Bend Over For George Bush
Joe
Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
December 28th, the price of gas is expected to rise to $4, not a single
person has been prosecuted for the billions of dollars that were stolen
from Californians by the energy companies...and now your every move is
going into a governmental database (only exception is if you buy a gun)!
Welcome to the Fifth Reich! Heil Bush!
Bend over, folks, the nightmare has just begun.
With apologies to Robert Hunter: If Osama don't get you, then Bush &
Ashcroft and John Poindexter will!
Yow. I feel like I died and went to hell!
Joe
LISURFER1228
Once again.
I blame the south and the bible belt for this...can the north east brake away
from these inbreed idiots and start our own country.
Is it too late?
Joe
Chronicle
Axis of Oil and Iraq
by Maria Elena Martinez and Joshua Karliner
There are connections between Iraq and Enron that should not be
overlooked: The pounding of war drums drowns out the sound of
handcuffs as they lock around American business leaders' wrists. And
the heady rush of patriotism helps mask the hangover of a bubble
economy gone bust.
We're not saying that President Bush's call to attack Iraq is strictly
a sleight of hand to distract the American public from the domestic
problems plaguing his presidency. Many complex historical and
political layers have brought us to where we are today. But at a
minimum, the looming war with Iraq presents the opportunity for Bush
to duck the corporate scandals and reframe the national debate.
At today's political crossroads, we should be discussing key issues:
greater corporate accountability; how to build a more just global
economic order; and, for national security, how to kick the oil habit
while fostering environmentally sound renewable energy.
Instead, we seem to be at the edge of a downward spiral of war,
terrorism and the evisceration of our democratic rights. Why are we
taking such risks? One thing is patently obvious, a little
three-letter word: oil.
Invading Iraq and taking over its oil fields is the logical yet insane
extension of the Bush administration's foreign policy. For instance,
Bush's attempted unilateralism with regard to attacking Iraq (he has
only begrudgingly included the U.N. Security Council) is thoroughly
consistent with the unilateralism he exhibited when he pulled out of
the Kyoto treaty on global warming.
By bailing on Kyoto, Bush, at the behest of the oil industry, dropped
out of a treaty designed to save us from the mass destruction of
climate change by moving the world away from fossil fuels and toward
clean energy. And if he invades Iraq, Bush further entrenches the
deadly connection between U.S. interests and oil interests.
Sitting at the apex of world power, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
form an axis of oil with the industry. President Bush comes from a
family with long and deep connections to petroleum companies. Prior to
becoming vice president, Cheney headed Halliburton Co., which
describes itself as "one of the world's largest providers of products
and services to the petroleum and energy industries."
Time and again, be it in Alaska or Indonesia, Bush and Cheney have
demonstrated their proclivity to prioritize oil interests over human
rights and the environment. Indeed, Vice President Cheney's Energy
Task Force, after consulting with many CEOs in the energy industry,
defined national security as access to oil.
A U.S. victory in Iraq could, according to the Washington Post, "open
a bonanza for American oil companies long banished" from that country.
This would provide more direct U.S. access to the largest oil reserves
in the world next to Saudi Arabia's; that, in turn, could break the
back of OPEC, while providing a coveted prize for Bush and Cheney's
American and British oil company friends.
But such "success" in Iraq -- in addition to the huge toll in
immediate human casualties -- will also seriously undermine national
and global security.
One of the ways it will do so will be to lock the world further into
energy consumption patterns that broad scientific consensus has
determined will deepen global warming and all its impacts. These
include a rise in sea levels, which will displace hundreds of millions
of people; more extreme storms, droughts, famines and floods; and
spreading disease.
In essence, the Bush administration's definition of national security
serves U.S. corporate interests, allowing some to profit and others to
hide. But beyond this, it is not at all clear who else, if anyone,
might benefit.
The United States and the rest of the world would be much better off
if we cracked down on corporate criminals, while taking the billions
of dollars we're set to spend on war and investing them in kicking the
oil habit and transforming our energy systems into environmentally
sound alternatives.
Maria Elena Martinez is executive director of and Joshua Karliner is
senior adviser to CorpWatch, a San Francisco-based organization that
works on corporate accountability issues.
)2002 San Francisco Chronicle
John Bray
"LISURFER1228" wrote
Heeeey, I take offense to that. It's INBRED idiots!
JB
brew ziggins
>
"LISURFER1228" wrote
> Well Said.
> Once again.
> I blame the south and the bible belt for this...can the
> north east brake away from these inbreed idiots and
> start our own country. Is it too late?
And can the literate people in the northeast break away
from the illiterate people in the northeast and start our
own newsgroup?
--
Don't blame me, I voted for Bartlet.
l bruce higgins ithaca new york
lbh2 at cornell dot edu
Sarandipidy
>December 28th,
my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell his
house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.
sara
the desert's quiet and cleveland's cold, and so the story ends we're told.
pancho needs your prayers, it's true, but save a few for lefty, too-- he only
did what he had to, and now he's growin old.
Mvp8779
>
>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>December 28th
isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially paralyze
many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this slowped of
a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now going to
have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are clearly
alive and plotting.
MVP
"I try to convey what you strive to condone"
-- quoted credited to "Mr. Trey Antipasta; whom you all love so
dearly"--as introduced by Les Claypool @ Bonnaroo
Joe
>>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>>December 28th,
> my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell his
> house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.
With the unemployment rate standing at 6.5%, your poor uncle is just one
of millions of Americans who have been let down by a system that has
rewarded Bush and Enron. Admittedly, Congress could have authorized an
extension for unemployment benefits, but they chose not to.
And to think...just 2+ short years ago, under Bill Clinton, the
unemployment rate was negligable, gas was hovering at about $1 a gallon,
the Dow Jones was near 11,000...
And it's 1, 2, 3 what are we fighting for?
Don't ask me, I don't give a damn
next stop is Baghdad and Afghanistan
Joe
Jim K
>>Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
>>
>>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
>>December 28th
>
>isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially paralyze
>many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this slowped of
>a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into the
>the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now going to
>have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are clearly
>alive and plotting.
Maybe he can help OJ find the real killer while he's at it.
Jim K
Joe
>the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is
>now going to have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and
>his mates who are clearly alive and plotting.
It's been 14 months so far, and Osama's capture is about as likely as
Jerry showing up at the NYE show.
But, have no fear; the Bush Administration has a back-up plan: declare war
on the American public.
At least that's one war those immoral bastards are capable of winning.
Joe
Frndthdevl
>But, have no fear; the Bush Administration has a back-up plan: declare war
>on the American public.
>
>At least that's one war those immoral bastards are capable of winning.
If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well? Again, it is my opinion
that democraps should be held more resonsible. It is the republicraps nature to
be big brother, and cave to the pharmeceutical companies. but the demorats
rolled right on over, what ,9 NO votes. What is that all about? Oh, they would
rather be re-elected than vote their
conscience.
JC Martin
news:20021120123604...@mb-md.aol.com...
> >Bend over for George Bush and kiss your civil liberties good bye!!
> >
> >Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits on
> >December 28th
>
> isn't it nice that they waited 'till after christmas to financially
paralyze
> many families just barely getting by. Only two more years with this
slowped of
> a President.....I think it is quite comical how now that Saddam caved into
the
> the resolution (no more scapegoat or diversionary tactic) Bush is now
going to
> have to go back to his main goal--finding Osama and his mates who are
clearly
> alive and plotting.
The war with Iraq unfortunately is inevitable. If you believe Sadam is
going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what he
has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.
He's buying time.
-JC
Joe
> If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well?
Well, speaking only for myself, I'd find it a little disconcerting to be
pointing a gun at anyone. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was taught that there's
something not quite right with killing another human being. Y'know, like
murder being immoral.
Y'know...you sound like a broken record. No matter what the subject, the
answer is to arm yourself. Maybe it's time for your LSD booster shot.
Joe
RkFast, the Flake slayer
goodbye as they plunge to their deaths from the top of the World Trade
Center.
How many funerals did YOU go to after 9/11??? I went to more than one.
And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
family from ever having to relive that horror.
Within reason, of course.
Mvp8779
going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what he
has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.
He's buying time.
>>
there's no doubt he's buying time. but he never demolished any of our
skyscrapers. I personally dont think that he's that dangerous. In fact, if we
could find an alternate energy source to oil (get your asses moving
scientists!!! It's been quite awhile now) he would be practically harmless
(no cash=no threat)
cactusferret
Which is exactly why victims of crimes do not decide the sentences of the
criminals in our judicial system.
cf
Sarandipidy
>family from ever having to relive that horror.
since when is attacking civil rights automatically protection? who judges what
is "in reason"? them??? yeah, that's really smart.
since when is it okay to take away unemployment? i know two laid off people.
NOT COOL.
JC Martin
> << The war with Iraq unfortunately is inevitable. If you believe Sadam is
> going to just do what he is told by the US/UN and that he will admit what
he
> has in his arsenal, then I think you're being a little naive.
>
> He's buying time.
> >>
>
> there's no doubt he's buying time. but he never demolished any of our
> skyscrapers. I personally dont think that he's that dangerous. In fact,
if we
> could find an alternate energy source to oil (get your asses moving
> scientists!!! It's been quite awhile now) he would be practically
harmless
> (no cash=no threat)
I'm not arguing whether or not Sadam should be removed or whether he is
dangerous or not. Personally, I think he is dangerous...just not
necessarily a danger to us *now*. I was just pointing out that the Bush
administration has a lot to work with here in terms of milking the Sadam
issue as for whatever they need it for.
-JC
JYOB
>>family from ever having to relive that horror.
Those who trade freedom for security get neither.
TOG
Nate C.
Think about it: trying to protect freedom by taking freedom away?
Darren E. Mason
news:20021120170033...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> since when is it okay to take away unemployment? i know two laid off
people.
> NOT COOL.
How is it being "taken away"? My understanding is that the benefits are
running out according to either (a) the usual timetable of 26 weeks or (b)
the extended time table of 26 weeks + 13 weeks (via the Oct 2002 act of
congress for states hit by heavy unemployment (>30%) or by 9/11).
What is the substance of your complaint?
DM
Bongo Y. McCongo
I wonder what the price of gas would be if the following externalities
were included: the funding of terrorist organizations such as Al
Qaeda, the military garrisons and occasional military intervention
needed to keep said oil flowing, damage to the environment from oil
drilling and transport, and the damage to human health and to the
environment from exhaust pollution.
If all of these externalities were included up front at the pump I
would think that $4 per gallon would be a bargain. One might say a
rip off, even.
Ray
Joe
> And I'll give my government more power to protect me, my friends and
> family from ever having to relive that horror.
But, but, but...with Osama bin Laden still still at large, how has your
government protected you exactly?
By killing innocent women and children in Afghanistan? By letting the
energy companies off the hook for their colusion, price-fixing and
conspiracy to rape the citizens of California? By refusing to extend
unemployment benefits?
How exactly has your government protected you?
Joe
Garry Bryan
: Within reason, of course.
I think the conflict is "Just what is a reasonable reaction to the fact
some people may want to cuase us harm?" Taking away the things that make
the US the beacon of freedom may not be the best way, but if we change the
entire character of the nation maybe that will stop folks from hating us.
Garry
Garry Bryan
:> Kiss my civil rights goodbye???? Better than kissing my good friends
Well, if we don't have it then nobody can!!
Garry
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Joe" <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ddbc...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> Sarandipidy <saran...@aol.compostpile> wrote:
> >>Millions of unemployed Americans will lose their unemployment benefits
on
> >>December 28th,
>
> > my poor uncle got laid off. he is so depressed. he might have to sell
his
> > house. he cannot find another job. i feel so bad.
>
> With the unemployment rate standing at 6.5%, your poor uncle is just one
> of millions of Americans who have been let down by a system that has
> rewarded Bush and Enron. Admittedly, Congress could have authorized an
> extension for unemployment benefits, but they chose not to.
But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Joe" <jo...@NoMoreSpam.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:3ddbe...@corp-news.newsgroups.com...
> Frndthdevl <frndt...@aol.comdown> wrote:
>
> > If you believe this, why should we be disarmed as well?
>
> Well, speaking only for myself, I'd find it a little disconcerting to be
> pointing a gun at anyone. Maybe I'm stupid, but I was taught that there's
> something not quite right with killing another human being. Y'know, like
> murder being immoral.
I don't even own a gun, but I sure can picture myself killing another human
being. Sure, it's "not quite right," but if somebody's going to try to kill
me, I'd have no problem killing them.
Timothy Lynch
} But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
What year do you live in?
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"JC Martin" <jcma...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4LRC9.49817$Ik.12...@typhoon.sonic.net...
Iraq is already setting themselves up to kick out the inspectors. Today, I
heard a radio report that Iraq has stated that they are fine with the
inspectors, unless the inspectors start "collecting intelligence." They can
say that any time they want.
Jon
JBgoode
--
To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
"Nate C." <conn...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
news:arh3d4$uq$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
Kinda like gun control, huh?
John Doherty
> --
> To email, replace 'SPAM' with 'hot'
> "Nate C." <conn...@tc.umn.edu> wrote in message
> news:arh3d4$uq$1...@laurel.tc.umn.edu...
> > Think about it: trying to protect freedom by taking freedom away?
In article <s_VC9.39645$Dn3.1...@dfw-read.news.verio.net>, JBgoode
<jbgoo...@SPAMmail.com> wrote:
> Kinda like gun control, huh?
>
Actually, no, not at all. Gun Control is (at least in part) about
removing your "freedom" to own a weapon of mass destruction (uzi),
something Bush is keen to do to Saddam, if not the ones who really have
them, North Korea.
it is about restricting the right to bear arms to non-criminals and the
non-insane.
I feel a lot less free knowing any idiot can purschase a submachine
gun....
JD
Toad The Dead Vegan
You left out the additional, additional 13 weeks received by people in
certain states favored by Congress.
There are people who have been receiving unemployment benefits for an
entire year.
TDV
Vinlandr
> and now your every move is
> going into a governmental database (only exception is if you buy a gun)!
Don't bet on it. Bush doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights,
including the Second Amendment.
Vinlandr
> I blame the south and the bible belt for this...
You're as ignorant as most Republicans.
Both California Senators, Boxer and Feinstein, voted for the
Fatherland Security Bill.
Check the rest of the "yea" roster.
Vinlandr
> Only two more years with this slowped of a President...
Do you really believe there will be elections in 2004?
Kelly Humphries
> But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
From http://clerk.house.gov/members/congProfile.php
House Membership
Party Divisions
223 Republicans
208 Democrats
1 Independent
3 Vacancies
Senate Membership
Party Divisions
49 Republicans
49 Democrats
2 Independent
Page last modified: November 19, 2002
Darren E. Mason
"Vinlandr" <vinl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aae6303f.02112...@posting.google.com...
> lisurf...@aol.com (LISURFER1228) wrote:
>
> > I blame the south and the bible belt for this...
>
> You're as ignorant as most Republicans.
....or that statement.
DM
.
Darren E. Mason
news:Pine.LNX.4.44.021120...@grace.speakeasy.net...
> On Wed, 20 Nov 2002, JBgoode wrote:
>
> > But the Dems are the majority in Congress...
>
> From http://clerk.house.gov/members/congProfile.php
>
<membership snipped>
Most likely he meant the Senate which is in the hands of the Dems through
the end
of the lame duck session (due to Jeffords aligning with the Dems and Barkley
remaining
independent).
DM