Bush will step down at the inauguration of his successor and not before. Bush is the savviest President in a half a century, at least. He's the smartest President since Jimmy Carter and also the most religious President since Jimmy Carter. In fact, the biggest difference between Carter and GW is that Carter likes to read and GW has a spine.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
it's a little unusual for you to 'just be curious' about this topic.

Honest. Just curious.

And you backed up my curiousity about the numbers of protesters.
'Thousands' could mean anything. I'm thinking 2-10 thousand
is 'thousands'. If it were more than that they'd have said
tens of thousands. At least thats what I'm thinking.

I'm just curious. Nothing more. If it had been a major event
I'd be more than curious. But ... *shrug* (ya' know?)

68 cities. Thousands showed up. They didn't say tens of
thousands. Just thousands. I'm just looking for a 'real' figure.

Well, it's Saturday, time for the next protest to occur:

2. DEMONSTRATE on SATURDAY, FEB. 4

(following the State of the Union)

Washington D.C.

The Saturday after the State of the Union address, massive numbers will protest at the seat of government. Prominent voices of conscience will help deliver the people’s verdict on Bush’s criminal regime with our demand: Bush Step Down And Take Your Program with You!

Start Organizing Now!

I'd expect TV coverage to be on CSPAN.

I was a member of the SDS starting in 1969. I was in the Oberlin College chapter.

I was at the SDS planning meeting at Kent State University the week before the protest in which 4 students were killed.

Some of my friends went on to other more violent forms of resistance.

I met Bernadette Dohrn, once.

I'm sure the kowtow-ers of today would label those protesters as terrorists. We didn't see it that way at the time.

As politics is a cyclic venture, the "Left" will reassert itself in time, as the power of corporations and governments grow too large, there will be open rebellion once more.

You can count on it.

Maybe even revolution.

I hope!

Originally posted by jsobecky
I'd expect TV coverage to be on CSPAN.

My guess is that there won’t be any coverage of these protests on broadcast media. Our “free press” is repressing coverage of these protests. And they’re doing it for the benefit of people who won’t consider them ‘legitimate’ unless they see them on the TV.

Of course, I stopped depending on TV to get my news a long time ago.

Besides, Coretta Scott King’s funeral is happening today in Atlanta, which provides a perfect justification to stay away from DC altogether. Oh, and don’t forget about the big game! That’s the news we should be focusing on!

Originally posted by bodebliss
I'm sure the kowtow-ers of today would label those protesters as terrorists. We didn't see it that way at the time.

You give you and your ilk too much credit. Protest and vandalism may have been your MO, but you were rank opportunists using the war in Vietnam as an excuse to throw temper tantrums on TV--claiming the high moral ground to wallow in immorality. I hope you pulled your shoulder out of joint patting yourself on the back.

Originally posted by bodebliss
I'm sure the kowtow-ers of today would label those protesters as terrorists. We didn't see it that way at the time.

As politics is a cyclic venture, the "Left" will reassert itself in time, as the power of corporations and governments grow too large, there will be open rebellion once more.

I don't think so. The term "terrorist" is pretty much a post-9/11 term. "Hippie radicals" is more apropos for that time period.

I see politics as more evolutionary than cyclic. I certainly hope that I'm correct, because the best solutions come from the "right", imo.

The "right" caused the last two great downward spirals in the economy.

Hoover, Reagan and now Bush is about to ruin it completely.

I know cause I'm right up against it everyday. I'm a currency trader. Economics for America are about to hit the skids and Bush is responsible.

PS:It's no skin off my nose that Bush is a total economic nightmare. The market goes up: I make money. The market goes down(taking all the yammering republican hopes for a legacy with it): I make money.






[edit on 2/4/2006 by bodebliss]

Well, looks like no big protests happened at all. What a big shock!

I'm sure a few people stood outside commplainning, but thats about it. The truth is that there is almost no anti-war movement in America today.



-- Boat

There is no anti-war movement because the media ignores it. The "movement" is only a bunch of protestors? I doubt that.

Like I said before, Its gonna be the ballot or the bullet, and I think our ballot is just about useless now. How long before peaceful protests become bullets?

Originally posted by DaFunk13
There is no anti-war movement because the media ignores it. The "movement" is only a bunch of protestors? I doubt that.

Like I said before, Its gonna be the ballot or the bullet, and I think our ballot is just about useless now. How long before peaceful protests become bullets?

No, there is no anti-war movement. I'm not talking about "in the media". I am a real person who walks around. I have seen or heard of no major protests...they have all been pretty small, and are not popular.

-- Boat

Originally posted by DaFunk13
Like I said before, Its gonna be the ballot or the bullet, and I think our ballot is just about useless now. How long before peaceful protests become bullets?

In 1801, a remarkable thing happened in the world. It was something that had never happened before, and it began to change the world. In a bitter and heated test of a society, the first revolution in the world took place where no guns were fired, no people took to the streets, and no civil war broke out. The Federalist party was ousted from control of the presidency of the United States and replaced with their ideological rivals, the Democratic-Republicans lead by Thomas Jefferson.

This transition of power caused allies to become enemies and enemies to become allies. Drastic domestic changes took place, as well. Still, no riots. Instead, precedent. Rather than take to the streets in a call to arms because people didn't like the result of an election, they planned for the next. This trend continued until 1861, when Abe Lincoln was elected. A group of people didn't like the election results and, as a result, caused the bloodiest war in American history. Because of this war, those living in the areas where the voters hadn't liked the election results were repressed for many decades, largely caused by Abe Lincoln's assassination.

Now, because you don't like whom the majority of Americans elected as president, you would bring that hell back upon America? Because most Americans disagree with you, you're willing to hang up the ballot and pull out some bullets? Why do you think the minority's voice should be represented and not the majority's, and any means should be used to make that so?

I dont view this as a majority/minority situation. A majority voted on a leader that mislead them. I know lots of former Bush supporters that are now seeing things in a different light. I am not asking for revolution. I want to see us unite. Bush&Co are inciting a revolution by further dividing the country with their policies. Most Bush votes I know personally voted on issues like abortion, and gay marriage, and homeland defense. These same people are realizing that as important as abortion and gay issues are, our foreign policies are digging us very deep holes and need to be addressed. Stir in some domestic spying and botched intelligence and we have a firecracker waiting to pop.

I really want to see a leader that better reflects a true majority on a majority of issues...not just a few. Since the veil of secrecy surrounding the pre-war intelligence has been removed a lot of the rightwingers I know feel betrayed. If we could re-vote on a new pres today would Bush win?
The polls I see reflect just the opposite.

I also believe that if the Dems would have endorsed someone a little further towards the middle, rather than one of the most left-wing senators they could find, the election would have had remarkable different results.

I also feel it is necessary to say that I personally dont identify with any side of this polarity debate. They are two sides to the same coin. Just two teams bidding for management of our lives. So, when you hear me trashing our president know that it isnt based on his party, its based on his policies. Just wanted to clear up my stance...

Originally posted by DaFunk13
I also believe that if the Dems would have endorsed someone a little further towards the middle, rather than one of the most left-wing senators they could find, the election would have had remarkable different results.

I agree, the election would have been a lot closer and possibly the opposite of what it was.

If your last post was what you meant, why reference a bullet? See, to me, that implies either assassination or revolution, not uniting.

Its an old Malcolm X speech, The Ballot or The Bullet. I think I mentioned that earlier. Its more a figure of speech. I dont advocate killing anything, but I do believe in resistance. The ballot is our voices, the bullet being our actions.

The metaphor means that when we see that our voices are failing us, we reserve the right to use force. Whether you interpret this as a firearm literally, or just physical resistance is up to you. I cling to the faith that Americans will fix this mess before things get worse, because I fear it may not be American "bullets" that spark this thing.

We have a rich culture of correcting our societal ails before it comes to revolution whether its womans rights, minority rights, workers rights, etc... I hope this spirit is still alive and well.