Log in

View Full Version : Told you so, Told you so



cormacobear
17th June 2005, 10:32
Source: Politics Canada

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial...orLink=chuckman (http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-editorial.asp?Key=1674&editorType=article&editorPrimeKeyword=bush&editorLink=chuckman)

All Bush, all the time, for the rest of your life
15/06/2005

by John Chuckman : A group of Republican legislators proposes to rescind the 22nd Amendment to the American Constitution.

This is the Amendment, passed after four terms of Franklin Roosevelt scared the bejesus out of Republicans, limiting a President to two terms in office. The legislators apparently believe that with continued Republican gains in Congress, they may be in a position to change the Constitution by 2006, in time to extend Bush's benevolent work.

Of course, Bush must actually be re-elected in 2008, but that represents a mere technicality. Bush was appointed in 2000 by a Supreme Court whose capacity for critical thinking already resembled that of senior judges in the early Reich. By 2008, Bush will have loaded the Court with creatures who might have made splendid careers in the Holy Inquisition under Torquemada.

The Republican fallback plan for 2008 is to repeat the election of 2004, in which heavy vote fraud in places like Ohio gave Republicans their revenge for Democrats' vote fraud in 1960. Republicans used to be more strait-laced about things like vote fraud. It was only the old Democratic political machines of the nation's cities that supposedly practiced it with any regularity. But with the rise in political influence of America's fundamentalists and neo-cons, Republicans have embraced vote fraud wholeheartedly. Fundamentalist pitchmen provided the party a splendid example of the advantages of fleecing their flocks. America's neo-cons have decades of experience posing as disinterested academics advocating human slaughter as policy. If you really think about it, the plan seems sound, and the timing seems right. Its prospects look quite good.

It has my full support, simply because I believe America needs a belly full of Bush before the world can expect any relief from the country's lunatic course. I know through long experience that what happens to the rest of the world carries little weight with most Americans. Since 9/11, America has been turning itself into a gated community, bristling with ferocious weapons, vis-à-vis the rest of the world, and the truth is we don't hear much outrage about it from America herself.

Americans are stubborn people, convinced of the virtue of whatever they do - even today you'd be hard put to convince many that cremating, poisoning, and blowing apart three million Vietnamese was anything other than heroic self-sacrifice in the name of freedom - so it takes a long time to alter course in America. Steering one of those gigantic super-tankers where you have to anticipate your turn miles ahead is almost child's play by comparison.

Lies have always been used to promote wars, and America's wars, despite the nation's ongoing flirtation with democracy, have been absolutely no different in character to those of despots over the centuries. We could say that it will be the test of democratic maturity when the American people are consulted and told honestly why they are being asked to start a war, but that seems unlikely to happen in our lifetime.

Apart from the ugly lies before wars, remember that America's most weighty contribution to world culture is exceedingly refined techniques of marketing, a smarmy art developed in the course of the nation's historic, headlong rush to get rich. So many things in American life - goods, services, religion, and even elections - have more marketing in them than content. Much of American life has about it the quality of "Have a nice day!" from a computerized phone system.

So I don't understand why any Americans are surprised at Bush's shameless lies. He's almost turned lying into a form of stand-up comedy. As soon as one lie's usefulness is ended, he smirkingly substitutes another, without pausing to consider any need for continuity between the two. It is hilarious to watch the leader of a great nation doing this, at least so long as you are not one of his victims.

The real puzzle is why Americans keep buying tickets to his act. Perhaps, with American media always larded with subtle to blatant lies for commercial marketing and politics, responses to other, greater lies are numbed. Perhaps, America really just doesn't much care.

Orwell was wrong in 1984 putting forward the idea of the Party's gradually eliminating words to control people's ability to think and speak critically. He was of course parodying the Soviet Union which to some extent did follow the practice. But the repressive old Soviet Union is gone while America thrives, constantly inventing new words - marketing gibberish, psycho-babble, political rubbish, science-fiction religion - which strives to puff up nothing into something. In America, you can literally fill a small library with books and magazines on any number of subjects from education to health that contain nothing genuinely furthering human understanding.

Marketing turns out to work better than repression over the long term, although the forces of repression are always there in America to offer assistance in dark corners. Hitler himself could not have asked for a set of laws more devious than the Patriot Act. Its continued existence stands as a monument to American political dull-wittedness. Just as bestial torture cages abroad demonstrate the nation's lack of interest in anything thought not to affect America.

But as the best evidence of America's unhealthy condition, I give you People's Exhibit Number One, the fact that Bush is in office and his polls are still not as low as the nation's ever-hopeful, hopeless liberals would like to believe. After all, vote fraud doesn't work where the vote wasn't already close.


:o :o Kind Hitleresque <_< <_< :( :angry:

cormacobear
17th June 2005, 10:36
But he doesn&#39;t site any sources. So does anyone think they could do it?
They already have majorities in both houses. What is required to amendthe constitution?

Forward Union
17th June 2005, 10:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:36 AM
But he doesn&#39;t site any sources. So does anyone think they could do it?
Yes, I think they could, and It wouldn&#39;t surprise me if it happened. Of course, he would need to win the election, we&#39;ll see what happens.

Commie Girl
17th June 2005, 16:22
It is surely possible.

That is one of the wittiest, yet true, critiques of the U&#036; I have read &#33; :P

ahhh_money_is_comfort
18th June 2005, 16:06
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 10:36 AM
But he doesn&#39;t site any sources. So does anyone think they could do it?
They already have majorities in both houses. What is required to amendthe constitution?
Requirements for an amendment:

1) Majority in Congress

2) An electorial majority in a general vote of all people.



Ok lets seeee.


#1 Check yes.

#2 Check yes. (See last election).

superiority
19th June 2005, 03:30
Well...I think one would expect a higher voter turnout for a Constitution amendment than for a Presidential election. Presidents happen all the time, but the Constitution is a whole lot more important to Americans (http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/America/). All the Democrats would vote against, and a good number of Republicans would probably be intimidated by the thought that a Democrat Government could stay in power for ages.

Clarksist
19th June 2005, 06:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 03:06 PM
#2 Check yes. (See last election).
Hah&#33; You think public opinion is sturdy enough to last several months? Besides most strong conservatives wouldn&#39;t wish that. Why? Because most conservative "libertarians" would never go for it.

But as for it actually happening, yes it very well could. There is nothing holding the government back from doing whatever the fuck they want. I mean all of our major Press has the government as their only sources.

So we won&#39;t even know its happening till its too late.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
19th June 2005, 07:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:30 AM
Well...I think one would expect a higher voter turnout for a Constitution amendment than for a Presidential election. Presidents happen all the time, but the Constitution is a whole lot more important to Americans (http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/America/). All the Democrats would vote against, and a good number of Republicans would probably be intimidated by the thought that a Democrat Government could stay in power for ages.
That is EXACTLY what the democratic party had to say in the last election too. Result? Typical voter amblivance.

ahhh_money_is_comfort
19th June 2005, 07:18
Originally posted by Clarksist+Jun 19 2005, 06:40 AM--> (Clarksist @ Jun 19 2005, 06:40 AM)
[email protected] 18 2005, 03:06 PM
#2 Check yes. (See last election).
Hah&#33; You think public opinion is sturdy enough to last several months? Besides most strong conservatives wouldn&#39;t wish that. Why? Because most conservative "libertarians" would never go for it.

But as for it actually happening, yes it very well could. There is nothing holding the government back from doing whatever the fuck they want. I mean all of our major Press has the government as their only sources.

So we won&#39;t even know its happening till its too late. [/b]
Hey I don&#39;t want Bush in for a 3rd term. 2 is enough for anyone. I&#39;m just pointing out some reality.

Clarksist
19th June 2005, 07:39
Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 06:18 AM
Hey I don&#39;t want Bush in for a 3rd term. 2 is enough for anyone. I&#39;m just pointing out some reality.
See? Most people who would consider themselves neo-cons won&#39;t even vote for it. So, how will popular vote go through?

ahhh_money_is_comfort
19th June 2005, 07:41
Originally posted by Clarksist+Jun 19 2005, 07:39 AM--> (Clarksist @ Jun 19 2005, 07:39 AM)
[email protected] 19 2005, 06:18 AM
Hey I don&#39;t want Bush in for a 3rd term. 2 is enough for anyone. I&#39;m just pointing out some reality.
See? Most people who would consider themselves neo-cons won&#39;t even vote for it. So, how will popular vote go through? [/b]
The same way he got the majority of the electoral college in last election.

Sabocat
19th June 2005, 14:07
Americans are stubborn people, convinced of the virtue of whatever they do - even today you&#39;d be hard put to convince many that cremating, poisoning, and blowing apart three million Vietnamese was anything other than heroic self-sacrifice in the name of freedom

This is a ridiculous statement. Remember that for the most part it was dissension in the ranks in the military and popular unrest/protest at home that ended that adventure. Even in the worst case scenario, I would venture to guess that 50% of the population (or close to) are convinced Vietnam was wrong and not "heroic self sacrifice". Apparently the writer has forgotten all the people that fled to Canada to avoid the draft.

This has been typical throughout U.S. history. There were large segments of protestors against WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War 1, Kosovo, Gulf War 2 etc. History just doesn&#39;t do that good a job documenting dissent.

Bush barely won the election in the last round, what would make anyone think that not only would a Constitutional change would pass, but that Bush would be elected again.

I think a far greater risk is that there will be another "terrorist attack" and Bush will declare Marshal Law eliminating elections altogether.

This is really no more than an opinion piece and offers no sources, no real proof that such a plan is underway. Rather it is just a critical piece against the U.S. and paints all it&#39;s residents with one brush, as if everyone in the U.S. was a hard core neocon.

Bannockburn
19th June 2005, 15:27
What is required to amendthe constitution?
According to Wikipedia:
The first option must begin in Congress which, by a two-thirds vote (of a quorum) in each house, may initiate an amendment. Alternatively, the legislatures of two-thirds of the states may ask Congress to call a national convention to discuss and draft amendments. To date, all amendments have been proposed by Congress; although state legislatures have on occasion requested the calling of a convention, no such request has yet received the required concurrence of two-thirds of the states.

In either case, amendments must have the approval of the legislatures or conventions of three-fourths of the existing states before they become part of the Constitution. All amendments save one have been submitted to the state legislatures for ratification; only the 21st Amendment was ratified by conventions.

What is the possibility of this happening? I’m skeptical about it. First, I haven’t heard anything about it. I know Bush proposed the Federal Marriage Amendment which defines marriage. An amendment to explicitly protect the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag, displays of the Ten Commandments and voluntary school prayer. The Equal Rights Amendment which would make discrimination based solely on gender illegal.

Nevertheless, I think the author of this article might not have to look to far to have Bush forever. There have been reports, especially on Larry King live, that Barbara Bush wants Jeb bush to run. It would not surprise me if he did run. Thus, we might get another 8 more years of aggressive neo-con agendas. Expect the current Bush administration to simply be recycled again, like it has been in Regan-Bush years.


I think a far greater risk is that there will be another "terrorist attack" and Bush will declare Marshal Law eliminating elections altogether.

That would be a scary thing, and the thing is I don’t doubt it for a minute. Of course the terrorist attacks can be almost anything according to US army manuals on the definition of terrorism, or even US government definitions. Thus, an environmental lobbyist group who tries to influence government policy, under the definition is held as a terrorist organization. Now that’s way off in left field, but the point is, any justification that this government can exploit seems plausible.

Stargazey
20th June 2005, 21:22
No. Please god, no. If that &#39;man&#39; gets another term :ph34r: .

jsm21588
21st June 2005, 06:38
I was fearing this for a while, I had a feeling, and I&#39;m sure most people did, that he would attempt to pull something like this.

13Commnists
21st June 2005, 22:44
#1 Check yes.

Bush&#39;s Majority doesn&#39;t have a sixty percent majority in congress, and moderate and libertarian republicans would block that.

Free Palestine
21st June 2005, 22:54
Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2005, 09:36 AM
But he doesn&#39;t site any sources. So does anyone think they could do it?
They already have majorities in both houses. What is required to amendthe constitution?
"JOINT RESOLUTION: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to repeal the 22nd amendment to the Constitution.
"Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification.

http://www.house.gov/house/Amendnotrat.shtml

ahhh_money_is_comfort
22nd June 2005, 03:45
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 10:44 PM

#1 Check yes.

Bush&#39;s Majority doesn&#39;t have a sixty percent majority in congress, and moderate and libertarian republicans would block that.
Hey that is AOK, Dick will just run for president.

Man of the Century
22nd June 2005, 20:44
A better site for details is:

http://www.mapcruzin.com/news/bush050703a.htm

Purple
23rd June 2005, 10:40
Bush&#39; popularity is just going longer longer down. I read in the newspapers this morning that suddenly 51% of Americans believe it was a mistake to enter Iraq, and 2/3 of Americans believe that Bush has no control over the homeland social system.

Bannockburn
23rd June 2005, 13:03
I read in the newspapers this morning that suddenly 51% of Americans believe it was a mistake to enter Iraq, and 2/3 of Americans believe that Bush has no control over the homeland social system.

I’ve gotten that same sentiment. If and when I do turn on, or read some mass confusion media outlet, I see, read and hear about how American’s now think it was wrong to go in Iraq, that a large percentage thinks he never had weapons, that large issues such as the economy, education, health care, poverty, etc is by far more important than “you security” or Bush’s push on private Social Security.

Of course in such a large country I really do buy into polls for “public opinion”. I swear, in the beginning when “most” Americans thought Iraq had WMD’s, they polled their typical 1,000 people from the farthest right-wing, Bush supporting neo-cons they could find. I live in New Hampshire, and I couldn’t find one person, not a single individual who thought anything Bush was saying as true.

Now all of a sudden, US opinion has fallen back in line with the rest of world thinking, and what the whole world already knew prior to invasion. Oh God, it looks like that big organization that the US claims need reform was actually right.