Re: let them have a national referendum

small tortoiseshell wrote:

> On Apr 25, 6:35 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>small tortoiseshell wrote:
>>
>>>On Apr 25, 10:53 am, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>On Apr 25, 10:53 am, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>small tortoiseshell wrote:
>>
>>>>>On Apr 24, 2:40 pm, Robert Epstein <vze25...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>Once again, you make a ridiculous connection between the rampant
>>>>>>unconstitutional actions of the GW Bush administraition and the
voices
>>>>>>of Americans, who are overwhelmingly against his actions.
>>
>>>>>hmmm. selected twice, but, the voices of americans are overwhelmingly
>>>>>against his actions.. something that doesnt add up here...
>>
>>>>well, that is, if you believe he was a/selected, and b/that Americans
>>>>desires, rather than their fears, were reflected in the vote.
>>
>>>a. if he was not selected, why are you saying that you live in a
>>>democracy?
>>
>>It was an abberation, and was not the US's most democratic moment, but
>>you know that.
> 
> 
> no problem. But just for the heck of it, what in your personal opinion
> is the most democratic moment in the history of u.s.?

There is a lot of democratic activity in the U.S.  It is not 100% bad. 
Many good things get passed by Congress, particularly when the idiots 
are not in the majority.

Mixed bag again.

> 
>>>b. what fears? Was there any worse candidates for the presidency then
>>>him?
>>
>>What does one have to do with the other?
> 
> 
> you said : "b/that Americans desires, rather than their fears, were
> reflected in the vote."
> 
>  I took that to mean that they voted for bush out of fear of
> sufferering a worse fate, but if there wasnt any worse candidates that
> wouldnt make sense unless you meant that he was elected because the
> americans feared bush himself, which doesnt make any sense at all, so
> I asked
> 
> 
>> The people who voted for Bush
>>were foolish, but they were influenced by his skilfull fear-mongering.
>>Blame those people, but also blame a skilled and deceptive campaign of
fear.
> 
> 
> i dont need to blame anyone really. I think we are all ' victims' of
> cir***stances to some extent or more. even Khieu samphan and cia
> shadows orchestrating mass murder or election victory through fear
> responses arent to blame. they are as much a victim of their
> cir***stances as they people the manipulate or kill are.
> one big bubbling soup. Which is why it is so im****tant to get out of
> the pot incidentally. then there is no blame...
> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>Clearly, the first time he was elected, the Supreme Court and the
>>>>state of Florida manipulated the result.
>>
>>>well, Luke is explaining that selected/elected one I see...
>>
>>>>The second time, there is quite a bit of evidence that voter
suppression
>>>>and perhaps vote-tampering took place in Ohio and other places that
made
>>>>the difference.
>>
>>>The second time he was elected the whole of the world
>>>was informed about his and his administrations deception over iraq and
>>>their methods of manipulating truth in general, but still, he was
>>>elected
>>>,tampering or not. Which anyhow is not supposed to happen in a
>>>democracy anyways...
>>
>>True.  As I said, it was an aberration.  Bush has taken us closer to
>>losing democracy than any other President in our history.  But again,
>>I'm sure you know that.
> 
> 
> How do you know its not already lost?

Well, a new administration is coming in; congress has changed hands as 
well and will change more.  If the Democrats get large majorities and 
the next Presidency we will see if things become more democratic or not.

I think there is some hope of this, that better things will be done by a 
better group of people.

>>
>>>>True though, that at least 40 or more % of those who voted did sup****t
>>>>Bush.
>>
>>>Even as they knew...
>>
>>>>As I say, Bush ran a campaign of deception and fear-mongering
>>>>which did influence a lot of people tem****arily.
>>
>>>Sure, you have quite an efficient propaganda machinery going in your
>>>own backyard as well...
>>
>>>>But:  my point was that the American people were not in favor of the
>>>>invasion of Iraq, even if they did elect him; and are overwhelmingly
>>>>against staying there now.
>>
>>>Why hang it on iraq?  The list is long and runs through many
>>>administrations.just yesterday i showed you what your government/s
>>>shadows did in cambodia Funding the Khmer Rouge
>>>and killing 750 000 cambodians directly in their attempt at ousting
>>>the vietcong, kind of says it all. Its ' silent' genocide and add it
>>>to all the others that have been performed by yur government/s
>>>you ought to get the picture... The rest of the world got it by now,
>>>but you who actually live inside it, dont seem to get it at all
>>>actually.
>>
>>>Anyways, you say that the American people were not in favor of the
>>>invasion of Iraq, which is bull****,
>>>they were, at least according to this that was released March 16,
>>>2004, aprox one year after the invasion,which says that 60 % of the
>>>Americans continue to back the war....
>>
>>>"
>>>There has been little change in opinion about the war in Iraq – except
>>>in Great Britain, where sup****t for the decision to go to war has
>>>plummeted from 61% last May to 43% in the current survey. In contrast,
>>>60% of Americans continue to back the war. "
>>
>>>http://people-press.org/re****ts/display.php3?Re****tID=206
>>
>>Well it's a contentious issue.  It's true that there have been many
>>problems with American foreign policy; it is far from perfect.  You
>>should be assured though that there is a large body of Americans that
>>are in favor of progressive policies.  Unfortunately they are often
>>drowned out by other interests, many of them more rich and powerful and
>>more easil able to achieve their ends.  It is for sure a mixed bag.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, but still, it is not correct to say that the american people was
> overwhelmingly against the war. 60 percent in favour one year after
> invasion is clear enough even if there is a large body of americans
> that are in favour lf progressive politics. I dont know how many that
> were in favour immediately before the invasion at the top of the hype,
> but probably more then 60 percent, which only goes to show how easy it
> is to manipulate a whole nation through propaganda if carefully enough
> crafted regardless of what ideology that is on the agenda. Just watch
> some of Leni Riefenstahls propaganda films made for hitler and lissen
> to some of his speeches and rerun some of bushs performances when
> hyping up the war on terror and iraq and you see a bluecopy.   Freaky
> stuff actually...

I agree that unfortunately, people can be manipulated and that it is 
their responsibility to be more informed about what is really happening.

Robert

= = = = = = =