huge reservoir of people who are deeply distressed

snip

joining together, rallying and marching, drawing forward many more with them, and in many and varied forms of creative and meaningful political protest throughout the day, letting it be known that they are determined to bring this whole disastrous course to a halt by driving out the Bush Regime through the mobilization of massive political opposition."

Q: But isn't getting the Democrats elected and getting a majority in Congress the only real way to stop Bush?

A: Stop him from doing what?

From invading Iran? The Democrats support Bush on Iran.

From outlawing abortion? The Democrats are running anti-choice candidates for the Senate.

From carrying out repression? The Democrats voted overwhelmingly to support the Patriot Act and have done nothing to stop the illegal spying on millions of people.From conducting the war in Iraq? Even Ned Lamont only promises withdrawal "a year from now" and he's already hedged on that - and the rest of the Democrats are doing far worse.

Our Call tells it like it is: "There is not going to be some savior from the Democratic Party. This whole idea of putting our hopes and energies into 'leaders' who tell us to seek common ground with fascists and religious fanatics is proving every day to be a disaster, and actually serves to demobilize people."

The situation is way too urgent to allow yourself to be lulled. The reality is this: without the whole political situation being radically altered by people in this country taking responsibility to act, the current fascistic direction will accelerate. Without decisively breaking out of the confines of official politics… without refusing to take orders from the likes of Charles Schumer and the other top Democrats… without refusing to set an entirely different and radically new dynamic from below, we are headed from this dark time to an even darker one. But if we do set that dynamic from below, then everyone in society -- including those on the top who today make horrific decisions unchallenged -- will be forced to respond to that.

Look, go ahead and vote if you think you must. But the question is where are you going to put your resources and energies? Into something that has disappointed you time and again? Something that doesn't even represent your demands and interests? Or into something that you not only agree with, but that carries the only chance now before us to carve out a different road and a different future?

snip

Face it. The political will of the people is not going to find expression through the elections. Look at the state of official politics and how unacceptable the whole process and logic is.

It's extreme left wing nonsense - high on rhetoric but it's nothing more than the ramblings of a rag-tag group of disparate left wingers - CTs, communists, anti-capitalists, anarchists and hippies with an umbrella ideology defined purely in terms of what they oppose - because such are the internal contradictions between the various groups that they can offer no coherent vision of their own. So it's left simply as "drive Bush out" - a nice slogan to put on a t-shirt but so empty on actual substance as to be virtually meaningless.

Skeptic Ginger

26th September 2006, 02:27 AM

Isn't a protest which core aim is to over-throw the current government somewhat anti-democratic? Maybe they should take some tips from the Thais....:DAre you equating impeachment with "overthowing"? Could you point out the call for armed struggle? I missed that.

Boston Globe, January 4, 2006, Bush could bypass new torture ban (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/)After approving the bill last Friday, Bush issued a ''signing statement"...This means Bush believes he can waive the restrictions, the White House and legal specialists said.

...Some legal specialists said yesterday that the president's signing statement, which was posted on the White House website but had gone unnoticed over the New Year's weekend, raises serious questions about whether he intends to follow the law.

...Bush, when signing laws, routinely issues signing statements saying he will construe them consistent with his own constitutional authority...

David Golove, a New York University law professor who specializes in executive power issues, said that the signing statement means that Bush believes he can still authorize harsh interrogation tactics when he sees fit.

"The signing statement is saying 'I will only comply with this law when I want to, and if something arises in the war on terrorism where I think it's important to torture or engage in cruel, inhuman, and degrading conduct, I have the authority to do so and nothing in this law is going to stop me,' " he said. ''They don't want to come out and say it directly because it doesn't sound very nice, but it's unmistakable to anyone who has been following what's going on."

Golove and other legal specialists compared the signing statement to Bush's decision, revealed last month, to bypass a 1978 law forbidding domestic wiretapping without a warrant. Bush authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans' international phone calls and e-mails without a court order starting after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The president and his aides argued that the Constitution gives the commander in chief the authority to bypass the 1978 law when necessary to protect national security. They also argued that Congress implicitly endorsed that power when it authorized the use of force against the perpetrators of the attacks.

...Since the 2001 attacks, the administration has also asserted the power to bypass domestic and international laws in deciding how to detain prisoners captured in the Afghanistan war. It also has claimed the power to hold any US citizen Bush designates an ''enemy combatant" without charges or access to an attorney.

'The whole point of the McCain Amendment was to close every loophole," said Marty Lederman, a Georgetown University law professor who served in the Justice Department from 1997 to 2002. ''The president has re-opened the loophole by asserting the constitutional authority to act in violation of the statute where it would assist in the war on terrorism."

Elisa Massimino, Washington director for Human Rights Watch, called Bush's signing statement an ''in-your-face affront" to both McCain and to Congress.

''The basic civics lesson that there are three co-equal branches of government that provide checks and balances on each other is being fundamentally rejected by this executive branch," she said.Bush believes he is above the law. He believes the Constitution says so. That isn't how many people interpret checks and balances. When the President breaks the law, he/she is subject to an impeachment trial. That is how we as citizens in a democracy can address a President who tries to act as a dictator.

Cylinder

26th September 2006, 02:45 AM

We are not at war with terrorism any more than we were at war with terrorism when McVey blew up the Federal Building.

Can you point me to the War Powers Act authorization (http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html) for Timothy McVeigh or his organization? I must have missed that one.

andyandy

26th September 2006, 02:46 AM

Are you equating impeachment with "overthowing"? Could you point out the call for armed struggle? I missed that.

Impeaching is within the political process - it occurs within a political and legal framework which this movement seeks to bypass. The movement is commited to change outside the political process - both the replacement of the administration and replacement of the entire democratic system.
Does that fit "overthrow?"

To bring about the downfall or destruction of, especially by force or concerted action: http://www.bartleby.com/61/62/O0196200.html

Yes. The movement seek to bring about the downfall of the current administration and the current democratic system through concerted action. Ie. The movement wants to overthrow the current system.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

26th September 2006, 02:50 AM

And one more thing about the Geneva Conventions, Bush and his neocons are not following those conventions. They themselves set up this new category of "enemy combatant" because Congress did not declare a war. Bush has ignored the Conventions as they applied to torture. Ashcroft and Gonzales have made all sorts of outrageous legal claims about how the Conventions don't apply. It seems you are picking cherries here and ignoring the ones you don't like.

Well, you still haven't addressed how Bush equates to Hitler, or why we should support a protest that makes that claim. Nonetheless, your claim that Bush set up a new category of "enemy combatant" because Congress did not declare war is completely wrong (and the term is "unlawful combatant" not "enemy combatant.") The term came about because terrorists do not fit any of the categories that are laid out in the Geneva Conventions. They are not local resistance fighters, they are not uniformed fighters of a national army, and they are not guerrilas. The best way to describe a terrorist is as a member of an international crime syndicate whose sole goal is to cause massive destruction. In a traditional war, we can take EPWs (Enemy Prisoners of War), hold them in EPW camps, and either return them to their country in a prisoner exchange, or repatriate them at the end of the conflict. There is no need for a trial because a Prisoner of War is a recognized status. A terrorist captured in Afghanistan, however, does not fit that category. He cannot be repatriated back to his country, because he will simply go back to being a terrorist again, with no particular ending point (aside from him being killed) -- unless that country happens to imprison him. At the same time, however, terrorists do not necessarily fit the category of "criminal" either. If we capture a foreign national terrorist in Afghanistan, for example, we can't actually claim he has committed a crime -- even if he is training in a terrorist training camp with the purpose of blowing up U.S. targets. He is a foreign national in a foreign country, and is not subject to U.S. laws. It is very unclear exactly what legal ability we have to try a terrorist captured abroad -- especially given that they were captured, rather than arrested. Yet few people are going to argue that we should not have apprehended people in Afghanistan training at obvious terrorist training camps. They were clearly training with the purpose of attacking the United States or other countries. In short, the status of a terrorist is not clear, because the Geneva Conventions did not address them. Are they criminals that we put on trial? It would seem not. Are they Prisoners of War? It would seem they don't fit that definition either. They are somewhere in between a criminal and a EPW. The term "unlawful combatant" was created because, quite frankly, the U.S. had no idea how to classify them. And I am not sure anyone else in the world does either.

Now, that doesn't mean I agree with Alberto Gonzales or with how Bush has handled the issue. My personal opinion is that we should have pledged to treat them under the Geneva Conventions from the beginning, regardless of their official status. Nonetheless, the classification of them as "unlawful combatants" probably speaks more closely to their true status than anything else would have. It is flat-out wrong to claim that we didn't treat them as EPWs simply because "Congress didn't declare a war," and I am not sure where you came by that assumption.

Cylinder

26th September 2006, 03:02 AM

Nonetheless, your claim that Bush set up a new category of "enemy combatant" because Congress did not declare war is completely wrong (and the term is "unlawful combatant" not "enemy combatant.")

Indeed.

By universal agreement and practice the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful.

Those words were not written by Bush, Gonzales, Rumsfeld or Rove. In fact, they (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=317&invol=1) were written by Chief Justice Harlan Stone. In 1942.

You probably already know this, but unlawful combatant is a subset of enemy combatant. Those persons which qualify for protections as prisoners-of-war under the Third Convention are also enemy combatants.

Badger

26th September 2006, 03:09 AM

Why don't you guys invent a few more political parties then?

We have a bunch of 'em up here in Canada. Some even get members elected.

The Atheist

26th September 2006, 03:21 AM

Man, I'm just loving this JREF critical thinking - you guys are great!

Have a blast. Be sure and take pictures, and try not to get hit with a Molotov cocktail. Peace can be a real bitch.

AS

Have fun. Don't bother shaving your legs or taking a bath. No one will caare.

This takes place on a weekday though, no problem for the unemployed societal leeches that make up the bulk of rally participants but may affect your schedule. Bonus points if you wear your Che Guevara shirt.

In my opinion, your statement is crap.

Hell, the point isn't even to change anything. The real point of this protest is so that the protesters can feel good about themselves and confirm to each other that they hold the proper views.

Commies, anarchists and tree huggers sounds about right :)Yup, good and fair argument all round. Pass me another beer.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

26th September 2006, 03:29 AM

Those words were not written by Bush, Gonzales, Rumsfeld or Rove. In fact, they were written by Chief Justice Harlan Stone. In 1942.

You probably already know this, but unlawful combatant is a subset of enemy combatant. Those persons which qualify for protections as prisoners-of-war under the Third Convention are also enemy combatants.

Great cite, and thanks for the clarification, which shows pretty clearly that Bush did not invent the term in question. And yeah, you are dead-on about the unlawful combatants being a subset of enemy combatants. When skeptigirl said, "They themselves set up this new category of "enemy combatant" because Congress did not declare a war," though, I don't think she was using "of" meaning "a new subset of." She can feel free to correct me if that is what she actually meant. I took it as her misspeaking (or miswriting in this case).

Badger

26th September 2006, 03:45 AM

Man, I'm just loving this JREF critical thinking - you guys are great!

Yup, good and fair argument all round. Pass me another beer.

I see you only quoted part of my post. Did you read the rest of it?

And did you happen to catch the subsequent defense that Cheezjoff presented?

Based on available information, it is still my opinion that his/her statement is crap.

What would you consider good and fair argument instead?

andyandy

26th September 2006, 04:06 AM

Man, I'm just loving this JREF critical thinking - you guys are great!

Originally Posted by andyandy
Commies, anarchists and tree huggers sounds about right

Yup, good and fair argument all round. Pass me another beer.

you seem to have missed out all the parts where people provided evidence for their characterizations.....

If you object to labeling the movement as a disparate collection of far left groups, then perhaps you'd like to explain how you would describe them.

The Atheist

26th September 2006, 04:34 AM

If you object to labeling the movement as a disparate collection of far left groups, then perhaps you'd like to explain how you would describe them.I'm not objecting to it, hell, I'd probably agree with some of it, I'm as good at slagging off idiots as anyone. I haven't bothered reading up on the protest or group involved, I get the gist from those who care.

I just get a whiff of hypocrisy here.

A band of sceptics, who collectively pride themselves on the quality of their argument, the logic of their position and their critical thinking in defence of it aren't showing that with those type of replies. I had a set-to with a couple of people over my anti-religious stance, including getting a warning for "incivilty", which I thought was pretty cool. What I said was a lot tamer than the stuff I quoted above, as I recall and it's all available in living colour as one of my TWO features in AAH. My stance on religion is pretty much the same as those opinions. i.e. "If you're stupid enough to believe in god, then you're a worthless, snivelling low-life" or words to that effect. It isn't at all popular amongst sceptics.

Those same sceptics have no such trouble taking over my role when it's something like this. (Dare I say, something with political, rather than religious overtones?) Doesn't that sound just a touch hypocritical?

Badger

26th September 2006, 04:38 AM

I see.

Cylinder

26th September 2006, 05:39 AM

I just get a whiff of hypocrisy here.

Noted - but I think you also have to factor in some of the quoted members' quite extensive history of informative posts1. Some of the sarcasm probably stems from (at least the perception of) repetitive recitations of the same type of evangelism that would be as quickly swatted if it came from most any part of the spectrum. I cannot speak for other members however - these observations are strictly my own.

In other words, I don't think the topic was taken very seriously in the first place. A quick look at the organization should be enough to see why. These people are no skeptics.

1Just for the record, I do not include myself in that class nor did you quote me.

WildCat

26th September 2006, 05:53 AM

A band of sceptics, who collectively pride themselves on the quality of their argument, the logic of their position and their critical thinking in defence of it aren't showing that with those type of replies.
Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm not going to do a 10,000 word post describing in detail the faults of every one of the dozens of far-flung far-left views of the participants and organizers of this rally. In my first post in this thread, I linked to a photo essay of last years WCW rally in San Francisco. It speaks volumes about this rally - Mao communists, 9/11 conspiracy nutters, anarchists etc. really aren't worth my time here in this thread. I will spend time debunking each individually on their own threads, but it's pointless in this one.

The WCW rally is a collection of far-left failed ideologies masquerading as a popular movement. And that's really all that needs to be said about it, though a few jokes here and there are fun to toss about.

Beerina

26th September 2006, 06:13 AM

Are you equating impeachment with "overthowing"? Could you point out the call for armed struggle? I missed that.

Boston Globe, January 4, 2006, Bush could bypass new torture ban (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/)Bush believes he is above the law. He believes the Constitution says so. That isn't how many people interpret checks and balances. When the President breaks the law, he/she is subject to an impeachment trial. That is how we as citizens in a democracy can address a President who tries to act as a dictator.

If you read the actual signing statements, they're very dry and just list areas where the president believes Congress has overstepped its authority in the law, typically in cases mandating how foreign policy shall be handled. It's conceivable the president sees a conflict in mandates as to how the president should go about his job protecting the nation.

Beerina

26th September 2006, 06:21 AM

Great cite, and thanks for the clarification, which shows pretty clearly that Bush did not invent the term in question. And yeah, you are dead-on about the unlawful combatants being a subset of enemy combatants. When skeptigirl said, "They themselves set up this new category of "enemy combatant" because Congress did not declare a war," though, I don't think she was using "of" meaning "a new subset of." She can feel free to correct me if that is what she actually meant. I took it as her misspeaking (or miswriting in this case).

Ultimately, the solution may be to continue to hold the nations the terrorist camps operate in responsible. We've started down that road, enough to cow Qadaffi anyway and put the thumbscrews to Pakistan, Syria, and others to help out, at least somewhat. Although not political, I'm sure we did threaten to bomb the Pakistan government back to the stone age if they didn't help -- and it was the truth. Game over. Help us or be considered the enemy if you refuse to bust up these camps. That momentum needs to be kept up and not squandered.

andyandy

26th September 2006, 06:39 AM

Sorry to dissapoint you, but I'm not going to do a 10,000 word post describing in detail the faults of every one of the dozens of far-flung far-left views of the participants and organizers of this rally. In my first post in this thread, I linked to a photo essay of last years WCW rally in San Francisco. It speaks volumes about this rally - Mao communists, 9/11 conspiracy nutters, anarchists etc. really aren't worth my time here in this thread. I will spend time debunking each individually on their own threads, but it's pointless in this one.

The WCW rally is a collection of far-left failed ideologies masquerading as a popular movement. And that's really all that needs to be said about it, though a few jokes here and there are fun to toss about.

I think Wildcat says it well. Sledgehammers and walnuts really. If you disagree with anything i've posted TA i'd be more than happy to expand - but to be honest i don't think it's especially necessary to. I mean, have you read their FAQs? :rolleyes:

Mycroft

26th September 2006, 08:03 AM

Are you equating impeachment with "overthowing"? Could you point out the call for armed struggle? I missed that.

Boston Globe, January 4, 2006, Bush could bypass new torture ban (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/01/04/bush_could_bypass_new_torture_ban/)Bush believes he is above the law. He believes the Constitution says so. That isn't how many people interpret checks and balances. When the President breaks the law, he/she is subject to an impeachment trial. That is how we as citizens in a democracy can address a President who tries to act as a dictator.

Do you see any problems with presenting an editorial -i.e. someone's opinions- as evidence?

Ziggurat

26th September 2006, 08:18 AM

Shortly after 9/11 it may have been easier to consider the war charge. But 5 years later, an invasion into a country that had nothing to do with 9/11, and which has actually resulted in more terrorist attacks, not less, the fact these people were not all "enemy combatants" as claimed, and the fact the Geneva Conventions were written with something completely different in mind, makes what is occurring now with these secret abductions and no writ of habeas corpus quite inappropriate and worrisome if one believes the Constitution really is the rule of law.

Well, most Guantanamo inmates were captured in Afghanistan, so Iraq is quite irrelevant to the question of whether or not we can hold them without trials and without lawyers. And many of them weren't secret abductions either. Nor does habeas corpus apply to enemy soldiers: never has, never will. So you're basically trying to change the question. You stated, categorically, that you objected to imprisonment without trials and lawyers. You didn't say in SOME cases you objected, your categorical objection means you objected in ALL cases. So the issue with the Geneva conventions cannot be brushed under the rug by changing the subject.

We are not at war with terrorism any more than we were at war with terrorism when McVey blew up the Federal Building.

Irrelevant to my question: we are at war the the Taliban, so the question stands.

But at the same time, this President has been irresponsible.

Irrelevant to my question: you objected to the standard treatment of prisoners of armed conflicts permitted by the Geneva conventions. Whatever problems you have with Bush don't change that: you either object to the Geneva conventions, or you stated an objection which you don't actually believe in. Which is it?

So, it ain't a war, it's an incompetent administration. Dangerous people, yes; enemy combatants, only a few who were actually picked up in Afghanistan in battle.

The numbers don't matter: your objection was categorical, and so the issue is present even if the situation were purely hypothetical. But of course, it isn't even hypothetical the moment we pick up even a single enemy combatant. You have objected to treatment specified by the Geneva Conventions. How do you reconcile that?

They could have been jailed there. That is where their crimes were committed.

Being an enemy soldier isn't a crime. That's why the Geneva Conventions allows you to hold prisoners without trial and without lawyers.

In essence this says the Bush administration is making up its own rules.

And you're making up your own as well: namely, the idea that we cannot hold prisoners without trials and without lawyers. We always could, we always have, and so has every other party to the Geneva Conventions. You haven't addressed my question at all. I'm wondering if you even understand what the Geneva Conventions are about.

RandFan

26th September 2006, 08:34 AM

Man, I'm just loving this JREF critical thinking - you guys are great!Thanks, best way I know to deal with someone who is here to post reams and reams of data and who won't sincerely engage in argument. I don't take skeptigirl serious for good reason. She's a troll who argues via alt ctrl v. Would you prefer we post pictures of cats and recipes?

AmateurScientist

26th September 2006, 09:08 AM

She's a troll who argues via alt ctrl v.

Ha ha. Brilliant.

I'd nominate that for a language award, but I suspect it's bad form to include a nomination that arguably trashes another poster.

At times I've thought Skeptigirl might be a very bright but seriously misguided extreme left-wing nut and ideologue, but it does seem that she doesn't really engage in point to point debate. Rather, nearly all of her arguments could be lifted right out of some other left-wing nut's rants on some other corner of the internet.

It's kind of like those morning radio show setups where the host pranksters call some business and play pre-recorded snippets from movie characters Arnold Schwarzenegger has played throughout the "conversation" with the poor dummy on the other side of the phone.

Her debates are like those conversations, only we're the dummies.

AS

Pardalis

26th September 2006, 09:33 AM

Oh puh-leaze, save the sanctimonious nonsense for the protest. Does the term "False Dichotomy" mean anything to you? Not supporting a protest that tries to compare Bush to Hitler does not make one a Bush supporter. Apparently, to you, anyone who doesn't agree with the premise of this protest must be a brain-washed, Bush-loving Republican.

That's exactly what I think, skeptigirl. Everytime I hear this extreme anti-Bush rethoric and comparisons with Hitler nonsense (and believe me, in Montréal that is too often the case), my first reaction is to defend Bush, even though I don't particularly agree with him. Maybe it's a personal reaction, but your "movement" does quite the opposite of what it wants. It doesn't convince me, it repells me. I hate political and ideological propaganda, no matter who is doing it.

RandFan

26th September 2006, 09:34 AM

Ha ha. Brilliant.

I'd nominate that for a language award, but I suspect it's bad form to include a nomination that arguably trashes another poster.

At times I've thought Skeptigirl might be a very bright but seriously misguided extreme left-wing nut and ideologue, but it does seem that she doesn't really engage in point to point debate. Rather, nearly all of her arguments could be lifted right out of some other left-wing nut's rants on some other corner of the internet.

It's kind of like those morning radio show setups where the host pranksters call some business and play pre-recorded snippets from movie characters Arnold Schwarzenegger has played throughout the "conversation" with the poor dummy on the other side of the phone.

Her debates are like those conversations, only we're the dummies.

AS I love those. The best is Jack Nicholson's charachter from "A Few Good Men". "Are we clear?"

:D

RandFan

26th September 2006, 09:48 AM

Thanks, best way I know to deal with someone who is here to post reams and reams of data and who won't sincerely engage in argument. I don't take skeptigirl serious for good reason. She's a troll who argues via alt ctrl v. Would you prefer we post pictures of cats and recipes?One more point. Look around the forum. Check out the depth of skeptigirl's involvement. It's as shallow as the kiddie pool. I know one thing about skeptigirl, she doesn't like Bush. Can anyone tell us anything more about her?

AmateurScientist

26th September 2006, 09:50 AM

I love those. The best is Jack Nicholson's charachter from "A Few Good Men". "Are we clear?"

:D

Yeah, I've heard that one, but don't remember where to find those things.

This is completely irrelevant to anything in this thread, but mentioning Nicholson reminds of something. Have you ever seen the parody re-cut trailer for The Shining with happy and feel-good music and a movie guy voiceover that suggests that it's a nice movie about a boy in search of his dad? It's so funny it should be illegal.

AS

senorpogo

26th September 2006, 09:51 AM

Everytime I hear this extreme anti-Bush rethoric and comparisons with Hitler nonsense (and believe me, in Montréal that is too often the case), my first reaction is to defend Bush, even though I don't particularly agree with him.

It's a Rovian plot. :covereyes

AmateurScientist

26th September 2006, 09:51 AM

One more point. Look around the forum. Check out the depth of skeptigirl's involvement. It's as shallow as the kiddie pool. I know one thing about skeptigirl, she doesn't like Bush. Can anyone tell us anything more about her?

She hates Israel too. She toes the Hezbollah line very well in her posts in the Israel-Lebanon conflict threads.

AS

RandFan

26th September 2006, 09:52 AM

Yeah, I've heard that one, but don't remember where to find those things.

This is completely irrelevant to anything in this thread, but mentioning Nicholson reminds of something. Have you ever seen the parody re-cut trailer for The Shining with happy and feel-good music and a movie guy voiceover that suggests that it's a nice movie about a boy in search of his dad? It's so funny it should be illegal.

ASNo but I'd love to see it. I have to go to an appointment but I'll try to find those crank calls later.

RandFan

26th September 2006, 09:53 AM

She hates Israel too. She toes the Hezbollah line very well in her posts in the Israel-Lebanon conflict threads.

ASOk, so she's a two trick pony.

senorpogo

26th September 2006, 09:55 AM

This is completely irrelevant to anything in this thread, but mentioning Nicholson reminds of something. Have you ever seen the parody re-cut trailer for The Shining with happy and feel-good music and a movie guy voiceover that suggests that it's a nice movie about a boy in search of his dad? It's so funny it should be illegal.

AS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z11B9L2awVA

Pardalis

26th September 2006, 10:06 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z11B9L2awVA

:dl:

DRBUZZ0

26th September 2006, 10:19 AM

IMHO: If you do not like bush, there are some things you can do (other than wait).

1. Call your gongressman/woman or senator and tell them to oppose whatever he does that you don't like. Tell other people to do so. If the can president is opposed by enough of the senate and house, then he's pretty much paralized from doing much. He can issue certain orders and whatnot, but they could stop him.

2. Find something to get him impeached with. And given the backlash over clinton, it's going to have to be really good. No bad policies will do. Not any of this "he lied to us." No...it has to be really black adn white. Something like he knocked over a convience store while on the road between campaign stops.

3. You could try to create an uprising. But...I would not recomend this. Okay...you might not like the current administration, but trust me...you don't want a huge power vacuum and nobody sure who's in control while the government simply tries to reestablish itsself. You want an example of what can happen when you knock over a leader (even if he is a bastard)? see: Iraq

Cylinder

26th September 2006, 10:19 AM

Ok, so she's a two trick pony.

Corporate media conspiracy.

Ziggurat

26th September 2006, 11:10 AM

Corporate media conspiracy.

Three tricks. Anyone want to go for "ruthless efficiency" and "fanatical devotion to Noam Chomsky"?

RandFan

26th September 2006, 12:30 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z11B9L2awVA

Oh, that is sooo good. :D Solsbury Hill by Gabriel is perfect.

RandFan

26th September 2006, 12:36 PM

No but I'd love to see it. I have to go to an appointment but I'll try to find those crank calls later.
ARE WE CLEAR? (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=6910)

Damn, that makes me piss my pants every time.

The Atheist

26th September 2006, 12:55 PM

I think Wildcat says it well. Sledgehammers and walnuts really. If you disagree with anything i've posted TA i'd be more than happy to expand - but to be honest i don't think it's especially necessary to. I mean, have you read their FAQs? No, mate, I wouldn't waste my time reading any of it, as I said, I'd probably be tossing the abuse around myself if I had any interest in the "movement" (if I'm not over-dignifying it with that term).

My problem is solely with the inconsistency.

Skeptic Ginger

26th September 2006, 02:19 PM

I give you my sentiments from another with the same observations:

Olbermann's latest summary of where Bush has taken us. (http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/09/25/olbermanns-special-comment-are-yours-the-actions-of-a-true-american/) The video is the best way to enjoy it.

Then there is this jewel, Bush in denial about his failures (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12913317/) as reported by his own National Intelligence Estimate report.

The comments about hating Israel are as absurd as are many of the ones responding to my comments here. I would be happy to discuss things like the Geneva Convention issue but not if I have to wade through uncalled for lies and insults. Why should I bother?

There are a lot of very intelligent people on JREF. I'm at a loss to explain why this forum is so filled with time wasting ignorance. There are forums where there are more on one side of the political isle than the other. But they don't fill up pages with Jr Hi drivel when another point of view is expressed. What is the point of just entertaining yourselves with insults and taunts? Do you have nothing better to do?

I don't know you all from Adam. I certainly have no concern for your unsupported conclusions about me or your ignorance about current events. I wonder why you trashed this thread instead of just ignoring it? Does the rally worry you perhaps? Are you having a harder time facing the reality of just how badly Bush is performing? Can't admit the liberals have been right about Bush all along and the neocons are now seeing the results of their failed efforts?

Olbermann's observations wouldn't have made it on the air as is in 2002. But now that Bush can no longer fake the appearance of success, and "the terrorists will get you without me", is sounding a bit old, the media tide is turning. Republicans are fleeing Bush's side by the droves. You might want to look a little closer into why that is rather than posting nonsense here.

Bush has put us in even more danger than before 9/11. If you really believe there is a terrorist threat, then you might want to look at some other options because the ones currently being exercised are clearly not making anyone any safer.

Fortunately there are some intelligent Republicans out there (even though none seem to be posting here or at least I can't tell because of all the childish posts clogging up the thread). Fortunately Bush's facade is dissolving and more and more people are seeing what we 'liberals' saw a long time ago.

Bush won't change. He seems to believe God directed his decisions therefore they have to be right. He wants to attack Iran. Why he finds this necessary, I wouldn't want to speculate. To be cliche about it, the world can't wait until 2008 to see Bush out of office. He has done tremendous damage to this country in 6 years, 2 more could prove even more disastrous. We have a system in place for just this reason. I don't want to look back and say I underestimated just how bad things were. If they aren't that bad, the system will unlikely give the result of impeachment. If things are that bad, Bush can't be impeached if people do not speak up.

I bet some of you were ranting to impeach Clinton for lying about a BJ. "We are a country of laws", the Republican talking point went. Compared to Bush's flagrant dismissal of having to follow any law he doesn't see fit to follow, boy does Clinton's impeachment look foolish now.

Jocko

26th September 2006, 02:26 PM

...boy does Clinton's impeachment look foolish now.

Not compared to some people, no.

RandFan

26th September 2006, 02:29 PM

I bet some of you were ranting to impeach Clinton for lying about a BJ. "We are a country of laws", the Republican talking point went. Compared to Bush's flagrant dismissal of having to follow any law he doesn't see fit to follow, boy does Clinton's impeachment look foolish now. If you do a search of my posts on Clinton you will find that I give him a lot of credit for the State of the Union while he was in office. You will also find that I was against the investigation and impeachment. I have also been quite critical of Bush starting numerous threads of his mishandling of Katrina and other affairs. As I have said on numerous occasions I think there is merit to a number of the claims you have pasted (regurgitated here). I just don't take you seriously as anything more than a partisan hack.

Thanks,

RandFan

andyandy

26th September 2006, 03:05 PM

No, mate, I wouldn't waste my time reading any of it, as I said, I'd probably be tossing the abuse around myself if I had any interest in the "movement" (if I'm not over-dignifying it with that term).

My problem is solely with the inconsistency.

which inconsistancy? In what way are the group not characterised as a rag-tag group of left wing extremists consisting of communists, anarchists and environmentalists? If you disagree with the description then let's discuss why. If you don't disagree then what's your point?

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

26th September 2006, 04:01 PM

I give you my sentiments from another with the same observations:

Olbermann's latest summary of where Bush has taken us. The video is the best way to enjoy it.

Then there is this jewel, Bush in denial about his failures as reported by his own National Intelligence Estimate report.

I guess I will ask for the last time, even though it seems futile: How does any of this equate Bush to Hitler? I have yet to see you come up with a coherent (or any) defense of that assertion by the WCW folks. Pointing out that Bush is a lousy President still doesn't make him anywhere close to one of the worst totalitarian rulers in history. Lousy President != Hitler.

I don't know if you have noticed, but most of us actually did go to the WCW website and read their views on the subject. From a purely tactical standpoint, if you are seriously trying to build a movement, it blows my mind that you would rather chalk up criticism of the protest to a right-wing conspiracy than actually take a close look at the aspects of the protest that are alienating people.

Ziggurat

26th September 2006, 04:07 PM

From a purely tactical standpoint, if you are seriously trying to build a movement,

That's an assumption I'm not sure it's safe to make.

gtc

26th September 2006, 05:40 PM

There are a lot of very intelligent people on JREF. I'm at a loss to explain why this forum is so filled with time wasting ignorance. There are forums where there are more on one side of the political isle than the other. But they don't fill up pages with Jr Hi drivel when another point of view is expressed. What is the point of just entertaining yourselves with insults and taunts? Do you have nothing better to do?

I think the problem is that people see a disconnect between your reasoning and your conclusions. Particularly the critical thinking you clearly apply to Bush, but not to the WCW. My terminology may not be the best but let me explain.

You seem to consider yourself a mainstream liberal and your reasons for thinking Bush is a "bad" president, as outlined in the post above, seem to reflect mainstream liberal views and critical thinking skills.

However, your conclusion is not (to quote DR BUZZO) to simply wait out the next 2 years or:

1. Call your gongressman/woman or senator and tell them to oppose whatever he does that you don't like. Tell other people to do so. If the can president is opposed by enough of the senate and house, then he's pretty much paralized from doing much. He can issue certain orders and whatnot, but they could stop him.

2. Find something to get him impeached with. And given the backlash over clinton, it's going to have to be really good. No bad policies will do. Not any of this "he lied to us." No...it has to be really black adn white. Something like he knocked over a convience store while on the road between campaign stops.

But to jump straight to support for the WCW movement. This is a tad odd as far as most sceptics here are concerned.

What is even odder to us is the way the movement is labelled mainstream despite the small number of people who attended last years rallies, the views stated on their website, the views of the organizers, the banners and viewpoints presented at their previous rallies and the associated violence.

Yet odder, was the reaction to questions about the movement. To me, it seems like there was no real response to any of the points raised but only mention of some nebulous web based conspiracy against the movement.

Ultimately, I can't even see how support for WCW can be justified on purely real-political grounds. That is, previous rallies have had absolutely no effect on Bush, but appear to have polarised large parts of the activist community and further isolated that community from the mainstream liberals and swinging voters who will actually decide the next election.

In short, there does not appear to be any kind of interaction happening in this thread and critical thinking skills seem to be being applied selectively.

To bring this thread back to a decent debate, I would like to see a focus on why the WCW represents the mainstream and why its approach is desirable. To help this, perhaps we could put aside questions about why Bush is a "bad" (my shorthand) and focus on the appropriate response.

I know my response focuses on you, rather than the points you raised. However, I think those points have already been covered and I post this in response to your reflections on the participants in this thread. I hope I have conveyed my views in a respectful manner.

AmateurScientist

26th September 2006, 06:16 PM

ARE WE CLEAR? (http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=6910)

Damn, that makes me piss my pants every time.

That's the one. Yeah, I laughed my ass off at that the first time, and the second time, and the third time...

Did you see the clip with Robert DeNiro and Elmo from Sesame Street? It's for real and it's trippy. DeNiro. With Elmo. Somebody's been taking hits of acid again...

AS

DaChew

26th September 2006, 06:23 PM

RandFan

26th September 2006, 06:28 PM

That's the one. Yeah, I laughed my ass off at that the first time, and the second time, and the third time...

Did you see the clip with Robert DeNiro and Elmo from Sesame Street? It's for real and it's trippy. DeNiro. With Elmo. Somebody's been taking hits of acid again...

AS:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJJ2WTn9WOc

Badger

26th September 2006, 06:50 PM

Andyandy, I believe the below outlines why The Atheist posted what he posted. Bolding is mine.

IMHO it appears to be a response in the vein of "I know you are but what am I?" to an unrelated issue.

I'm not objecting to it, hell, I'd probably agree with some of it, I'm as good at slagging off idiots as anyone. I haven't bothered reading up on the protest or group involved, I get the gist from those who care.

I just get a whiff of hypocrisy here.

A band of sceptics, who collectively pride themselves on the quality of their argument, the logic of their position and their critical thinking in defence of it aren't showing that with those type of replies. I had a set-to with a couple of people over my anti-religious stance, including getting a warning for "incivilty", which I thought was pretty cool. What I said was a lot tamer than the stuff I quoted above, as I recall and it's all available in living colour as one of my TWO features in AAH. My stance on religion is pretty much the same as those opinions. i.e. "If you're stupid enough to believe in god, then you're a worthless, snivelling low-life" or words to that effect. It isn't at all popular amongst sceptics.

Those same sceptics have no such trouble taking over my role when it's something like this. (Dare I say, something with political, rather than religious overtones?) Doesn't that sound just a touch hypocritical?

senorpogo

26th September 2006, 10:41 PM

:D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mJJ2WTn9WOc

I tithe to the Church of Youtube.

"Remember that one thing we saw that once?"

http://www.youtube............

senorpogo

26th September 2006, 10:48 PM

My problem is solely with the inconsistency.

So, The Atheist, just so I'm straight (and I'm not being a smart-arre here, just trying to clarify), you're problem isn't so much on how posters are treating Skeptigirl, but rather you're upset because some of the same posters giving her the what-not were upset over you giving the what-not to some other poster in some other thread somewhere else on this very board?

Cylinder

26th September 2006, 11:31 PM

Then there is this jewel, Bush in denial about his failures (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12913317/) as reported by his own National Intelligence Estimate report.

Let's look at one of the findings. From the NIE:

We assess that the Iraq jihad is shaping a new generation of terrorist leaders and operatives; perceived jihadist success there would inspire more fighters to continue the struggle elsewhere.

The Iraq conflict has become the cause celebre for jihadists, breeding a deep resentment of US involvement in the Muslim world and cultivating supporters for the global jihadist movement. Should jihadists leaving Iraq perceive themselves, and be perceived, to have failed, we judge fewer fighters will be inspired to carry on the fight.

President Bush:

The fighting in Iraq has been difficult and it has been bloody, and some say that Iraq is a diversion from the war on terror. The terrorists disagree...

The terrorists know that the outcome in the war on terror will depend on the outcome in Iraq -- and so to protect our own citizens, the free world must succeed in Iraq...

If America pulls out of Iraq before the Iraqis can defend themselves, the terrorists will follow us here, home...

senorpogo

26th September 2006, 11:37 PM

I tried to post this earlier today, but my internet cut out -

In a previous thread, I once said this to a 9/11 CT believer - if it is unquestionable that the US Gov't planned 9/11 then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide proof that would completely convince me of your claim.
Please do so.

And I say it now - if it is unquestionable that the current US administration is so corrupt that we need to remove them from power then it shouldn't be hard for you to provide proof that would completely convince me of your claim.
Please do so.

There's quite a bit of sparring that goes on in the politics forum. All of it, generally, involves proof, evidence. Sometimes generic-JREF-right-wing-pundit1 posts some bogus link and her left-wing JREF counterpart jumps on it. Other times, generic-JREF-left-wing-pundit69 makes some terrible argument that gets ripped to shreads by his counterpart. Regardless, both parties usually attempt to bring proof and engage in dialogue. If they don't, the other side (or the middle) bashes them for it.

Skeptigirl, you seem to have made a conscious decision to not engage the other side in debate. If you believe that you're correct in what you believe, then you should be more than willing to convince the non-believers in dialogue.

For Buddha sakes, countless (uh... a dozen?) people engage "the other side" in debate here everyday in the politics forums. They do so honestly, mostly. Even when they don't, they're not afraid to admit their partisanship. Regardless, the worst left/right winger doesn't just post a bunch of links with some rhetoric and then refuse to answer the other side. You've out partisaned them all. Sad really.

Truth is, it takes an odd type of courage and fortitude to post consistently in the politics forum of the JREF. And most don't have it.

Skeptic Ginger

27th September 2006, 03:13 AM

The article does not state that, only that some members were involved in its creation. And so what? Yeah, dirty rotten commies, but not against the law and they have a right to protest like everyone else. Exactly. I have looked into this further and that is all, some of the organizers and attendees are 'commies'. The vast majority of the organization is not, has no such goals, has moderates as well as extremists among their numbers and extremists do not dominate by any means.

Gtc's pictures (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1949924&postcount=66) are like filming Fred Phelpps and claiming he represents all Christians. Gtc's link (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/) is to a page of distortions about the rally. Gtc cites a blog comment (http://okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=947#comment464) as evidence. According to a Wiki entry on the group, "David Horowitz and others have used communist involvement to attack the organization, with Michelle Goldberg saying the RCP was not "harmless campus Marxism" on Salon.com." Like Horowitz and Goldberg don't have extreme right wing views of the world.

Here are some links with a more complete picture of this event rather than the distorted one:

WCW, the other pictures (http://www.stratecomm.net/~fritz/gallery/wcw2005)
WCW Democracy for America/Tennessee (http://www.smartcampaigns.com/d4tn/node/411?PHPSESSID=e98c39fa7e229a29bcaa855351a9ddae)
WCW,NYC,2005 (http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/11/59622.html)
WCW, Not in our name (http://www.notinourname.net/archive/2nov05-wcw.htm)
WCW, IndyBay (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/11/03/17803811.php)
WCW, SF (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/11/02/17801891.php)
blog with WCW images (http://donkeyod.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_donkeyod_archive.html)
WCW list of speakers for 10/05/06 (http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2958&Itemid=223)
Bernardine Dohrn today (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/clinic/dohrn/dohrn.html) which is certainly interesting.
Sunsara Taylor is a writer for Revolution Newspaper and sits on the Advisory Board of The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime. (http://www.blogger.com/profile/5613406) So that's one of the big ties making the entire group, in every city, just a commie front. What nonsense.
Big deal, the rcp has an ad for the WCW on their website (http://revcom.us/)

Skeptic Ginger

27th September 2006, 03:19 AM

Some of us knew that a couple of years ago: Iraq = excellent training ground for a variety of underground/guerilla/terrorist groups.

Where have you been? What, you were waiting for a confession from Washington, the land of the ever cycling spin machine? (Closest thing to a perpetual motion machine I know of. :p )

DRIt wasn't the confirmation I was describing as unbelievable. It was Bush's reply that the report was wrong and he can see the bigger picture the experts who wrote the report can't see.

Skeptic Ginger

27th September 2006, 04:06 AM

What? Making terrorism worse? No, the military conflict there has served to draw insurgents from inside and outside Iraq to the mix like flies on honey....

Our deposing of Saddam by force and thus allowing for free elections unfortunately created a vacuum of civil order and helped ignite a factional civil war. Besides Iraqi factions fighting our soldiers and each other, we have ideologues from other Muslim nations drawn to the romance and glory of fighting the Great Satan Uncle Sam, and by extension, the West and the rest of the infidels. The War in Iraq isn't making terrorism in this country or anywhere else worse. ...Maybe you should actually look at the report facts before drawing this fallacious conclusion. For your statement to be true, there would have to be a fixed number of terrorists. The point of the report was that the number of terrorists is growing quickly and we are creating more than we are killing or capturing. And it isn't merely Iraqis or even foreign nationals entering Iraq that the report is referring to. The report looked at terrorist acts and groups around the world. There were more this year than last, which was more than the year before that and so on.

Just because our government successfully manages to keep all pictures of dead babies and returning military coffins out of the eye of the US public, the rest of the world has the reality of the war on their TV screens every night. Add to that a number of Madrassas and clerics stirring up all the people and you get terrorist recruits by the hundreds or even by the thousands, who knows. The report found evidence it was a lot.

The state of the economy, to the extent it can be measured accurately at the time, is the result of a very complex interplay of hundreds or even thousands of factors. Reducing it to the simple result of Presidential policy is naive and ... not well informed.

Money is flowing into and out of China as a result of its waking potential giant of an economy. China is undergoing a rapid transformation due to its people's embracing of capitalism and a market economy, and technology that allows it to connect with and join the rest of the world in the global marketplace. What the hell does this have to do with our President and his policies?So the billions and billions being spent on the Iraq war are not stimulating the economy? Just who are we buying all our weapons and equipment from? Does Haliburton not purchase any supplies from the US? The whole war is about feeding the military industrial complex. Of course it is stimulating the economy.

And where is the capital coming from to pay for the war? Either Bush is printing money or he's writing a lot of IOUs or he's borrowing the money from other nations, in this case China. And usually the President doesn't have as much influence over the Congressional Budget. But in this case it ain't Congress running up the bills.

As for the handful of arrests in one city, I don't think that represents the first rally. It will be disappointing if more incidents like that occur. I don't expect it. There were some anarchists who caused a lot of the trouble at the Seattle WTO protests. They weren't welcome.

I've been to many peace marches in the 70s and a couple here in the last 2 years. There are always a handful of strange people who show up. It's a free country. They don't represent anyone but themselves.

And that nonsense about the RCP or the SWP, those organizations have been around forever. They have no influence as a group even if single members did have something to do with organizing this event. They aren't growing. The majority of people in the antiwar movement don't pay any attention to them and certainly aren't interested in changing the Constitution. If anything we want to reassert the Constitution Bush is trampling all over. Just because they have set up some racks of literature doesn't mean anyone takes them seriously.

The cold war is over. If anyone thinks there is a 'commie' threat or even a significant movement, they would be mistaken. Such a person might need to get out more. If it were only communist sympathizers who were going to attend these events, you'd only see a few people there. If it draws bigger crowds, which given the changing tide of Bush support is likely, then it will be more mainstream people attending. I live in Bill Gate's neighborhood. It's all Microsoft, all suburbs and actually it is a Republican district. Yet I have a number of neighbors who have been anti-war activists since we went to Iraq.

Perhaps some of you find it hard to believe, but there are many 'mainstream' people who really want Bush to resign or be impeached. They are not radical by anyone's standard. They just happen to have been paying attention to more than one gets from the 6 O'clock news.

Cylinder

27th September 2006, 04:46 AM

What is 0.008%?1

1 Anyone answering the orgasm rate for my sexual partners will be immediately pummeled.

DaChew

27th September 2006, 05:02 AM

Don't forget to bring the kids!

stamenflicker

27th September 2006, 05:12 AM

It wasn't the confirmation I was describing as unbelievable. It was Bush's reply that the report was wrong and he can see the bigger picture the experts who wrote the report can't see.

Did you even read the declassified report? It's only four measly pages, surely you can manage that.

I read absolutely nothing in that report that Bush hasn't been saying all along. And I read a vertible ***** load of things that the anti-Iraq crowd seems to be in total denial about.

DaChew

27th September 2006, 05:29 AM

So the billions and billions being spent on the Iraq war are not stimulating the economy? Just who are we buying all our weapons and equipment from? Does Haliburton not purchase any supplies from the US? The whole war is about feeding the military industrial complex. Of course it is stimulating the economy.

In a word, no, they are not. Haliburton and other defense contractors are making short term profits on the selling of all of the things that are required to support an army in battle. Others as well are making considerable short term profits selling everything from computers and communications equipment to the farmers who provide the food that the soldiers eat (you do recall that an army marches on its stomach right?).
Armed conflict, as Sun Tzu observed, is always a drain on resources. Military items, say, a bomb, is an expensive, expendable and non-productive item. If a bomb costs $2000 (or whatever a bomb costs), that is $2000 that will not be put to productive use that is completely removed from the economy. The only long term economic gain one receives from the use of the bomb would be in the deletion of folks who are a drain on economic growth (i.e. terrorists) Put that same $2000 into an item that will return greater value over its usable life than the sum of its parts and now you have something that is an actual stimulation of the economy.
So, you have to prorate the billions spent on providing war related industries with short term profits by factoring in the long term ecomomic growth those same billions would have returned had they been put to use producing productive items.

The Central Scrutinizer

27th September 2006, 05:36 AM

Exactly. I have looked into this further and that is all, some of the organizers and attendees are 'commies'. The vast majority of the organization is not, has no such goals, has moderates as well as extremists among their numbers and extremists do not dominate by any means.

Gtc's pictures (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=1949924&postcount=66) are like filming Fred Phelpps and claiming he represents all Christians. Gtc's link (http://www.zombietime.com/world_cant_wait_sf_11-2-2005/) is to a page of distortions about the rally. Gtc cites a blog comment (http://okimc.org/newswire.php?story_id=947#comment464) as evidence. According to a Wiki entry on the group, "David Horowitz and others have used communist involvement to attack the organization, with Michelle Goldberg saying the RCP was not "harmless campus Marxism" on Salon.com." Like Horowitz and Goldberg don't have extreme right wing views of the world.

Here are some links with a more complete picture of this event rather than the distorted one:

WCW, the other pictures (http://www.stratecomm.net/~fritz/gallery/wcw2005)
WCW Democracy for America/Tennessee (http://www.smartcampaigns.com/d4tn/node/411?PHPSESSID=e98c39fa7e229a29bcaa855351a9ddae)
WCW,NYC,2005 (http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2005/11/59622.html)
WCW, Not in our name (http://www.notinourname.net/archive/2nov05-wcw.htm)
WCW, IndyBay (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/11/03/17803811.php)
WCW, SF (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/11/02/17801891.php)
blog with WCW images (http://donkeyod.blogspot.com/2005_10_30_donkeyod_archive.html)
WCW list of speakers for 10/05/06 (http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2958&Itemid=223)
Bernardine Dohrn today (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/faculty/clinic/dohrn/dohrn.html) which is certainly interesting.
Sunsara Taylor is a writer for Revolution Newspaper and sits on the Advisory Board of The World Can't Wait - Drive Out the Bush Regime. (http://www.blogger.com/profile/5613406) So that's one of the big ties making the entire group, in every city, just a commie front. What nonsense.
Big deal, the rcp has an ad for the WCW on their website (http://revcom.us/)

WCW? I thought they were out of business. Vince McMahon bought the assets out of bankruptcy court.

stamenflicker

27th September 2006, 05:54 AM

Maybe you should actually look at the report facts before drawing this fallacious conclusion.

Ok... I'll bite. What should I have seen. I read it.

For your statement to be true, there would have to be a fixed number of terrorists.

Since the world population is not fixed, why should we expect fixed populations in any situation?

Given all the fuel that the LEFT gives these people, of course there are going to be more everyday.

Yes, that is correct. The LEFT. Imagine if the entire world (yeah even those benevolent United Nations guys getting all the oil-for-food kickbacks) was to stand up and say to Muslim extremists in one clear voice, "NO."

No, you will not abuse women.
No, you will not murder gays.
No, you will not starve children.
No, you will not torture your olympic atheletes when they lose.
No, you will not pursue nuclear weapons.
No, you will not seek biological or chemical weapons.
No, you will not educate your children with distorted textbooks of hate.
No, you will not behead members of the Peace Corps or foriegn press.
No, you will not strap bombs on your young men and waltz into shopping malls.

What if? All we get from the Left, is "Gee guys, you really need to quit it. And we're going to write you a letter explaining why you should stop."

17 letters later... 500,000 dead children later... 21 shiny new palaces later, Sadaam still said to the world that he'd do whatever the hell he wants.

The "Muslim street" are like children. If you don't believe me, watch the news. If you pee in the wrong direction, they are ready to riot. You don't appease a child on a tantrum. You discipline him. You educate him only after he's in a more rational state in which to communicate. You win the peace through war. So, I ask you again:

What if the entire world had stood up to Sadaam? What if the U.N. actually put something out there besides words and matched the U.S. troop for troop, boot for boot on the ground? What if they sent a clear message to Iran that it wouldn't take much go do the same to them?

What if we stopped giving these people a voice by refusing to air their temper tantrums in every media outlet in the world? What if we stopped sympathizing with the babies and asked them to grow up and support decency for their own citizens? What if we go ahead and make fun of their stupid ideology of blissful afterlife when they die killing a Jew? What if we dropped a picture of Mohammad in a vat of human piss like we did the crucifix and then tell them about free speech? Why don't we just construct an image of Mohammad out of cut-out vaginas and teach them about freedom of Western art? What if we stopped apologizing left and right every time we take a stand for freedom? If you believe so strongly in the dignity and religious respect for these people, why doesn't the left show it to its own citizens?

What if we decided that the Arab world really did deserve to be FREE?

If the whole world took a stand, you get a hell of lot more done than just walking out of your meaningless job for day... walking out of job that you already hate, to protest a President that you clearly hate.

The point of the report was that the number of terrorists is growing quickly and we are creating more than we are killing or capturing.

Four underlying factors are fueling the spread of the jihadist movement: (1)
Entrenched grievances, such as corruption, injustice, and fear of Western
domination, leading to anger, humiliation, and a sense of powerlessness; (2) the Iraq jihad; (3) the slow pace of real and sustained economic, social, and
political reforms in many Muslim majority nations; and (4) pervasive anti-US
sentiment among most Muslims all of which jihadists exploit.

The point of the report isn't to talk about Iraq. The point is to say these people are pissed off. These people pretty much are going to stay pissed off without massive global intervention.

And it isn't merely Iraqis or even foreign nationals entering Iraq that the report is referring to. The report looked at terrorist acts and groups around the world. There were more this year than last, which was more than the year before that and so on.

And the report indicates that there are three other factors, besides Iraq, that would grow this population. But you don't really bother talking about those because they don't suit your political agenda. We were attacked before the Iraq war began. We would be attacked again regardless of whether or not we went to Iraq.

Again, if the whole world slapped the Muslim world on the hands, it would be better than fueling their temper tantrums with apologies.

The cold war is over.

Yeah, 2 million dead Cambodians later. Where were your peace marches then?

Perhaps some of you find it hard to believe, but there are many 'mainstream' people who really want Bush to resign or be impeached.

Yeah, the bitter ones. They are so ticked that Clinton broke the law they want to make Bush a law breaker.

They are not radical by anyone's standard.

Nope. They are just whiner babies.

They just happen to have been paying attention to more than one gets from the 6 O'clock news.

You mean like the now bankrupt Air America I guess. They're paying attention to their own emotions and leaving logic on the doorstep.

WildCat

27th September 2006, 06:13 AM

WCW, SF (http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2005/11/02/17801891.php)
Do you read your own links? From the one above (the first and only one I clicked on) the 3rd pic:
http://www.indybay.org/uploads/2005/11/02/100_4033c.jpg

Go to the web site on the pic - globalresearch.ca - and you find this page:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20060910&articleId=3198
...which claims that al Qaeda was created by the CIA. Which, of course, leads to the conclusion that 9/11 was a CIA plot.

No, no nutjobs at the WCW rallys, nosiree...:rolleyes:

WildCat

27th September 2006, 06:17 AM

Darth Rotor

27th September 2006, 06:52 AM

Why should I bother?
You made the tactical error of entering with an emotionally charged offering. If you expected an unemotional response, you misunderstand how internet discussion groups work. Or, you were trolling. What's the rent under a bridge these days, skeptitroll, and why did you bother? :p
There are a lot of very intelligent people on JREF. I'm at a loss to explain why this forum is so filled with time wasting ignorance.
Sturgeon's Law applies to most internet discussion groups. This one happens to have a higher mean quality, but it still has a Gaussian distribution of input.
Do you have nothing better to do?
JREF members might ask you the same question, given your input on this thread: a harangue from one side of the political fence, a troll.
I don't know you all from Adam.
Evidence that Adam existed? :eek: Sorry, could not resist. :)
I certainly have no concern for your unsupported conclusions about me or your ignorance about current events.
That you view current events through a different lens than others does not make the other more ignorant, nor you more wise. Given the content of your offering, and the rhetoric on the linked sites, the lack of objectivity leaps from the page.
Does the rally worry you perhaps? Are you having a harder time facing the reality of just how badly Bush is performing? Can't admit the liberals have been right about Bush all along and the neocons are now seeing the results of their failed efforts?
1. Not me.
2. Who is this "you" to whom you are speaking?
3. Liberals and paleoconservatives have both been adamant about several deficiencies of the Bush administration. Are you happy to be in that company? I am also curious as to what "right all along" means.
Olbermann's observations wouldn't have made it on the air as is in 2002. But now that Bush can no longer fake the appearance of success, and "the terrorists will get you without me", is sounding a bit old, the media tide is turning.
That says something about the lack of prognisticative ability of the US media, doesn't it? Perhaps it represents a shift in editorial discretion among media moguls.
Republicans are fleeing Bush's side by the droves. You might want to look a little closer into why that is rather than posting nonsense here.
How much inspection does it take to understand "everyone for himself" and "rats leaving a sinking ship" concepts?
Bush has put us in even more danger than before 9/11. If you really believe there is a terrorist threat, then you might want to look at some other options because the ones currently being exercised are clearly not making anyone any safer.
OK, you have suggestions? Let's hear them. I am genuinely curious as to what implementable and effective measures you suggest. In your own words, not via links.
Fortunately there are some intelligent Republicans out there (even though none seem to be posting here or at least I can't tell because of all the childish posts clogging up the thread). Fortunately Bush's facade is dissolving and more and more people are seeing what we 'liberals' saw a long time ago.
Perspective: I was politically aware during the Nixon administration as a young teenager. There is nothing new under the sun. I am surprised the "Impeach Bush" crowd has not gotten more momentum and support. Perhaps after the 2006 elections that will change.
Bush won't change. He seems to believe God directed his decisions therefore they have to be right. He wants to attack Iran. Why he finds this necessary, I wouldn't want to speculate. To be cliche about it, the world can't wait until 2008 to see Bush out of office.
To be correct about it, impeachment and trial require evidence and political will. Where are both? I hear a lot of noise, but I see little more than that of a substantive nature. A Neil Young song does not an impeachment make. Throwing my hat in the ring with frustrated American communists (back to your various links) is a violation of both my principles and an oath I took that I intend to remain faithful to. I have already written a string of letters to my Senators and Congressman, for the past 4 years, on the budget, the border, and gun control idiocy under the Patriot Act. I don't need to ally with communists and anarchists (again, your links) nor a set of emotional loudmouths, to object to a great deal of what is going on in DC.
He has done tremendous damage to this country in 6 years, 2 more could prove even more disastrous.
He has run up the debt and refuses to defend his nation's borders, see US Constitution Article 4. Is that the basis for your charges of high crimes and misdemeanors?
I bet some of you were ranting to impeach Clinton for lying about a BJ.
That political farce was a waste of time, and IMO a smokescreen for a lot of other skullduggery going on in Washington at the time. The impeachment, by the way, was for lying under oath, not for the BJ. For that he had to answer to Hillary. (Sucks to be him, she can't have taken that well.) FWIW, it is my opinion that the president of the US should be provided with at least one BJ per week to keep his stress level down. Fer fluckssakes, girl, his finger is near that red "nukular" button. Keep him (any president) stress free! :eye-poppi
"We are a country of laws", the Republican talking point went. Compared to Bush's flagrant dismissal of having to follow any law he doesn't see fit to follow, boy does Clinton's impeachment look foolish now.
It looked foolish then, when the Senate Reps didn't have the 65 majority they needed even before the House started its proceedings. I still am amazed at how clumsy the Reps were in the strategy piece.

Methinks you are creating an army of strawmen with your post to provide you with enemies, and tarring with a rather broad brush the "mind set" of members here who disagree with you. You trolled the board with an emotional first post, and you got exactly what you deserved.

You reap what you sow, skeptisow. :p OBTW, how's the view from up on top of that soapbox?

DR

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

27th September 2006, 07:43 AM

Well I wasted some more of my time reading through a bunch of the speeches and letters on the WCW webpage. The only things I really learned are:

a) The organizers/supporters of this protest believe the word "fascism" means "stuff we really don't agree with"
b) The organizers/supporters of this protest not only took Godwin's Law to heart, they decided to flaunt it

I'm still awaiting an answer on the Hitler and Nazi comparison, which is repeated ad naseum on the website. They've even taken to repeating the "first they came for the blah blah blah and then they came for me" poem.

andyandy

27th September 2006, 08:30 AM

Perhaps some of you find it hard to believe, but there are many 'mainstream' people who really want Bush to resign or be impeached. They are not radical by anyone's standard. They just happen to have been paying attention to more than one gets from the 6 O'clock news.

I do wonder if you've taken the time to read the FAQs of the WCW website you posted. It's not simply a case of forcing Bush to resign or pushing for him to be impeached within the existing legal and political framework. The WCW stated agenda is for direct concerted action outside any existing political and legal framework in order to dismantle the entire democratic process as it currently exists. This is populist coup ideology for the seizure of power by a disaffected group. Now, coups are not necessarily bad - but it's generally pertinent to ask what the leaders of such a coup actually want -beyond of course the seizure of power.
So sure, there may be mainstream people who dislike Bush, but how many mainstream people want direct, revolutionary action outside the current democratic system? Most mainstream people i'd suggest will just vote democrat at the next election.
And why does this all matter? The WCW obviously won't achieve their aims. But it does matter insofar as it's the movement is a Republican spin-doctors wet-dream - (who knows maybe Rove's pulling the strings himself :) )- because it allows the republican party to characterise some of the movements more legitimate grievances as the ravings of a left-wing lunatic fringe - the movement therefore exists solely as a lame duck for republican target practise. It's far better to play a good hand well than to overplay a good hand and lose. It's a basic lessen from bridge, and a pretty good one for life :)

RandFan

27th September 2006, 08:43 AM

AWPrime

27th September 2006, 08:46 AM

Maybe they'll dump a bag of skunks in the White House?

Who would notice?

andyandy

27th September 2006, 08:51 AM

See, that's the problem I have with you. You have a serious credibility problem. There is nothing in your posts that is you. It's all mindless regurgitation of propaganda.

I wish we could appeal user names but I guess not. You are the anti-skeptic skpetigirl.

i'm assuming the "you" is skepticgirl.....although your post is a little ambiguous....:)

RandFan

27th September 2006, 08:56 AM

i'm assuming the "you" is skepticgirl.....although your post is a little ambiguous....:)Yes, and I edited to disambiguate.

RandFan

27th September 2006, 08:58 AM

Maybe they'll dump a bag of skunks in the White House?
Who would notice?See, now that is funny. :D

andyandy

27th September 2006, 08:59 AM

disambiguation gratefully recieved :D

Pardalis

27th September 2006, 10:23 AM

Just a question, Skeptigirl.

If Bush is impeached, wouldn't Cheney take over as president?

Ziggurat

27th September 2006, 10:31 AM

Just a question, Skeptigirl.

If Bush is impeached, wouldn't Cheney take over as president?

That's cruel! Don't you know it's not safe to wake up a sleepwalker? ;)

Pardalis

27th September 2006, 10:38 AM

I'm sorry Skeptigirl, but the Nazi comparisons and the Conspiracy Theorists parts of your "Movement" makes me not take it seriously. It rather repells me, no matter how cute they are.
http://www.stratecomm.net/%7Efritz/gallery/wcw2005/11022005vv

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_8886451ab71650a9f.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=1645)
http://www.stratecomm.net/%7Efritz/gallery/wcw2005/11022005vv

Mycroft

27th September 2006, 11:24 AM

The Atheist

27th September 2006, 03:34 PM

which inconsistancy? In what way are the group not characterised as a rag-tag group of left wing extremists consisting of communists, anarchists and environmentalists? If you disagree with the description then let's discuss why. If you don't disagree then what's your point?Here you go, mate. The inconsistency I meant was that of people posting. I've been a bit busy to come back here until now, but I see senorpogo nearly has it right here:So, The Atheist, just so I'm straight (and I'm not being a smart-arre here, just trying to clarify), you're problem isn't so much on how posters are treating Skeptigirl, but rather you're upset because some of the same posters giving her the what-not were upset over you giving the what-not to some other poster in some other thread somewhere else on this very board?Close, but not quite. First off, upset, I am not. I was actually just pointing out that I felt some people were showing hypocrisy as a result of their inconsistent attitudes to what we call in cricket, "sledging".

Anyone who's read any of my stuff will realise that I quite enjoy a good sledge. I haven't read skeptigirl's every word, but I haven't see her responding in kind. If people can't handle the rough stuff, there are two easy choices: ignore it, or if you're a real pansy, crying to the moderators seems to work pretty well. I have seen some of the posters get very defensive when the sledging starts, screaming "ad hominem", yet in here, they are happy to start the sledging. I think that's hypocritical. It's no statement about me, other than I get accused (quite correctly most of the time) of ad hominem attacks, which is exactly what sledging is, therefore I can offer a relatively expert opinion!

Skeptigirl is hanging in there, sticking to her position and defending it in the face of stern criticism - and abuse. I admire her for that, regardless of her morals and friends. Just wanted to clarify all that.

One point, which will get this back on topic at least - looking in from the outside, one of the major problems with being "anti-Bush/GOP" seems to be that there isn't a great deal of choices as to how to oppose the current regime. Now, before anyone mentions the Democrats, I'm not so sure. USA seems to have two parties which are remarkably similar, plus the Dems really **** in their own shoes when they supported the invasion of Iraq. It's all very well, changing tune now that more people are anti-war than pro- , but it looks a bit like grasping at straws. And let's face it, when the Dems picked Kerry over Clark, they really did concede defeat before a word was said.

So, where does opposition congregate in USA? And when it congregates, how do the sane ones stop the CTists, the anarchists and idiots derailing it?

Ziggurat

27th September 2006, 03:55 PM

One point, which will get this back on topic at least - looking in from the outside, one of the major problems with being "anti-Bush/GOP" seems to be that there isn't a great deal of choices as to how to oppose the current regime.
...
So, where does opposition congregate in USA? And when it congregates, how do the sane ones stop the CTists, the anarchists and idiots derailing it?

Tough question. But you might want to start by not using rhetoric (such as using the loaded word "regime" instead of the more accurate word "administration") which draws the fringe to your side. Just a suggestion.

The Atheist

27th September 2006, 04:28 PM

Tough question. But you might want to start by not using rhetoric (such as using the loaded word "regime" instead of the more accurate word "administration") which draws the fringe to your side. Just a suggestion.See, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

"Regime" according to the Oxford Dictionary, the definitive guide to the English language, is explained thus: regime. n. method or system of government; prevailing order or system of things.

How is that likely to draw fringe elements? How is it rhetoric? It is an accurate, non-loaded description of a government, yet your immediate thought is that it is provocative and more likely to draw the "fringe" to it than a sloppy, meaningless term like administration. Is the "fringe" made up of people who like to use correct English?

Cylinder

27th September 2006, 05:33 PM

regime. n. method or system of government; prevailing order or system of things.

It's an important distinction within the American political system. The Constitution - not the elected person - is the process. The President executes (or administrates) that process. Bush is not a method or system of government, nor a prevailing order. The word is used by the nutroots as invective.

shuize

27th September 2006, 05:40 PM

Have you noticed that you are just as intollerant, insulting and dismissive of opinion different from your own as you claim everyone else is?
I've long felt the same about the "new" left. Many in the ex-pat community overseas fit this discription. They hate, hate, hate anyone that does not hate, hate, hate the Bush administration and refuse to have anything to do with such "Nazi, fascist, assh*les."

Why? Because "We're the tolerant ones, man."

The Atheist

27th September 2006, 05:54 PM

It's an important distinction within the American political system. The Constitution - not the elected person - is the process. The President executes (or administrates) that process. Bush is not a method or system of government, nor a prevailing order. The word is used by the nutroots as invective.More of the same - if you're ascribing tenets to people because of their labelling, that would make you as bad, or maybe even worse, in my book.

RandFan

27th September 2006, 06:12 PM

"Regime" according to the Oxford Dictionary, the definitive guide to the English language, is explained thus: regime. n. method or system of government; prevailing order or system of things. Interesting. People do use labels for rhetorical purposes. I don't honestly know why you used "regime" I don't think I would use it that way because I think it carries negative connotations. However it would seem technically correct. I think the traditional label is administration.

In any event, for a non-scientific study I give you.

"Clinton regime" 30,400 Google hits

"Blair regime" 22,000 Google hits

"Bush regime" 1,540,000 Google hits

"Clinton Administration" 7,690,000 Google hits

"Bush Administration" 35,300,000 Google hits

Wikipedia

In theory, the term need not imply anything about the particular government to which it relates, and most political scientists who use it as a neutral term. But the term is often used in popular culture in a pejorative manner[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime#_note-0) as a reference to governments believed to be repressive, undemocratic or illegitimate, such that in these contexts the word conveys a sense of moral disapproval or political opposition. For example, one is less likely to hear of a "democratic regime". The usage in popular culture is how I see the word. I honestly don't know for sure. I would probably use the word in a pejorative sense and stick with administration when not simply to avoid being misunderstood.

The Atheist

27th September 2006, 07:37 PM

Interesting. People do use labels for rhetorical purposes. I don't honestly know why you used "regime" I don't think I would use it that way because I think it carries negative connotations.I'll put that down to yet another hijacking of a word to mean something else. It certainly doesn't have any negative connotations to me or people I know - I've been asking today to make sure it wasn't just me!

Pretty sad though, that because someone uses a word, that someone else will immediately make an assumption about the person who used it. Maybe they're right a lot of the time, but people in here, of all places, should be avoiding generalisations rather than preaching them.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

27th September 2006, 08:14 PM

Maybe they're right a lot of the time, but people in here, of all places, should be avoiding generalisations rather than preaching them.

Isn't that a generalization? :D

Kopji

27th September 2006, 08:26 PM

Exactly. I have looked into this further and that is all, some of the organizers and attendees are 'commies'. The vast majority of the organization is not, has no such goals, has moderates as well as extremists among their numbers and extremists do not dominate by any means...
[/url]
I've marched in a protest and drove by a couple. :rolleyes:

There always seems to be a small but dedicated little gathering called 'peace and justice' or something similar: Megaphone toting college students trying to attract a crowd but failing. Very fringe though, easy to spot. Most protesters seemed pretty normal, if a little on the organic granola head side.

I've never seen the local police act any way but professional, and scenes like 'pin the Molotov cocktail on the cop car' would be soundly shouted down here.

A weird 'local thing' was when a couple of women (I think a Unitarian and a Quaker) were arrested for laying down in the street and blocking traffic. The city council tried to pass a law requiring the protesters pay for the cost of their arrest. A local judge had something to say about the legality of that, and the protesters were released quickly without charge.

There is a mysterious group of six 'war widows' dressed all in black that stand silently in front of city hall on some days. That is more my kind of protest.

I did my protest march before the war, and there was a lot of talk then about it not being a good time to protest and we needed to support the president yak yak yak. I think any time is a good time to protest something you feel strongly about. I may not always agree with your issue, but I think that a bit of protesting is a key ingredient of a good and healthy democracy. Probably a lot here feel that way.

But now that we are three years in and it is going pretty much as bad as I expected, suddenly pulling out would be worse. Does not mean that I don't think a great political message would be to remove all these sheep congressmen who took us there. I just don't think there are any new or better strategic options. Better not to dive into the mud-bog in the first place.

Regardless of who wins the 2006 elections, the Iraqis do not seem to have the idea yet that we plan to stay very long. Maybe Iraq hopes for a NATO deal like Afghanistan got.

IMHO protesting does not ever send a message of weakness, it shows we are free and that we are alive.

Mycroft

27th September 2006, 08:49 PM

See, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

"Regime" according to the Oxford Dictionary, the definitive guide to the English language, is explained thus: regime. n. method or system of government; prevailing order or system of things.

How is that likely to draw fringe elements? How is it rhetoric? It is an accurate, non-loaded description of a government, yet your immediate thought is that it is provocative and more likely to draw the "fringe" to it than a sloppy, meaningless term like administration. Is the "fringe" made up of people who like to use correct English?

But the term is often used in popular culture in a pejorative manner[1] as a reference to governments believed to be repressive, undemocratic or illegitimate, such that in these contexts the word conveys a sense of moral disapproval or political opposition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime)

The Atheist

27th September 2006, 09:20 PM

Isn't that a generalization? :DNo, it's a specificity!

The Atheist

27th September 2006, 09:23 PM

But the term is often used in popular culture in a pejorative manner[1] as a reference to governments believed to be repressive, undemocratic or illegitimate, such that in these contexts the word conveys a sense of moral disapproval or political opposition. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regime)yeah, I've read piece once already, cheers.

The entire world doesn't base its language on Wikipedia. There are American "dictionaries" which don't recognise recognise, so what it means in US has f/a to do what connotations the word has here. (none at all)

andyandy

28th September 2006, 01:43 AM

yeah, I've read piece once already, cheers.

The entire world doesn't base its language on Wikipedia. There are American "dictionaries" which don't recognise recognise, so what it means in US has f/a to do what connotations the word has here. (none at all)

i'd have to be with TA on this one....certainly i'd not attatch any negative connertations to the term "regime"....maybe it's a US thing....bumming a fag and all that :D

The Atheist

28th September 2006, 02:08 AM

i'd have to be with TA on this one....certainly i'd not attatch any negative connertations to the term "regime"....maybe it's a US thing....bumming a fag and all that :DI bummed a fag yesterday!Another classic, and my all-time favourite, is US usage of "good job", meaning "good effort, job well done". Here it means: "Serves you right", almost the opposite.

As Confucius once said: "A language where a fat chance and a slim chance mean the same thing has no place in Buddhism."

gtc

28th September 2006, 02:33 AM

I'm an Aussie and regime has negative connotations for me, but I might have hung around Americans too long.

The Atheist

28th September 2006, 02:42 AM

I'm an Aussie and regime has negative connotations for me, but I might have hung around Americans too long.Yeah, damned yank-wannabe Aussies. You'll be pronouncing dance, "dants" instead of "dance" soon.

gtc

28th September 2006, 03:10 AM

Yeah, damned yank-wannabe Aussies. You'll be pronouncing dance, "dants" instead of "dance" soon.

Too late! I think most Aussies use the short vowel. The drama teacher at my high school even tried to force me to shorten the vowel as she claimed it was an affectation from the 1800s.

However, it doth please my ear.

AmateurScientist

28th September 2006, 05:03 AM

Yeah, damned yank-wannabe Aussies. You'll be pronouncing dance, "dants" instead of "dance" soon.

Good job!

WildCat

28th September 2006, 05:46 AM

I bummed a fag yesterday!Another classic, and my all-time favourite, is US usage of "good job", meaning "good effort, job well done". Here it means: "Serves you right", almost the opposite.
It has both meanings here. But you have to have the ability to detect sarcasm to differentiate the two.

Ziggurat

28th September 2006, 08:11 AM

See, this is exactly the sort of thing I mean.

"Regime" according to the Oxford Dictionary, the definitive guide to the English language, is explained thus: regime. n. method or system of government; prevailing order or system of things.

Because the "prevailing order of things" in US government isn't due to Bush: it's due to a 200+ year history of constitutional government. By this definition, one could say that, sure, there's a US "regime". But is it Bush's regime? Hardly. He didn't come up with the method OR system of government, nor (contrary to some opinion) has he really changed the "prevailing order of things". So it remains false to call it the "Bush regime" because it isn't his at all.

But as stated already, it DOES pander to the wackos who think Bush really has destroyed democracy. They're the only ones who think that the prevailing order of government in the US changed radically as soon as he took office, and consequently they're the only ones who think that the "regime" in the US can be considered as Bush's, and not as having been created by a whole lot of people over a long period of time.

Face it: there's a reason you used the term "regime" and not "administration", and I really doubt it's because you didn't want to type those extra few letters.

senorpogo

28th September 2006, 09:42 AM

If we're done debating the definition and appropriate usage of the word "regime", does anyone want to take a stab at The Atheists' original question?

So, where does opposition congregate in USA? And when it congregates, how do the sane ones stop the CTists, the anarchists and idiots derailing it?

I'd say that the opposition is best off supporting a candidate from within one of the two parties, but a candidate that agrees with their politics, whatever they might be. For the anti-war crowd, there's people like Howard Dean. For the anti-war left, the ascension of Howard Dean to chair of the DNC came about because of grass root campaigning on an anti-war agenda.

To effect change in US politics requires effecting change from within one of the two parties. So if I were an anti-war organizer, my first step would be to get anti-war Dems elected to every position where it's possible. You're seeing this with the move.org crowd and in the Lamont-Lieberman race. If you can create enough support (through money and votes) so it becomes clear that an pro-war Democrat won't be elected, then you can effectively control the party and it's agenda.

So, I don't think the current opposition in the US is as shut out of mainstream politics as some may believe. Rather, they need to organize in a productive way and support viable candidates that are electable.

Frankly, I think such protests and marches do more harm than good, but that's just my opinion.

AmateurScientist

28th September 2006, 10:29 AM

Frankly, I think such protests and marches do more harm than good, but that's just my opinion.

Depends.

Protesting in and of itself can be a healthy part of the democratic process, and it can serve to remind us in a tangible way of the value we place upon the freedom of speech and the freedom to assemble peacefully.

Where these kinds of protests can go horribly wrong is when they attract violent opposition or when they advocate or incite violence by their own acts or rhetoric. I see nothing democratic or peaceful about the Molotov cocktail the pigs signs, for instance. I think that is nothing but over the top, violence inciting rhetoric, and if those idiots get tear-gassed or shot with rubber bullets because they make threatening or menacing gestures towards police, then they probably deserve any injuries they may incur. That's simply not peaceful protesting.

Similarly, although they were horrible and tragic, and two completely innocent bystanders died as a result, the deaths of four students during the protests at Kent State in Ohio in 1970 were at least forseeable. They came in the immediate wake of arson which torched the ROTC building on campus and numerous instances of student protesters throwing rocks and other makeshift weapons at the police and the National Guardsmen (most of whom were college aged kids too) who had been called up to restore some order on the campus. Again, that's hardly peaceful assembly or protest, and it's at least a little ironic that the violence some of the protestors used was ostensibly to promote peace in Vietnam and to demonstrate against the war going on there (and the recent attacks Nixon authorized against the VC and NVA supply lines in Cambodia).

I suspect some of these WCW protesters are going to get arrested if they make good on some of their over the top rhetoric.

AS

The Atheist

28th September 2006, 12:01 PM

Too late! I think most Aussies use the short vowel. The drama teacher at my high school even tried to force me to shorten the vowel as she claimed it was an affectation from the 1800s.

However, it doth please my ear.I know, I was taking the piss!:D
My kids even say it that way thanks to that bloody awful "Hi-5" - you know, that kids' programme with the 3 ugly women in it.

& nice work, AS! :dl:

senorpogo

28th September 2006, 12:02 PM

From a tactically point of view, I see marches and protests as trying to achieve three things:

1.) Effect a real change in policy by showing lawmakers the amount of support or opposition to a particular issue
2.) Introduce and educate people who may not be aware of the issue
3.) Increase support for the issue by recruiting new members

My problem with most anti-war protests is that they don't seem to achieve any of these. In short, they produce no real concrete results. I seriously doubt #1 will occur. Regardless of how many people attend a protest, I don't see Congress and the President changing their point of view about the war on terror or the war in Iraq simply because x00,000 people marched on Washington.

#2 probably does happen to some degree, but to what extent? I'd guess, not much. It's not like the majority of americans haven't heard arguments from the anti-war movement. It's not a new issue. So they're either preaching to the choir or they're preaching to some one who has heard the news and doesn't buy into it. #3 probably occurs as well, but - again - in what numbers.

If I were an organizer, I'd also be very worried about the flip side - because of extreme elements within the movement, these types of protests often hurt the movement more than they help. They end up solidifying the other side and scare away middle-of-the-roaders who could possibly support the cause.

So while I can understand the symbolic importance of such rallies and protests, I don't really see what they achieve in a real-world sense. They don't seem to cause any change in government policy and their ability to educate and recruit seems questionable at best.

The Atheist

28th September 2006, 12:12 PM

Face it: there's a reason you used the term "regime" and not "administration", and I really doubt it's because you didn't want to type those extra few letters.Face it: you have no idea what you're talking about! Also, as I've taken great pains to point out, what usage the word has in USA has very little to do with what usage it has here.

I am a head-hunter by trade and the word "Administration" has too many work associations for me to use when discussing political matters, so I never do.

The Atheist

28th September 2006, 12:18 PM

So, I don't think the current opposition in the US is as shut out of mainstream politics as some may believe. Rather, they need to organize in a productive way and support viable candidates that are electable.

Frankly, I think such protests and marches do more harm than good, but that's just my opinion.Thanks for getting around to that - I wasn't actually after a 5-page derail into semantics, so this is good!

That is the problem, as I see it. In every other country I can think of, there are alternative choices to the two main parties, while in USA there aren't any. I can see that supporters who become disenfranchised are likely to get sucked into an inapprorpriate group simply because that third alternative doesn't exist. Here we have about ten other options and, currently in Parliament, there are no less than eight political parties, with the government a coalition of three of them.

Change from within is obviously the answer, but it's a very lengthy process and people aren't the most patient animals on the planet.

The Atheist

28th September 2006, 12:54 PM

.......I see nothing democratic or peaceful about the Molotov cocktail the pigs signs, for instance. I think that is nothing but over the top, violence inciting rhetoric, and if those idiots get tear-gassed or shot with rubber bullets because they make threatening or menacing gestures towards police, then they probably deserve any injuries they may incur.No question that you're right, and I'm sure the anti-Bush lobby are well aware of that. Senorpogo has outlined the probems, but the question is, how do they keep the riff-raff out? (Presuming they want to)

gtc

28th September 2006, 04:16 PM

That is the problem, as I see it. In every other country I can think of, there are alternative choices to the two main parties, while in USA there aren't any.

That is true, but I think US politicians do not have to vote along party lines as often as ours do. In Australian parliaments (and I think this applies to the UK and NZ) politicians almost always vote along party lines; conscience votes are rare. Voting against your own party tends to get you kicked out of the party and (usually) asked to resign your seat.

No question that you're right, and I'm sure the anti-Bush lobby are well aware of that. Senorpogo has outlined the probems, but the question is, how do they keep the riff-raff out? (Presuming they want to)

I have seen no evidence that they want to keep the riff-raff out, given what we know about the affiliations of some of the organisers, their website's FAQ and the footage of previous rallies.

The problem of course is that supporters of the WCW will admit that SOME of the organisers are Radical Maoists and that the FAQ could be construed by SOME to appear to be calling for a violent revolution and SOME of the protestors have been agitating for a violent revolution and SOME violence did occur. However, they will argue, that doesn't mean that the movement as a whole is calling for the violent overthrow of the government and it is logically wrong to make that conclusion. Oddly enough this concern for logic does not apply when you are trying to link Bush and Hitler.

Of course, no one is saying that the RCP is really a threat. They have no chance of overthrowing the government and all they seem to be doing is splitting the activist community, driving the anti-war mainstream away and helping to galvanise Republican supporters. Its odd that people who don't support violent revolution would support WCW when there are dozens of non-violent anti-war protests and numerous non-violent ways to seek change.

Also, in my experience, Australians use "Good one!" to indicate both success and abject failure. I tend to say good job to mean a positive occurence as in "Good job I was here to help you".

The Atheist

28th September 2006, 05:50 PM

That is true, but I think US politicians do not have to vote along party lines as often as ours do. In Australian parliaments (and I think this applies to the UK and NZ) politicians almost always vote along party lines; conscience votes are rare. Voting against your own party tends to get you kicked out of the party and (usually) asked to resign your seat.Quite right, although it's become a little more acceptable here with a few recent notable instances.I have seen no evidence that they want to keep the riff-raff out, given what we know about the affiliations of some of the organisers, their website's FAQ and the footage of previous rallies.... .....support violent revolution would support WCW when there are dozens of non-violent anti-war protests and numerous non-violent ways to seek change.Excellent points. Again to use an ML King jnr experience, (after all, he and Gandhi, who else could you use?) if you don't actively keep the violent element out, you'll be overtaken by it.
Also, in my experience, Australians use "Good one!" to indicate both success and abject failure. I tend to say good job to mean a positive occurence as in "Good job I was here to help you".Exactly the same here. Not many differences in colloquial English between us, we'll just have to try harder to teach you the SPEAK it properly.

Polaris

28th September 2006, 09:40 PM

Isn't a protest which core aim is to over-throw the current government somewhat anti-democratic? Maybe they should take some tips from the Thais....:D

But M-60 Patton tanks put out of a lot of greenhouse gases.

Skeptic Ginger

3rd October 2006, 02:46 PM

Sorry I've been too busy to keep up posting this week and it will only get worse for the next 2 months (for 2 months I do little else but give flu shots). I did want to mention the main organizers of this event in Seattle are apparently Quakers. Not many other people I can find believe the communist bent version many people in this thread believe.

Like I said, I'll let you know how the event goes after Thursday.

As to regurgitating propaganda, that's a stretch. I have pages of posts revealing propaganda techniques and resulting outcomes of their use. It has been a focus of many of the threads I started.

I do think the mindless ad homs thrown at me by a few regular skeptigirl haters here may just be a compliment to the lack of substance they are able to mount in a real debate. And once again I apologize for missing and therefore not replying to any real points mixed in. It is very time consuming to read through the nonsense. Perhaps in December, I'll be able to follow these topics which irritate so many a little more closely.

If anyone wishes to list one or more actual points they would like me to address, I will certainly try to find the time. BTW, personal insults are not debate points in case anyone really thinks their comments in that regard are intelligent. All you accomplish is to stop the discussion. If that is your goal, how about just not bothering with the thread?

Rob Lister

3rd October 2006, 02:54 PM

Face it: you have no idea what you're talking about! Also, as I've taken great pains to point out, what usage the word has in USA has very little to do with what usage it has here.

I am a head-hunter by trade and the word "Administration" has too many work associations for me to use when discussing political matters, so I never do.

Where is the protest being held? Here or there?

Pardalis

3rd October 2006, 02:55 PM

Skeptigirl, how exactly are you going to "drive out" the Bush administration?

Skeptic Ginger

3rd October 2006, 05:38 PM

Skeptigirl, how exactly are you going to "drive out" the Bush administration?First by getting a Democratic Party majority in the House and Senate to end the rubber stamping and hold the administration accountable. Then, if appropriate after investigating the administration for real, impeachment.

As it stands now, the Republican controlled Congress will not allow the questions to be asked about how much Bush really knew before invading Iraq and how much was honest error as he claims. If it turns out it was just a little overzealousness in ideology and maybe a stretch but not quite dishonest interpretation of the intelligence before the Iraq invasion, then he'll be in power until '08. But if it turns out as many believe, Bush and his group knew full well they were presenting fabricated information to both the Congress and the American people so they could generate support for their plans, then it is a lot more serious an offense than lying to a court or grand jury to cover up your infidelity.

The Republican controlled Congress will also not allow an investigation into just who is being wiretapped or just why the Bush administration cannot tell the FISA court after the fact what information they are gathering. The excuses Bush has given that there isn't time to get the FISA warrants are not credible given you can get the warrants after the fact. The truth is more likely they are data mining through broad swaths of information including searching through data basis that are not legal to be searching through and perhaps cannot be justified.

Nothing in drive the Bush regime out requires the assumption of an illegal means and certainly the vast majority involved are not so dumb as to think otherwise. It would be nice to drive Bush into resigning and some people may feel that is their goal. Again, since we cannot investigate any wrongdoing of this presidency, then we don't really know all they have done.

The Republicans spent 54 million of our taxpayer dollars investigating Clinton and all they uncovered was an affair. No Whitewater crimes, no White House Travel Agent cronyism, just a BJ in the Oval Office and an entrapped perjury offense.

Here we have a war which was started under false pretenses and we can't even get legitimate questions answered.

Pardalis

3rd October 2006, 05:49 PM

You want to impeach the entire administration? The entire Republican party? Is this something feasible, or even realistic? Who will take over the government?

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

3rd October 2006, 06:02 PM

If anyone wishes to list one or more actual points they would like me to address, I will certainly try to find the time.

I would be interested in hearing a defense of the Hitler/Nazi comparison. I have read virtually every rationale listed on their website for that comparison, and not a single one has come even remotely close to backing it up. There are plenty of people in the country who disagree with Bush and think he is a lousy President. But comparing him to a man who started a World War and systematically murdered at least 6 million people is an extremely strong claim, and it is one that requires serious evidence to be taken seriously. Without that evidence, the comparison reflects very poorly on the protest and its organizers.

Cylinder

3rd October 2006, 06:08 PM

I'd like to know how significantly less than a 0.08% increase in GDP can be solely responsible for the current economic strength in the United States.

Pardalis

3rd October 2006, 06:12 PM

The Republican controlled Congress will also not allow an investigation into just who is being wiretapped or just why the Bush administration cannot tell the FISA court after the fact what information they are gathering. The excuses Bush has given that there isn't time to get the FISA warrants are not credible given you can get the warrants after the fact. The truth is more likely they are data mining through broad swaths of information including searching through data basis that are not legal to be searching through and perhaps cannot be justified.

Could it be because the people being wiretapped are possible terrorists? You know, terrorists... as in "threats to national security"?

shuize

3rd October 2006, 07:19 PM

The question of how much authority to allow the government in tapping phones is worthy of legitimate debate.

As noted, however, I don't think it's at all an unreasonable position post 9/11 to want the government to do more in tracking possible terror suspects, even if that means listening in on American citizens. I believe most Americans support this view and I've yet to hear of any criminal prosecutions unrelated to terrorist investigations as a result of such wire tapping. That kind of unchecked use is something I think the "loss of freedom" camp really needs to showing if they're going to win many over to their side.

mamapajamas

3rd October 2006, 07:19 PM

Oooooohhh... well well well...

Look who is the legal advisor for this organization!

From Lynne Stewart's web page:

Who is Lynne Stewart?
Radical human rights attorney Lynne Stewart has been falsely accused of helping terrorists. Now convicted, she faces 30 years in prison. On Tuesday, April 9, 2002, she was arrested and agents searched her Manhattan office for documents. She was arraigned before Manhattan federal Judge John Koeltl. This is an obvious attempt by the U.S. government to silence dissent, curtail vigorous defense lawyers, and install fear in those who would fight against the U.S. government's racism, seek to help Arabs and Muslims being prosecuted for free speech and defend the rights of all oppressed people.

And that's the GOOD stuff... the promotional hype! This is Lynne Stewart telling everyone else what a great gal she is! :eek: :eek:

mamapajamas

3rd October 2006, 07:23 PM

First by getting a Democratic Party majority in the House and Senate to end the rubber stamping and hold the administration accountable. Then, if appropriate after investigating the administration for real, impeachment.

etc etc etc...

If you think these claims are somehow "reasonable", you have incriminated yourself as a bigot. If you actually believe that the Republicans automatically rubber-stamp anything Bush wants to do, you are also guilty of sticking your head in the sand and not paying any damned attention!!!

I sure hope you aren't old enough to vote! :rolleyes:

a_unique_person

3rd October 2006, 07:27 PM

If you think these claims are somehow "reasonable", you have incriminated yourself as a bigot. If you actually believe that the Republicans automatically rubber-stamp anything Bush wants to do, you are also guilty of sticking your head in the sand and not paying any damned attention!!!

I sure hope you aren't old enough to vote! :rolleyes:

"incriminated as a bigot"? You should have learnt some manners by now.

mamapajamas

3rd October 2006, 07:29 PM

"incriminated as a bigot"? You should have learnt some manners by now.

Sorry, but being against Republicans simply because they are Republicans is rank bigotry.

American

3rd October 2006, 07:31 PM

I would be interested in hearing a defense of the Hitler/Nazi comparison. I have read virtually every rationale listed on their website for that comparison, and not a single one has come even remotely close to backing it up.

They claim it is "1933". If that's the case, then surely they are prepared to do violence in order to stop "Hitler". No?

At the very least they should be arming for self-defense, if not organizing an active, deadly resistance group.

No? Why not? It's "1933"! We're facing "Hitler" again!

So what are they... pussies or liars? Obviously they are both. There is no call to violence because they don't really think that it's 1933, and even if they did - they don't have the will or ability to act on their stated beliefs.

Big help they would have been fighting the Nazis some 70 years ago. Leftist turds.

a_unique_person

3rd October 2006, 07:33 PM

Sorry, but being against Republicans simply because they are Republicans is rank bigotry.

Holding Republicans accountable for their actions is bigotry?

mamapajamas

3rd October 2006, 07:36 PM

Holding Republicans accountable for their actions is bigotry?

Holding individuals responsible for their actions is responsible.

Sweeping allegations against "Republicans" is bigotry.

In edit: BTW, sweeping allegations against Democrats is also bigotry.

a_unique_person

3rd October 2006, 07:41 PM

She could preface all remarks with "Those in the houses of Congress who have voted for the following specified bills", but I think Republican is a much more accepted and practical usage.

mamapajamas

3rd October 2006, 07:43 PM

She could preface all remarks with "Those in the houses of Congress who have voted for the following specified bills", but I think Republican is a much more accepted and practical usage.

What? And leave out the Democrats who voted for them?

Bigotry! :cool:

Addendum: Personally, I'd like to see a roll call listing of how everyone in Congress voted on an issue every time it's mentioned on the tube :D.

THAT would stop a few clocks!

Second addendum: Of course, it could also cause an increase in the "I voted before it before I voted against it" kind of weaseling...

a_unique_person

3rd October 2006, 08:42 PM

Did she say anything about the Dems? You are guessing what she thinks of them, and attacking her on that basis. They did not draft any of the laws. IMHO they were too gutless to stand up to a lot of them. Now that the opinion polls are turning away from Bush, they may finally stand up to him.

Mycroft

3rd October 2006, 11:00 PM

Oooooohhh... well well well...

Look who is the legal advisor for this organization!

From Lynne Stewart's web page:

[i]Who is Lynne Stewart?

Wow. Lynn makes some interesting reading on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynne_Stewart

mamapajamas

3rd October 2006, 11:31 PM

Now that the opinion polls are turning away from Bush, they may finally stand up to him.

I'm counting on that! ;)

mamapajamas

3rd October 2006, 11:32 PM

First by getting a Democratic Party majority in the House and Senate to end the rubber stamping ...

Or you could just sit back and chill for another two years. It's a little late in the game to worry about "getting rid of" the Bush Administration. It's already on the way out.

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2006, 02:58 AM

I would be interested in hearing a defense of the Hitler/Nazi comparison. I have read virtually every rationale listed on their website for that comparison, and not a single one has come even remotely close to backing it up. There are plenty of people in the country who disagree with Bush and think he is a lousy President. But comparing him to a man who started a World War and systematically murdered at least 6 million people is an extremely strong claim, and it is one that requires serious evidence to be taken seriously. Without that evidence, the comparison reflects very poorly on the protest and its organizers.I didn't make that comparison. I don't think Bush is anything like Hitler, nor do I think the current events mimic the time before WWII.

I do think the actions of this administration lean toward the standard definition of fascism. But they don't approach all aspects of fascism. There isn't so much emphasis on a "leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

But there are some of the elements:
In time, the generic term fascism came to cover a class of authoritarian political ideologies, parties, and political systems.

Fascism is associated by many scholars with one or more of the following characteristics: a very high degree of nationalism, economic corporatism, a powerful, dictatorial leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it.

My concern over the Bush regime is its incompetence and cronyism to the point of dismissing competent workers to hire Party loyalists in their place. Bush's anti-science positions and belief in God seems to be behind Bush not accepting he is on the wrong road. They planned to invade Iraq before even taking office as documented in both Bob Woodward's and Richard Clarke's books. The list of negatives is long and the consequences are tragic.

There was a program on Frontline tonight showing the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Bush is failing miserably at a time most dangerous for this country and the world. Bush has made terrorism worse in a big way. He's a terrible diplomat.

There is a reason Bush looks so badly in the polls. His mistakes are glaring.

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2006, 03:00 AM

Or you could just sit back and chill for another two years. It's a little late in the game to worry about "getting rid of" the Bush Administration. It's already on the way out.To be cliche' here, The World Can't Wait two more years. At the very least we need to stop the rubber stamping of these horrendous decisions.

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2006, 03:03 AM

Could it be because the people being wiretapped are possible terrorists? You know, terrorists... as in "threats to national security"?You are ignoring the issue. There is a system of checks called the FISA court. There has been no real explanation why these warrants cannot be obtained AFTER THE FACT. Bush's claim there isn't time doesn't wash when they can get the warrants after they spy.

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2006, 03:05 AM

If you think these claims are somehow "reasonable", you have incriminated yourself as a bigot. If you actually believe that the Republicans automatically rubber-stamp anything Bush wants to do, you are also guilty of sticking your head in the sand and not paying any damned attention!!!

I sure hope you aren't old enough to vote! :rolleyes:Right. I just think so. It hasn't really happened. Get real. This issue isn't even debated by the Republicans.

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2006, 03:15 AM

Sorry, but being against Republicans simply because they are Republicans is rank bigotry.This is absurd. I want the Congresspersons and Senators who are currently rubber stamping all Bush's policies and blocking any investigations into the corruption and incompetence going on to lose their majority so we can restore the system of checks and balances this country is supposed to have.

If you don't think that has been the case for the last 5 years, show us the evidence. Even the 9/11 Commission was blocked from using subpoena powers.

I don't mind discussing these things but once again, this sort of nonsense is just too much of a waste of time.

And look up the definition of bigot, while you are looking for some facts to back up your unsupportable position.

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

4th October 2006, 03:27 AM

I didn't make that comparison. I don't think Bush is anything like Hitler, nor do I think the current events mimic the time before WWII.

That's fine that you didn't say that. I was referring to the protest in question. The Hitler comparison is repeated numerous times on their website. As I said before, not only is it an extreme comparison, it is one that reflects very poorly on the protest itself and its organizers. The comparison is not just one that I can say "well, I disagree with that comparison, but I agree that Bush is bad." The comparison is extremely offensive. It is like the difference between saying "I strongly disagree with Israel's actions against Palestine" and saying "The evil Jewish k**** and Zionist devils are drinking the blood of Arabs and sacrificing gentile babies." It is an extremist view, and it paints the entire protest in that light.

I do think the actions of this administration lean toward the standard definition of fascism. But they don't approach all aspects of fascism. There isn't so much emphasis on a "leader who portrays the nation, state or collective as superior to the individuals or groups composing it."

I don't think Bush even fits the general definition of Fascism. That definition, by the way, I think is extremely poor to begin with (the one you cited from Wikipedia). Bush may very well be guilty of cronyism and incompetence. I do not see anything there, though, that fits the definition of "fascism." If we accept an extremely liberal definition of the word, then there are a lot of world leaders we could consider "fascist." Heck, the President of South Korea (democratically elected) could fit, as could the current Prime Minister of Japan. Neither of them, though, fit a real historical definition of fascism. And neither does Bush.

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2006, 03:32 AM

I'm going to stop posting my stuff and post what other people have to say about Bush. The attacks here just focus on whatever personal issues people have and aren't very realistic nor objective. So here's an example of what other people are saying about the current administration.

"A Swashbuckling Spectacle of Corruption" - Bill Moyers Investigates Abramoff Lobbying Scandal (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/10/02/1321259&mode=thread&tid=25)
Moyers has produced a documentary of the Republican corruption as the first in a three part series on PBS. It starts tonight. Moyers left PBS to have the freedom to criticize the Bush infringement on free speech imposed when Bush tried to have a Republican front man turn PBS into a mouthpiece for the Republican Party. Here's what he had to say about it.

AMY GOODMAN: Why are you back on PBS? You left NOW. I want to ask you about the storm over Kenneth Tomlinson. Of course, we know that he paid, what, something like $14,000 to have you and others monitored for political content, your broadcasts on PBS. He has been embroiled in one scandal after another now. The latest, let me read from an earlier headline: “More trouble for former Corporation for Public Broadcasting chair Kenneth Tomlinson -- the State Department concluded Tomlinson committed several ethics violations in his current position chairing the board that oversees most U.S. broadcasts to foreign countries. According to investigators, Tomlinson gave a friend $250,000 in taxpayer-funded contracts, overbilled the government for his time and used federal employees for his personal business. Among that personal business, running a stable of thoroughbred horses he named after leaders from Afghanistan, including President Hamid Karzai. This is only the latest scandal that has come out for the former Reader’s Digest editor and longtime Republican. Tomlinson was forced out of the CPB last year after it was revealed he improperly tried to promote conservatives in the organization and monitored programs he accused of having a liberal bias.”

BILL MOYERS: Well, this is the man that George W. Bush and Karl Rove allowed -- appointed to serve as chairman of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the board of governance of Public Broadcasting, and to serve as chairman simultaneously of the overseas -- the Board of Governors of the overseas --

AMY GOODMAN: The BBG, right. Board of Broadcasting.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, the BBG. I mean, this is an ideological hack who was allowed to work his will behind closed doors, until he was exposed. And one of reasons I left my weekly broadcast on Public Broadcasting was to go public with what I knew he was doing. I couldn't do it while I was on the air, because it would have seemed self-serving. Well, his misdeeds cost him his chairmanship of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. But Bush and the White House and Karl Rove allowed him to stay on the Board of Governors of the Overseas Broadcast, and he still is there, because even though this recent round of sleazy activities was revealed, on a partisan vote, 3-to-3, the Republicans voted to keep him in power. I don't understand it, but it's typical of the attitude toward the public interest.

You ask why I’m back. As I listened to you begin this broadcast with the litany of reality that you report, I got a slow burn, you know, at just what's happening to this country, to our government and to America under the reign of the corporate, political and religious right. And there are so few places that, as you are doing, are just simply telling the other side of the story, letting the facts add up, that I realize I couldn't sit in the rocking chair and comfortably enjoy the books I’m reading, while our democracy, it needs all the information those of us who are independent journalists can provide. So I came back, because there just is too much to report and too much to tell, at a particular time when I think we’re in a -- when our democratic form of government is in the most precarious state since the Depression.

And before you whine this isn't to do with Bush, yes, it involved Bush as well. There is now a record of at least 400 visits to the White House by Abramoff, not the one or two Bush claimed.

andyandy

4th October 2006, 03:33 AM

ok skepticgirl i have a question.....

from your posts you don't think Bush is like Hitler, you don't think a "fascist" characterisation is especially apt, and you think America would be better served by having a Democratic majority in both houses. These are not especially controversial opinions....so my question would be why join a movement which appears to have a very different ideology and agenda to your own?

I've posted the FAQs on the WCW several times - and they do seem to significantly disagree with your own opinions - with regards to the Democrat party (there can be "no saviour" from the Democrat party) and with regards to how to bring about change (ie. outside rather than inside the political system)

I'll post again #157

I do wonder if you've taken the time to read the FAQs of the WCW website you posted. It's not simply a case of forcing Bush to resign or pushing for him to be impeached within the existing legal and political framework. The WCW stated agenda is for direct concerted action outside any existing political and legal framework in order to dismantle the entire democratic process as it currently exists. This is populist coup ideology for the seizure of power by a disaffected group. Now, coups are not necessarily bad - but it's generally pertinent to ask what the leaders of such a coup actually want -beyond of course the seizure of power.
So sure, there may be mainstream people who dislike Bush, but how many mainstream people want direct, revolutionary action outside the current democratic system? Most mainstream people i'd suggest will just vote democrat at the next election.
And why does this all matter? The WCW obviously won't achieve their aims. But it does matter insofar as it's the movement is a Republican spin-doctors wet-dream - (who knows maybe Rove's pulling the strings himself )- because it allows the republican party to characterise some of the movements more legitimate grievances as the ravings of a left-wing lunatic fringe - the movement therefore exists solely as a lame duck for republican target practise. It's far better to play a good hand well than to overplay a good hand and lose. It's a basic lessen from bridge, and a pretty good one for life

i'd be interested as to your opinions as to why involvement in such a movement isn't playing into Republican hands.....

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2006, 03:38 AM

I don't think Bush even fits the general definition of Fascism. ....The idea one can just suspend people's rights, imprison people with out charges, ignore the law with signing statements, spy without warrants and so on reflects a fascist leaning ideology underlying this administration's decisions.

andyandy

4th October 2006, 03:46 AM

The idea one can just suspend people's rights, imprison people with out charges, ignore the law with signing statements, spy without warrants and so on reflects a fascist leaning ideology underlying this administration's decisions.

oh maybe you do regard "fascist" as a legitimate characterisation..:rolleyes:

in such vague terms of desire for societal control, i imagine most governments could be regarded as fascist leaning in some respect......

ARubberChickenWithAPulley

4th October 2006, 04:39 AM

The idea one can just suspend people's rights, imprison people with out charges, ignore the law with signing statements, spy without warrants and so on reflects a fascist leaning ideology underlying this administration's decisions.

And there is a reason why all of those statements in and of themselves would be considered controversial, and why the scope of actions and circumstances are important. FDR imprisoned thousands of American citizens -- far more than Bush did -- and also supported propaganda far beyond what the Bush administration is able to come up with. Abraham Lincoln famously suspended Habeus Corpus, amongst other things. Few people will label either of those rulers as fascists or as having fascist tendancies.

AmateurScientist

4th October 2006, 05:59 AM

Sorry, but being against Republicans simply because they are Republicans is rank bigotry.

Not to those who hate Republicans simply because they're Republicans, it isn't. After all, everyone knows Republicans are reptiles, right? They aren't deserving of serious consideration for anything but deep loathing, seething hatred, and ridicule at any expense. Right?

Ha. Imagine calling extreme leftists bigots. They would scoff at the very notion. They cannot by definition be bigots, because they are all about tolerance and respect for the rights of others, just like Spike Lee cannot be racist, because he doesn't have "the power." Right?

AS

a_unique_person

4th October 2006, 06:28 AM

I thought Skeptigirl was giving reasons, not just because they were Republican.

Pardalis

4th October 2006, 06:36 AM

I didn't make that comparison. I don't think Bush is anything like Hitler, nor do I think the current events mimic the time before WWII.

WCW does. If you want me to take you or your movement seriously, then disaprove of this comparison and make WCW retract any such comparisons.

I do think the actions of this administration lean toward the standard definition of fascism. But they don't approach all aspects of fascism.

In other words, they fit some very loose aspects of fascism that you want.

My concern over the Bush regime

First off Skeptigirl, it's not 'regime', it's 'administration'. If you want me to believe you are not spouting propaganda, better change your vocabulary.

is its incompetence and cronyism to the point of dismissing competent workers to hire Party loyalists in their place.

We had the same thing here in Canada with the federal Liberal Party. Here it's called "patronage". Even if I hate them with a passion, I never would call them "fascists".

There is a reason Bush looks so badly in the polls. His mistakes are glaring.

No question about that.

Luke T.

4th October 2006, 07:40 AM

Suppose the American Nazi Party held an anti-Bush rally, skeptigirl? Would you go?

Get it?

The WCW is self-admittedly organized by Commies. That isn't some media plot to stain them. They ADMIT they are commies.

Your plan to drive out the Bush administration by changing Congress over to the Democrats is not on their agenda.

Geezus. Read their site and wake up.

You are what they call a "useful idiot".

Darth Rotor

4th October 2006, 07:43 AM

. . . just like Spike Lee cannot be racist, because he doesn't have "the power." Right? AS
I don't know if Spike Lee is racist or not. I will observe that his depiction of Jewish business men (night club operators) in "Mo Bettah Blues" came across as a stereotype/caricature that smacked of Jesse Jackson's "Hymie town" meme.

DR

Luke T.

4th October 2006, 07:47 AM

I wish the media would cover these rallies more. It would be nice to see them exposed, chanting their marxist slogans, carrying their signs with communist symbols on them, ranting against Israel and Jews, and glorifying Cuba and North Korea.

Bush's ratings would probably climb.

Luke T.

4th October 2006, 08:01 AM

From their own site:

Who's NOT Gonna Stop This War…
There is a logic to an attack on Iran not only from the standpoint of the neocons and Bush, but for the “opposition” Democratic Party as well. For the neocons, a U.S. dominated Iran is key to radically reshaping the Middle East, come what may. It is a critical part of their articulated vision of the U.S. as the world's new Roman Empire—a sole, unchallengeable superpower. For the Democrats, who may have had reservations about embarking on this adventure in Iraq, or may have regrets about how it worked out, they are—in the words of Al Gore—“lashed to the mast of our ship of state.” Like it or not, they are along for the ride because to bail now would—judged by the interests of U.S. imperialism —represent a major and destabilizing setback for U.S. imperialism.

A revolutionary understanding of the forces driving all this is explored in a very in-depth and strategic way in recent talks by Bob Avakian, Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA—in particular in the talk “Why We’re in the Situation We're In Today…And What To Do About It: A Thoroughly Rotten System and the Need for Revolution.” That talk, and six other critical recent talks by Bob Avakian, are available for download at bobavakian.net, or revcom.us.

WCW link (http://www.worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2810&Itemid=220).

Anti-Republican and anti-Democrat. They are all about the Communist Party.

Don't delude yourself into believing this is "mainstream" opposition to Bush, skeptigirl.

Mycroft

4th October 2006, 08:36 AM

The WCW is self-admittedly organized by Commies. That isn't some media plot to stain them. They ADMIT they are commies.

And honestly, the media seems to be going out of its way not to cover this aspect.

I wish the media would cover these rallies more. It would be nice to see them exposed, chanting their marxist slogans, carrying their signs with communist symbols on them, ranting against Israel and Jews, and glorifying Cuba and North Korea.

Agreed!

Foolmewunz

4th October 2006, 08:41 AM

I don't know Skeptigirl. Your stated concerns sound a whole lot more like Saugerties left-of-center, than radical. There are a lot of moderates, mainstream Democrats, liberals and libertarians who'd agree with you about Bush's abuses of the office (not naming any, just pick a few at random, you'll find people in agreement, not just on these forums but in the local coffee shop).

But it's pretty well documented that WCW was likely started up by the RCP. RCP stands for The Revolutionary Communist Party. Not old-fashioned socialists or Marxists, but believers in the authoritarian left of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot.... They had, and may still have links and exchanges with such charming groups as the Maoists in Nepal and the Shining Path.

How do you reconcile the views you've stated with the strange bedfellows you're keeping? What I see are two distinct possibilities:
A) You are well aware of the background of WCW and are playing the RCP game (as with Workers of the World who also started up a few shill organizations) and trolling for new supporters, hoping to convert to the radical course.
B) You just didn't go beyond supporting groups when you went digging into their background (which you mentioned you would do). There are a number of voices on the left, even the far left, who are very anti-RCP. It's not all Bushie neocons. I found a single page under the title of "World Can't Wake" that truly sounds like it's written by old line Marxists, in fact. (I could be wrong.)

If the case is as stated in A, why not just toss it out on the stoop and see if the cat licks it up? Oh, yeah, the abuse would fly - there aren't a lot of admitted communists on the threads, but I think you'd get some pretty interesting debates going.

If the case is as stated in B, why not admit it and show some respect for the people who did a little digging beyond the 250 WCW links you find when you google them. It's very easy to find that three or four percent of articles that are researched and well written that are not simply WCW announcements.

Check out Bob Azakian. He's officially no where associated with WCW, but he certainly has outlined his support and intended use for them!

Skeptic Ginger

4th October 2006, 11:40 AM

Don't take my word for it (http://worldcantwait.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2418&Itemid=232&_event=14), look up your own location's events scheduled and see who is on the speaker's lists.

I don't see anything in the following that suggests what some people here who don't know much except what they read on a few out of touch web sites are claiming.

OLYMPIA, WA
OCTOBER 5th, 2006
SOLIDARITY WALKOUT AND PROTEST
NO WORK. NO SCHOOL.
Protest and Demonstrations at the OLYMPIA STATE CAPITOL – West Campus Lawn.
(Restrooms and handicap restroom on site for protest.
Security on State Capitol Grounds by Washington State Patrol. Olympia City Police for march through Downtown Olympia and in Olympia. (Thank You!) Permit for Capitol West Lawn issued by Department of General Administration – State Capitol Visitors Services. No camping, no tents, and no sleeping for all night vigil. No candles on marble of capitol building or capitol building steps. No interfering with business at capitol, and we will have more access to walk around capitol building after business hours end.)

10 am to 10 am (FULL MOON PEACE VIGIL ALL NIGHT OCT. 5th – 6th)
CAPITOL BUILDING - OLYMPIA WASHINGTON
WORLDWIDE PROTEST - WORLD CAN'T WAIT OLYMPIA WASHINGTON
OCTOBER 5TH, 2006

Starting at 10am October 5th and continuing all night at the State Capitol In Olympia.

SOLIDARITY WALKOUT AND PROTEST OCTOBER 5th, 2006;
PROTEST:
ILLEGAL WAR
TORTURE
ILLEGAL IMPRISONMENT
DOMESTIC SPYING
MEDIA MANIPULATION
WAR PROFITEERING AND ROBBING OF US TREASURY
WOMENS REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS
IMMIGRATION ABUSE FOR POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC GAIN
LACK OF EQUALITY IN ECONOMICS AND CULTURE FOR ALL
ABUSES OF THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
ABUSES OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS
ABUSES OF EXECUTIVE POWER
ABUSES OF EXECUTIVE PRIVLEDGE

THE USE OF RELIGION AS A DIVIDING ELEMENT IN POLITICS AND CULTURE.

SPEAKERS AND PERFORMERS:

WAKE UP AMERICA CONCERT – WICKLINE FAMILY AND FRIENDS
www.wicklinemusic.com

ZOMBIE MOB – POLITICAL RAP
http://blog.myspace.com/zombiemob

(Speakers, groups and entertainers please contact us! We have room for more!)

OTHER FUN STUFF:

We have 1000 orange rain ponchos with IMPEACH and BUSH OUT NOW - to give away FREE to first 1000 people! We will be attempting the world record for a Protest-Congo-Line-Dance!!

We will be playing TYVEK TWISTER on 16 foot tall and 10 foot wide letters that spell IMPEACH NOW! The letters will "magically" appear out of the crowd for aerial surveillance satellites! Come and help!

Olympia World Can't Wait
PO Box 54
Brinnon WA 98320
Email: worldwideprotest@yahoo.com
phone: 206 257 8219

PROTEST AT STATE CAPITOL IN OLYMPIA OCTOBER 5TH – 6TH. 10am to 10am

WEAR GREEN FOR WCW DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME
Wear red to stand out against the war.
Wear orange in support of our bill of rights and our constitution.
Wear yellow to stand out for human and civil rights.

Create A Protest October 5th, 2006!
Blog, email, publish, post, advertise, and promote this protest!
(an: In The Name of Love production)

worldwideprotest@yahoo.com
Seattle, WA

2006-10-05 [edit]
All Day and into the Night
Univeristy of Washington, Capitol Hill, Downtown Seattle
We'll grow in numbers and spirit throughout the day and call on all of Seattle to JOIN US! THE WORLD CAN'T WAIT! DRIVE OUT THE BUSH REGIME!

Morning--School Walk Outs!
10:00 am--College and High School students from all schools in and around Seattle gather at Red Square on the University of Washington Campus followed by march to Capitol Hill.
12:00 Noon--Gather at Cal Anderson Park, (on 11th Ave between E Denny and E Pine in Capitol Hill) followed by
1:00 pm--Rally with speakers and music
3:00 pm--March into downtown Seattle to the Federal Building (2nd & Marion)
4:00 pm--Rally and SIT-IN AT THE FEDERAL BUILDING--As the night unfolds, people will talk, debate, create music and art, and work together on visions and plans for driving out the Bush Regime and reversing the whole direction it has been taking the country and the world.

SPEAKERS & MUSIC INCLUDE:

Sara Rich - Sara Rich is the mother of Suzanne Swift, an Iraq combat vet who was sexually harassed and abused while deployed in Iraq by her superior officers. She will be speaking about sexual abuse in the military, the Iraq War and driving out the Bush regime.

David R. Montgomery - David R. Montgomery is a professor at the University of Washington in Earth and Space Sciences. He studies the evolution of topography and the influence of geomorphological processes on ecological systems and human societies. He will be speaking on the suppression of science by the Bush administration, with a focus on salmon studies and global warming.

Judith Shattuck - Judith Shattuck is the Washington State Coordinator of Progressive Democrats of America

Roberto Maestas - Roberto Maestas is the Executive Director of El Centro de la Raza

Sasha Cousineau - Sasha Cousineau is the Volunteer Coordinator of NARAL Pro-Choice Washington

Maria Luisa Sanchez Fuentes - Executive Director of GIRE (Information Group on Reproductive Choice) in Mexico. GIRE is working to decriminalize abortion and she will speak to how the Bush administration's policies negatively affect that work in Mexico.

Linda Warren - Linda Warren is a Professor of Philosophy at Shoreline Community College and a founding member of Social Change Caravan. She recently returned from a caravan of former residents and hurricane survivors returning to New Orleans. Linda will speak about Bush's criminal response to Katrina and why this regime must be driven out.

Andy Davenhall - Andy Davenhall, formerly with the band The Lawnmowers, now with Microdot, will do a solo performance.

Sharon Abreu - Sharon Abrue is a peace activist, singer and songwriter, and member of the Network of Spiritual Progressives.

Marc Smason - Marc Smason is a trombonist, vocalist and composer. Marc has performed throughout the world with such luminaries as the Funk Brothers, Andy Statman, Big Joe Turner, Perry Robinson, Sam Shepard, Julian Priester, Sonny Simmons, Jeff Johnson and the Ivar's Clams. His playing encompasses many styles including jazz, latin, klezmer and r&b.

The Raging Grannies

For those of you who are anti-legalized abortion and inclined to look at NARAL and women's reproductive rights listed then stereotype the movement (just as the forum members who looked at a couple of the movement's founders and some images of a brochure rack which did not appear to even be in a prominent place and stereotyped the movement), I direct you to look at the diversity of people involved.

Network of Spiritual Progressives (http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/)

The tenets of the Network of Spiritual Progressives (http://www.spiritualprogressives.org/nsp-tenets)
Our Vision

1. Changing the Bottom Line in America

Today, institutions and social practices are judged efficient, rational and productive to the extent that they maximize money and power. That's the Old Bottom Line. Now Here is the NEW BOTTOM LINE for which we advocate: We believe that they should be judged rational, efficient and productive not only to the extent that they maximize money and power, but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring, ethical and ecological sensitivity and behavior, kindness and generosity, non-violence and peace, and to the extent that they enhance our capacities to respond to other human beings in a way that honors them as embodiments of the sacred, and enhances our capacities to respond to the earth and the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement.

2. Challenging the misuse of religion, God and spirit by the Religious Right

Educating people of faith to the understanding that a serious commitment to God, religion and spirit should manifest in social activism aimed at peace, universal disarmament, social justice with a preferential option for the needs of the poor and the oppressed, a commitment to end poverty, hunger, homelessness, inadequate education and inadequate health care all around the world, and a commitment to nuclear non-proliferation, environmental protection and repair of the damage done to the planet by 150 years of environmentally irresponsible behavior in industrializing societies.

3. Challenging the many anti-religious and anti-spiritual assumptions and behaviors that have increasingly become part of the liberal culture

Challenging as well the extreme individualism and me-firstism that permeate all parts of the global market culture. We will educate people in social change movements to carefully distinguish between their legitimate critiques of the Religious Right and their illegitimate generalizing of those criticisms to all religious or spiritual beliefs and practices. We will help social change activists and others in the liberal and progressive culture become more conscious of and less afraid to affirm their own inner spiritual yearnings and to reconstitute a visionary progressive social movement that incorporates the spiritual dimension, of which the loving, spiritually elevating and connecting aspects of religion has been one expression (but so has the group-in-fusion experience of the movements of the 30's and the 60's and the communitarian aspirations of many other efforts--social healing and health care, progressive summer camps, the wide appeal of service and service learning, the women's spirituality movement etc).I've never seen the Jesus crowd portrayed as communists because they thought society should take care of the poorer members of the community. I assume one of the objections of persons here who think every social program is a step toward communism (an absurd conclusion, BTW), is in using tax dollars for social causes. Bush gives your tax dollars to churches to provide charity (supposedly) services for the poor. How does that differ from using tax dollars for the same without the middleman?

My point is, there isn't any substance at all to the charges made in this thread about the communist nature of this nationwide protest. And regardless of any participant's personal views, the movement is one of many views but with one view in common, we recognize the danger this country is in given the critical threats this country faces while being led by this particularly incompetent administration.

Bush is right about one thing, we are facing an increasing danger of a growing violent anti-American movement of extremists around the world. After watching Frontline's, "Return of the Taliban" last night, it was never more clear, Bush and his cronies and his incompetence in both diplomacy and in decision making has put this country in ten times as much danger than we would be in had we had a competent leader.

Yet many people continue to be in the same denial as Woodward reports Bush is in. Denial that Bush has made the situation worse. Denial that the decisions have been wrong, one after the other. Bush continues to campaign on the false premise the Democrats have no plan, they do, that the Democrats want to "cut and run", they don't, and that the Democrats can't manage national security. How can anyone believe Bush can manage it after his disastrous record? The only way to believe Bush offers any security for this country is if you are in complete denial.

As Bush tries to convince the nation that a vote for a Democrat brings us closer to that terrorist nuclear event, I can't help fearing the second part is all too true, but it isn't a vote for a Democrat that is going to increase the risk, it's every minute Bush remains in office and especially in office unchecked by the Congressional branch of government.