Re: What has America lost?

steve wrote:
> Don Swayser allegedly said:
>
>
>> steve wrote:
>>
>>> What has America lost?
>>>
>>> - The US Constitution / Bill of Right (due to US Patriot ACT) The
>>>  president now has the power to order the arrest and indefinite
>>> detention, secret trials, of anyone, with no evidence, public
>>> courts or legal representation or habeas corpus. The President
>>> can order anyone's death if it suits him - provided they aren't
>>> Americans. No evidence required.
>>>
>>
>> Oh really, where did you get that from?
>
>
> Here's a real-life example:
>
> http://www.chargepadilla.org/links.html
>
>
>>> - democracy (due to gerrymandering of district boundaries - 99%
>>> of House congressional incumbents are re-elected - 80 out of 435
>>> were un-opposed). Mandatory cheat-able voting machines will
>>> finish the job in 2004. To be fair, both major parties cheat in
>>> elections like there was no tomorrow.
>>>
>>
>> The only verified cases of cheating I've personally read about are
>> those in Jimmy Walkers NYC, Richard Daley in Chicago and Huey Long
>> in Louisianna. All of them were Democrats. The last attempt was in
>> Florida with the hanging chad scam the democrats used as a smoke
>> screen until they illegally demanded a recount in only two Florida
>> Counties.
>
>
> The cheating I'm talking about is pefectly legal. When the states
> define their district boundaries (except for the 6 with only one
> district), they typically draw the boundaries to set the staus quo in
> concrete. Like the fuss in texas recently....where the majority
> Republicans are rigging things their way after years of the former
> majority Democrats doing the same thing. Cheaters all.
>
The cheating I'm talking about isn't. Dead people really can't register
to vote ya know. If you can find a copy of "Boss: Richard Daley of
Chicago" read it and you begin to get a comprehension of the depth of
corruption to which Chicago sand during his reign. Huey Long reportedly
attempted to get elections cancelled in Louisianna though there is no
hard proof of this. But he most certainly did run the Louisianna
Democratic machine and the state as a dictator. Here's a nice little
piece of information on the corrupt practices the democrats have
developed to gain and maintain political power. Yes, it was a very long
time ago but that only means they have had lots of practice.
http://history1900s.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bartleby.com%2F65%2Fta%2FTammany.html

As for your allegation that the Republicans are "rigging" districts
after years of the democrats doing so have you thought that perhaps
they're simply correcting them to where they should be? When ones own
side cheats it's natural to assume the other side is only doing what
your inclinations are.

> They have been very successful. In all but ONE of the past *25* House
>  congressional elections (since 1954 incl), over 90% of incumbents
> have been re-elected. Since 1998 (inclusive), the figure is over
> 98.5%......
>
> I don't think there is another single-member plurality "democracy" on
> Earth where 98%-99% of the sitting members are regularly
> re-elected.....thanks to legal cheating.  It's so bad that in 80 of
> the 435 House seats, the other major party didn't even bother to
> stand a candidate.
>
> It's shocking....yet few Americans seem to even know how degraded and
>  dysfunctional their electoral system is.
>
> Look at these stats:
>
> http://www.fairvote.org/dubdem/usreps.htm
>
Interesting. I question your claim that no other democracy has the same
approximate stats. England also has a history of longevity in office. 
Both Benjamin Disraeli, Ewart Gladstone, Robert Cecil (Lord Salsbury), 
Sir Edward Grey and of course Winston Churchill spent most or all of 
their adult lives a MP's and that was not an unusual state of affairs by 
any means. It also seems to have been a mark of political stability. 
However it is also a sign of political stagnation. The short term we 
assgin to the HoR could be one factor. Voter apathy another. People in 
this country seem unwilling or unable to hold their rep's toes to the 
fire. Look at prescription aid for medicaid patients. The democrats have 
been promising it for a couple decades. Who got it through Congress? The 
Republicans. The American voter is a sucker. So I have to agree with you 
to a point. Who but a foolish, naive electorate would leave a party in 
power from 1948 to 1992 that promised them the world and delivered 
Vietnam, entitlement welfare, ever increasing taxation and even refused 
to vote into law Eisenhowers civil rights legislation until another 
democrat could sign it into law. The American people deserved to be led 
by the nose as Johnson, Carter and Clinton did.
>
>>> - Trust - Bush leader has habitually lied to you about serious
>>> matters, He has also lied to the world at large and they trust
>>> him far less than Americans do.
>>>
>>
>> Oh? The greatest presidential liars in history were FD Roosevelt,
>> Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon and William Clinton. Three of the
>> four were/are democrats.
>
>
> I see you're worried about parties. I'm not. They were all liars.
>
> But Bush today is worse than any of them......He lies about
> everything.
>
Like what?

>
>>> - Allies - Most of their citizens and most of their governments
>>> think the US at present is out of its friggin' mind. To the
>>> extent they work with Bush, they are working to restrain his
>>> excesses.
>>>
>>
>> The countries which count are our traditional allies, the other
>> English speaking nations. We have come victorious through two world
>> wars. We must forgive Canada this last since it's really being
>> controlled by a croaker. All the rest we can depend on to; 1. Be
>> opposed in a war. 2. Surrender to the enemy.
>
>
> Canadian's - English or French - are overwhelming opposed to the
> actions of G W Bush in Iraq. Chretien may be French, but most of his
> Liberal party MPs are not.
>
> New Zealand also did not back the US...and most Australians and
> Britons don't either - as every opinion poll shows.
>
In fact the average Canadian preferred to stay quietly neutral, not 
mouth off in opposition like Cretin did. And your reliance on such polls 
should have been shaken by those delivered in England during the 
conflict. Some people never learn, namely liberal democrats. I see that 
Tony Blair is still Prime Minister of England and John Howard is still 
PM of Australia. Either could be, but weren't removed by a vote of "no 
confidence. Why not. Now, take a look at this link.
http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=80349046-3469-4B66-962E-9D3D5607EBDD
National Story - canada.com network

So, Canada's position was a bit different than you thought, huh?

> I'm talking about lost trust on the level of the individual voter in
> all of these countries. Tony Blair will pay dearly for what he has
> done next time Britons go to the polls.
>
No, he won't. The notoriously liberal BBC WANTS you to think so though.

>>> - Safety - Bush's actions in invading Iraq have vastly increased
>>> the dangers to America at home...and *certainly* abroad. Three to
>>> four years ago, Americans could have visited almost anywhere in
>>> relative safety. Today, roughly a 3rd of the world is off-limits
>>> to any sane American. The *difference* has been Bush's response
>>> to 9/11.....he invaded Iraq...who had nothing to do with it.
>>>
>>
>> It seems to me that the WTC was more expensive than all the rest of
>>  terrorist actions combined, and it happened in the US, and well
>> before the Iraq thing.
>
>
> Sure.
>
>
>> Only an absolute fool would assume the rest of the world wouldn't
>> be an even more dangerous place if Hussein was still supporting the
>> terrorists.
>
>
> But he wasn't. I know Bush keeps saying it, but there is no
> proof.....and the CIA and the DIA and others have repeatedly pointed
> out.
>
I see. He was developing MRBM's and IRBM's for space research, right? He 
had nerve agent precursors in stock toensure the survival of chemical 
companies. And he maintained a standing army with an armor force larger 
than ALL the other Persian Gulf Countries because he likes shiny metal 
toys. You are one naive puppy.

>> Your liberal rhetoric is boring and silly. Try thinking before
>> posting stuff like this. It sounds like you're getting your
>> material from "The Militant".
>
>
> Your problem is you mistake the provable verifiable truthg for
> "rhetoric" because of you own biases.
>
> If you verify the claims i have made...and fomd them valid....what
> will you do? Acknowldge the truth?
>
> Or be like Bush and lie to yourself and others?
>
"Provable and verifiable"? Perhaps you'd care to explain what those 
terms mean. It is "provable and verifiable that Hussein did maintain a 
larger and better armed army and air force than ALL Persian Gulf States 
combined. The wrekage left behind by the allied forces prove it. It is 
"provable and verifiable" he was developing MRBM's and IRBM's. The new 
rocket engine test stand proves it. It is "provable and verifiable" that 
he had large stock of precursor chemicals in stock. They were found. Is 
it "provable and verifiable" what he intended to do with them? No. But 
then it wasn't "provable and verifiable" what Hitler intended to do with 
the rebuilt Whermacht, Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine before September 1, 
1939. But his intntions could be deduced after Rhineland, Austria and 
Czechoslovakia. But heaven forbid we should deduce Husseins intention 
after his invasions of Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Luckily the world 
had time to repair its stupidity with Hitler. If Hussein had ever gained 
hegemony of Persian Gulf Oil (90% of the worlds excess oil production) 
we'd be involved in a nuclear war because with that mush power he could 
blackmail any Western European, nuclear equipped nation (namely France 
who have demonstrated they'll supply anybody with anything) into 
supplying him with such weapons.

--
If you want to be free, there is but one way; it is to guarantee an
equally full measure of liberty to all your neighbors. There is no other.
Carl Schurz (1829-1906)