Blog Catalog Discussion: Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 19:18:22 -0600

brigid, me, too.. but there others who don't do the same things he does but just as evil for the country.

brigid on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

brigid — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 18:54:06 -0600

Ah, that guy. I remember hearing about him. Nasty piece of goods. I fail to understand why anyone would do such terrible things.

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 05:59:24 -0600

There's more than this, Brigid. It is interesting that there is a native from California now out of the country and supporter of alQaeda wanted for treason, then we have ... others who are not. :-)

brigid on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

brigid — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:39:22 -0600

Glad someone agrees. (At least in part.) ^_^

Hot air is a much better way to settle things, especially when all parties are willing to talk. Other wise... I'd like to call Arnold Schwarzenegger and Silvester Stallone, please.

brigid on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

brigid — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 01:36:49 -0600

I seem to recall something about this... and my Dad alternating between getting hot under the collar because our political leaders were selling us out, and getting hot under the collar because they were selling us out for little. (Part Scots, he hates a poor business deal.)

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 20:11:23 -0600

President Bush should not be of concern. There are others in government you should be. I have seen it. Tho the following is off topic, it's a wake up call, and an example, and answers the thread's question by redirecting focus or rousing concerned action.

For sale: West’s deadly nuclear secrets
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article3137695.ece

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:01:43 -0600

Conspiracies abound, but they are usually where you'd never guess, otherwise conspiracies would be of little interest :-) Was there a conspiracy in the death of 40 + friends of the Clinton's while Billy was in office? I don't know. Maybe it's was all a coincidence.

And while there has been Bush-bashing in threads, it should be noted he's in good company; Ol' Hickory was called a Jackass while running for president and as a president, similar to Bush, had his hands full, too. Impossible to keep everybody happy and do your job.

Will GWB declare martial law? I imagine that its possible due to some earth shaking event, and law and order are at risk because local agencies cannot cope.

So, martial law is usually declared for a locale, not an entire nation.
But while you are focused in conspiracies and other political fears, your wallet and bank account are dying for infusion because of TAXES in the meantime.

YOUR CONCERNS & FEARS SHOULD BE FOCUSED AT CONGRESS.

What happens in the next days will set your collective financial fate. It is time to stop questioning each other (sometimes rudely) and question Congress (rudely if necessary).

Here are excerpts of an article that ACTUALLY should be read in its entirety. PASS IT ALONG TO OTHERS YOU KNOW.

JOHN FUND ON THE TRAIL

Hold the Pork
Congress allocates money for nearly 9,000 new earmarks. But no law says Bush has to spend it.
Monday, January 7, 2008 12:01 a.m. EST
http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110011090

What Mr. Bush knows, and Congress doesn't want the taxpayers to know, is that the vast majority of the offending earmarks--the ones that aren't part of the actual budget law and were instead "air-dropped" into the committee report--aren't legally binding. A Dec. 18 legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service found that most of the committee reports have not been formally passed by both houses and "presented" to the President for signing, and thus have not become law. "President Bush could ignore the 90% of earmarks that never make it to the floor of the House or Senate for a vote," says Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who has read the CRS report. "He doesn't need a line-item veto."
--
This possibility led Old Bull members of Congress to call the White House, complaining that such a move would threaten its relations with the legislative branch and threatening retribution. But none of those complaints or threats were made publicly. Members know how unpopular earmarking is with voters, and they also know that Mr. Bush could easily turn the tables on them if they actually engaged in petty revenge over the loss of their budgetary toys.
--
Earmarks have other damaging effects. Many members feel compelled to vote for bloated spending bills, fearing their local projects will be stripped out. They also have dramatically expanded lobbying. Lobbyists go client-hunting, telling municipal officials they can virtually guarantee an earmark. In 2006, more than 4,000 companies or local governments hired lobbyists to pursue earmarks, up from 1,865 in 2001. And as the cases of Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham demonstrated, earmarks by the thousands result in scandals by the dozens.

The White House is at a crossroads. "If Bush were to do the right thing on earmarks it would an attention-getting precedent that could make other budget reforms possible," says Alison Fraser, who heads up economic policy for the Heritage Foundation. "It's a legacy-building moment."
--
By taking similarly bold action now on earmarks, Mr. Bush would also be doing lawmakers a favor by forcing them to refocus their priorities. "When members of Congress invest their time in securing federal funds for sewer plants and bike paths in their districts, they are doing more than assuming a federal role for a local responsibility," says Sen. DeMint. "They are diverting our energy away it away from solving national problems and wasting it on the task of steering tax dollars back home. Earmarking results in a terrible waste of taxpayer money, but the greatest cost is the wasted opportunity to address serious national challenges."

________________________

Thomas Jefferson recognized the dangers of pork-barrel spending back in 1796, when he wrote James Madison that allowing Congress to spend federal money for local projects would set off "a scene of scramble among the members [for] who can get the most money wasted in their State; and they will always get most who are meanest."

dharmagypsy7 on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

dharmagypsy7 — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 14:46:10 -0600

Bill Clinton may have lied about his sex life which quite frankly I don't think should have even entered the public arena but Dubya lied about the weapon of mass destruction and started an outrageous war that's killing thousands of innocent people.

Bill Clinton's lie only hurt his wife and family
Dubya's lie hurt millions of people and family grieving for their loss of son, daughter, sister, brother, father, mother.. should I go on?

I think on the lying scale... Dubya's action of more reprehensible and evil than Bill Clinton's lie could ever be.

Rozie818 on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

Rozie818 — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:34:46 -0600

It all comes down to the $, nothing more, The C Group is drenched in $ because of 9-11.
In 1993, a moron in a cave took credit for the attack and was proud of it, it is the way of the terrorist, in 2001, no one took such credit.
Attacking yourself to get your country behind you is a war tactic as old as war itself.
The people being blind to it is just as old as well.
No, it's not only oil, it's every aspect that a country would need to live that is now being controlled.
Trading with the emery (Hitler, Nixon, Bin Ladins) are in their blood, and if people do not wake up and see what these people are doing to us, we're all F'd.
The buck stops here, that's right all the bucks.

They know that people out there believe they knew about 9-11, they don't care, just like the chads ( BTW only in his brothers hood), and the anthrax and the self serving appointments.

No one has the balls to confront them, and the people are too scare to know the truth.
Let them go in front of the public under a PSE and get questioned.
But that would never happen because my country has lost it's back bone.

Lets commute Henry Lee Lucas sentence to life, but fry the metal retarded.
Let's help build camps, and fund elections for the Nixons of the world.
And when were asked to be honest to the people F'em
I am tired of people smoke screening what is really happening.
We're looking for weapons of mass destruction with weapons of mass destruction. We're invading countries with cute little slogans like "Shock and Awe"
Private contracting companies couldn't bid on Iraq because of National Security, but you know who could, why do they have clearance.

BTW, where is the anthrax? as soon as it came to light that only dems were getting it, it stopped being sent? Smart powder or what.
It just goes on and on, lie after, lie, funding bill after funding bill, while our kids are other kids around the world are being killed.

New F'ing law, you have a beef with another country, take off your diapers and go man o man o. But they can't cause they are lying little a-wipes who make others do their work for them while they are building mansions in Paraguay.

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:08:48 -0600

faux pas - posted in the wrong place. should be here ..

He's a decent human being. And politics is better battled through hot air than the call to arms :-)

It might be impolite to mention, but NOTE had certain innumerable actions occurred in an earlier presidency, America would most likely not be in the position it is today.

Bush has had difficult geo-political decisions to make, in some ways on the order of the Cuban Missile Crisis President Kennedy faced. The possible outcomes of Kennedy not acting would have brought America to a position long ago far worse than today. On the other hand, had Russia decided to respond differently, Mr Kennedy would be called very bad names by survivors of the results.

Had Bushed not acted following the September's slaughter, the US would have been looked on as vulnerable and further terror acts would have been performed. My opinion is that the action in Afghanistan was necessary; it brought a war to those who started war. (I am not persuaded the Iraq War is necessary; but there were other reasons for it - not oil for the popular reason people echo each other).

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:05:34 -0600

He's a decent human being. And politics is better battled through hot air than arms :-)

It might be impolite to mention, but NOTE had certain innumerable actions occurred in an earlier presidency, America would most likely not be in the position it is today.

Bush has had difficult geo-political decisions to make, in some ways on the order of the Cuban Missile Crisis President Kennedy faced. The possible outcomes of Kennedy not acting would have brought America to a position long ago far worse than today. On the other hand, had Russia decided to respond differently, Mr Kennedy would be called very bad names by survivors of the results.

Had Bushed not acted following the September's slaughter, the US would have been looked on as vulnerable and further terror acts would have been performed. My opinion is that the action in Afghanistan was necessary; it brought a war to those who started war. (I am not persuaded the Iraq War is necessary; but there were other reasons for it - not oil for the popular reason people echo each other).

brigid on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

brigid — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:56:35 -0600

...

Just scanning through this I wonder if maybe I'm the only one here who thinks that Mr. Bush is even a decent person. (And what's this about starting a war for personal gain? There are 4,000+ people *dead* because a bunch of homicidal maniacs from the Middle East decided to declare war on *us*. I'm really rather relieved that the Taliban was ousted and that Saddam Husein got cornered in a rat hole. Now if we could just locate Bin Laden...)

As for the question this thread is meant to answer... No. Not a chance. He didn't declare martial law on September 11, 2001, he's got no reason to declare it now.

So how about getting off your Bush-bashing soap boxes and focus on picking someone to vote for this year.

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 11:44:24 -0600

talen32, absolutely true about general elections. they are not direct elections for a president; in a sense each state population is voting for a state outcome to be represented by that state's electors to vote in the electoral college for a president.

This system has worked very, very well, altho there have been a couple of occasions where an elector voted opposite of his state's popular vote.

The reason for the Electoral College has some interesting history behind it. The upshot is that the founders of the American Republic were, in nearly every instance, highly informed students of history.. What happened to the fall of the roman Republic they were modeling the new American Republic after was never out of mine.

If anyone has not studied or read the history of the fall of the roman republic, do so; you'll very well see similarities to present day federal politics.

Admittedly, I do.

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 10:04:28 -0600

On the other hand, the Congress is accountable, also. People have voted for congressional candidates based on narrow issues and interests. The people got just that. If the people broadened their field of view of Congressional behaviour, etc, present Congressional activities would be substantially moderated and I believe better governing result.

IN one way, people shifting nearly all their hopes on a president or presidential candidate has shifted attention and power away from the Congress. The original idea of the Constitution was that the people were represented through and by the Congress. Anyway, give it some thought.

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:55:24 -0600

joepro, understand your feelings, but on the matter of the economy and foreigner money and ownerships, best look at the Fed, Congress, Wall Street, and others. Don't confuse a president's power to spend with absolute control of financial monetory policies. As long as people pin the tail on the president, others more responsible are not held accountable.

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 09:48:11 -0600

Thanks for the nod. Americans have yet to fully understand that Uncle Sam is now Big Bro. And it goes beyond what has been posted.

blancadebree on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

blancadebree — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 05:21:28 -0600

I certainly hope Commander guy does cancel the elections and declare Marshall Law. I wanted him to do this in 2004, but I guess he was just too popular to get away with it then. But now, it is the perfect time to get out the crown and have a good old fashioned coronation.

My fear is that the Dems will elect someone with integrity like Obama or Edwards, and that there will be a Warren Commission into the goings on of the Bush Administration, and that the Decider may face charges after he is out of office.

That would suck.

talen32 on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

talen32 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:27:56 -0600

Although I don't like Bush you should really get your facts straight. The American citizens do not elect a president. The electoral college elects the president and George Bush just as Harry Truman was elected president of the United States.

George Bush also has very little to do with where our economy is at right now or foreign interests owning more land. These problems started decades ago while he was still doing coke and getting DUI's. Americans certainly do not own less land than foreigners but foreigner's do own the more profitable land.

joepro on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

joepro — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:14:48 -0600

Why not? He is the only President in the history of the USA that was never elected. He also holds a few other firsts, like he has managed to reduce the US economy to 70% of where it was when he started, and US land ownership by foriegn land owners had grown more than 50 fold since he started. Americans now own less of the US than foriegners do.

I wouldn't be suprised at all at marshall law.

He went to war to boister his family business revenue, even partnering with the "terrorists" that he claims to be in pursuit of. These are all matters of public record.

Marshall law for George would be like ordering something different for lunch. Sadly, the USA doesn't have the money for it, so he will have to get a loan from China to pay for it.

Sorry George. You did it to yourself. Oh, and over 300,000,000 Americans.

tomhanna on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

tomhanna — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 20:09:21 -0600

Huh? I'm not complaining that it's the Weekly Standard. The Weekly Standard is a fine publication. But the article she linked to had nothing whatsoever to do with suspending the 2008 election or any of these other loonytunes Bush-hater conspiracy theories. It wasn't even about something Bush has done or intends to do. It was an editorial encouraging Bush to use a perfectly legal method to help put an end to the runaway practice of pork barrel earmarks by Congress. It has "war" and "Congress" in the title and the original poster jumped to the conclusion it supported her case without even bothering to read it.

wehireu on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

wehireu — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 19:51:25 -0600

Alias Inkhorn is correct about surveillance. We live in a society of accepted total surveillance. It is just the norm whether we like it or not. Any public space can automatically be surveilled. Your phone can be tapped from the outside of your house by tapping into the line leading to telephone pole. Any wireless message that leaves the space of your property is fair game. This is not paranoia. The basic software for total monitoring of every electronic communication is already in place, it is called "Dragonware Suite", it is the next generation after Carnivore. http://www.pier55.com/Technology/Carnivore.shtml . Essentially anything that passes through a server is fair game. Assume you have nothing to hide, because if you do and you have communicated it electronically, it already has been found. Don't assume that it is just the government that is gathering information. Corporations have access to and can buy the same software, and can use it to sell you things you don't need and market things you don't want. Sometimes this is more bothersome to me than the big brother aspect of government.

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 12:30:28 -0600

The case I see GG is this:

Packard v. United States, 7 F. Supp. 2d 143, 145 (D. Conn. 1998) - The court dismissed Packard's refund suit for recovery of penalties for failure to pay income tax and failure to pay estimated taxes where the taxpayer contested the obligation to pay taxes on religious grounds, noting that "the ability of the Government to function could be impaired if persons could refuse to pay taxes because they disagreed with the Government's use of tax revenues."

The last cluase quote is about diagreeing with the government's use of the money. Attitudes similar to Packard's existed during the Viet Nam War, and didn't prevail then either.

The government has the power to confiscate any cash, assets and real estate to satisfy demand. It does and will continue to. There is one case I read about where a woman's home was seized for an amount owed at the tune of pocket money.

Televised hearings on the IRS some years ago dramatically demonstrated problems that exist within and because of the IRS. It showed that the IRS has police state powers.

So an associations's agendas should not advance non-compliance. Rather, it should agressively represent the wage earners and their interests (defined above), wherein the bicameral legislature and beauracracies have failed.

It's doable.

This is a serious matter and affects every other issue on the minds of Americans. For example, the upcoming primary candidates are currently debating issues like health care. There are a number of remedies, but only federalizing it seems the only one on the table for discussion. Tho the notion of health care for everyone has compassionate merit, it will not stop at basic coverage; it will be augmented as every other social welfare plan has sine the early 70s. If citizens are preapred for the cost though taxes, fine. It will be a cost overlaid on existing taxes. In the meantime the government has been robbing from Peter to pay Paul with the cost problems with Social Security.

Nothing is in balance. Nothing is remotely in balance. If the government were a business, it wuold be in Chapter 11 or maybe 13, or boarded up with a sign that reads, 'Out of Business'. :-) On the other hand Americans can continue to sell itself to foreign capital - in Europe some are calling it America's 'Fire Sale'. It looks like a 'Blue Light Special' to me :-)

Someone will have to pay for all this, now and over the time-horizon. It wont be politicos because the sum of their wages just isn't enough. It WILL BE the American citizens. :-)

ACTION, NUMBERS, PLAN, TARGET

demonstrated However, legisltures

globalgirl on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

globalgirl — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:08:00 -0600

Do you think a grassroots campaign can change this? In this documentary, it was made known that the Supreme Court has ruled we the people can't ask the govt where in the law it states taxes are mandatory. This is how they justify the term voluntary:
http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=106502,00.html

globalgirl on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

globalgirl — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:03:39 -0600

My point exactly.

globalgirl on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

globalgirl — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:02:57 -0600

What a jejune sense of humor. How old are you?

RobertDi on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

RobertDi — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:31:14 -0600

DO you know what GWB stands for? GAY WHITE BOY!! ROFL

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:33:41 -0600

@ techfun, this must be an off the cuff opinion: 'Clinton was a 100 times the statesman that Bush is and Clinton believed in the US as a republic' because there's no one in my knowledge in the internal workings of the democratic party that would agree with you. certainly it exhibits a wellmeaning favor regarding clinton. but it misleads, and it is not truthful. It is well known that clinton favored / favors socialism, appreciated communism, was a good student of facscist propaganda methods, and America had more military actions under his presidency - a presidency of peace time - than any other president I believe. He had the highest taxes of any peace time president, and if you revisit old articles about the economy under clinton, you will learn that he basically left the technology sector alone because it was generating the economy, altho there are reports he wanted to. But everyone else got hit. Under his presidency the rich became richer but the pool got smaller. his presidency was a turning point for the democratic party, where it has become the party of the rich (note the democrates don't talk about the republicans being party of the rich much any longer ;.)

always better ti get your facts straight then write. you may end up being wrong in something but not everything :-)

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:43:10 -0600

If we must ask, we no longer have power protected by a constitution; we are no longer free.

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:20:44 -0600

@globalgirl, the answer is the same as it's always been in American history:

ACTION IN NUMBERS

In application, MADD did it with their cause.

The lessons learned from British history by the founders of the Republic was that there had to be a balance of power - I prefer to call it a balance of powers. This included 'the people', the citizens.

The paradigm has always been a guiding ideal, and in practice has sometimes resulted in social conflict to be exercised, but also largely exercised through the power of the polling booth, unions, associations, etc.

Voters have tended to be single-issue oriented, so the power of their votes collectively have little affect on overall govermental accountability. Unions have little affect with the deindustrialization of America and movement offshore. Associations have the biggest clout, but their interests are largely narrow. The Fourth Estate was once seen as the final gaurantor of governmemtal accountability but has now (comfortably) aligned itself - for a number of reasons - with the left of center political spectrum, and has lost its moral role as a democratic gaurdian.

So, with an association that is non-partisan, that has its wealth in numbers and petitioners, that monitors and lobbies and makes public legislators' and goverment officials' activities, their use of power, their constitutional infractions, etc. will go a long way in making changes, correcting abuses, and enforcing legislative discipline.

It can be done. Do the people have the will to do it? Are there those who can selflessly lead this?

Whatever anyone may think of him, Nader was the last to do this.

Remember this, all governments, even democratic governments, are afraid of citizens that speak with one voice. Otherwise they are only afraid of small number of citizens with a great deal of money deciding not to give or share it with them :-)

globalgirl on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

globalgirl — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:59:31 -0600

Relevant post. The question is, so now what? The road has been paved. We must ask how to travel it.

globalgirl on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

globalgirl — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:28:36 -0600

I am disgusted with Sen. Robert Byrd, as well as the countless other ways our govt has irresponsibly allocated tax dollars to such purposes, while taking money from programs that desperately need it.

The documentary I quoted is riveting and enlightening. Everyone should watch it.

The bigger question for me [and others] is what does one do with such knowledge?

nuve1284 on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

nuve1284 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:20:58 -0600

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 08:13:04 -0600

There are two sentences that are interesting in that post.

'So many people in America think this does not affect them.' Citizens are very, very, mistaken. Everyone is affected. ALL communications are surveiled or filtered and flagged for content.

'President Bush described his anti-terrorist measures as narrow and targeted.'
By intent, this is true. By practice it is not. The anti-terror intiatives put all citizens under the eye of the government.

The federal government is rapidly developing profiles on citizens. Not only will the Feds know everything about your finances, but your biology and physical chactertistics, habits, etc.

This is to find terrorists in America? All Americans are suspects?

aliasinkhorn on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

aliasinkhorn — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 07:06:41 -0600

MadameX, meaning there's agreement with the TJ quote and balanced as a follow-on to GlobalGirl's comment.

The Federal Reserve Act and the 16th Amendment particularly are a very unattractive feature of US federal political history. In the best argument for these is 'the general and common good' for the country as a federal responsibility, especially regarding the increased expenses for building and maintaining a navy at the time.

Some argue that it came in handy during the depression to keep the federal government running and growing. By the late sixties it served social issues, although with each new legislation it was promised that these programs would not require more money - the implication was taxes would not increase. Not only did they, but there was a blip with a surtax under Nixon.

Going beyond Constitutional definition, and amendment, Federal taxes didn't end with income; it began there, continually increasing with the shibboleth 'its for the good of the country'. My question as a member of 'its for the good of the country' has always been, 'is it?'

The political process has changed in the past hundred years, but not Federal levies - except for finding more to tax and the percentages. While it has turned confusing and budensome 'for the people', it has become an extremely mischievious Federal and Congressional game. Here's a case in point, where 'for the good of the people' is 'for the good of some':

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/04/eveningnews/main3676573.shtml
One Byrd Gets Lion's Share Of Earmarks
Why Are So Many Of Your Tax Dollars Going To Dedicate Buildings To W.Va. Sen. Robert Byrd?
WASHINGTON, Jan. 4, 2008

So many look at politics through very narrow interests and participate in it like a live audience on a TV game show. Its neither.

trlrtrash13 on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

trlrtrash13 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:37:15 -0600

No problem.

zawadi on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

zawadi — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 05:14:43 -0600

trlrtrash13, thanks for the links, I will take a look.

trlrtrash13 on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

trlrtrash13 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 02:25:51 -0600

Well, when diversion doesn't work, resort to lying? Here is your statement.

"You told Zawadi that if her belief that we no longer had Constitutional rights and that things like those camps were possible, then black helicopters would already be coming to take her away."

I never said that her belief that things like those camps were possible would have her taken away. I never even implied that. And what I did say was a follow up to a much broader statement. It follows.

"But let's get past that. I always get a kick out of people who say we have no Constitutional rights anymore. And they will be back tomorrow, saying the same thing, never realizing that they are the best proof to the ignorance of their own sayings."

See that? Now, did I make it so simple as to say that every individual who spoke out would be arrested? No. However, it would be likely that, since there are many people who say such things, that were there no more rights, we would see a few of these getting hauled away. I went on to point out that I was going to break that down for her and gave an example of what it would mean to her personally.

Then you return to your diversionary tactics here.

"However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial assertion that if a Constitutionally protected right didn't exist, Zawadi would be arrested. That was and remains a ridiculous statement. At least, I fervently hope it does, because I'm wearing a t-shirt with a cat on it right now, and I'm absolutely positive that I don't have a Constitutional right to do that, and I really don't want to get arrested tonight."

As you stated, my claim was that if our rights that are protected by the constitution don't exist, she would be arrested for partaking in those activities. That speaks only to activities that are protected. Yet you go on to elaborate that my statement being true would have you arrested for partaking in an activity that, by your own admission, is not Constitutionally protected.

trlrtrash13 on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

trlrtrash13 — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 01:50:48 -0600

I have proven Jones wrong many times. One example (a minor one at that) is here.

http://theaxisofstevil.com/2007/12/18/alex-jones-the-paranoia-reaches-insanity/

Another example was a couple years ago on the Coast to Coast Am radio show. He claimed that we had begun construction of a "NAFTA Super Highway". He called a new highway that runs from Mexico to Canada. The fact? The NAFTA Super Highway is a term that has been used since 1994 by NASCO for I35 which runs from the Mexican border to 200 miles shy of the Canadian border. He claimed it was some super secret deal, so I directed him to their website you can read here.

http://www.nascocorridor.com/

A simple look at his site shows how he manipulates people. Here are some examples.

1. Here is a headline that states "Man arrested, cuffed after using $2 bills. That is said to imply the arrest was for using $2 bills. For proof of that claim, read the url below. For a fact, the man was arrested because the ink on the bills was smeared and they were in sequence and hence, were suspected of being counterfeit. That info is way at the end of the story.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/arrested_for_using_2_dollar_bills.htm

In another headline he says "Couple banned for life from shopping center and branded 'terrorists' for taking pictures of their grandchildren'. On his site he ends the story with the paragraph below the url.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/ps/terror_fear_couple_banned_from_shopping_center_for_photos_of_grandkids.htm

In the reply to the Sparshotts, Ms Gillard said: "By the sounds of it my officers/duty manager didn't explain the position very clearly and for that I apologise."

Below that there is a link to the full story. It continued to say this.

Speaking after the incident, she added: "Fareham Shopping Centre is private property and has a policy to support the security of the shops, where the taking of photographs needs prior permission.

"The Sparshotts are welcome back to the centre."

Ms Gillard refused to comment further on the centre's security policies, but added that the camera ban was not because of a terrorist threat.

So for a fact, the headline is a lie. The center is not branding them as terrorists, and they are not banned for life, and they were removed for taking pictures without pre-approval. It had nothing to do with whom they were photographing.

The fact is, Alex Jones site is full of bs and nonsense like that. He is a lying fear monger who exploits the emotions of those who feel displaced in society and latch on to his ignorance without investigating the facts.

Alex Jones says it's a shame we have to go to the alternative media to get the truth. The real shame is that he calls half stories and lies "truth".

MadameX on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

MadameX — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:40:07 -0600

Alias, I'm very unclear on what you might mean by "in question".

MadameX on 'Do You Think GWB will cancel the 2008 Election and declare Marshall Law?'

MadameX — Sun, 06 Jan 2008 00:39:12 -0600

I'm kind of torn as to how to respond to this, trlr. On the one hand, I want to clarify. On the other, your lack of comprehension seems to run so deep that I think I may be powerless. Either that or you're intentionally shifting the issue and hoping that no one will notice, but the reading comprehension level around here seems to be pretty high, so that isn't likely to happen.

You told Zawadi that if her belief that we no longer had Constitutional rights and that things like those camps were possible, then black helicopters would already be coming to take her away. Pure and simple--I have just re-read your initial post and that's crystal clear...you said that if she didn't have a Constitutional right to say what she'd said, they'd be coming for her right now. But, in fact, people do things they don't have Constitutional rights to do every minute of every day, and most of them are never arrested.

This piece of your most recent response is accurate: "Assuming you cross at the cross walk when given the appropriate signal, does the fact that a cop has a ticket book in hand mean he was going to write you a ticket for doing so? No. And by the same token, the alleged fact that military bases can be turned into prisons does not mean they will be used for people who are practicing Constitutionally protected behavior."

However, it has nothing whatsoever to do with your initial assertion that if a Constitutionally protected right didn't exist, Zawadi would be arrested. That was and remains a ridiculous statement. At least, I fervently hope it does, because I'm wearing a t-shirt with a cat on it right now, and I'm absolutely positive that I don't have a Constitutional right to do that, and I really don't want to get arrested tonight.