Bush has laid the foundations for totalitarianism in America.

This program has been long time in the making and involves the following:

1. Deliberate destruction of the checks and balances in our Constitutional systm.
2. The Deliberate destruction of our institutions.
3. The deliberate impoverishment of our people.
4. Transfer of wealth to the upper classes.
5.Creation of internal and external threats to strike fear in the hearts of our citizens.
6. Creating a foolproof system for the consolidation of power in the Rightwing's hands.

With minor touches still waiting to be finished, I would say he is well on his way.

method. We could get commentaries from him on how well the Fourth Reich is coming along. It makes you want to entertain the Prescott/Nazi connections with a bit more interest and serious concern.

So, is it going to last a thousand years? I have not heard about the time frame intended yet. Why not go for double or nothing? 4R2K?

(and for those of you who would like to take my reference too seriously, it was tounge-in-cheek)

Bush is building the ground floor.

that's he's also an Austrian, just like Hitler <shudder>

Some serious "Boys from Brazil" s*it going on :o

among those who support him. The day of civil conversation is over. We have just as much Freedom of Speech to express our anger through nasty discourse. Anyone who couldn't see what was coming down the pike, was too stupid to vote. And we should let them know how we feel. So, when the draft DOES come, we can sink the final nail in, "You were stupid, stupid, stupid."

the neo-con war machine will stop is when the generals and sub-commanders start refusing to follow immoral orders as is their mandate as defenders of our constitution. The army will follow their immediate superiors more loyally than orders from GW or Rummy. Maybe when our casualties reach Vietnam levels (and they are if you count the wounded folks) the top brass will get sick of sending our men through useless meat grinders and get together to relieve our commander in chief of his command. Is there any provision for a court martial for the top rank in the military on the basis of unsound or immoral strategy?

for a military coup. I'm not sure that's what you are talking about, but that's kind of what it sounds like.

Bryant

But there are ways that the military can let their discontent be known. For example, they made it clear that they would not go out on a limb for Clinton.

I suppose if the generals and joint chiefs went to congress and requested an impeachment that would be the legal equivalent but I suspect it would be seen as a coup and then the fun begins. I'm just concerned that if GW goes off one day and starts lobbing nukes at 3rd world "terrorist harboring nations" can someone step up to the other countries waiting to nuke us off the map and say.."look this guy has lost it, we're relieving him of command and ceasing all hostilities until we sort this shit out and lock up the nuts". I stay awake at night fearing the day the rest of the world decides it's wise to pre-emptively give us a regime change. Since GW has taught them that's the only way he operates.

start impeachment proceedings, it won't happen unless the evidence against the Bush Administration is so heinous, that everyone realizes that his stepping down is in the best interest of this country. It wouldn't be the first time. It happened to Nixon and the Republicans expected Clinton to do it when they hunted him down. They never realized that Clinton would be resistant to the pressure, mainly because their witchhunt was far more aggrieved than Clinton's crime. Clinton may have lied about a private matter, but the fact that it was called a perjury trap didn't help the Republcan's cause.

under faulty intelligence then kept changing the reasoning to suit him and troops under his watch commited atrocities banned by the geneva convention. Not to mention the biggest terrorist attack on our country because GW was too busy vacationing to listen to warnings. Ok, when's the impeachment?

They have accepted the following:

(1) That getting Saddam was worth lying to the American people.
(2) That we are safer in America because American soldiers are dying in the Middle East for our sins. I don't really know how far the Republicans will allow this flawed thinking to continue. They believe that because Bush is fighting on their own soil, it's keeping the fight off ours. Very faulty thinking for two reasons:

(a) We are creating the enemies of the future. Sooner or later, they will get desperate enough to strike us on our soil.

(b) Americans will not tolerate having their boys used for cannon-fodder forever. Eventually, we will get weary from the carnage and look for more diplomatic solutions. But whether this happens when the 5000 American soldier dies in Iraq or 50,000 is the unknown factor.

in the futile Vietnam War? Was it something like 54,000? Can we really allow a cretin like Bush to kill that many American boys for something that was wrong from the beginning?

Bush doesn't believe it was "wrong from the beginning" to do this.

I really think he'll launch another war. Or two. They're already beating the attack-Iran war drums; expect an attack on Iran before 2006. This will give him his 54,000 dead easily; Iran has an army whereas Iraq did not.

We do have the freedom of speech to say whatever we want to say, but we need to use that power in such a way as to convince those who can be convinced to turn on President Bush and the Republicans, so we can take back the senate in 2006 and the White House in 2008.

Some people can't be convinced of course, but many can.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

Most people get their information from the TV. The banning of the UCC church add with the reason given is further proof that the BFEE controls the TV media.
Look out for new controls to control the "internets"!!

Plus let's not forget the merger of governmental and corporate power.

Industry now has the right not only to take over pretty much any public property it thinks might be useful, but they're no longer under the slightest obligation to compensate anyone for anything, specifically including their workers. The airlines that recently declared bankruptcy used it as an excuse to tear up contracts with their unions, and other large employers (automakers, I think) with large unionized work forces went to court to void the contracts that guaranteed their retirees' health care.

A hundred years ago there was a Supreme Court decision that declared in essence that workers were required to adhere to the terms of their contracts, but employers would wiggle out. We're going back to those days, folks.

And the consolidation of it in the hands of a few.