George Bush leads us into the world of Kafka.

Police officers shoot US civilians as part of their jobs. What would be the difference between the police and the military? The main difference would be that in the case of the military you would have a large group of people in uniform shooting a large group of "criminals" all at once. I can certainly see Tal giving the orders to shoot with a certain look of satisfaction on his face.Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

Stop voting for the guy and his minions. But apparently many Americans aren't aware of the danger. And yet the majority of the American voters appeared to support him. That's what everyone said before the 2004 election. It's sad for me to suspect that the people who care enough about these things are in the minority. It's simple. Make sure his ilk won't get the majority vote next time. In the mean time, I guess we'll have to endure seeing more people get humiliated and finantially drained for having foreign accents and embarrassing objects in their possessions.What I really wanted to point out last time was that most people don't seem to realize the humiliation and financial burden the poor man had to go through. He had to get a lawyer to defend against a charge that never should have been filed in the first place. What's worse, he's an Iraqi.I shared this story to quite a few people and they all seem to laugh at the situation as if it's the funniest thing they've heard. There's nothing funny about it. For a few weeks, this man's rights were stripped away. His financial resources were drained. His reputation among his friends and family was shattered. And that's not mentioning the psychological pain he had to suffer when he realized that he could have gone to prison for 3 freakin' years for possessing a penis pump and having a foreign accent.And to give you an idea of how naive Americans are these days in regard to the political situation, even after I pointed out the above assessment of the poor man's situation, most people still laughed and said "oh, well..."I seriously honestly don't have much faith in the American public. This is one of the reasons why I have been questioning the efficiency and effectiveness of the democratic process.Edited by gasby, : No reason given.

Am I missing something? Who's Tal? Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.

I gotta admit I laughed a bit when you said what you said. While the actual situation is deplorable and not funny at all, the way you said it originally my first thought was...
"They captured Austin Powers?" Okay, perhaps you can explain what your nationality is and how your gov't and people have set themselves apart from "the American public". With the exception of France, Belgium, and most importantly the people of Spain, I'm unaware of any western national gov't or population which has acted any differently than Bush and the American people.Edited by holmes, : captured

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

You don't get it yet. People aren't. George Bush has never won a presidental election.Don't you get it? It doesn't matter how we vote. The results of the election have not determined the presidency since 2000. What makes you think that, exactly? Which we know George Bush did not win. It's like you're not hearing me. What does it matter if Bush and his ilk actually have the majority or not? That's not how we determine the presidency anymore. Your blame, as I said, is very much misplaced. What on Earth do you think the American public have to do with the policies of the American government?

It's my understanding that Bush et al. have all but suspended posse comitatus.

There's no question the SC gave Bush the presidency whether he deserved it or not in 2000.But didn't some newspapers finally count the vote and find out Bush would have taken office anyway? I suppose that doesn't deal with other irregularities in Florida which might have changed things (people barred from voting), but of those votes cast I thought that's how its been figured. If you have info on that I'd be interested.Also, while I wonder whether irregularities occured in 2004, is there solid evidence of cheating that would have given Bush a victory? All I had heard is that we cannot know because many of the new electronic systems, not that we know it happened. I'm also interested in info on that.I'm not arguing against your claim, so much as saying I have no idea other than the impressions I mentioned above, and would like more info.

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

quote:

---

But didn't some newspapers finally count the vote and find out Bush would have taken office anyway?

---

Yes, but it isn't clear whether the newspapers counted ambiguous ballots in the same way that election officials would have, at least as far as I have heard. It remains somewhat unclear how the Florida election would have turned out had the Supreme Court allowed the vote count to continue. At least that is how I recall things.-

quote:

---

Also, while I wonder whether irregularities occured in 2004, is there solid evidence of cheating that would have given Bush a victory?

---

According to The Nation, which is pretty anti-Bush and does claim that Gore should have won the 2000 election, the irregularities in Ohio did not cost Kerry the election; they claim that the irregularities in Ohio (and in Florida 4 years prior) are more of a warning of what we might see in the future as partisan politicians consolidate their control of states' election offices.

---

"The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one." -- George Bernard Shaw

Based on what?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Well, based on their view that the prohibition against the military being involved in law enforcement represents an inconvenient barrier in the war on terror.Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

What makes you think that is their view? And has this "view" ever been actually implemented in any real world manner?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Yes, and in addition to the ballot problem there was the case of all the disenfranchised voters whose potential effect I guess we'll never know about now. Its kind of funny to have it ruled that "well you guys were deprived of your votes, but you know the election is over so we can't do anything about it now." Thanks, I couldn't remember the source but that's kind of how I remember the outcome too.Edited by holmes, : potential effect

---

holmes {in temp decloak from lurker mode}
"What a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away." (D.Bros)

Jar writes: There are some who would chose 1492 as the year the whole hemisphere started to head for the crapper.

There are still others that will claim that the world has been going downhill since 4004 bc.

You know, this whole debate over security and privacy has really gotten out of hand. One, we are only nominally more secure than before. There is no means that will safegaurd us from the inevitable, which is another major attack, especially from an EMP attack. Having said that, it doesn't undermine the fact that the US and its allies have already thwarted numerous plots; and those are just the declassified or unclassified ones we know about.On the flipside, the argument is that we are turning into a surveillance state. This allegation comes primarily from those of a more leftist appeal, which I find ironic, being that socialist nations have a far worse track record of illegal spying. I don't see America as the Gestapo or the Stasi, who were truly undermining people's civil liberties. I think the misconception comes from an inability to understand what the Patriot Act actually is and what it actually does. The NSA, DIA, CIA and a host of others have been listening to you for years with the Eschelon and Predator programs. Everytime certain words are spoken or typed on any electronic frequency, it automatically routes you to their servers to see if what you are discussing is benign or malicious. No one seemed to mind before because they weren't aware of what is going on. Seriously, all the Patriot Act does is grant the government the ability to obtain warrants they weren't sanctioned to establish prior to 9/11. It really has nothing to do with the fact that if you speak about certain things you will be monitered. I mean, afterall its not like the CIA is getting their jollies by watching you bathe. It isn't anything like that.Having said all of that, I do believe this is all going in one direction-- a surveillance state. But you can't blame the US government for trying to protect itself. The US was attacked, unprovoked, a grand total of 8 times before they responded to the terrorist threat with the Kohbar Towers, USS Cole, the first WTC bombing, etc. I believe that all of this is leading towards the end times prophecies spoken about in the book of Revelation, Daniel, Ezekiel, Matthew, etc. My solution: Accept Jesus.

---

"There is not in all America a more dangerous trait than the deification of mere smartness unaccompanied by any sense of moral responsibility." -Theodore Roosevelt