Lindaland
  Global Unity
  The most vicious, dangerous administration in the history of the USA

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   The most vicious, dangerous administration in the history of the USA
Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 31, 2004 01:26 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Diane Harvey is a thinker with keen insight.


The Vote Of A Lifetime
By Diane Harvey
merak@sedona.net
10-30-4

I have never voted. For one thing, my thinking never fit into the grotesquely oversimplified agenda-boxes of modern political parties. Furthermore, our little lives are embedded in the overall context of a dismally corrupt and inhuman civilization. Voting has the wizened visage of a cynical charade when one understands that the noble experiment of a Republic does not factually exist any longer. During the theatrical presentations of electoral melodramas, the ironclad kings of corporate greed look down from their thrones behind the curtain, wholly unperturbed. Our wretched civilization, flying the false flag of a democratic ideal, has had only one practical effect for decades now.

The result of the overwhelming cultural conditioning we undergo from birth has been to entrain the majority to a lifetime of thoughtless consumption. I could not bring myself to vote when I saw that no matter which party I voted for, the hypnotic enslavement of most Americans to brutal materialism, at the cost of the systematic ruination of the natural world, would continue unabashed and unabated. No matter what, and no matter who passed briefly through Washington, the result would be the banal horrors of big business as usual. I have been reduced to waiting for some sort of unexpected catastrophe to wake us from the sleep of unreason.

A lifelong abstainer is obliged to vote for the first time....

Because catastrophe is already upon us. And there are ultimately critical differences between the two men running for President and between what each will do if elected. There are always differences among such men, and this time the underlying differences demand scrutinizing with high-powered, future-penetrating, over-the-horizon optics. Because the truth is that any honest effort toward dispassionate comprehension of our predicament will result sooner or later in a single inevitable conclusion. Reelecting Neocons means voting for the deliberate destruction of every last elusive remaining particle of what America was meant to become.

And if that isn't enough to satisfy the bizarre new American enthusiasm for home-grown totalitarianism, there is more. Reelecting Neocons also means issuing a serious come-hither invitation for all-out, man-made, hand-made Armageddon. If such ghastly goals suit your fancy, then by all means, do whatever it takes to bring them on. We know there are those among us possessed by the unaccountable craving for a premature ending to the human race. Or one may stand on the sidelines dithering over the list of political crimes on both sides, preferring the abstractions of passivity as salve for an excessively twitchy conscience. But let us not make the fatal mistake of believing that because we are dwelling in the context of systemic madness, it therefore does not matter who we vote for. This time it matters beyond belief.

It is unfortunate that what is at stake in this election is not evident from the rhetoric, other than the rather important item that one candidate can speak his native tongue, and the other cannot. [ ] The drone of dreaded sound bytes pervades the tedious speechifying. But great glaring personal and ideological differences are lodged beneath the dreary audio tracks, and these differences are vital to whether or not we have much future at all as a solvent and minimally rational nation. This is not a choice between the usual liberal or conservative prepackaged products and productions. This election has nothing whatsoever to do with liberals or conservatives, in either their better or worse incarnations. This is the choice between gaining a little time to address the innumerable underlying problems besetting us on every hand, and committing collective hara-kiri. This is the choice between at least having a chance to work at solving the problems of life, and the abrupt freedom from care consequent to ritual mass suicide.

This is the vote of a lifetime.

For the non-aligned and congenitally disaffected, it can be difficult to shake the mind free of habitual judgments, and to see this crossroads in history for the stark choice it really is. But it can be done. One can understand a great deal simply by looking objectively and in depth at the lives of these two public men, realizing that one of them is going to be driving our own lives, and the lives of our children. People will howl that one cannot possibly have been objective if the results are not to their liking. But a dispassionate process can still produce quite colorful results in even the most resolutely unbiased inquiry. Because to proceed objectively does not mean that the results are necessarily a lukewarm mush of evenly divided scolding and compliments. Once in a while people and events turn out to be far worse than one could ever have imagined.

After an extended period of research and reflection on the upcoming election, I offer the following profoundly unambiguous comments.

One candidate is visibly, palpably insane: a smirking mouthpiece for the purest concentration of ruthless bloody-mindedness ever to darken the door of Washington. The prize-winning status of this administration is quite an accomplishment, considering the long grubby history of complex capitol chicanery. There are of course people who have not noticed precisely how Neocons are methodically trying to eviscerate the remnants of every last morsel of good in our country, and by no means only on the liberal side of the equation. It is the conservatives supporting these demented death-dealers who will go down in history as by far the most misled and gullible partisans of modern times. And that too is really saying something, considering the competition. It is hard to fathom how such an unbroken record of stupendous errors and outright lies might escape notice after all this time, but so it is.

Meanwhile, the other candidate is perhaps at best a reasonably intelligent and reasonably decent man, and at worst merely another mixed and ambitious example of one aspect of the ruling class. There are people whose overpowering prejudice prevents them from noticing this combination of qualities as well, but such an oversight is more understandable when scrutinizing a man possessed of outwardly bland characteristics. It is easy to spot the grimacing chimp, but not so easy to spot the human.

One candidate is a fervent member of a morbid cult: the kind of terrifying maniacs who actually believe an immanent destruction of our world will result in their personal teleportation to more blissful realms.

The other candidate suffers from no such fanatical delusions of fundamentalist grandeur.

One man is the fraying sock puppet of megalomaniacal sociopaths suffering from fatal emotional and mental disorders, who believe (as did Hitler) that God actually approves of their murderous drive to dominate the globe.

The other man is merely a typically unexciting garden-variety politician who exhibits no symptoms whatsoever of religious mania or incipient personality breakdown. One must conclude unequivocally that the lesser of evils is in this case, for once, factually and crucially the lesser. One may be so bold as to state that it is uncertain whether or not the lesser evil is especially evil at all.

One of these men is a malignant idiot and a lifelong bully, and the other has displayed at least occasional moments of genuine courage and conviction. One candidate is patently dysfunctional through and through, and the other is not. One candidate is an integral element in a single extended corporate family clearly bent on stealing as much of the world's resources as inhumanly possible.

The other, while rich, has never displayed a compulsion to commit grand larceny on a planetary scale. One must carefully examine the effects of being born into the absurdity of mere wealth-as-royalty, since both candidates enjoyed that position. There are, as it happens, many different kinds of rich people. And we had better clearly perceive the difference between the extremes, since we have by and large abandoned citizen involvement in our own government. We have all too frequently deferred to the rich to run our lives for us. In this instance, the only question is which sort of rich man we want.

In this case then, how far does the scion fall from the family tree?

One man was raised with an unquestioned sense of unearned entitlement. This candidate's mother never sullied her precious mind with vulgar thoughts about the problems of the unwashed multitudes. She successfully taught her unfortunately weak-headed son to see the world of privilege in exactly the same way. People are still dying in agony so that neither her beautiful mind nor her lifestyle be unduly disturbed, and this is an attitude that her son has internalized to perfection. One candidate and his family are the kind of rich people for whom you and I and most other sentient beings represent unimportant chattel, to be abused as a way of life: devoured at will and at leisure.

The mother of the other candidate was a wealthy American aristocrat with a strong sense of noblesse oblige. This translates as the individual realization that much is required from those born into a fortunate worldly position. This man's mother also successfully transmitted her deepest convictions about the ultimate purpose of wealth and power to her son. In this instance however, her view was that power and position impose a lifelong obligation of service on behalf of the less comfortably situated. And since we elect so many rich people to high office in this country, we had better understand that a deep sense of obligation to human society on the part of the wealthy is a highly desirable quality. It is a very commendable attitude when found running in wealthy families, especially compared to the alternative offered by a powerful dynasty composed of outright, unrepentant in-your-neck vampires.

And from where we are, where will either candidate take us?

At the very least, our immediate future depends on which of these men manages to win the election, with or without interminable, excruciating legal wrangling. We already know where the present administration wants to go, since they have been dragging us along the fast track to ruin, directly toward the abyss, nonstop. If the candidate dangled by fright-peddling extremists wins the election again, we can look forward to the continuing loss of personal and social freedoms, perpetual fogs of fake fear, endless exercises in self-defeating preemptive wars, an overflowing stream of returning dead and maimed youth, bottomless debt, rapidly expanding poverty and sickness, and ever more richly-deserved loathing emanating from the world community.

If we elect the other man, we will still have all the basic underlying miasmas of a greed-based corporate ethos to face. We will still be living in the context of a failed Republic turned dumbed-down consumer monger. We will still be embroiled in an astonishingly stupid war and murdering untold thousands of innocent souls. We will still be enabling Israel to do whatever it likes, stoutly pretending that it alone among nations requires no salutary criticism. We will still have a number of genuinely dangerous enemies to try to deal with. We will still be suffocating in our own pollution. We will still be a citizenry from whom many nefarious black projects remain hidden. We will still be facing enormously difficult problems from accelerating climate instability. We will still have a worse than useless, spine-free mass media. We will still be lied to. And we will still be impoverished by this lengthy spell of lawless corporate insatiability and military adventurism.

But at least we will not be willingly led by the criminally insane. At least we will not be destroyed from within by a band of technologically advanced Genghis Khans nurturing bloodcurdling lusts for empire, exercising absolute intimate dominion over their cowed subjects. At least we will not have consciously chosen crackpot simulations of human beings as our most powerful sworn protectors. At least we will not have to listen to the stone cold utterances of the most practiced and vicious liars ever almost elected. At least we will have a chance to take a deep breath and think about the kinds of devastation we are already in. At least we can buy a little time to consider how on earth we might go about beginning to address the real problems we have. At least we can give ourselves the opportunity for another kind of future than the dead end certainty of the endless Neocon Night.

I know there are no guarantees that the collapse of our nation can be prevented by anyone at all at this point. Nevertheless, I choose to cast the vote of my lifetime for hope, and against the most vicious and dangerous administration in the history of the United States of America.

(italics, bold letters and smilies mine)

Love,
Rainbow

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 31, 2004 01:51 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Oh yeah, I've heard of Diane Harvey, she's that thinker with keen insight who writes for Rense.com which supports Palestanian terrorists.

Lots going on over there at Rense.com. I mean those people are right on top of the situation. Osama bin Laden isn't a terrorist, he's a CIA agent/Illuminati asset.

So, what's a thinker with keen insight doing at Rense.com? Probably thinking Oh God, am I ever going to get a real job?

In confidence Rainbow, do you believe anything you read at Rense.com?

Makow - Osama bin Laden
Endorses John Kerry
Blows His CIA Cover
By Henry Makow, PhD
10-30-4


On Friday, "terrorist" bogeyman Osama Bin Laden released a video that successfully ridiculed George W. Bush.

Coming just four days before the Presidential election, that's awfully suspicious. Bin Laden implied that he could work with John Kerry.

Furthermore he exposed himself as a CIA / Illuminati asset by taking responsibility for 9-11 and praising Mohamed Atta as the "overall commander."

I am confining myself to the excerpts cited by Al Jazeera, which broadcast the Bin Laden video. http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/8BAF429F-
BADD-40E2-AD66-712FCF7D7A95.htm

Here is how Bin laden ridiculed Bush:

"It never occurred to us that the commander in chief of the American forces (Bush) would leave
50,000 citizens in the two towers to face those horrors alone at a time when they most needed him because he thought listening to a child discussing her goat and its ramming was more important than the planes and their ramming of the skyscrapers. This had given us three times the time needed to carry out the operations, thanks be to God"

I saw the classroom tape. George was obviously stunned by the news. Sure he didn't jump into action; marionettes rarely act on their own accord.

This below-the-belt attack on Bush widely broadcast Friday is a reflection of the desperation of the Zionist-Rothschild-European branch of Illuminati to dump George Bush, now that he has done their dirty work for them.

They want him to step aside so they can enjoy the lion's share of the spoils. But George, forgetting that his nickname at "Skull and Bones" was "Temporary," seems determined to outstay his welcome and champion the interests of Dick Cheney and an American-based faction of the Illuminati.

The assertion of national ambition is a perennial problem for the Masonic London-based Globalists. Their nightmares consist of names like Napoleon, Stalin and Hitler. They don't want to add George W. Bush to this list.

Without saying it in so many words, Bin Laden implies that electing John Kerry could be the way to avoid another terrorist attack. (Italics mine)

"O American people, I am speaking to tell you about the ideal way to avoid another Manhattan, about war and its causes and results.

"Security is an important foundation of human life and free people do not squander their security,contrary to Bush's claims that we hate freedom. Let him tell us why we did not attack Sweden for example.

"It is known that those who hate freedom do not possess proud souls like those of the 19, may God rest their souls. We fought you because we are free and because we want freedom for our nation. When you squander our security we squander yours.

"I am surprised by you. Despite entering the fourth year after Sept. 11, Bush is still deceiving you and hiding the truth from you and therefore the reasons are still there to repeat what happened."

But to avoid the suggestion he supports Kerry, he says:

"Your security is not in the hands of Kerry or Bush or al Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands and _each state which does not harm our security will remain safe_."

Despite what Kerry says about being tough on terror, he represents change and a more "international" (i.e. New World Order) approach to problem solving.

To me, Bin Laden's implication is clear: get rid of Bush and you will be spared.

I predict that Americans, Stockholm syndrome hostages in an unspoken game called the "War on Terror" will get the message. They will elect John Forbes Kerry Tuesday.

BLOWS CIA COVER

Bin Laden reveals himself as a CIA-Illuminati asset by taking responsibility for the attack on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon. A cursory examination of the facts proves that the Iluminati perpetrated this atrocity using their Mossad, CIA, MI-6 and US Military Intelligence assets. These agencies work for the globalist cabal not their national governments. I refer you to my article

"Bush and Kerry Represent the Real Terrorists." http://www.savethemales.ca/000629.html

But most revealing is Bin Laden's praise for 9-11 commander Mohamed Atta. This nails him by association because Atta (not his real name) is probably an Israeli agent with ties to the highest levels of the New World Order.

Daniel Hopsicker has revealed that during the 1990's, while living in Hamburg, Atta was part of an elite "exchange program" with ties to Henry Kissinger and David Rockefeller:

"Mohamed Atta, before becoming a 'terrorist ringleader,' enjoyed the patronage of a government initiative, known as the "Congress-Bundestag Program," overseen by the U.S. State Department and the German Ministry of Economic Cooperation and Development, the German equivalent of the U.S. Agency for International Development busy currently supervising the secretive bidding race for tens of billions of dollars of post-war reconstruction contracts in Iraq."

"News that Mohamed Atta had been on the payroll of the elite international program surfaced in a curious way just a month after the 9/11 attack: a brief seven-line report by German newspaper /Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung/ on Oct. 18, 2001, under the headline "ATTA WAS TUTOR FOR SCHOLARSHIP HOLDERS."

"The U.S. end of the program is run out of an address at United Nations Plaza in New York by CDS International. The letters stand for Carl Duisberg Society, also the name of its German counterpart in Cologne, the Carl Duisberg Gesellschaft. Both are named for Carl Duisberg, a German chemist and industrialist who headed the Bayer Corporation during the 1920's."
http://www.madcowprod.com/mc422004.html

In another article entitled, "Ten Things You Didn't Know About Mohammed Atta," was that this devout Islamic fundamentalist eat pork, snorted coke, loved nightclubs and had connections with the US defence industry.

One other thing. He was a psychopath. When his American girlfriend Amanda Keller ( an "escort") threw him out because he had a "flanky ass" and couldn't dance, he retaliated by disembowelling her pet cat and six kittens. Keller returned home to find bloody cat carcass pieces all over her apartment.
http://www.madcowprod.com/index60bb.html

This is the man Osama bin Laden singles out as commander of the 19 heroic martyrs of 9-ll, with the words "may God rest his soul."

Jigs up Osama! Your cover is blown. You can come in from the cold.

CONCLUSION

I'm not writing this because I want you to vote for Bush. On the contrary, I think we could use a different gang of crooks, perverts and Satan-loving "Christians" in the White House. The Press will create a warm Kennedy-like excitement about the new Kerry administration. It will be the kinder hipper Communist brand of Fascism.***yep, communist for sure

And I am looking forward to seeing how America takes to First Lady Theresa Heinz Ketchup. That will be the stuff of endless late-night comedy routines and editorial cartoons.

It might be a good thing to have all the Conservatives and Patriots outside the tent heaving grenades in. They are less likely to be sucked by UN-globalist policies than if Bush introduced them.

And with the Republicans expected to hold on to Congress, the government might be grid locked, which is the best scenario from the point of view of the harried population.

On the other hand, if Tim Rifat is right, this may be a case of execution at noon being preferable to execution at dawn. He believes that the London-based New World Order will be derailed if Bush is elected. (See "Bush Victory Could Foil Occult Plot" http://www.savethemales.ca/000594.html)

You see Bush will expand the Iraq war to Iran. Kerry, who Rifat says is a Rothschild puppet, will give the Iranians time to prepare for World War Three, which is scheduled for around 2012. This will ultimately destroy Israel and the US.

*If* this is true dear Americans, your real choice Tuesday is between one last decade in the sunshine before the night falls forever, under Kerry; or a rocky dangerous ride under Bush that might throw a monkey wrench into long time Globalist plans for World War Three and world dictatorship. .


IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 31, 2004 01:10 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well jwhop.....you seem to believe EVERYTHING you read at Newsmax.....

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 31, 2004 01:19 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Besides that, jwhop.....

Diane Harvey is NOT the only one who is on to what is really happening. She just summed up nicely everything I've already known (about the bird flippin', nose pickin', man who is not even able to speak his native tongue), for a long time...

As I've said before, the man who is (supposedly)pro-life, showed his true colors to me back when he was gov of Texas....when more executions took place then ever before...when he poked fun at Karla Faye Tucker....Oh there's a real man...

Sorry no...

Love,
Rainbow

IP: Logged

Petron
unregistered
posted October 31, 2004 01:20 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
jwhop said newsmax uses sources like vanity fair......
craig unger has written for vanity fair...
http://www.houseofbush.com/

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 31, 2004 01:29 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks for that bit of info, Petron...

Love,
Rainbow

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 31, 2004 02:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Actually, NewsMax quoted a story in Vanity Fair in which Richard Clarke debunked the moron Michael Moore's movie. Moore said Bush released the Saudi's to fly out of America and Richard Clarke was quoted by Vanity Fair as having made the decision himself..."it didn't get any higher than me"

I feel really sorry for anyone who gets their news from Rense.com. It's hard for me to imagine anyone would or could believe a word they read there. For a writer, that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I guess there are some who have no options...at all. Pitiful, simply pitiful

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 31, 2004 12:47 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That happens to be YOUR opinion, jwhop.....

You are no doubt putting it down, because they "tend" to be more to the left...

...and let's face it, slanted is slanted whether it be Rense or Newsmax...*sigh*

Let's just say, I resonate with what appears without a doubt to be logical, and makes a lot of sense to me, when it comes to some of the info I find at Rense.com...(not necessarily ALL of it) which means I'm not blindly avowing Rense.com as the final word on everything, as you do with Newsmax!

Love,
Rainbow

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 31, 2004 12:54 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
PS......

quote:
I feel really sorry for anyone who gets their news from Rense.com. It's hard for me to imagine anyone would or could believe a word they read there. For a writer, that's really scraping the bottom of the barrel. I guess there are some who have no options...at all. Pitiful, simply pitiful


It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that Diane Harvey is an excellent writer with a lot of savvy....sheese....

Love,
Rainbow


IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted October 31, 2004 02:20 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Well, Rense.com may make sense to those who believe alien lifeforms have taken possession of and are impersonating humans.

Rense.com may make sense to those who see a conspiracy behind every tree and under every rock.

Rense.com may make sense to those who attempt to assemble assorted, unconnected and irrelevant bits and pieces of information and assemble them into a conspiracy. Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam Hussein Conspiracy...America armed Saddam, gave Saddam weaponized chemical and biological weapons to use against Iran.

So Rainbow, if you want to clutter your mind and use up valuable storage space on insupportable conspiracy theories supported by insupportable and irrelevant data, be my guest.

If you want to declare what's her name a thinker with keen insight, a wonderful writer who cannot find a real job in the journalistic fraternity, a fraternity so lacking in talent and integrity that they couldn't find their own as*es with both hands, well, it's a free country and Bush will keep it that way.

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted October 31, 2004 09:12 PM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Well, Rense.com may make sense to those who believe alien lifeforms have taken possession of and are impersonating humans.
Rense.com may make sense to those who see a conspiracy behind every tree and under every rock.

Rense.com may make sense to those who attempt to assemble assorted, unconnected and irrelevant bits and pieces of information and assemble them into a conspiracy. Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam Hussein Conspiracy...America armed Saddam, gave Saddam weaponized chemical and biological weapons to use against Iran.

So Rainbow, if you want to clutter your mind and use up valuable storage space on insupportable conspiracy theories supported by insupportable and irrelevant data, be my guest.


Dagnibit jwhop! You didn't even read what I said, did you? Did you see where I said I didn't necessarily agree with everything I read at Rense.com? (the way YOU do at Newsmax?) Apparently you didn't....sheese..

quote:
Let's just say, I resonate with what appears without a doubt to be logical, and makes a lot of sense to me, when it comes to some of the info I find at Rense.com...(not necessarily ALL of it) which means I'm not blindly avowing Rense.com as the final word on everything, as you do with Newsmax!

Love,
Rainbow

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 01, 2004 12:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Scuse me, Rainbow, but if you post it, you own it.

Sorry but when you direct people to a website because you posted an article written by a person who contributes there, you own it.

Rense.com is a radical, totally head up their $ss website. You posted an article written by a contributor there and defended the site. You own it...in spite of your attempts to now disown it.

IP: Logged

Rainbow~
unregistered
posted November 01, 2004 02:42 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay....I'll own it then....

d'would rather own Rense than Newsmax, any day!

So there!

Love,
Rainbow

by the way....who made YOU the rulemaker around here????

IP: Logged

Mirandee
unregistered
posted November 01, 2004 02:44 AM           Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Jwhop is going to turn this into an argument about the source to avoid the content of what the article said. It's a tactic of diverting people's attention from what Diane Harvey had to say. A tactic he learned from his idol, Bush.

Jwhop I thought that you said in another post that you were "objective not subjective." BS You can't see the forest for the trees. You believe every slanderous lie that Newsmax, Fox News and the Bush propaganda machines tell you. You believe every lie that comes the Bush administration and you never check other sources, you never mentally connect the dots, you never think for yourself and figure things out. You are too blinded by your prejudices and hates and these men feed your hate, your fear, your prejudices and so you believe them. Well, a lot of people believed Hitler too.

What Diane Harvey just said in her article is the truth and more and more Republicans and past Bush supporters are beginning to see the light and speaking out about Bush. Bush and his crew, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wofowitz even have Pat Robinson speaking out on shows like Larry King about Bush. What Diane Harvey says is true and as Rainbow pointed out, many people are saying the same thing. Bush's is a very radical regime.


Charlie Reese writes for the Orlando Sentinel. He's a Conservative Republican who is anti-abortion, anti-tax-and-spend, loudly critical of legislation by the judiciary, doesn't think much of ulticulturalism or secularism, has suggested Clinton "turned the Oval Office into a whorehouse," thinks Ronald Reagan is the greatest thing to come down the pike since canned beer, and voted for Bush in the last election. So, take a look at his article which follows.

Vote For A Man, Not A Puppet
Orlando Sentinel
Charlie Reese

************

Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war - Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers. I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a front man, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory.

It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab King (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own President at their joint press conference recently.

John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts.

But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.

People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice.

It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian.

It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the President will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration ?

This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration.

Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.

I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it.

Go to Kerry's Web site (http://johnkerry.com) and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe.

Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, ride motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. And . . it would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions about war.

IP: Logged

jwhop
Knowflake

Posts: 2787
From: Madeira Beach, FL USA
Registered: Apr 2009

posted November 01, 2004 11:10 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for jwhop     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
If Diane Harvey is a lying twit or uninformed or not a credible source, why would anyone want to listen to or read a word she says?

The fact she writes for a brain dead twit on a radical website gives her credibility with some.

Oh right, those on the radical left will take their news from anyone willing to feed their paranoia. The truth doesn't matter, objective reality doesn't matter, only the seriousness of the allegation matters.

No sale

IP: Logged

All times are Eastern Standard Time

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | Linda-Goodman.com

Copyright © 2011

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.46a