It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Rise and Fall of the Bush Dynasty

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 12:08 AM
I'm not sure that the use of force to remove Bush is a logical conclusion for everyone who believes in American principles.

Afterall, we have the ability to peacefully put in whoever the hell we choose in just over 1 year. A revolution would take a lot longer than that.

But then of course we all know that the election is just going to give us another puppet.

But that is the fault of the American electorate. In my experience, you can get 8 out of 10 Americans to admit that our candidates are a joke and that none of them represent our interests, and you can do so inside of 10 minutes of conversation. We almost all know it.

But the same people who will freely admit to knowing that in their hearts refuse to become politically educated and to communicate and organize and SHOW UP on election day to change things. We could draft anybody we want, and no amount of corruption could stop us, if only we would all show up and act in solidarity. The majority of the people are not interested in that.

So is it really the act of a patriotic American to use violence to force upon the majority what they have already refused at the polls?

If things keep going the way they are going, before long the most patriotic thing that an American will be able to do is leave America, and take a copy of the constitution with him, where our leaders and our foolish citizens can't get to it.

But trying to save democracy by tyranical means? Impossible. An American revolution at this point in time would create at least a Cromwell and quite possibly a Napoleon.

Assuming the revolution succeeded, the most successful commander in the resistance would soon be obliged to suspend civilian government as nobody in a constitutional convention would have a clear majority behind them and nobody would be willing to compromise. Succession movements would begin and their would be further military campaigns. If things got ugly in the South West a war with Mexico would likely follow.
If the UN didn't take action then, Venezuela, Cuba, and Brazil would, probably with the backing of Russia and China. If the revolutionary dictator had enough of our navy intact and enough tactical savvy to win that conventional battle he'd then have to embark on a series of wars in the third world to make up for sanctions against us.

That extremely unlikely series of events, which would take on an disturbing level of probability in the event of a successful revolution in America, would probably be the worst thing that has ever happened to democracy.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:34 AM
The Revolution itself I beleive could be peaceful.
But the punishment must fit the crime, for those we are removing.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The Revolution itself I beleive could be peaceful.
But the punishment must fit the crime, for those we are removing.

A peaceful revolution would have my full support, as long as it was televised... sorry, i couldn't resist.

Seriously, I do think it is high time that the American people sent a distinct but peaceful message that those occupying positions of wealth and power derive their power from the ability to gain the consent of the people by causing us to prosper- which they most certainly have not shown much interest in doing recently.

Jefferson was right that a revolution every generation or two is all but necessary, and it would make me happy to see a general strike or a drafted non-partisan politician here and there just to keep things on an even keel. Even if there weren't immediate and lasting changes, the realization that they need us that would accompany a general strike would be well worth the lost wages and bump in prices that it would probably cause.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 07:53 PM
I feel it is high time for a common, every day, society type of person to take control.
Someone who works a 9-5 job, someone who has childeren, a car.. a mortgage...
Someone who has no family ties to bankers and/or corporate entities.

You need someone smart enough to know what decisions put forward are right or wrong, but someone modest enough to listen, to try to learn and understand without believing he knows whats best all the time.

I like to think of the American founding fathers as common people, who had an idea, a belief on society that could resolve all its issues through dialouge and reasoning.

And thats exactly what this administration is refusing to do, reason and discuss. They are to quick to label, order, dispute and direct policy.

Iraq, point in note.
We refused to talk to Saddam, outright refused when all he wanted was an audience.
If we REALLY, true blue honestly wanted to approach the Iraq war in the most diplomatic and peaceful means.. we would of talked.
Clinton would of talked.... people blame him too much for talking.
Well look at the opposite end of the spectrum, when you dont talk you act.

Our next two candidates have already declared there ambitions

'' Stike Pakistan ''
'' confront Iran ''

Wow, things look rosey for American society.

What would Gore of done?
For his politics, and utter boring approach to speaking... he had the right idea's in mind.

I know im guilty a lot on this site for blanket labeling Americans, simply due to their leader.
Thats more my slack, and lousy efforts at the english language..


Its been fairly obvious for some time now, the moralisitic reality behind this administration.

They allowed 911 to occur
They lied about Iraq
They mis-handled Katrina
They mis-handled the Economy
They mis-handled North Korea
They mis-handled Iran
They are lying to the public about attorneys
They are lying to the public about plame's leak
They are lying to the public about spying on American citizens
And they stole the 2000 elecion.

What more does a administration need to do, to cause outrage and revolt amongst its people?
Surely, surely.... all the above is worse than a blow job?

I blame the government for what they have done.
But I blame the people, for allowing them to do it.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:00 PM
He did his job and even when he may look like the fall guy he will reap the fruits of his efforts and sacrifices after another takes his place.

I don't know...
I am being honest. I am not a big Bush fan, but there is something that doesn't sit well with me in regards to what is and has occurred during his presidency.

Once You've been bamboozled long enough, you tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 08:57 PM
Don't fool yourself for one second into thinking that there's a major party in this country that isn't a wholly owned subsidiary of the New World Order.

If Clinton was such a peace-maker, why in 8 years didn't anything substantial get done to get Iraq on track and out of sanctions? Why did he keep Iraq on ice? He was under orders from those who made him president- they still intended to do what they lacked the political capital to do in 1992, and that was conquer Iraq, and there was no way they were going to let some fool-idealistic peacemaker give Iraq a legitimate opportunity to get off of our kill list.

The Republican party represents elitist interests overtly. The Democratic party pretends to do it as a product of their incompetence.

What would Al Gore have done? Exactly what he would have been told to do, which is keep starving the Iraqi people, keep pressing terms that had already failed to bring progress for 8 years, and wait for things to get so bad that he was forced into a limited war.

That way, the same basic interests are represented in two different styles, each of which enjoys subtantial political support and can be used as a false alternative to the other.

Republicans do what what we did in Iraq, get them to fall into our hands by feigning weakness, lying, and playing both sides against the middle, then pounce on them decisively to satisfy our own interests under the guise of doing the right thing.

Democrats do what we did in Vietnam, keep pretending to trip over their own feet while things get progressively worse and worse for America and progressively more and more profitable for the military industrial complex, and they keep it up until the Americans are ready to elect a Republican, who will then have carte-blanche to act against all standards of human conduct to seal the deal, ala Nixon.

A Gore presidency would have delayed this war by a few years, but in the grand scheme, would have changed nothing.

So let's not get partisan. Let's stick to the part you were dead right about- decent, common working people never could or would screw things up this bad, and we'd be better off by a damn sight if one were in charge.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:10 PM
I agree,
clinton SHOULD of done more for Iraq, but I get the feeling there were elements above him who really had the ability to cut his term short.

I believe, I do not have proof but a few elements convince me Clinton intended to keep the 'crazies/neocons at bay'

The oklahoma bombing..

all these were tied

clinton refused to strike Iraq, after 2 significant terrorist acts... so the neocons used the lewinksi affair to try and remove clinton asap, or damage the democrats enough to ensure a republican victory.

clinton even stated, that there were other 'foreign' intellegence agencies involved in creating the lewinski drama to be a major political process.

Clinton wasnt perfect, he did things badly, like every president.
But he didnt follow the line the neocons have created for the bush admin.
He refused, and they attacked him politically.

But, im not for 'democrats V Repubs ' Im neither, because im not American.
I look at the people, not the party they represent, because as you say they are both in it for the same people.
But clinton says to me, that the people still have the ability to postpone and limit the neo'cons agender.

Why else would bush elect so many neo'con crazies to important posts within the whitehouse?
because he was in on it.

Where as clinton elected various ethinc's IE African Americans.
NOT the neocons.

Thats why obama and hillary to me appear to be lobbying not for the publics vote, but for the neo'cons approval.
Because we, as western citizens have allowed them to get into power, and over the past 8 years they have sowed their roots so badly into the industrial complex, and political process of American society that there's for the foreseeable futre no way around what ever they intend.

Had gore of been in the whitehouse?
I believe he would of taken notice of the 911 intellegence and not allowed them to board the flights, or even train.
He wouldnt of elected people like 'wolfowitz, chenney, rummsfield' into positions where they could manipulate the public.
He would of looked at ways to limit the corporate oil sectors hold over lobbying, by reserarching renewable energy.

he would of made mistakes, he would of made political blunders... but he would of taken the nessecary steps to ensure we wouldnt be where we are going now.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 09:42 PM
My contention is that the politicians have virtually no say in what they do.

It doesn't matter if you have neocons or progressives as far as I can tell. No individual on either side has the ability to do a "better job". I believe that they are ORDERED to act different from one another to preserve the illusion of democracy, but they are merely two separate paths to the exact same evil.

Gore would not have been allowed to stop 9/11. He might have been ORDERED to handle it differently in order to set the stage for neocons to come in and use that to their advantage later, but even though Gore wouldn't be the one pulling the trigger, he would be just as guilty.

You said it yourself that you felt Clinton was not allowed to make progress in Iraq. And consider our history. After Nixon it was inevitable that America would elect a Democrat, so they tied Jimmy Carter's hands during the hostage crisis to make absolutely sure that a Republican would follow him, AND to make sure that the Republican who followed would have a pretext for a war. If Jimmy Carter's "civility" was crafted for the specific purpose of giving us a reason to send Saddam Hussein after Iran. If he hadn't followed his orders to be too soft, there wouldn't have been a pretext for Bush 40 administration (which is what I call the puppet presidency of Ronald Reagan) to be too hard.

America hasn't had an honest to god peace-maker in a while. Our "peaceful" presidents are only being peaceful so as to give problems time and opportunity to grow into a casus belli.

If Gore had been president during 9/11, it still would have happened. Most of the preparation for 9/11 happened while Gore was Vice President remember, and where was his voice of prudence in that administration, urging us to pay more attention to the intelligence? The reaction would have been different. Instead of bullrushing every enemy we had, he would have made a series of limited strikes which strained our relations with many nations and set in motion a chain of events that would lead to the entire middle east powder keg going off in 2004, just in time for them to replace Gore with a Neocon and hit not only Afghanistan and Iraq but Iran and Syria as well.
Two paths to the exact same end.

Please understand that I am not trying to be combative, but i am deeply convicted in the belief that Americans are being played for fools by forces much larger than mere politics, and that holding any manifestation of the current political order up as being above such things is playing right into their hands and giving the powers that be exactly the advantage over us which they need to achieve all of their ambitions at our expense.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 10:07 PM
What your saying sounds fair enough.
And, ill be honest I cant comment a hell of alot on the days prior to bush 41, as my interests lay with ninja turtles and basketballs, so its something ill have to look at as for all I know about Iran contra, regean and carter are what I see in the common media ' doccos

I think clinton tried his hardest to limit the reach of the neo'cons during his time.

He succeeded, mainly because no over-zealous military adventure occured against Iraq.
He knew it was a mistake to do that, did he know it was eneveitable?
Maybe so, maybe not.
Maybe he believe Gore would follow in his footsteps and limit their ability, had legally he of been given what was his.

But I agree, Bush 41 was not in it for real, he was a puppet and his 1 term in office was a sign of payback, for not going the whole hog.

Its scary, because what you say is true.
The leader of the free world has been a setup for some time now, and thigns are starting to get serious.
Especially when nuclear weapons are become more easily obtainable.
Not scary because where this could head, but scary because they are so carelessly flaunting how inclined the US administration is, that it appears public mentality no longer matters.

posted on Aug, 5 2007 @ 11:25 PM
Vagabond ...

so, if they are all puppets ... what is the sense of voting? I am sure their hands are on all the top runners, right? I am sure that the voting is somewhat rigged too, correct?

What choice is there other than a peaceful revolution?

I cannot find the article any longer, but it was on Yahoo search engine news link a few months back. It had Kucinich saying he is running in 2012, and then at the end, Jeb Bush remarks that he wouldn't run for at least a certain number of years ... I believe it would equate to either 2016 or 2020 ... and he said because of how bad his brother screwed up, it would take that long for the public to be able to elect another Bush.

I could see ... if it is all controlled, we have Clinton/Obama (to spark the feeling of democracy for having the first woman and black person in the P/VP position), then come back with Jeb Bush for another 8 years ... nearly 30 years of Bush/Clinton ... then most of the public would be thoroughly brainwashed and almost accept a dictatorship ... not only that, then the kids of the Clintons and Bushes will be old enough to run themselves

I also think it wouldn't take much for the image of the Bush name to be lifted up, there are still strong supporters ... and a lot of people that cannot see through the mask.

I do plan on moving and taking a copy of the constitution and bill of rights with me ... as a memorial of the great country I was taught about, and I watched taken away as I grew up. I saw the control established year by year when I was in school ... I protested ... I even did petitions for things I cared about ... my petitions were confiscated and told I wasn't allowed to partake in such activities on school property ... They were taken away in criminal justice class ... how ironic ...

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:28 AM

Originally posted by discomfit

I don't doubt that Bush knew this was going to happen,

See, that's what I do doubt... Although, he probably was somewhat aware of what he would be used for, I don't necessarily think he knew the particulars.

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 11:29 AM

Originally posted by Agit8dChop
The Revolution itself I beleive could be peaceful.

I think we are past that.

Any real change will have to come via anger and violence, I'm afraid.

posted on Aug, 6 2007 @ 09:11 PM

Originally posted by FreeThinkerIdealist
Vagabond ...

so, if they are all puppets ... what is the sense of voting? I am sure their hands are on all the top runners, right? I am sure that the voting is somewhat rigged too, correct?

There is a difference between elections being unfair and elections being meaningless. It is easy to shift a few votes in a few districts during the primaries to make their puppets win the primary, especially since hardly anybody votes in primary elections, and its easier still when both candidates belong to them anyway, to choose the one who is most useful to them by shifting a few votes in one swing state in a close election.

But what if the American people held up their end of the bargain for a change, and actually did what the very word democracy demands, which is of course, rule?

It honestly wouldn't take much for the American people to retake the system. It's extremely simple.

It would take 80% of all registered voters. Not eligible ones, just the ones who are already politically active.

If they would do the following 3 things, we'd be fine.

Number 1: Starting 1 year before the election, devote 2 hours a week to reading about different candidates (both declared candidates and politicians who perhaps could be drafted- idealistic congressmen and mayors from major cities, etc), and reading about what congress has been up to recently.

Number 2: Via email, phone, message board, morning coffee, or carrier pigeon, discuss politics with at least 3 other people on a weekly basis.

Number 3: Show up both to primary elections and general elections, and cast a vote for every single office.

That would do it. That would do it because that many people would find somebody who could be trusted and given the benefit of millions of man hours of research and reasoned discussion they would be able to unite behind such a person rather than picking sides based on name recongition and personal attractiveness and then ridiculously arguing over who had guessed better.

If 80% of eligible voters showed up, and based on careful consideration and communication, 60% of the voting public had joined hands behind him, it would be impossible to cheat him out of the win without voter turnout going above 100% of registered voters.

Of course you can always change peoples votes to get around that, but that would produce a major disrepency that had to be explained away. When a guy is popular enough to win 60% of the vote, there's no question about it. The consequences of cheating that big would be obvious to anybody- and nobody is going to risk a revolution. They'd give up and put the guy in power and either try to control him or try to kill him, but you can't put the genie back in the bottle. Once the American people have had a president of their own choosing, they will notice the difference, and they will know that they can't be stopped, and it will take a coup to put another puppet in office.

There's only one small problem with my idea: I'm asking Americans for their least valued possession: a moment of their time. I'm asking them 17 minutes a day. You spend that much time on commercials during 1 hour of television. The average American watches 4 hours of television a day. I'm asking for 25% of the time that Americans spend on commercials, to save our country. And I must be out of my freaking mind if I think I'm going to get it.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in