On 2002-07-21 01:04, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-20 18:55, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

But is another civil war something we really want?

No, and I do not see it happening. The corporate elite will back off before any such revolt breaks out. My only point was that with Gore, McCain, or anybody else besides Bush, the prospect of civil war will force the corporate elite to back off. Bush is the corporate elite's one and only avenue to success because the erstwhile rebels (Kool-Aid drinkers) do nothing while he does precisely what any of the other guys would be doing. Bush must be voted out at all costs even if it means a Gore or McCain or whoever else presidency because Bush is the corporate elite's sole avenue to success.

What if Perot runs again? Or Trum, or some other Big Business type?

On 2002-07-21 01:04, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-20 18:55, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

But is another civil war something we really want?

No, and I do not see it happening. The corporate elite will back off before any such revolt breaks out. My only point was that with Gore, McCain, or anybody else besides Bush, the prospect of civil war will force the corporate elite to back off. Bush is the corporate elite's one and only avenue to success because the erstwhile rebels (Kool-Aid drinkers) do nothing while he does precisely what any of the other guys would be doing. Bush must be voted out at all costs even if it means a Gore or McCain or whoever else presidency because Bush is the corporate elite's sole avenue to success.

What if Perot runs again? Or Trump, or some other Big Business type? Do you think that would make it better? :/

On 2002-07-20 16:01, Brian Rush wrote:

"Luddites" is probably not the best term to use; the Luddites were working-class blokes opposed to automation. The southern rebellion was something else, not working-class but elitist, and not anti-automation but anti-industrialization, or rather opposed to the social changes that industrialization was bringing.

I guess we are just going to disagree on this, Brian. While Southerners may have put forth philosophical arguments for preserving a certain way of life, I do not see how anybody can deny that, first and foremost, they were driven by the desire to have cheap manufactured goods. They simply wished to be rid of the Northern mercantilist element which put a dent in their profits by grossly magnifying their debits through their tariffs and governmental subsidies to corporations. Similarly, the '70s tax revolt in California was driven, first and foremost, by a desire to pay less taxes, not by any philosophical concerns about social changes. I think we grossly overcomplicate that which is so basic and simple that we lose sight of reality at times. Most plantation owners were not social philosophers, they were (extraordinarly debt-ridden) businessmen concerned about their bottom line.

I bet Bush will get people riled up about non-issues like God, and Gays and get re-elected in 2004. Mark my word

[quote]
On 2002-07-21 02:19, takascar2 wrote:

I think Bush has to go at all costs.

...
of civil war with Bush in office. Therefore, Bush has to go at all costs...

I am faxing a copy of this posting to the US Secret Service along with all the information I have about this forum and you. Threatening the President is against the law and is especially egregious in a time of war.

You did not even identify who you are talking about and nobody on this thread has advocated civil war or threatened George W. Bush or anybody else. We discuss a cyclical theory of history at this site and crisis periods recur every 70-90 years. We are currently entering one on a par with the American Revolution, American Civil War, and Great Depression/WWII. We speculate on what will happen in this current crisis period. For example, if Al Gore or someone else on the Left won office, might the Right revolt? Can you remember back to the climate during E2K? Similarly, might George W. Bush or anyone else on the Right cause the Left to revolt? Apparently, you would like to stifle all such speculation and intellectual discussion even though no individual here is advocating anything like what you claim. How plainly un-American.

What are you talking about?

On 2002-07-21 02:52, takascar2 wrote:
This is the message that I am talking to. Just got off the phone with the USSS ops center. I have their fax number and have printed this out. They also have the exact URL.

On 2002-07-20 14:55, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-20 14:06, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

I agree 100% here. I'd like to see Bush gone, but some of the others touted as Presidential material scare me just as much: Al Gore, Joseph Lieberman and Dick Cheney would do just as much harm as Bush and his predecessors, Clinton and daddy Bush did.

You are correct. Al Gore, and I would assume Joe Lieberman as well, would only guarantee that the same corporate elite runs the show behind the fake facade of the differing party label. DLC/New Democrats are simply a contrived faction created by the same corporate elite with an eye to controlling both sides of the political aisle through deception. That is why it is so humorous to see Al Gore waiting in the wings protraying himself, and being protrayed as, some sort of alternative! Our politics have become such an unbelievable joke!

BTW, I'd look for Cheney to be replaced next year so that the new running mate is not so much of an issue at election time. Surely Cheney will not stick around given his heart. Or do you think otherwise?

And John McCain scares me far worse than any of the above.

Right on! I wish Brian saw it your way.

If it is true that we are in a 4T, a major political reshuffling within the next few years is in order, not unlike the rise of FDR's New Deal in 1932, or the formation of the Republican Party and their immediate rise to major party status in 1860.

Yeah, well I wish it would hurry up.

On the other hand, if we wind up with a Bush-Gore rematch, I will once again cast a hopeless third party vote. If John McCain winds up in the race, I'll vote in whatever manner would be most likely to keep Herr McCain out of the White House, even if it means trying not to gag as I vote for Bush.

I think Bush has to go at all costs. He is the ONLY way this corporate elite can continue consolidating power because he is the ONLY guy who keeps the Kool-Aid drinkers from rebelling, even though he is doing pretty much exactly what any of the other guys would be doing. With either Gore or McCain, we have possible civil war waged by the Kool-Aid drinkers if things go too far...and the corporate elite will not push it that far. With Bush, the Kool-Aid drinkers continue to hit their powdered mix (Makes 2 Quarts!) and sleep while their country slips away. And I don't quite see the Left making up the difference in terms of civil war with Bush in office. Therefore, Bush has to go at all costs because he is the corporate elite's one and only ticket to success.


_________________
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. ?Edmund Burke

Anybody but Bush in '04!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Stonewall Patton on 2002-07-20 14:57 ]</font>

Get a life :smile: (don't you have ANYthing better to do at 5 in the morning than blab to the federal government about posters in a web forum who disagree with you?) ... btw as far as I know the only way what he was saying would be illegal would be if he knew it were false (as then it would be libel); for now i'm just going to try to go to bed :lol:

On 2002-07-21 02:52, takascar2 wrote:

This is the message that I am talking to. Just got off the phone with the USSS ops center. I have their fax number and have printed this out. They also have the exact URL.

Right, which was followed up by this message:

On 2002-07-20 18:55, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

But is another civil war something we really want?

No, and I do not see it happening. The corporate elite will back off before any such revolt breaks out. My only point was that with Gore, McCain, or anybody else besides Bush, the prospect of civil war will force the corporate elite to back off. Bush is the corporate elite's one and only avenue to success because the erstwhile rebels (Kool-Aid drinkers) do nothing while he does precisely what any of the other guys would be doing. Bush must be voted out at all costs even if it means a Gore or McCain or whoever else presidency because Bush is the corporate elite's sole avenue to success.

Do you see that? No, I do not want civil war. However, judging by the climate during E2K, there are people on both the Left and Right who might and we have discussed this social phenomenon at length at this site for months. I personally renounce all violence and have never and will never advocate civil war. That is the last thing I would ever like to see in my lifetime because it would be immeasurably damaging to human life and property, my own possibly included obviously. Can I be any clearer? Violence and civil war are not my "bag" and I wish they were nobody else's "bag." Instead, I believe in the First Amendment which enables us to hold an intellectual conversation about what may lie in our country's future, using history as our guide, given the aims of some of the other 280 million who live here who do not necessarily share our views personally. Do you believe in the First Amendment and simple speculation based upon history? Or are these things now un-American?

There are plenty on the Right who act like they are ready for something with a Gore presidency, for example...and I frankly take you for one of them. Additionally, there are people on the Left who act similarly but I would not imagine that you belong to that camp. I belong to neither camp because I am libertarian. I simply want to see George W. Bush voted out at all costs (as I stated) for the sake of the country, even if that means a Gore or McCain presidency. And I do not see a civil war in our future, period...and I have repeatedly stated this. It simply will not happen.

Can I console you in any other way? Or might it be that you just have no tolerance whatsoever for any criticism of Junior and the Bush people? I am an American. I have no idea what you are. God bless (I guess?).

President Anybody will serve his/her term from 2005 to 2009, and it will be even worse than that of Mr. Mumbles. The Second Constitutional Convention will occur in the summer of '09 to avert civil war, soon after Pres. Anybody is replaced by Pres. Nobody. Fort Sumpter will be upstaged by the NYSE and Chase Manhattan, and all the frogs will die from surface-water pollution.

But 'til then, let's all be comforted by the fact that we are not unique in history. Neither were the trilobites.

I hope this little incident with our goose-stepping buddy takascar has given Mr. "American Stasi? Give me a break!" Lamb a look at thing from another perspective.



PS: I'm sort of disappointed to see Stone backpedalling when, in my mind a simple, "tell the USSS they can lick my nut-sack, too." would have been adequate.

:wink:

:lol: Mr. Justin. Mr. Goebbels did the very same thing to me! Notice that these two fruitcakes refuse to post with real names, Mr. Justin? Should tell you a lot about them, eh?

Silly.

On 2002-07-21 10:34, Justin '77 wrote:

PS: I'm sort of disappointed to see Stone backpedalling when, in my mind a simple, "tell the USSS they can lick my nut-sack, too." would have been adequate.

What backpedalling? I do not desire that the "USSS" lick anything. Citizen Takascar however....

[quote]
On 2002-07-21 02:19, takascar2 wrote:

I think Bush has to go at all costs.

...
of civil war with Bush in office. Therefore, Bush has to go at all costs...

I am faxing a copy of this posting to the US Secret Service along with all the information I have about this forum and you. Threatening the President is against the law and is especially egregious in a time of war.

Do you feel that baby, it's your freedom!
God I love my state so much, I just want to lick its bottom for not being an oppressive regime, or at least an outward one.
Us idiot citizens have enough celebrity culture worship, SUVs and malls to keep us busy working our tails off so we can put a TV set in our gas guzzlers.

PUKE. WRETCH.

Tak, baby, Bush wasn't elected. He was selected. He doesn't care about you either. I feel that he is a very lost man. Only a lost man would think life so cheap as to send young people into Iraq to die in a way he was too rich to be able to understand back in 1968.
The former drunk/cokehead has no moral authority, the former Arbusto oilman has no energy authority nor economic authority.
He simply can gain no respect from me.

I really pity you intelligent right-wingers. So many of you are so articulate, but instead of expressing yourselves you'd rather get behind the rich imposter to lead you.

That has got to be painful and destroy your self-worth.

Pucker up :smile:

Here's one for the secret service. Down with the Bush family. and the Kennedys.
Down with the American aristocracies.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chet on 2002-07-21 11:47 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2002-07-21 02:19, takascar2 wrote:

I think Bush has to go at all costs.

...
of civil war with Bush in office. Therefore, Bush has to go at all costs...

I am faxing a copy of this posting to the US Secret Service along with all the information I have about this forum and you. Threatening the President is against the law and is especially egregious in a time of war.

The Soviet Union would've really loved having you as a citizen.

On 2002-07-21 11:44, Chet wrote:
God I love my state so much, I just want to lick its bottom for not being an oppressive regime, or at least an outward one.
Us idiot citizens have enough celebrity culture worship, SUVs and malls to keep us busy working our tails off so we can put a TV set in our gas guzzlers.

PUKE. WRETCH.

Tak, baby, Bush wasn't elected. He was selected. He doesn't care about you either. I feel that he is a very lost man. Only a lost man would think life so cheap as to send young people into Iraq to die in a way he was too rich to be able to understand back in 1968.
The former drunk/cokehead has no moral authority, the former Arbusto oilman has no energy authority nor economic authority.
He simply can gain no respect from me.

I really pity you intelligent right-wingers. So many of you are so articulate, but instead of expressing yourselves you'd rather get behind the rich imposter to lead you.

That has got to be painful and destroy your self-worth.

Pucker up :smile:

Here's one for the secret service. Down with the Bush family. and the Kennedys.
Down with the American aristocracies.

Gosh, Chet, that took a lot of guts and courage to write all that! Man, I bet you'd be one of the first in line when comes time to sign the next Declaration of Independence, Chet (whatzyer last name?).

Ya gotta love this internet thing, huh? Allows a bunch of sissys to act like real men. :lol:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-21 11:59 ]</font>

On 2002-07-21 02:52, takascar2 wrote:
This is the message that I am talking to. Just got off the phone with the USSS ops center. I have their fax number and have printed this out. They also have the exact URL.

Please let me know if anyone hears from the Secret Service about this farce.

I would hope the Secret Service has better things to do with their time, but if there is an actual investigation, I need to keep Bill and Neil informed.

-- Craig

I know I don't post much here myself, but this cannot go without comment.

(Although I have switched to my personal login, for whatever little difference that makes.)

The last I checked it was not against the law for an American citizen to argue that a President of the United States should not be reelected.

As the late 1990s proved, it isn't against the law for someone to argue that a President should be removed from office.

Unless, of course, something's changed. Which I doubt it has (to bring this back to the original topic of this forum) since I think we still in the 3T. :smile:

My best,

-- Craig

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: CraigCheslog on 2002-07-21 13:08 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2002-07-21 11:44, Chet wrote:

On 2002-07-21 02:19, takascar2 wrote:

I think Bush has to go at all costs.

...
of civil war with Bush in office. Therefore, Bush has to go at all costs...

I am faxing a copy of this posting to the US Secret Service along with all the information I have about this forum and you. Threatening the President is against the law and is especially egregious in a time of war.

Do you feel that baby, it's your freedom!
God I love my state so much, I just want to lick its bottom for not being an oppressive regime, or at least an outward one.
Us idiot citizens have enough celebrity culture worship, SUVs and malls to keep us busy working our tails off so we can put a TV set in our gas guzzlers.

PUKE. WRETCH.

Tak, baby, Bush wasn't elected. He was selected. He doesn't care about you either. I feel that he is a very lost man. Only a lost man would think life so cheap as to send young people into Iraq to die in a way he was too rich to be able to understand back in 1968.
The former drunk/cokehead has no moral authority, the former Arbusto oilman has no energy authority nor economic authority.
He simply can gain no respect from me.

I really pity you intelligent right-wingers. So many of you are so articulate, but instead of expressing yourselves you'd rather get behind the rich imposter to lead you.

That has got to be painful and destroy your self-worth.

Pucker up :smile:

Here's one for the secret service. Down with the Bush family. and the Kennedys.
Down with the American aristocracies.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: chet on 2002-07-21 11:47 ]</font>

Right on, Chet!

On 2002-07-21 10:47, R. Gregory '67 wrote:

On 2002-07-21 02:52, takascar2 wrote:
This is the message that I am talking to. Just got off the phone with the USSS ops center. I have their fax number and have printed this out. They also have the exact URL.

Now *this* is funny.

The Secret Service is most likely snickering behind your back at your frivolous complaint. It should be obvious that I, and I assume Stonewall and everyone else who agreed in this thread, clearly meant that we would like to see Bush voted out of office in 2004.

:lol:! they probably think the guy's just as crazy as I do if not more so

On 2002-07-21 11:57, Marc Lamb wrote:

On 2002-07-21 11:44, Chet wrote:
God I love my state so much, I just want to lick its bottom for not being an oppressive regime, or at least an outward one.
Us idiot citizens have enough celebrity culture worship, SUVs and malls to keep us busy working our tails off so we can put a TV set in our gas guzzlers.

PUKE. WRETCH.

Tak, baby, Bush wasn't elected. He was selected. He doesn't care about you either. I feel that he is a very lost man. Only a lost man would think life so cheap as to send young people into Iraq to die in a way he was too rich to be able to understand back in 1968.
The former drunk/cokehead has no moral authority, the former Arbusto oilman has no energy authority nor economic authority.
He simply can gain no respect from me.

I really pity you intelligent right-wingers. So many of you are so articulate, but instead of expressing yourselves you'd rather get behind the rich imposter to lead you.

That has got to be painful and destroy your self-worth.

Pucker up :smile:

Here's one for the secret service. Down with the Bush family. and the Kennedys.
Down with the American aristocracies.

Gosh, Chet, that took a lot of guts and courage to write all that! Man, I bet you'd be one of the first in line when comes time to sign the next Declaration of Independence, Chet (whatzyer last name?).

Ya gotta love this internet thing, huh? Allows a bunch of sissys to act like real men. :lol:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-21 11:59 ]</font>

You don't know that Chet is not his real name, Marc? It's Justin '79 and I won't tell you his last name, you'll have to ask him yourself.

I don't take anyone seriously who threatens to report posters to the Secret service. If they were really serious, they would not announce their intentions. They would just do it.

On 2002-07-21 16:55, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-07-21 11:57, Marc Lamb wrote:

On 2002-07-21 11:44, Chet wrote:
God I love my state so much, I just want to lick its bottom for not being an oppressive regime, or at least an outward one.
Us idiot citizens have enough celebrity culture worship, SUVs and malls to keep us busy working our tails off so we can put a TV set in our gas guzzlers.

PUKE. WRETCH.

Tak, baby, Bush wasn't elected. He was selected. He doesn't care about you either. I feel that he is a very lost man. Only a lost man would think life so cheap as to send young people into Iraq to die in a way he was too rich to be able to understand back in 1968.
The former drunk/cokehead has no moral authority, the former Arbusto oilman has no energy authority nor economic authority.
He simply can gain no respect from me.

I really pity you intelligent right-wingers. So many of you are so articulate, but instead of expressing yourselves you'd rather get behind the rich imposter to lead you.

That has got to be painful and destroy your self-worth.

Pucker up :smile:

Here's one for the secret service. Down with the Bush family. and the Kennedys.
Down with the American aristocracies.

Gosh, Chet, that took a lot of guts and courage to write all that! Man, I bet you'd be one of the first in line when comes time to sign the next Declaration of Independence, Chet (whatzyer last name?).

Ya gotta love this internet thing, huh? Allows a bunch of sissys to act like real men. :lol:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Marc Lamb on 2002-07-21 11:59 ]</font>

You don't know that Chet is not his real name, Marc? It's Justin '79 and I won't tell you his last name, you'll have to ask him yourself.

I don't take anyone seriously who threatens to report posters to the Secret service. If they were really serious, they would not announce their intentions. They would just do it.

it's called the *SECRET* service for a reason :smile:

"I don't take anyone seriously who threatens to report posters to the Secret service."

Serious, Ms. Susan? I don't take anyone very serious that posts using a unimagiative name they just made up (Like Chet from Weird Science ). :smile:

I thought I stired up some sheet.

In some strangely bizarre, unheard of attempt to get back on topic, I am offering this post. Has anyone noticed the market slide this summer, especially over the last two weeks? The market was well above 9,000 a few weeks ago; now it is barely above 8,000. This is a difference over a couple of weeks of over 1,000. 1,000 is 10% of 10,000, so it is over 10% of 9,000. The 1987 crash was something around an 11% fall. I think that we have in fact had a stock market crash; it is just not a crash in the sense that it has happened (sic?) over a couple of weeks. And in the weeks preceding both of the previous major crashes, the market had been severly sliding for a little while. So next week worries me. Anyway, something like this is very 4T. Looking at some of the headlines, these seem very 4T as well. Here are some of them:
"WorldCom in Largest-Ever U.S. Bankruptcy"
"Ridge: Terror threat may force government to use military for domestic law enforcement"
"Turkey warns U.S. of lengthy Iraq war"
"Review: U.S. air strategy flawed, killed hundreds of innocent Afghan civilians"

Also, I have noticed that after looking at the dates at this website, and assuming that 9/11 was the catalyst after some convincing posts, 2002 would resemble 1930. And in many ways it does, seeing as how people tried to get back to normal.

So here now, after having been through 9/11, we are seeing war-related headlines all over, a very large stock market slump, and virtually no inflation (0.1% Last Month). In fact, some areas recieved deflation, a characteristic of the last great depression. If you ask me, this is all very, very 4T.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AlexMnWi on 2002-07-21 23:55 ]</font>