On 2002-07-29 16:28, justmom wrote:

..just got up from an afternoon nap...
No I have not heard that Bush stopped any former executive orders.

Well, we know he has not cancelled any EOs and that is discussed from time to time. But surely you did not expect that he would, did you? What I never hear discussed is the status of various "projects" like Meggido. Not only have I never heard if it is still active or cancelled, but I have never heard any prominent Christians ASK whether it is still active or cancelled. I find that simply amazing.

What I find fastinating about Bush, is he's not used the line item veto.

He has not even used the simple veto as far as I know. No surprise. Actually, didn't Clinton use the line item veto? I thought the Supreme Court had ruled on it.

On 2002-07-29 16:54, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-29 16:28, justmom wrote:

..just got up from an afternoon nap...
No I have not heard that Bush stopped any former executive orders.

Well, we know he has not cancelled any EOs and that is discussed from time to time. But surely you did not expect that he would, did you? What I never hear discussed is the status of various "projects" like Meggido. Not only have I never heard if it is still active or cancelled, but I have never heard any prominent Christians ASK whether it is still active or cancelled. I find that simply amazing.

What I find fastinating about Bush, is he's not used the line item veto.

He has not even used the simple veto as far as I know. No surprise. Actually, didn't Clinton use the line item veto? I thought the Supreme Court had ruled on it.

The line-item veto was made legal by congress during the Clinton Administration, and was subsequenlty found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, also during the Clinton Administration. So that is why it has not been used during the Bush Administration.

Here is the latest from Zogby (a week old). Bush's numbers are relatively unchanged from mid July but I am really posting this for movement on the congressional races. Still a dead heat and no real change....


http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=603

(For educ. and discussion purposes only)


Released: July 22, 2002

Zogby Newswire
Less than majority says Bush deserves re-election;
President?s job performance at 63%;
Race for Congress still a dead-heat,
Latest Zogby America Poll reveals







Less than a majority of Americans believes that President George

W. Bush deserves re-election, latest Zogby America Poll results reveal.

The poll, conducted July 19-21 of 1,003 likely voters nationwide
shows that 47% believe Bush deserves re-election, compared to 32% who say it is time for someone new. Another 21% are not sure.

Among the majorities who say Bush deserves re-election are those
earning more than $75,000 a year (50% re-election, 32% someone new, 19% not sure), Protestants (58% re-election, 24% someone new, 19% not sure) and married respondents (55% re-election, 24% someone new, 21% not sure).

Among the less than majorities who say Bush deserves re-election
are those earning $35,000-$50,000 annually (43% re-election, 29% someone new, 28% not sure), $50,000-$75,000 annually (45% re- election, 36% someone new, 19% not sure) and Catholics (43% re- election, 31% someone new, 26% not sure).

A majority of Republicans believe that Bush deserves re-election
(83% re-election, 4% someone new, 13% not sure), compared to a majority of Democrats who say it is time for someone new (19% re- election, 57% someone new, 24% not sure). At the same time, less than a majority of Independents say Bush deserves re-election (42% re-election, 30% someone new, 28% not sure).

The poll has a margin of sampling error of +/- 3.2%.

Results also show Bush receiving a 63% positive, 36% negative job

performance rating, a similar rating received last week (July 16th release) and a tie for the low job performance mark since the September 11th terrorist attacks. In June, Bush received a 69% positive, 28% negative job performance rating, and a 70% positive, 30% negative, rating in May.

The week before the attacks, voters gave Bush a 50% positive,
49% negative job performance rating.

Congressional Generic

The race for 2002 Congress remains a dead-heat among likely

voters as 35% say they plan to vote for Democrats, 34% say they plan to vote for Republicans, 3% say they will vote for neither party?s candidate and 28% are not sure.

Pollster John Zogby: ?Here is a president who was elected with
only 48% of the popular vote and more than one and a half years later, even in a time of war, remains stuck in that position.?

Even Gallup registers <70% for Bush... it's about time :smile:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/releases/pr020729.asp

Sorry, folks, Asteroid to miss - this time around.

Dang! But here's a new thing to worry about!

WEST NILE SPREADING FAST



<center>And it's one, two, three,
What are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn,
Next stop is fill-in-the-blank;
And it's five, six, seven,
Open up the pearly gates,
Well there ain't no time to wonder why,
Whoopee! we're all gonna die.
:smile: </center>

Interesting find from the Gallup people:

<center>"The current mood is much more positive, however, than it was from 1992 through 1996, when considerably more people were dissatisfied than satisfied."

Satisfaction in America:
Yearly Averages 1979-2002
</center>


Some crisis, huh? But just wait till those Democrats start Impeachment hearings early next year, that's when the real fun begins. :smile:

On 2002-07-29 18:10, Stonewall Patton wrote:

Congressional Generic

The race for 2002 Congress remains a dead-heat among likely

voters as 35% say they plan to vote for Democrats, 34% say they plan to vote for Republicans, 3% say they will vote for neither party?s candidate and 28% are not sure.

Pollster John Zogby: ?Here is a president who was elected with
only 48% of the popular vote and more than one and a half years later, even in a time of war, remains stuck in that position.?

Hmmm...looks almost 3T-ish.

On 2002-07-29 16:28, justmom wrote:
..just got up from an afternoon nap...
No I have not heard that Bush stopped any former executive orders. Try Khouse . The guy who runs it is strongly Christian and sounded the alarm on the Y2K bug in about 1997. You may skoff now, but, it was primarily because of him that so much stuff got fixed.

This is only partly true. The Y2K problem was foreseen well back in the eighties, at least, by writers such as Arthur C. Clarke.

What I find fastinating about Bush, is he's not used the line item veto. I thought sure he'd use it in CFR or others. But, he hasn't.
Line Item Veto, was touted as a great thing. It seems that it's not been mentioned in years, and forgotten to exist.

Bush doesn't have a line-item veto. The President must either accept Congressional legislation whole or veto it whole. It would take a Constitutional Amendment to alter that.

Could the 4T feel after 9/ll come mainly from the quick kick in the pants it gave Boomers? After that day, it seems the idealist agenda has picked up some.

True, some Boomers see a chance to fire up the crusades again, but after the few couple of months the rest of the Boomers and almost all the other Gens went back to 3T mode.

Right now, you can find the papers and newsmags full of Boomer columnsists, on Left and Right, trying to rev up public anger or enthusiasm, almost with a desperate tinge now. It's just not happening. We be 3T.

On 2002-07-29 06:14, monoghan wrote:


And the FEMA stuff runs both ways. Lots of folks on the other side were scared to death with the potential powers that Janet Reno would have in an emergency. Among the VRWC, the tinfoil hat brigade thought that Bill Clinton wanted a crisis, like 9-11, so he could declare martial law and suspend the 2000 elections.

He would have, if he could have. Just because the paranoids believed it doesn't mean it wasn't true. But Clinton was driven primarily by ruthless self-interest, not malice. I fear his wife more than him, if she ever got into a position to command real power.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-07-29 19:57 ]</font>

On 2002-07-29 19:55, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Right now, you can find the papers and newsmags full of Boomer columnsists, on Left and Right, trying to rev up public anger or enthusiasm, almost with a desperate tinge now. It's just not happening. We be 3T.

I'll stick with 4T with the regeneracy a ways off.

On 2002-07-29 19:57, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-07-29 06:14, monoghan wrote:


And the FEMA stuff runs both ways. Lots of folks on the other side were scared to death with the potential powers that Janet Reno would have in an emergency. Among the VRWC, the tinfoil hat brigade thought that Bill Clinton wanted a crisis, like 9-11, so he could declare martial law and suspend the 2000 elections.

He would have, if he could have. Just because the paranoids believed it doesn't mean it wasn't true. But Clinton was driven primarily by ruthless self-interest, not malice. I fear his wife more than him, if she ever got into a position to command real power.

Which kind of makes you wonder why he did not tell the truth about TWA Flt. 800 when that could have been the ticket to GC glory for the man who desired to be the next FDR....

Oh, the Zogby polls always give Bush a low rating. Gallup was much more widely used until the news media discovered that Zogby gave the lower numbers.

GETTING BACK ON TOPIC AGAIN:

I think we are still late 3T. Perhaps similar to the mid 1920's. 2008 could be the regeneracy for a catalyst perhaps yet to come.

On 2002-07-29 16:54, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-29 16:28, justmom wrote:

..just got up from an afternoon nap...
No I have not heard that Bush stopped any former executive orders.

Well, we know he has not cancelled any EOs and that is discussed from time to time. But surely you did not expect that he would, did you? What I never hear discussed is the status of various "projects" like Meggido. Not only have I never heard if it is still active or cancelled, but I have never heard any prominent Christians ASK whether it is still active or cancelled. I find that simply amazing.

What I find fastinating about Bush, is he's not used the line item veto.

He has not even used the simple veto as far as I know. No surprise. Actually, didn't Clinton use the line item veto? I thought the Supreme Court had ruled on it.

Good Question. I will answer tomorrow afternoon. I have to get the kids to bed.

On 2002-07-29 21:13, justmom wrote:

On 2002-07-29 16:54, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-29 16:28, justmom wrote:

..just got up from an afternoon nap...
No I have not heard that Bush stopped any former executive orders.

Well, we know he has not cancelled any EOs and that is discussed from time to time. But surely you did not expect that he would, did you? What I never hear discussed is the status of various "projects" like Meggido. Not only have I never heard if it is still active or cancelled, but I have never heard any prominent Christians ASK whether it is still active or cancelled. I find that simply amazing.

What I find fastinating about Bush, is he's not used the line item veto.

He has not even used the simple veto as far as I know. No surprise. Actually, didn't Clinton use the line item veto? I thought the Supreme Court had ruled on it.

Good Question. I will answer tomorrow afternoon. I have to get the kids to bed.

I said above that it had been ruled unconstitutional by the USSC when Clinton was president.

"Some crisis, huh? But just wait till those Democrats start Impeachment hearings early next year, that's when the real fun begins."
____________________________________

All it takes is a cursory glance at the posts these last couple of months to see we are way way way back to 3T. I used to think it was the Boomers who were the ideologues, but it's all over the generations, along with bucketfuls of paranoia and greeeeddddd. Makes you wonder, when we hate each other so much, how are we going to fight the arabs?
After visiting this site pretty regularly these last few weeks, I am beginning to believe that the crisis will be an internal one. Pretty scary. I never thought it would be, but it doesn't seem that we can ever get over that pesky ole civil war. I guess the clash of civilizations starts at home.

[quote]
On 2002-07-29 21:13, justmom wrote:

On 2002-07-29 16:54, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-29 16:28, justmom wrote:

..just got up from an afternoon nap...
No I have not heard that Bush stopped any former executive orders.

Well, we know he has not cancelled any EOs and that is discussed from time to time. But surely you did not expect that he would, did you? What I never hear discussed is the status of various "projects" like Meggido. Not only have I never heard if it is still active or cancelled, but I have never heard any prominent Christians ASK whether it is still active or cancelled. I find that simply amazing.

Christians are an interesting group. I find it really amazing the things we choose to get worked up about vs. the things which we do not.
You look at this legislation and have to wonder why we wouldn't freak over something like this. It's not that we don't care. It's of great concern. We feel, I believe, our hands are tied. It's a catch 22 situation. We believe that Jesus is coming back for his church. We will be taken up to heaven and avoid the punishment that has been ordained for an unbelieving world.And before he comes there are indicators which mark His return.
The Bible reports of Rome reunited without the strength of the former empire. A "mark" which allows people to buy and sell. The days becoming more and more evil ( Which fits nicely into a 3T don't you think?) Christians in America are fixated on the roll of America in "End Time Events". When in truth the Bible is a history of Israel.
Anyhow most American Christians believe that we will be taken up to heaven before we have to confront the evils of an Internment Camp.
So most comfort themselves with the thought that they won't actually be in the camps. But, the presence of them in an akward way also gives comfort because it offers proof to the believer that Jesus is on his way and coming back soon. Alternately, we have been forewarned more or less that these things are coming to us, so it seems pointless to fight against it.

I don't have 1000 hours or more to get into what I believe. But, I was just answering your question as to why Christians dont speak out against it.

On 2002-07-29 20:34, AlexMnWi wrote:

Oh, the Zogby polls always give Bush a low rating. Gallup was much more widely used until the news media discovered that Zogby gave the lower numbers.

Zogby is the only one which has historically nailed election results on the money. If Zogby gives Bush a lower rating than the other pollsters, then the odds are that Bush really DOES have a lower rating than the other pollsters give him.

GETTING BACK ON TOPIC AGAIN:

Were we off the topic? We weren't but what does it matter if we were?

Christian confusion: Why do they THANK God for saving the coal miners in Pennsylvania but ignore His obvious mischief in causing the mine shaft to flood in the first place? It's like me thanking my wife for helping me endure the problems she inevitably brings into my otherwise untroubled life.

[quote]On 2002-07-30 00:07, justmom wrote:

I don't have 1000 hours or more to get into what I believe. But, I was just answering your question as to why Christians dont speak out against it.

Justmom, you have a certain type of Christian belief but I do not believe that all Christians share your belief. In fact the greater number might not. Therefore I just do not think you have cited the reason why Christians have never held Junior accountable.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken62.html

(For educ. and discussion)


Man Criticizes Government, Story at Eleven

by Ryan McMaken

If you?re thinking about converting to Islam, you might want to reconsider. The FBI has rounded up another Muslim convert and sent him off to rot in prison for a secret crime in a secret place for a secret amount of time. James Ernest Thompson, also known as James Ujaama is thought to be in prison somewhere in Colorado, but the federal agents who ransacked his home can neither confirm nor deny that he was even arrested. And thank God. Ujaama is suspected of giving laptop computers to Al-qaeda. Just think of all the military secrets that might be released to the terrorists if the feds actually let us know if this American citizen had been arrested or not.

Although Ujaama is suspected of giving tech support to terrorists during his visits to Pakistan, he has yet to be charged with a crime. It?s possible that he?s been charged with a crime, but we don?t know because the press was excluded from Ujaama?s hearings in front of a federal judge on Friday. Two local newspapers argued in court that maybe, just maybe it would be nice to let the press in on this guy?s trial, but they were told to quit "aiding the terrorists." At least, that what I?m sure ol? John Ashcroft would have said had he been there.

Now, I don?t know if Ujaama is a terrorist collaborator or not. He may be even worse than Jose Padilla (also known as Abdullah al Muhajir), who as we all know (according to Ashcroft) is the most dangerous terrorist in the history of the world, but it might be nice to maintain at least some appearance of due process for the cameras. Of course, if we lived in the America that existed before we all became a bunch of pathetic bleating sheep, some "red blooded Americans" might actually show some concern that Americans are being hauled off as "material witnesses" and then upgraded to "enemy combatants" and locked up for the duration of the "war" (or the Apocalypse, whichever comes first).

Fortunately, the transformation to sheephood is not quite complete. The New York Times recently reported that conservatives are starting to get a wee bit tired of Ashcroft?s magalomaniacal rampage. Grover Nordquist, the president of Americans for Tax Reform and the unofficial leader of the "leave me alone coalition" admits that many conservatives have become sorry they ever supported his nomination as Attorney General. Nordquist, a good meat and potatoes conservative, and not exactly some kind of Lew Rockwellite still believes that the Bill of Rights still has a few good lines in it even if it gets in the way of the Republican agenda. Old habits die hard and some Americans are still loath to trash the Posse Comitatus act and welcome the new utopia with federal soldiers patrolling the streets asking for everyone?s national ID card.

The most disturbing part of this Ujaama brouhaha, though, is the mantle of guilt placed upon the suspect because of the fact that he edited an "anti-American" website called StopAmerica.org. Naturally, the local news was all over this since it filled some good time between stories on chainsaw sculptors and old men feeding ducks. To drive home the point of how dangerous the suspect is, they trotted out with furrowed brows some lines from his web page that read:



Our campaign will not end until America's foreign policy has ended. We are Americans united against war. We want the killing to end and America's foreign policy makers brought to justice for the attempted genocide of more than 500,000 innocent children in Iraq. America's foreign policy makers have brought hate to the people of the United States.

The horror! Here is a man that criticizes American foreign policy. Somebody get a rope. A headline the next day read "Jailed man admits opposition to foreign policy." Sheer madness.

Recognizing that the images of federal agents swarming about the home of a man secretly taken to an undisclosed location might be disturbing to some viewers, the news stations found some "expert" to assure everyone that "the average American" has nothing to fear from the anti-terror spooks. Presumably, "the average American" means "the obedient American." The dark fact that admitting opposition to American foreign policy is considered somehow shady or even inappropriate (let alone newsworthy) is hardly heartening to those of us who, like Grover Nordquist, aren?t quite ready to trash to Constitution. Fortunately, I might be saved by the fact that I don?t plan to abandon my Catholicism for Islam, or to change my name to Osama or Abdullah. The Pope has been known to criticize American foreign policy, however. I suppose that if the Vatican is added to the "Axis of Evil" I might be in deep trouble. I hear Ashcroft was never too fond of us "cath-licks" anyway.

July 30, 2002

reese.king-online.com/Reese_20020729/index.php

(For educ. and discussion)


Nothing Is A Good Weapon

by Charley Reese
Monday, July 29, 2002


It seems to me that the terrorists with whom America is "at war" are doing exactly the right thing ? nothing.

In the meantime, the U.S. government seems to be digging itself into a deeper and deeper hole. There are raucous debates over anti-terrorism measures; any concern for budget discipline has gone out the window; government power is being expanded on a willy-nilly basis; civil liberties are being put in jeopardy; the American economy, particularly the aviation industry, is being strained; and pressing problems such as the environment, economic infrastructure and a sensible trade policy are all shoved to the back burner.

And what has all this cost the terrorists? Nothing. Not a single bullet, not a stick of dynamite. Nearly a year ago, some men hijacked four airplanes and crashed them, dying with their victims. Since then, nothing has happened. While we have gone to war in Afghanistan, made a mess of foreign policy, greatly alarmed our traditional allies and, frankly, conducted ourselves in general as a nascent fascist state, the terrorists have done nothing.

Even conservative Christians have become alarmed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, whose nomination they lobbied for heavily. But Ashcroft, with visions of evil Muslims floating in his head and a terrorist under every bed, seems to have gone over the side of the good ship Common Sense.

For a while, it seemed as if President Bush was ready to declare war on the entire rest of the world, and even now he wants to convert the military into a domestic police force, as well as set up civilian vigilante and block spy committees.

Does anyone else think we might have overreacted?

I do. I think our overreaction has caused more damage to the American economy and to America's position in the world than the four airplanes. I know it was traumatic for civilians to watch 3,500 people die in living television color ? over and over and over, thanks to videotape. But we have in recent years ourselves killed a hell of lot more than 3,500 people ? and, for that matter, lost a heck of a lot more people in Vietnam, for example. The difference is that killing and dying overseas, usually off camera, doesn't have the impact that it does on our own soil with round-the- clock TV coverage.

We've caused the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. I'm sure if such an event happened here, with our hysterical TV coverage, the whole country would suffer a national nervous breakdown. Because of our tendency to media hysteria, we are probably a great deal more vulnerable than smaller but spiritually tougher countries.

We are certainly sending a message to every terrorist in the world: If you want to get the biggest bang for your buck, do it in the United States.

I say it is time for us to suck it up and get on with our lives in a manly fashion. I would hate to think that our constitutional republic is to be dismantled because a few minimum-wage employees didn't do their jobs at two airport-security counters.

Add up the actual cost of the damage done by the terrorists, and then add up the cost of our overreaction, and I think you'll see clearly why Osama bin Laden was in such a happy frame of mind on that videotape.

We are at war, all right, but it is with ourselves and with the phantoms we create in our own minds. A cynic once told me that people run for city council in small towns just so they can ride in a police car. I'm beginning to think that some people run for president just so they can wear a military jacket and act like a general.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...8/IN244190.DTL

(For educ. and discussion)


Learning to love Big Brother
George W. Bush channels George Orwell

Daniel Kurtzman

Sunday, July 28, 2002



Here's a question for constitutional scholars: Can a sitting president be charged with plagiarism?

As President Bush wages his war against terrorism and moves to create a huge homeland security apparatus, he appears to be borrowing heavily, if not ripping off ideas outright, from George Orwell. The work in question is "1984, " the prophetic novel about a government that controls the masses by spreading propaganda, cracking down on subversive thought and altering history to suit its needs. It was intended to be read as a warning about the evils of totalitarianism -- not a how-to manual.

Granted, we're a long way from resembling the kind of authoritarian state Orwell depicted, but some of the similarities are starting to get a bit eerie.

PERMANENT WAR

In "1984," the state remained perpetually at war against a vague and ever- changing enemy. The war took place largely in the abstract, but it served as a convenient vehicle to fuel hatred, nurture fear and justify the regime's autocratic practices.

Bush's war against terrorism has become almost as amorphous. Although we are told the president's resolve is steady and the mission clear, we seem to know less and less about the enemy we are fighting. What began as a war against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda quickly morphed into a war against Afghanistan, followed by dire warnings about an "Axis of Evil," the targeting of terrorists in some 50 to 60 countries, and now the beginnings of a major campaign against Iraq. Exactly what will constitute success in this war remains unclear, but the one thing the Bush administration has made certain is that the war will continue "indefinitely."

MINISTRY OF TRUTH

Serving as the propaganda arm of the ruling party in "1984," the Ministry of Truth not only spread lies to suit its strategic goals, but constantly rewrote and falsified history. It is a practice that has become increasingly commonplace in the Bush White House, where presidential transcripts are routinely sanitized to remove the president's gaffes, accounts of intelligence warnings prior to Sept. 11 get spottier with each retelling, and the facts surrounding Bush's past financial dealings are subject to continual revision.

The Bush administration has been surprisingly up front about its intentions of propagating falsehoods. In February, for example, the Pentagon announced a plan to create an Office of Strategic Influence to provide false news and information abroad to help manipulate public opinion and further its military objectives. Following a public outcry, the Pentagon said it would close the office -- news that would have sounded more convincing had it not come from a place that just announced it was planning to spread misinformation.

INFALLIBLE LEADER

An omnipresent and all-powerful leader, Big Brother commanded the total, unquestioning support of the people. He was both adored and feared, and no one dared speak out against him, lest they be met by the wrath of the state.

President Bush may not be as menacing a figure, but he has hardly concealed his desire for greater powers. Never mind that he has mentioned -- on no fewer than three occasions -- how much easier things would be if he were dictator. By abandoning many of the checks and balances established in the Constitution to keep any one branch of government from becoming too powerful, Bush has already achieved the greatest expansion of executive powers since Nixon. His approval ratings remain remarkably high, and his minions have worked hard to cultivate an image of infallibility. Nowhere was that more apparent than during a recent commencement address Bush gave at Ohio State, where students were threatened with arrest and expulsion if they protested the speech. They were ordered to give him a "thunderous ovation," and they did.

BIG BROTHER IS WATCHING

The ever-watchful eye of Big Brother kept constant tabs on the citizens of Orwell's totalitarian state, using two-way telescreens to monitor people's every move while simultaneously broadcasting party propaganda.

While that technology may not have arrived yet, public video surveillance has become all the rage in law enforcement, with cameras being deployed everywhere from sporting events to public beaches. The Bush administration has also announced plans to recruit millions of Americans to form a corps of citizen spies who will serve as "extra eyes and ears for law enforcement," reporting any suspicious activity as part of a program dubbed Operation TIPS - -

Terrorism Information and Prevention System.

And thanks to the hastily passed USA Patriot Act, the Justice Department has sweeping new powers to monitor phone conversations, Internet usage, business transactions and library reading records. Best of all, law enforcement need not be burdened any longer with such inconveniences as probable cause.

THOUGHT POLICE

Charged with eradicating dissent and ferreting out resistance, the ever- present Thought Police described in "1984" carefully monitored all unorthodox or potentially subversive thoughts. The Bush administration is not prosecuting thought crime yet, but members have been quick to question the patriotism of anyone who dares criticize their handling of the war on terrorism or homeland defense. Take, for example, the way Attorney General John Ashcroft answered critics of his anti- terrorism measures, saying that opponents of the administration "only aid terrorists" and "give ammunition to America's enemies. "

Even more ominous was the stern warning White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer sent to Americans after Bill Maher, host of the now defunct "Politically Incorrect," called past U.S. military actions "cowardly." Said Fleischer, "There are reminders to all Americans that they need to watch what they say, watch what they do, and this is not a time for remarks like that; there never is."

What would it take to turn America into the kind of society that Orwell warned about, a society that envisions war as peace, freedom as slavery and ignorance as strength? Would it happen overnight, or would it involve a gradual erosion of freedoms with the people's consent?

Because we are a nation at war -- as we are constantly reminded -- most Americans say they are willing to sacrifice many of our freedoms in return for the promise of greater security. We have been asked to put our blind faith in government and most of us have done so with patriotic fervor. But when the government abuses that trust and begins to stamp out the freedom of dissent that is the hallmark of a democratic society, can there be any turning back?

So powerful was the state's control over people's minds in "1984" that, eventually, everyone came to love Big Brother. Perhaps in time we all will, too.

Daniel Kurtzman is a San Francisco writer and former Washington political correspondent.

On 2002-07-30 05:55, Croaker'39 wrote:

Christian confusion: Why do they THANK God for saving the coal miners in Pennsylvania but ignore His obvious mischief in causing the mine shaft to flood in the first place? It's like me thanking my wife for helping me endure the problems she inevitably brings into my otherwise untroubled life.

Croaker does it hurt to be so old and yet so ignorant?
I guess I could agree with your ignorance if you wanted to hold "the Christian God" accountable for everything that happens on our planet. Unfortunately, I cannot as, YOU MARRIED THE WOMAN.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-30 10:25 ]</font>

[quote]
On 2002-07-30 05:55, Stonewall Patton wrote:

On 2002-07-30 00:07, justmom wrote:

I don't have 1000 hours or more to get into what I believe. But, I was just answering your question as to why Christians dont speak out against it.

Justmom, you have a certain type of Christian belief but I do not believe that all Christians share your belief. In fact the greater number might not. Therefore I just do not think you have cited the reason why Christians have never held Junior accountable.

Actually, what I explained was called the Pre-Tribulation Rapture. Which most Chistians in America do believe. I however, do not.

As to why we don't hold junior accountable. He's not responsible. He didn't enact the legislation. Yes, it's in place, yes, it's still there, yes, it's an abomination, yes, I wish he would retract it.
So he is an accomplice in it to some degree. His dad was the first to use the taboo"New World Order". We aren't a group of morons running around who've been lobotomized. Bush is NOT the savior of the world. But, until the Savior does come it's better to have someone like Bush than "Hitller-y" or her ilk. Don't bother responding with your lengthly posts of why we need a despot in office so to cause a revolution. I know what you believe, you say it often enough.
You don't know what I believe, so do try to refute what you don't know.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: justmom on 2002-07-30 14:00 ]</font>