--- Leslilake1 at aol.com wrote:
> I'm not saying it couldn't happen...but when I start
> thinking things like
> that, I remember that during the Clinton admin that
> those of the "free
> republic" ilk were talking about the same scenario -
> they used Executive
> Orders Clinton had signed, Waco, etc. to justify
> their arguments. Clinton's
> gone. I want Bush to be gone too.
>
Well, I'm not saying it couldn't happen either...or
that it's going to happen...just speculating a bit.
Yes, rightwingers have their conspiracy stuff...but
their ax to grind against Clinton was a bit different
than ours on bush, don't ya think? It's one thing to
say that they don't want Clinton to be pres
again...and to speculate about him usurping the
office. It's quite another thing to assess what Bush
is about...what he has openly done to solidate his
power and the kind of support he has among those with
their own power...like the Supreme Court. I really
don't think the two situations are all that
comparable... Moderate/centrists and liberals aren't
all that ready to jump to taking control. Ideologues
like Bush...well, they're a different species all
together. Facists like to do things in an orderly
way...even a "legal" way...Hitler certainly took those
steps and then usurped it all. Fact is for me, I
don't trust Bush even one little iota...nada. He
likes his power...those behind him like their
power...those followers of his like their leverage.
They're all feeling their oats nowadays, so to speak.
I dunno...maybe I AM being paranoid...but its only
paranoia IF nobody is following you, right? I guess
all I'm saying is we should be prepared for anything
and not just assume that they will follow certain
rules...they really don't have much of a track record
for doing that, do they? We shouldn't put all our
faith in the "system"...what did it do for us the last
time around? The only faith I have in the system
is...that it IS the system...that's it.
As far as Feingold, Democrats, and the system goes, sure, they should put forth the strongest possible candidate...who'd disagree with that? But, as someone else said in a post, will it make any difference? I disagree with that individual's reasons for saying it won't, but I'm not a Democrat and have no faith in them either. I know its fairly unpopular to say anything good about the Green Party USA, but ask yourself...which "sort of mainstream party" has gone on record of being against the bombing in Afghan...against the military tribunals...against the detainees in Cuba...against most everything the Bush administration has tried to shove down our throats? The Republicans? Hardly. The Democrats?, yeah, right. No, it's been the Greens and I think despite all the rhetoric about the Greens this and the Greens that...Nader this and Nader that...its been THEY who have taken a political party stance contrary to the administration's policies. I think they should be given credit where credit is due, that's all. I'd hate to see Nader try again, not because I disagree with his assessments of corporate america (I liked what Feingold had to say about him in that article that started this thread), but because he's so damn uninspiring as a presence...and was so unwilling to broaden his message to include things which people want to hear answers to... Now, Feingold running on the Green Party ticket...I could get into that. And while I'm spouting off...i sure as hell wish they'd change the name of "green" to something else...
Ok...I'm done...take it all apart...I'm game. My name is David.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com