What cheating? I said caging. Read Robert Kennedy's fine article in Rolling Stone. It is still online. Then talk to me.
Hank On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, John wrote: > Hank, > use simple arithmetics, please. A court needs some de batable > uncertainty for a decisive action, like a 'close to 50:50 result. Let us > forget about the 'disefranchisement; and look at the 'counted' figures. > Discounting the small fractions, in 2000 there was ~46% for Bush, 46% > for Gore, 8% for Nader. Most of this 8% would have been Gore's, if there > is no Nader-run, so the final result - without Nader - would have > looked: 46% Bush, 54% Gore. Never mind the 'black votes cheating', this > situation would have not allowed any court action - Florida or not. In > 2004 it was that impotent and unfit Pope-lopving Kerry candidacy, who > threw in the towel prematurely when Bush called him. Of course there was > manipulation of numbers, but it would not have worked with a viable and > strong - fit competitor. 2008? As I see it, mainstream US is not ready > for a female. not ready for a black, not ready for a Jew (no matter how > rich) so the odds are again for the 'Skull and Bones' "big money's" GOP > White House. Queen Barbara will prevail. I agree with your selection of > Kucinich, just does not find him likely to win (if he makes the primary > at all in 'that' Dem. Party). Since we will have the best money can buy, > Hillary will run, in spite of her blunder for universal health care, for > her political ineptness not seeing through the Iraq-lies, for her > lawyerish skills to 'lucky investments' in Arkansas, Whitewater, etc. > etc. Foster could tell, but he is dead. Bill is always behind her with > his Balkan war and other questionable features (pardon etc.) > > John > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Hank Roth > To: PNEWS-L@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 9:49 PM > Subject: [PNEWS-L] Re: Comments to a Friend > > > No he didn't. The spoiler in that election was the Supreme Court and > caging was illegally used by Republicans to disenfranchise > African-American votes. They were again disenfranchised in 2004. It > didn't require anymore than that. Besides which, Nader was the best > candidate, and Dennis Kucinich is the best candidate in 2008. > > Hank > > --- In PNEWS-L@yahoogroups.com, "John" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Amy: > > in the 2000 election those 8% 'green' (Nader) votes gave the > necessary edge to Bush to get into the White House. No court could > have done it with an 8% majority for Gore. > > Now do they do that again? Are the powers behind the Bush government > aiding the 'greens' to divide the 'anti'-votes again? > > The money is there. In the present US setup no 3rd party can achieve > electability, not even Bloomberg's money. It seems we are stuck with > this "1party system - divided in 2". > > John > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: Amy Hendrickson > > To: PNEWS-L@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 8:55 AM > > Subject: Re: [PNEWS-L] RE: Comments to a Friend > > > > > > We all can sense that there our democracy is turning into a police > state, and > > our foreign policy is an immoral, expensive, counterproductive > disaster. > > > > The question truly is, what can we do about it? > > > > We should not just register discontent personally, we should do > > that publically, and then take action. > > > > One possibility is abandoning the dems and working for Greens. Getting > > some Greens elected to congress in 08 might have some good effects. > > At a minimum it would let the dems know that they aren't the only game > > in town for people that despise and fear the further ruin the > Repubs will > > bring us. > > > > But that is only short range-- long range we need to get money out of > > politics and abandon the empire project in all its manifestations. The > > two are linked. > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: razldazl > > To: PNEWS-L@yahoogroups.com > > Sent: Friday, July 13, 2007 1:36 AM > > Subject: Re: [PNEWS-L] RE: Comments to a Friend > > > > > > If everything is such a controlled, monocausal conspiracy? why > would > > 'he,' need to 'rig the elections again?' > > > > That is a completely illogical and irrational assertion? > > > > Your rant is full of holes, internally inconsistent and > self-contradictory. > > > > Pius pap, conspiratorial hype, meaningless diffusion of > irrational venom. > > > > Best stick to rescuing chooks love; that sounds more your forte. > > > > Bush is just one individual. > > > > What do you know of the man's actual political beliefs, ethics and > > internal psychological conflicts and struggles; other than the > > one-dimensional celluloid projections you obviously gorge upon? > > > > Let's argue hypothetically? that 'Bush' was at core a > secularist? or a > > Marxist? an animal Liberationist even? > > > > What could this one man alone archive in a world inundated and > dominated > > by frenzied, flesh-feeding, religious Borg? > > > > Be specific. > > > > How could this one man rise to the American presidency without a > bible > > under arm, or mouthing religious platitudes? > > > > Be specific. > > > > As to SCOTUS? wasn't Bush's last preference Harriet Myers (sp?) > a more > > 'liberal' and 'secular' candidate than the far Right conservative > > Catholic appointed later? > > > > Try a little thought, question those thoughts, self-reflect; > before you > > leap into the void. > > > > Razz > > > > Lindy Greene wrote: > > > > > > We are living in perilous times, indeed. Bush has only another > - what? > > > - year and a half? He's going to have to pull off something > big again. > > > He tried to get rid of Presidential term limits - but that > failed. He > > > wouldn't be re-elected at this point, anyway. He's got a 70% > > > disapproval rating. (But he could always rig the elections > again.) The > > > American public still doesn't see what he's about - it's just > tired of > > > the war. > > > > > > He's committing genocide in Iraq and torturing prisoners of > war. He's > > > suspended habeas corpus (although that's been done before). He's > > > engaging in warrantless spying on American citizens. Do not > fly into > > > or out of LAX until this psychopath is gone. Then again, as > you say, > > > they all visit the same toilet. I don't think it will matter > even if > > > he does step down. Whoever takes over next will fall in - either > > > willingly or forcibly - with the scheme to take over the > government. > > > > > > They admit to 100,000 Iraqi civilian deaths. The Iraqis claim > the true > > > number is 600,000 - 700,000. Imagine the President of the United > > > States colluding in the taking down of the Twin Towers! (He's not > > > smart enough to have masterminded it himself - but he was > complicit.) > > > Those buildings came down by controlled demolition. I am no > engineer, > > > but I know a pull when I see one. > > > > > > How do you get so many people to go along with something like > that? No > > > investigation into the many questions raised - they sealed the > 9-11 > > > Commission Report. Did he somehow manage to get the word out > that no > > > one had better f*ck with him? Is that what "You're either with > us or > > > against us" was about? Was the hidden message, "I can have you > > > declared an 'enemy combatant' and sent to Guantanamo Bay for > torture"? > > > > > > I feel about politics like I do about the universe. I can see > that > > > something mighty big is going on, and I can ask the questions > - but I > > > don't have the answers. And it's utterly baffling as to how it > can be > > > pulled off without someone leaking the information beforehand > - or at > > > least investigating it afterwards. I don't know how you can > get the > > > Congress and the Supreme Court behind it - or, if not behind > it, to > > > fail to inquire into it. It's mind-boggling. I just see the > tip of the > > > iceberg - the rest of it is hidden from view and beyond my > comprehension. > > > > > > In order to get people to accept a dictatorship, you have to > make them > > > really frightened - and that's what the "terrorism" is meant to > > > achieve. Look at the "attacks" in London. How is it that they're > > > always "discovered" and "intercepted"? People who are supposedly > > > clever enough to take down the Twin Towers can't pull off a car > > > bombing without being caught? Sh*t - the ALF (animal rights > > > underground) can do that much! It's staged. Blair was in on > it. Who > > > knows? Maybe it began to bother him. Perhaps he knew about - or > > > suspected - "bigger and better" to come and decided he can no > longer > > > be a participant. He'll keep his mouth shut, though, and let > it happen. > > > > > > Every President of the United States has been a psychopath. I > think > > > you have to be psychotic to even want the position. None of > them has > > > ever done anything for altruistic reasons. Lincoln emancipated > the > > > slaves in service to the interests of industrialization. The > Allies > > > went in to Nazi Germany after four years because Hitler was > becoming > > > too powerful. Governments are motivated by two things: money and > > > power. The one begets the other. Individual soldiers may have > cared > > > about the black slaves or the Jews in the camps - but governments > > > don't go to war for altruistic reasons. They want resources or > world > > > markets. > > > > > > Bush tells the American public he wanted to get rid of Saddam > because > > > he was torturing people - and then Bush turns around and tortures > > > people at Guantanamo Bay. Bush says he wants to set up a > democratic > > > government in Iraq - while spying on his own citizens, > revoking their > > > civil liberties, and suspending habeas corpus. And even though > 70% > > > disapprove now of the war, they still believe that their little > > > President is attempting - however inefficiently - to "save > them from > > > the terrorists who want to kill their babies." > > > > > > This government knew that civil war would be the result of its > > > occupation. What is the best way to disarm another nation? > Plunge it > > > into CIVIL WAR! How can it fight a foreign invader if it is > battling > > > its own people? Remember, too, it's all point of view. The > British > > > crown referred to the American Revolutionists as > insurrectionists and > > > terrorists. > > > > > > A very simplistic guide to converting a government to a > dictatorship: > > > create intense fear and a scapegoat at whom to direct it, use the > > > guise of "protecting" the citizens from the "threat" in order to > > > revoke civil liberties and seize power, and legalize torture. > Will > > > Bush et al just quietly step down and hand over the reins after > > > working so diligently to accomplish all this? > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > > Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.2/894 - Release Date: > 7/10/2007 5:44 PM > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > Progressive News/Views (since 1982) > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > Progressive News/Views (since 1982) > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > >
